domain:papyrusrampant.substack.com
wayfarer
2m ago
No idea how I would figure it out, either.
try to ask people in field for advise? they need to be somewhere. but if you get paid for embedded systems programming in C and your product work, then I bet that your assessment of "I feel like I suck at programming" is wrong
(I am paid more, in lower cost-of-life country and I assure that I regularly feel "I am terrible at programming" then I proceed to ignore it as I realized that it is misleading)
magic9mushroom
If you're going to downvote me, and nobody's already voiced your objection, please reply and tell me
2m ago
Riiiight, so they can be more easily doxed and their families threatened.
That's called terrorism and rebellion, and there are other ways of dealing with it. A state that hasn't at least partially failed doesn't need to hide from terrorists.
hydroacetylene
3m ago
The person too busy with Warhammer to date, the person who uses birth control, the person having abortions whenever she gets pregnant and the person who just murders her babies are all preventing new persons from coming into existence despite there being a potential if they made different choices.
I do not have a high opinion of NEET Otakus(which is what I consider warhammer fans to be, regardless of the japanese-ness of warhammer- it's nerd shit and that's that). Otherwise eligible men who are too busy with videogames should quit the gaming and start dating seriously. Married couples should be having regular sex unless medically contraindicated.
Religious and clergy are different, of course, but every society in history has had to deal with a class of men that would prefer cheap sexual vices(in our case, porn), gambling(on sports in our case), and entertainment(mostly videogames today) to marriage. The RCC has not, historically, had a high opinion of this class, and most societies in history have attempted to discourage it.
DiscourseMagnus
8m ago
Surely you can do both; don't have premarital sex, but, as a fallback option, of course single motherhood is better than many alternatives.
Medicaid is for single mothers with small children who are just trying to make it. It's not for 29-year-old males sitting on their couch playing video games. We're going to find those guys, and we will SEND them back to work!
In some states anyway, pregnant mothers and their young children qualify for medicaid even if they are married and making the median family income for their state. Even if they already have family healthcare coverage through their employer, and nobody in their family has challenging health conditions. They not only pay for appointments, but give them toys and stuff when they go. This might be reasonable from the point of view of the state -- I'm sure dealing with complications after the fact is outrageously expensive, and making childbirth and infancy safer is one of the great triumphs of modern medicine.
I wouldn't expect the average 29 year old man to consume all that much healthcare, and if they are it's likely to be for the same reasons they're struggling to work.
Adding: I'm mildly in favor of publicly funded healthcare for sort of basic things that we're good at doing, like things requiring antibiotics, it's dumb that the 29 year old man might not go to the hospital for pneumonia because it could cost $10,000 (who knows? It's inexplicable) somehow, despite really mostly needing $20 worth of antibiotics.
HighResolutionSleep
10m ago
Ok, assuming this is true, this means there's space for money to potentially go back to men more, right?
hydroacetylene
12m ago
While there's very few people who listen to the pope uncritically, there's a very large number who pay attention to the pope, consider the pope to have some moral authority, etc. We already know AI is a topic the Vatican is somewhat interested in addressing, and we already know pope Leo considers addressing AI in the development of Catholic social teaching(to be clear- Catholic social teaching is vague AF from a political standpoint, and it probably always will be. I don't expect an address of AI to change much about that) to be one of the priorities of his magisterium- he considers this a reason for picking the name Leo, after the author of Rerum Novarum(I've been told, but cannot confirm, that great respect for cardinal Burke was another major reason).
magic9mushroom
If you're going to downvote me, and nobody's already voiced your objection, please reply and tell me
18m ago
I will note that since mechanisation, you kinda need militia to have tanks and MANPADs in order to provide a credible deterrent to tyranny. This isn't a reductio ad absurdum; that's colourable. But that's where the goalposts are.
(I am armed up to the extent of the law in Victoria - i.e. I have a compound bow - but this isn't to FIGHT THE POWER. This is as a moderately-unlikely contingency in case of the police failing to control cannibal looter mobs subsequent to nuclear war. Cannibal looter mobs are much easier to fight off than SWAT.)
hydroacetylene
19m ago
My suspicion is that families hardcore committed to trans kids will leave red states(good riddance). The real place this will become relevant will be child custody disputes.
DradisPing
22m ago
Why does Silicon Valley feel the need to build a lobbying strategy for the Vatican?
They want to get people on board with AI alignment. Right now there are two major groups working on it - SF leftists and Intelligence Community linked government people. There's a lot of distrust of both those groups.
Getting the Vatican to inspect their work and say that AI at least isn't designed to be evil would be a step forward for a lot of people.
hydroacetylene
22m ago
Yes, it's pretty normal to get dental surgery in Tijuana or Ciudad Juarez, but usually only if you already live in the southwest- and you probably get some cheap shopping done while you're at it.
solowingpixy
the resident car guy
22m ago
Mike Johnson was going after gamers because he's too spineless to admit that elderly dementia patients are what's actually eating up Medicaid's budget. Arguments about single mothers or NEET gamers are a distraction from the fact that the welfare state mostly exists to subsidize the old and that nobody really wants to talk about cutting old people welfare.
As for the social conservatives, I think the goalposts have moved past abortion (which was mostly made obsolete by Plan B being made available OTC) once many of the dare I say Catholics among them realized to their horror that devotion to the awfully Protestant and capitalist sounding "success sequence" doesn't so much lead to abortions as a lack of fertility itself. See also: The Conservative Case for Teen Pregnancy.
The relatively secular far right may differ with the relatively Catholic social conservatives (though Mike Johnson is an Evangelical, which itself makes for a fun divide among both the secular and religious conservatives on the Israel Question) on the Single Mother Question, but nowhere near as bitterly as they differ over the Immigration Question (The secular far right see social conservatives and especially Catholic social conservatives as being unreliable on the Immigration Question, in alliance with the capitalists who are otherwise happy to crush social conservatives' fruitful multiplication with careerism and contraceptives.).
erwgv3g34
23m ago
Medicaid is for single mothers with small children who are just trying to make it. It's not for 29-year-old males sitting on their couch playing video games. We're going to find those guys, and we will SEND them back to work!
Duly noted, Speaker Johnson. Since the program is not for me, I have no reason for wanting it to exist. Burn it to the ground. And never vote for Mike Johnson, or for any other politician who is fine with gibs for single mothers but God forbid a young male should get some.
Hadad
25m ago
I'd actually say we've seen America do nothing but slide down the slippery slopes since the 70s. It may not have taken the exact same form at the exact same pace as Canada, but it's still tumbling down.
hydroacetylene
25m ago
It seems just barely possible for KJB? It's pretty clear she just kept getting appointed to higher and higher spots on the basis of her race and gender, and it's entirely possible to me that was enough to get someone a bit dim by the standards of the judiciary, at least, into a high-powered law school.
AlexanderTurok
Alt-MSNBC
25m ago
Many "traditional" societies were fine with abortion. In the Greco-Roman world infanticide was allowed. Now, it's true that authority was (theoretically) in the hands of the paterfamilias rather than the woman. But it was not prohibited by the state, Romans would have responded to a pro-life march with "mind your own d*** business."
You're also wrong about age of consent laws. Before 1900 most states set the age of consent at 10-12. Higher age of consent laws are a modern invention.
You strike me as a secular right-winger who's grasping for straws to justify why the church lady anti-abortion crusade is actually rational and BASED. With that motivation and an inaccurate view of history, you've created this theory. Anything other than accept that maybe the hated liburals are right about a single subject.
hydroacetylene
28m ago
Biden's admin did lots of bizarre far left pushes that have since been swept under the rug; this is probably just another example.
Hadad
29m ago
- It also harmonizes better with the current conservative political coalition, which is increasingly reliant on the votes of low-class and non-white voters who have higher rates of single-motherhood.
The low-class and non-white men, who are not known for thinking that women should recklessly slut it up. Both blacks and latinos are significantly more chauvinistic than whites. Even if many of them were raised by single mothers, they're almost certainly thinking their mother was one of the good ones, rather than thinking single mothers are desirable.
Mainstream conservatives and the far-right agree that the welfare state serves to subsidize single motherhood, but only the latter thinks it's a bad thing.
Unless there's evidence that removing Medicaid and welfare would cause parental abandonment to drop and for those parents who currently leave their kids to not be an abusive net negative if they do come back, helping single mothers out doesn't contradict an idea that a healthy two parent household is generally better to strive for.
That's a pretty big assumption IMO, it's hard to see how many shitty fathers who leave their girlfriends when she gets pregnant and basically never contacts them is going to be persuaded too much by anti welfare policies, especially when they already try to dodge child support. And even if it did work, having a drug addict dad who doesn't want to be there is not something I'd have wanted as a child. I had a light version of that (alcoholic father in my mid teens) and I still despised it.
aqouta
36m ago
As evidence that your outgroup is acting in bad faith, you bring up legislation from 40 years ago. 2/3rds of those voters are probably dead, while the majority of voters today (myself included) weren't alive or were far too young to vote for your compromise. Your imagined voter who supported amnesty in the 80s knowing that we'd be in the situation we are today as part of some dastardly bad-faith plan to bring in more illegal immigrants is nonexistent.
If the offer is the same offer that empirically failed to hold 40 years ago offered by the party that has been continuously failing to uphold it this whole time then offering it unamended is bad faith or the people offering it are either stupid or think the people they're offering it to are stupid. I actually do think that an amnesty with safeguards to ensure enforcement is our only real option. But the deal is effectively the amnesty side gets amnesty and the immigration hawks get nothing they weren't already entitled to from the previous agreement. You need to pass like an amendment level of tying future governments to the mast to credibly offer this solution.
hydroacetylene
37m ago
Having a soft spot for single mothers is, in the normiecon view, very much the lesser of evils.
You seem to continually refuse to believe that we actually, literally, believe that aborting a baby is murder. Yes, including if the race of the baby isn't what we'd prefer, it'd be poor, the mom would be kinda a shitty parent(and statistically, she probably would). It's not because we're opposed to women having careers- even those of us who are. It's not because we want to see black women have kids before they finish high school(we don't, they should keep their legs closed instead of murdering babies though. I proudly, explicitly endorse slutshaming but draw the line at murder).
Having more poor single mothers is an unfortunate side effect. Their lives are already harder than they need to be and there's no reason to keep piling on- especially when the kid has a chance(granted, not a great one) to break the cycle, live life according to the success sequence, and become a normal working class person. You have the hand you're dealt and there's no point giving up.
Capital_Room
rather dementor-like
42m ago
Everyone knows
Consensus building
the real agenda here is that you don't want
So you're a mind-reader? You're not going to engage with the argument being made, but only with what you think the "real" position is?
Plainly uncharitable.
CrispyFriedBarnacles
49m ago
I don't think this gets at the mainstream conservative position, or least the more religious inflected one. I would say most religious conservatives I know, at least, would say 1) single women absolutely shouldn't be having premarital sex, and 2) no one should be killing unborn babies, and so once a young woman is pregnant while single, the locus of moral concern and protection is on the blameless unborn child... and if helping and encouraging the single mother out (who often are vulnerable women themselves, even if they've made terrible choices) helps the baby, then so be it.
Same with Medicaid for the kids of single moms; to most religious conservatives, anyway, the kids didn't do anything wrong, even if their parents did.
I think this is a different position from a lot of progressives, who might well want to destigmatize sexual liberation and single motherhood and leave it as one coequal choice that women might make, who might think that the stigmatization is responsible for a lot of the difficulty of the position in the first place, and who think government really has an obligation to make the coequal choices more available to women if they choose them. And it's a different position, too, from a lot of more libertarian / non-religious conservatives, who might well see single mothers AND their children as primarily a context where incentives matter - if you make it too easy to be the child of a single mom, the system will produce more of them. And besides, a lot of those behaviors are downstream from HBD anyway, and in those cases, the kids are probably tainted by a kind of biological original sin anyway, given the evidence of their parents.
That's my sense, anyway; for the religious conservatives I know (and I think they are typical of a lot of conservatives), a lot of the issues around single parenthood amount to something like a kind of triage, trying to figure out how not to hurt the morally blameless while maintaining high standards and ideals and valuable stigma that keep bad behavior in check. It's genuinely tough to balance.
I think you see something very similar, but more so, play out about black abortion. I would say the prolife white religious people I know, even southern ones andd very conservative ones, legitimately rejoice in young black mothers not aborting their children and putting them up for adoption instead (while still thinking they should be taught better values, get religion, and stop engaging in low sexual behavior). Libertarians and certain wings of the emerging non-religious right, on the other hand, seem to... well, believe others things about black abortion. That's my impression.
magic9mushroom
If you're going to downvote me, and nobody's already voiced your objection, please reply and tell me
51m ago
"Women can do no wrong" is an extremely uncharitable reading of this transcript.
It's a harsh reading, but a fair one of Tonia Antoniazzi's rhetoric.
Originally passed by an all-male Parliament elected by men alone, this Victorian law is increasingly used against vulnerable women and girls.
New clause 1 will only take women out of the criminal justice system because they are vulnerable and they need our help.
As Members will know, much of the work that I do is driven by the plight of highly vulnerable women and by sex-based rights, which is why I tabled new clause 1.
While my hon. Friend and I share an interest in removing women from the criminal law relating to abortion,
The fact is that new clause 1 would take women out of the criminal justice system, and that is what has to happen and has to change now.
However, all that this new clause seeks to do is take women out of the criminal justice system now, and give them the support and help they need.
You can argue about whether her proposed amendment actually reflects this, but her rhetoric absolutely does.
Can I just register my annoyance with this kind of boo-light? Yes, I am just as annoyed by "radical feminists" and "extreme leftists," which 9 times out of 10 is used to refer to normie feminists and center-libs.
In fact pretty much all religious people (if they follow a religion that makes any pretense of traditionality) would prefer people not have premarital sex. Even liberal denominations in theory advocate against it, though you won't hear a peep of actual condemnation from the pulpit nowadays.
Conservatives generally would prefer people not have premarital sex, but if they do, they would prefer the babies that result not be aborted. I wouldn't say they glamorize single motherhood, but if you want babies not to be aborted, it is both ineffective and cruel to say "You're not allowed to abort, but we will not lift a finger to help you and your child because poverty is what you deserve."
More options
Context Copy link