domain:natesilver.net
Bleep
1d ago
they move them into the area for use and decided the risk profile was too high against the Houthis so instead they used almost entirely standoff munitions
faceh
1d ago
You're absolutely on point that the early 90's was clearly not a stable equilibrium, as it still led us to where we are.
But, no joke, the change that I think screwed us in a few different ways was The Student Loan Reform Act of 1993.
This made it FAR simpler for the average citizen to get student loans regardless of financial situation or the academic path they chose... or the economic viability of their major.
You can flipping SEE THE INFLECTION POINT when student loans became way more common and thus more people attended college on loans.
So I'd suggest this has a number of impacts:
-
Women start attending college more often. Which has them burn more of their most fertile years, and the added debt load makes them less appealing as partners and less able to support kids.
-
Men start accruing more debt too, which stunts their personal wealth acquisition in their 20's and thus makes them less appealing to women... and just less able to support a partner/kids in general.
-
Obviously this allows economically nonviable majors like "Women's studies" to grow, which has some clear downstream impacts.
-
Probably causes women's standards to rise, they wouldn't accept a partner without a degree if they have one.
-
Of course turned College into the 'default' life path rather than hopping into a career and getting married as the best practice for advancing socially.
So putting us back to the status-quo ante of 1990, and NOT expanding access to loans for college, we might be able to avoid the worst excesses of Feminism entering the mainstream. I dunno.
1994 also saw The Gender Equity in Education Act which made it actual policy to push for more education programs geared towards women, and might be attributable to the general decline in male performance in school, which would then play into the college issue.
And the 1994 Violence Against Women Act which I'm definitely not saying was a bad idea, but might have shifted incentives that led to, e.g. the eventual MeToo movement.
Lizzardspawn
1d ago
This will happen only in ground war with Iran. Serbia bombings didn't hurt clinton. And let's be clear - MAGA americans love those kind of display of american might mic drops. As long as the bodycount is 0 and the involvement short - it may even net him votes.
faceh
1d ago
Dependsssss because in some of those environments, the wealthy men just stack up as many wives as they can afford and the less wealthy guys have go out and steal their brides from abroad or something.
remzem
1d ago
I'm surprised how much political capital he was willing to spend on this. No clear evidence that their nuclear program is knocked out, a pretty strong incentive now between the outcomes of Libya, North Korea, Israel and Iran for any country that doesn't want to be a colony of either the eastern or western bloc to develop nukes. Meanwhile half his base is in open rebellion against him and his biggest source of support right now are Mark Levin type republicans which all of the younger "joe rogan" base despises.
You could almost draw a straight line between the republican party being overthrown by the populists and the Iraq / Afghan wars. Of all the mental gymnastics the base will commit to polish up his obvious faults I don't think he will get a pass here. He's pretty much lost the republicans Joe Rogan viewership numbers of votes. It does make the claims of Israel having compromising intel on him seem more likely.
Can add to that this kills Tulsi Powell, Rubio, and maybe even Vance's future prospects as well. George W. Trump pictures being spammed all over his x posts.
magic9mushroom
If you're going to downvote me, and nobody's already voiced your objection, please reply and tell me
1d ago
The notion I hide my power level is absurd.
I mean, in one sense, sure. Everybody who pays any attention to you knows exactly what you are, and your very username is a coded reference to it.
In another sense... well, I did actually take a look a while back, and you do seem to have made a very consistent attempt to retain one last shred of totally-implausible deniability. You always slide around the accusation of being a neo-Nazi - you never deny it, but you've never actually confirmed it either. And in this very exchange, you have slid around the accusation of wanting the Jews dead; you didn't confirm it, and you threw shade at @Amadan for presuming it, but you carefully didn't actually deny it either.
So the scouter on you reads 8950 instead of 9001. Yes, certainly, 8950 isn't very much lower than 9001, but you are still hiding those last few points of your power level for some reason (the most charitable such explanation being that there are legal ramifications to you saying the magic words).
Hadad
1d ago
Economic incentives shift the paradigm for men, too.
Sure, sure. But I bet in environments that restrict women, wealthy and not so wealthy men have more kids, too.
Yep.
I've always loved edgy subversive humor... that wasn't entirely built on malicious intent. Check out Doug Stanhope for the purest example.
Early 2010s was a mecca for that, from Newgrounds to early Youtube to 4chan's heyday. Although 4chan went way too malicious, imho. SomethingAwful was never my jam BECAUSE it thrived on the malice.
Sam is like a fucking Coelacanth from that era. Just perfectly preserved and managed to 'come back' from near extinction.
pigeonburger
1d ago
I'm glad Florida won it because I don't want any other canadian team to have won the Cup before our next one.
Mantergeistmann
1d ago
AOC has concluded that a president ordering an airstrike without congressional approval is grounds for impeachment
I'm assuming there's no good analysis as to why this airstrike is grounds for impeachment whereas all the other airstrikes and drone attacks over the decades weren't?
faceh
1d ago
Economic incentives shift the paradigm for men, too.
Simple example, if you owned a family farm, popping out a ton of kids was helpful IF ONLY for the cheap labor that couldn't easily unionize.
But if you have a job as a doctor, lawyer, finance bro, whatever, ESPECIALLY if you're living in a small, expensive apartment in a high COL area, the prospect seems irrational up front. No need for extra hands, and definitely have to worry about feeding those extra mouths.
You may want kids, eventually, but you want sex NOW, so hey, why not shack up with as many women as possible then find 'the one' when you're economically established.
Lizzardspawn
1d ago
Umm... The common between Chuck Norris and the necrophiliac is that every point is an entry point
Mantergeistmann
1d ago
the US didn't even use B-2 bombers against the Houthis in the failed campaign against them
I'm not sure what your point is there - why would the US have busted out B-2s against the Houthis?
Mantergeistmann
1d ago
Hadad
1d ago
Chemicals they randomly encounter in the modern environment, chemicals they intentionally put in their body, social expectations shifting, economic incentives shifting, the (short term) opportunity cost of kids, the increase in immigration rates, the advent of social media, increasing concentration of people in urban areas, and yeah, the fact that women are now solely responsible for choosing their mates and there are zero restrictions left on their decision process... so they decide to not decide.
A lot of these same pressures show up in subcultures that still manage a superior TFR, though. What changes is how empowered the women in them are. Or do you see something else?
ABigGuy4U
1d ago
The Iranian people were always pretty secular. They never had a grassroots Wahhabist movement like the Arab states did. It’s like the Soviet ‘20s where the state is ideological but the people are mostly indifferent.
faceh
1d ago
Yeah, sending the bombers, training the pilots, providing support services and maintenance and okaying their use, but denying any role in the outcome because "well WE didn't fly the planes" is patently silly.
If there are two guys having a shootout and you go over to one of them, hand him a gun, hand him the bullets, help him load the magazine, give him a few tips on marksmanship, and point out where the other guy is hiding, the other guy could pretty rightfully consider you an enemy combatant at that point.
But I dunno how many layers of obsfuscation are required before it becomes a wash.
"We sold the bombers and training to this other country, who then lent them to the belligerent country, and it just so happened that this other country has access to our satellite network to help with targeting, but we didn't tell 'em to do anything with that" is probably the furthest you can get without being obviously culpable.
And that's only because the intermediary country does have the option to just not do the thing you're hoping they do.
magic9mushroom
If you're going to downvote me, and nobody's already voiced your objection, please reply and tell me
1d ago
Gentiles are not at war with Jews. Neither are a nation.
NB: while I'm pretty sure you meant that Jews aren't a country, Jews do fit the primary definition of "nation" pretty well.
(Obviously, Gentiles do not.)
DESPITE... HR putting their thumbs, hands, arms, bodies on the scale for blacks—due to regression to the mean and affirmative action in undergraduate admissions—even holding undergraduate alma mater constant, the average black bachelor's degree graduate is lower in cognitive ability and is of a less rigorous major (including more likely to have blexited into an easier major over the course of his or her undergraduate career). Arcidiacono, one of the expert witnesses in the Harvard case, has a paper or two on this.
faceh
1d ago
My 'deep dive' into the question shows that it is multifactor, although there's some overlap/common causes behind certain factors.
Like, its almost ridiculous how many disparate pressures appear to make women less prone to producing kids (that's a slightly unfair way to put it, but it captures the problem, I think).
Chemicals they randomly encounter in the modern environment, chemicals they intentionally put in their body, social expectations shifting, economic incentives shifting, the (short term) opportunity cost of kids, the increase in immigration rates, the advent of social media, increasing concentration of people in urban areas, and yeah, the fact that women are now solely responsible for choosing their mates and there are zero restrictions left on their decision process... so they decide to not decide.
I don't think all of these factors are downstream of female liberation.
And many of these pressures are only possible thanks to technological developments of the last century. Which is also true of female liberation itself.
As I put it:
Please guys, I said right at the outset that its multifactor and I'm really uncertain about the major causes! I'm just proposing the policies I think most directly target the issue at hand. I really wish I had better things to do with my time than think about this at length and type long screeds to the internet. Better things like raising kids! That'd be really nice! BUT APPARENTLY I HAVE TO SOLVE ALL THE REST OF THIS to bring my chances up.
Tree
1d ago
Huh, okay, looks like childhood leukemia really took a beating these last decades. Yay science.
Still, most docs spend their time talking to old people and recommending negative EV surgeries.
I may have been a tad harsh. Unlike farmers, who went from useful to parasitic, doctors improved over time. They used to kill people, drink their blood and feed on their suffering, now some of them occasionally manage to help humans.
Its interesting how the past approximately 10 years of diplomacy in that arena has led to this being possible.
There was some Salami-slicing going on during Trump 1 thanks to the Abraham accords, a number of major Arab countries brought into the Western orbit and shown the benefits of being onside and chilling out about Israel. I have my misgivings about their reliability as 'allies' (something something scorpion and frog) but clearly they have the ability to sit on their hands when told to.
Then Russia got itself entangled in a conflict that keeps it from offering much in the way of support/deterrence.
Then Syria's government fell.
Probably a few other things I'm forgetting, but it all ultimately left Iran with no major buddies to lean on (China, I suppose) and thus the immediate consequences of going it 'alone' against its western adversaries.
Which is what made it safe enough for Israel to pulverize their defense systems from several angles.
Which made it safe enough for the U.S. to commit a huge portion of its strategic stealth bombers to the operation with assurances they'd all make it back, and presuming they had the firepower needed to do the job, could expect to actually cripple Iran this time.
I dunno how far in advance this stuff was planned and anticipated but I think this pretty much answers the "why didn't we do this 40/30/10 years ago" question. Too many uncontrolled variables, much higher risk.
Nothing's ever over. If I were Iran and I had some breathing room I'd probably be offering China near Carte-Blanche to give me some nuke tech. That strategy doesn't usually work in, say, Civilization VI but hey, the U.S. is vastly far ahead on the Science Victory, Cultural Victory, and Space Race Victory tracks, so options for both me and China are limited.
I'd vaguely fear Iran deciding to go full 'blaze of glory' mode and activate any and all contingencies and proxy parties it has abroad and just fire off 90% of its remaining missile stockpiles into Israel and daring the U.S. to put boots on the ground again.
But I don't see that as being the rational response and even if they don't come to the bargaining table, they're probably better off waiting to see if any other conflagration points pop off that might distract U.S. attention.
Who exactly is 'they' here?
The survivors, the soldiers who liberated the camps and the historians who studied the Holocaust afterwards are not the ones doing the censoring. Governments (and not most governments) censor Holocaust denial because they know that the only people who question the historical facts do so because they hate Jews, and hating Jews caused the Nazis to kill six million of them. We can argue whether censorship is the right approach or not, but its mere existence isn't evidence that the Holocaust was exaggerated or made up. To believe otherwise fails in the same way that all true conspiracy theories fail, it requires too much coordination from too many people over too long.
More options
Context Copy link