MayorofOysterville
No bio...
User ID: 3800
Most of Central and Southeast Asia has functioning sewage and maintains it themselves, along with female domesticity.
I think this article is directionally correct in some areas but falls to shady and just so thinking in others. The most easy barometer is to check if women in the workplace have this same effect in other cultures and they largely don't if you look at nonwestern developed societies these issues at a personal level are much much less. We don't have unhinged Japanese HR ladies lecturing Japanese salarymen on diversity or the evils of Japaneseness. Or take an example I'm more familiar with China. China has literal political commissars in it's major companies and yet these are a lot less interested in your personal opinions than the DEI offices in the West.
but we don't even need to go that far just take a look at your local Sbarro(or equivalent shitty chain job) My guess would be most of us have worked in a job like this but if you haven't these kind of workplace tensions are almost entirely absent. The personalities you work with and your manager matter far more than whether the Sbarro you work for is majority male of female. A white collar office has a vein of respectability and a political regime that prevents any sort of equilibrium. The HRification of corporate jobs allows a certain type of female toxicity to thrive and I think the line that's most pertinent is the line that a woman has a recourse if her boss runs her workplace like a frat house but a man doesn't if his boss runs it like a kindergarten, however, I don't think this is a natural quality of women entering the workplace. She's entirely right that this is the product of the civil rights act and the HRification of society and I don't think you need much more.
Some of the other conclusions seem a bit less supported for example the supposition that women will ruin law. Anglo/Western forms of law are a delicate thing and extreme outliers in society and we don't see other types of law having these kind of protections. Most law at most times and places essentially all in highly patriarchal societies bears a lot more resemblance to title IX, then to the, Right of Englishmen we enjoy. A lot of the dismantling of traditions and rights is a function of progressivism which yes has more women believers but is not an essential category of womeness. How many Japanese women are arguing to import millions of refugees or release violent offenders? We've created a system of commissars to enforce, White Middle Class progressivism, and give spoils to POC you don't need to anything so drastic as ban women from the workplace you just need to dismantle the system and let offices function like your neighborhood Sbarro.
That's why the West Bank is such a millstone though. They won it in war but now they need to either integrate it or give it up. Keeping it in limbo is the source of all their problems. If Israel could actually enunciate their borders they wouldn't need to negotiate or accept anything from the Palestinians at all. The haven't needed Syria to agree to them having the Golan Heights for example. Maintaining this quasi sovereignty indefinitely is the source of essentially all their problems both internal and external.
And now yes because of Hamas handing over anything is tricky. But they had decades where they could have handed whatever rump state they wanted to the PLO. And they wouldn't have needed their agreement anymore than they need Syria's for the Golan。
Aren't we living under the conditions of an Israeli victory now. They can act as they will and annex what they want. Most of the West Bank is functionally integrated into Israel already and the only reason they don't annex it is so they don't need to give the Palestinian population there citizenship.
Sure and that's reasonable. But the situation in the West Bank is also completely unique and completely untenable long term. If Israel could agree on some sort of border it would work better. But they want the land and not the people and most of the West Bank is essentially fully integrated into Israel ignoring the blobs of Palestinian towns throughout. If Israel drew a line and declared one part Palestine and one part Israel I think they'd get reasonable far many countries have disputed borders. But the West Bank is a millstone around their neck because they want the land but not the people and the occupation prevents them from being a normal country.
They managed to create a permanent peace with Syria and Egypt even with the Golan heights and no peace agreement and the West Bank has towns under full Palestinian control. I think a State of Palestine would be a lot less likely to just start a war then stateless terrorist groups.
But they haven't yet been able to expel the population and I don't know if they realistically can. So far they've just been settling the gaps and ignoring the Palestinian settlements but this doesn't seem stable.
I don't think 3 has any chance of turning into 2. Even with the 1948 borders the Israeli military would still massively outclass the Palestinian one.
Yeah you'd think he'd defect to the Russians or something then. The worry about the UN creating a one world government seems incredibly naive for someone as plugged in as him. The idea of the UN being more than a discussion forum and aid distribution force of the great powers is fanciful.
I'm very confused about this speech and Peter Thiel's religious beliefs. Because as far as I can tell he doesn't practice Christianity in his daily life the only Christian denominations that would accept him being a homosexual are very liberal and don't care about Armageddon. And I can't see him being an Episcopalian. It just doesn't fit my mental model of him at all and I don't understand how a gay German techlord is giving talks like an Evangelical preacher?
Unless it's some kind of Jordan Peterson metaphor thing? But it doesn't appear to be. Can anyone explain where this came from?
Well maybe, I won't deny envy as a factor, but the ability to buy property is another huge factor. People who can afford property tend to be a lot more content than those who can't. Regardless of wealth disparity or relative social class.
I think another point is the workers in Starbucks aren't paid very much. Engineers are less likely to care about CEO pay than baristas because they baristas are essential to the operations of Starbucks but don't make that much thus the CEO getting 95 million off their labor is especially unfair.
The media ancestral human was a hunter gatherer.
Elon Musk and Warren Buffet are bad examples though as they are Great Men, with a mythos and not easily replaced. Most CEOs are interchangeable faceless suits not visionary founders.
If Blacks and Whites are equal in their civilizational capacity, (insert the entire civil rights project here). If Blacks' civilizational capacity is substantially inferior to that of Whites, there is little reason to keep a large population of them in a White society; in fact, there is a strong incentive to kick them out of said society. Said Blacks would suffer greatly by being removed from the White society they inhabit, so they deny HBD and push their own counter-memes.
This requires a few jumps. Very few people are not willing to admit that stupid people exist and that they tend to have stupid children. And yet there isn't a mass movement to remove stupid people from society. It's a long way to go from HBD theories proven right to strip all Black Americans of citizenship and ship them to Africa. And when people widely believed in Black inferiority they didn't actually do that Liberia was a failed utopian experiment one of many for it's time.
The most unrealistic part of this is that illiterate morons could ever navigate the insane paperwork to adopt a kid.
I meant more the policies. Mao died peacefully in his sleep and the CCP still rules China. But Mao's death still hung the Maoists out to dry same with Stalin and Lysenko and his followers.
Yeah that works great until it doesn't. Revolutions can be pretty swingy once your favored dear leader dies the next one can reverse his policies. It's totally legal to start up an opposing university now. Less so in authoritarian Catholic land.
I'd rather not get rid of democracy to fight the libs in academia.
if giving Ken Ham is the solution to left wing bias in universities' I think I'll just stick with annoying liberal groupthink.
But isn't seizing the universities and gifting them to the right wing just like some sort of reverse socialism and affirmative action?
Don't places like BYU and Liberty university kind of disprove this? I actually don't think this would be a failure mode. I think the right wing vs neutral would be a bigger problem. Anyway BYU is accredited reasonably well regarded and kicks out students for drinking, premarital sex and homosexuality I doubt a Motte approved right wing university would be more conservative then that.
Sure, but that also gets to the problem with Protestants. Treating a book as infallible that was created by a church you reject. You could make some apologism for this by pointing out the books of the Bible were really written separately until they were compiled but yeah I think it's a big problem for anyone not Catholic or Orthodox.
It's not just the form but the content as well. Praying to Jesus drawing lessons from the gospels, putting up nativity scenes.
- Prev
- Next

Everywhere Urban and modern has extremely low fertility not just modern liberal societies.
More options
Context Copy link