domain:ashallowalcove.substack.com
orthoxerox
If you can read this, you're using a custom theme
16m ago
kky
19m ago
I guess your point on romantic signaling is probably true, though I hate signaling and reflexively oppose the position on principle.
But I actively disagree that the most important thing is to push moneymaking degrees, on a couple of points.
First, the whole degree-to-job pipeline is overrated. The degree is a proxy for, roughly, intelligence, and as long as you have the real meat you will be able to leverage the actual work. (This is my life story. Started in humanities and trivially switched to work in STEM. I’ll admit software makes this easy.)
Second, while cash obviously matters, I think the most important thing is to learn wisdom and be a good and broad-based parent to your children. This is what my parents were to me. And while I decry the sorry shape of the liberal arts in universities, the actual subject I consider paramount. So rather than just add work training for women, I think bringing refinement and rigor back to the degrees would be better. (And helping people who have no business being in college get out. That’s another topic.)
kky
30m ago
You’re right about divorce as a path for extremely cynical women. If I were writing about the man’s perspective, this comes front and center. He’s devoting so much of his life to her! What if she just takes it from him, with the blessing of the courts? It’s genuinely unsettling. But, in that other hypothetical post, I wouldn’t be talking about cads. I don’t think (or hope) my audience is cads, or people interested in cads, and the same goes for the female equivalent.
Divorce is honestly another point of risk for an honest woman, just like it is for an honest man. Risk hitting your mid-thirties with no loyal man, and either no children or worse - children? It’s kind of awful to think about. But the post was already meandering a little for my tastes.
Yes, of course I agree a man needs standards. I have standards, and I insisted my wife meet them (kindly and firmly in the dating stage - and no, not about petty things like how I wanted my breakfast cooked).
But that doesn’t undercut the fact that what underwrites those standards is a man’s reliability and character. I’ve been performing a little personal ethnography on this forum, and in my own life, and the men who are happily married tend to be extraordinarily solid and secure in their opinions, thoughtful and caring about women’s perspectives (NOT a dogwhistle for mainstream feminism), and with a great focus on their own ability to be trusted. And this is something that good women, women who clearly enjoy the high opinions of their husbands and of me (should I meet them), deeply desire.
Anyway. I don’t think women have greater risks in dating, or that men do, for that matter. I tend to agree that the risks are mostly around discerning good from bad, and that’s hairy both ways. But learn good from bad one must do, or at least learn the methods of getting wiser friends to help, if one wishes to make anything of oneself. But I’m sympathetic to your worries, and hope you find a woman who allows you to lay them aside.
Gillitrut
Reading from the golden book under bright red stars
54m ago
I don’t think it’s that crazy of a position. First, the problem with national wide injunctions without classes is the asymmetry of the outcome. 500 different plaintiffs can bring the lawsuit in different district courts. 1/500 needs to win if the judge gives a nationwide injunction. Contrast with a class where the plaintiffs are in fact bound by a loss.
If it is all going to end up decided by SCOTUS anyway this seems fine. Better one rule while we sort out the litigation than possibly 96. The government has the resources that individual plaintiffs certainly don't.
Second, the idea the government would in fact look for not yet born residents to impose something where there is direct SCOTUS authority is a hypothetical that is so far out there compared to the first concern because the government would quickly lose (eg new plaintiff would say there is a scotus case directly on point).
This is true if the hypothetical plaintiff has the resources to press their claim in court. Unless you already have an injunction against the government, in your own name or as part of a class, the government is free to force you to engage in duplicative litigation and drain your time and resources. The government, at oral argument, would not even commit to respecting a 2nd Circuit precedent in the 2nd Circuit!
Gillitrut
Reading from the golden book under bright red stars
59m ago
There were both individual and state plaintiffs at oral argument, with somewhat different arguments.
KMC
1hr ago
Vox Day's books also come to mind (SJWs Always Lie, and SJWs Always Double Down).
faceh
1hr ago
The mainstream rejoinder would be that your buddy must had been No True Trustworthy Husband or his wife would never have left him—that he must had become lazy or neglectful after marriage-trapping her, was financially or emotionally abusive behind the scenes, or thought of her as a broodmare for the family business.
Yep. But I spent a lot of time hanging out with him in a variety of circumstances and I have not gotten an INKLING that he was anything other than what he presents himself as. Never heard a whisper of an accusation of abuse.
If there was ever a paradigm of the "non-toxic" masculinity that feminists proclaim they want (I know, I know), he was it.
The biggest critique you could level against him is that he is a bit of a manchild when it came to hobbies. But he had his life completely in order otherwise, he was REALLY GOOD at his hobbies (Magic: The Gathering is one of them) and perhaps most importantly: his wife was into nerdy hobbies too!
While they were married his wife went and got her Master's Degree, so I could have ascribed their split to her getting 'overeducated' compared to him. But shortly thereafter Bro went and got his MBA so he was matching her beat for beat.
Learning what happened to them soured my last bit of optimism for forming relationships in the current era. She was a 6 at best, raised in a traditional family, had a relatively low body count (i.e. they met while she was in college, around age 21, so she hadn't had that much time to sleep around), she was a sorority girl (and not the blonde bimbo stereotype), he had tons of money, was willing to spend it on her, no red flags, and while they were together they pretty much presented as having everything they wanted. And it wasn't enough to make it even 4 years into a marriage (they dated for about 2.5 before they got engaged).
My one theory is that she watched a few of her friends go through breakups and complain about their men and got incepted with the idea that either she could do better if she left him (i.e. she married too early) or that he was going to become an abusive monster at some point and she better get out before then.
TIRM
1hr ago
I understand the schedule is not literally true. This won't be relevant 400 years from now. Someday some political or social change will kill it or make it irrelevant.
They started thisprogram in the 1960s with a special tax to pay for it. They stretched that tax and made it people's income ever since then. It's taxpayer sinecures for consultants. And recently local city board meetings in which local residents ask why this has a multi-century timeline. And of course proposals to increase taxes since the program is in a bad state.
The fact that it lasted 6 decades so far does mean the schedule is not completely made up. It's a long running program and we can compare decades of it's progress to the stated goal.
Hieronymus
1hr ago
I have wondered if we could create a new version of the marriage contract: "Enhanced Marriage," which both parties can opt into that makes it MUCH harder to get divorced AND adds additional legal duties on both sides (and presumably some additional benefits) so that they are tied more strongly together.
There was an attempt at this with covenant marriage, but it doesn't seem to have accomplished much. That said, it'd be interesting to hear from mottizens who live in states where that's an option. It looks like it was watered down to make the law acceptable to the mainstream and undermined by the availability of no-fault divorce in other states.
And, while I can't speak for all social conservatives, I'd be reluctant to support any new version of this so long as Obergefell stands.
zoink
1hr ago
The guy could have been a troll, whatever
Quantumfreakonomics
1hr ago
This isn't a real schedule. This is an artifact of legal and bureaucratic processes. Some polity passes a law that says, "Entity X must formulate and implement a plan to do Y." Entity X doesn't actually want to do Y for whatever reason (usually political opposition, but not nessesarily). The thing that Entity X always does in this situation is spend their time coming up with insane plans that will take forever and hope that they will never be implemented. The endgame is to abruptly cancel the project years later and hope nobody notices. Radioactive waste disposal projects are the poster boy of this phenomenon. Yucca Mountain was abruptly cancelled for no reason as soon as the planning was done, $10 billion over decades for absolutely nothing.
SerialStateLineXer
2hr ago
Surely learning Georgian is unlikely to increase your earning power meaningfully, so the claim must be about correlation, not causation. Most Americans who speak Spanish are Latinos, and Latinos tend to make below-average incomes. Most people who speak other languages are either positively selected immigrants, or natives who were smart and conscientious enough to learn another language as adults. So they tend to make more.
sarker
It isn't happening, and if it is, it's a bad thing
2hr ago
400 years may be an aggressive timeline if the rate of new above-ground line construction exceeds the rate of line undergrounding.
The thing is that cooking and washing were compatible with childcare, while teaching and medicine generally are not. Children benefit from stay-at-home moms; I did, anyway. And if your values differ from those of the broader culture, daycare is likely to drag your kids at least part way to that culture.
I know that this isn't practical for all families. But we should try to make it practical for as many families as we can. And for those couples who are on the fence about what to do, we should let them know that it's good for them and their kids.
Edit: Since this discussion started with college, I'd like to add that the liberal arts are valuable for most intelligent people -- the actual liberal arts, not activism in a skinsuit. Making those available in a way that is culturally and economically compatible with housewifery as a life path is a worthwhile goal in itself.
hanikrummihundursvin
2hr ago
The problem for Douglas with the DR is that he spent years doing talks and debates against mass immigration and anti-western thought where he based his whole rhetoric around the fact that, ultimately, 'we killed Hitler'.
When the foundation for that is questioned and the roles of good and bad are muddled or ignored, Doug has to respond.
It's a hallmark of what I would call, in the spirit of our new term; the faux Right. Every pontification towards what is good for Europeans has to be grounded in some form of bargain of what is 'fair'. And what determines fairness is generally just progressive morality from 10-20 years ago.
For the faux Right, white people can't exist without justification. They can't just have a country that is rich and not let third worlders in just because. The faux right carries the weight of progressive morality on its shoulders and then creates arguments and justifications with that burden in mind.
GBRK
2hr ago
They do this really really slowly and at a projected cost of billions of dollars.
And I'm going to guess that the vast majority of that money goes into the pockets of people who were educated as lawyers. The people working to block or enable it, the politicians pushing or decrying the project, the lobbying groups, the justices who review each project...
The real blackpill is that any society with laws will ultimately be put to the service of those who have the right to argue them. Retvrn to kritarchy; abandon ALL laws except those decided on by the arbitrary whims of respected community members.
Saying he "reposted" a swastika seems like a bit of a bait-and-switch. Matt replied to a guy's tweet. (The guy could have been a troll, whatever).
Arguments over if Matt noticed the swastika; and if not, should he apologize; are all assuming that the swastika imagery has some sacred evilness that means Matt needs to drop whatever he's doing and point it out and condemn it. He doesn't. You know those silly Facebook engagement bait posts that say, "children of the Devil will scroll past this" and its a picture of Jesus or whatever?
This whole swastika discourse is just the libtard version of that. Matt scrolled past a picture of Jesus and people are hounding him over it. I guess you're right that he is flaunting the norms. I wish he'd make a Shiloh-tier video about this instead of just putting out the one tweet.
What arguments convinced you both that this relationship would be asymptotic or at least have severely diminishing returns, and that we are at least halfway along the way to this asymptote?
Mostly personal observation of the utility (or lack thereof) of the higher levels of human intelligence versus the average, combined with general philosophic principles favoring diminishing returns and asymptotic limits as the null hypothesis, along with a natural skepticism towards claims of vast future potential (why I'm also deeply irritated by Eric Weinstein's whole recurring "we need new physics" riff; or similar arguments held forth by, say, UFOlogists).
Edit: consider also, as toy examples, the utility of knowing pi to an increasing number of digits; or the utility of increasing levels of recursion in modeling other agents and the speed of convergence to game-theoretic equilibria.
SubstantialFrivolity
I'm not even supposed to be here today
3hr ago
It’s like saying “maybe Pontius Pilot shouldn’t have signed that one guy’s death warrant, because letting an angry mob override the fair application of law and due process is wrong”.
That would be a pretty anodyne statement in Christian society. Pilate is not considered a positive figure precisely because he was derelict in his duty and put Jesus to death.
DESPITE... usually being a Noticer, I couldn't see the swastika either upon opening the image, but the squinting trick worked for (on?) me. Kind of a small mindfuck. Maybe I am a normie (marvel_vision.jpg).
I'm unfamiliar with Walsh beyond the vague baseline awareness he's some sort of right-coded influencer, but this makes me like him—instead of bending the knee, going with the McGregor "I'd like to take this chance to apologize... to absolutely nobody" and also (possibly) calling out mainstream conservatives for being progressives driving the speed limit, although the quotes around conservatives could be in reference to progressives posing in a "hello, fellow conservatives" kind of way.
sarker
It isn't happening, and if it is, it's a bad thing
3hr ago
What is the problem? When in American history have people embarked on projects of such duration? The answer is never. For the closest analog, we must look at the great Gothic cathedrals. Burying those lines is our Notre Dame, our Chartres. A society grows great when men plant trees under whose shade they will never sit.
functor
3hr ago
We are building things, AI, GPUs financial projects. These fields attract talent and money.
A hundred years ago electricity was as hyped as AI is today. It was a complete transformation. It was magic and few people understood it. The projects were massive, high tech and at a scale that was far beyond most industries. Young, smart, motivated people wanted to work in the power grid. Trains were once futuristic, magical high budget projects that were far beyond the scale of what people were used to. They attracted top talent.
Today, capital and talent doesn't flow to maintaining old power lines or freight rail. The cool people have moved on decades ago. Left are less talented people and people with less drive.
I’ve been to a few touristy locations with quiet, unassuming, empty, but gorgeous Orthodox churches. I’ve wondered for a while whether the placement of those beautiful churches was deliberate.
More options
Context Copy link