site banner
Advanced search parameters (with examples): "author:quadnarca", "domain:reddit.com", "over18:true"

Showing 25 of 112322 results for

domain:samschoenberg.substack.com

What can we learn about optimal cultural leadership in light of the 2013-2021 social justice period?

  • Religious leaders did not adequately stand up against the mass movement. Although many conservatives see value in religious institutions as a cultural defense, mainstream Catholicism and Protestant denominations did not substantively address the social justice craze. In some cases they placated or even promoted it.

  • Academics did not adequately argue against the mass movement. It is not the case, for instance, that the experts in western history, literature, or philosophy were more likely to argue against the mass movement in any substantive way. This is problematic: if learning the best of western culture does not lead to protecting said culture in any genuine sense when it matters the most, then how great is the actual utility of such learning?

  • The main “public critics” of the period have little in common except that they were passionate and somewhat neurotic men. Yarvin, Peterson, Weinstein, Scott Adams(?). My memory of who was most dominant in this period is somewhat hazy, maybe someone with a better memory can correct me. There were more psychologists among critics than philosophers. You had people like Stefan Molyneux passionately criticizing the proto-movement well before its zenith. His Twitter attests to his neuroticism.

  • Random people online were able to sense a threat that leading experts weren’t able to sense, and made arguments that leading academics did not make. Why?

It’s difficult to come away with clear takeaways. IMO: (1) it is beneficial to increase anonymous discussion, as this laid the groundwork for future criticism, and allowed for arguments to spread which would otherwise be banned. (2) It may be essential to increase the number of passionate and neurotic men, over men with other skills, as the major critics were more often passionate and somewhat crazy. A “passionate” temperament is occasionally inaccurate, and may result in behavior that leads institutions to weed them out — but their utility in sensing and addressing threats compensates for the occasional bout of craziness.

There is a funny review of Jordan Peterson from 2013, possibly the first time anyone commented about his personality online. It was made on the anonymous literature board of 4chan in 2013, long before his rise to fame.

he's craaaaazy. he so crazy. I had a class immediately following one of his lectures like, his was from 1:15-3:15 in Room 101., and my different classes was from 3:25-5:25 in Room 101 too. ok? So... he would totally bug out if someone opened the door early. Like, screaming fits and stuff. my prof (who was just a postdoc and wasn't going to get tenured at u of t) encouraged us all to fuck with his head because in addition to being a rageaholic spaz, peterson would also leave the podium really dirty. also, he lectures in a cape for some reason. he went on this ontario talk show with his daughter talking about how they're both clinically depressed bla bla, I feel bad that she's his dad, that must be hard to deal with

The only crime of that movie is that it sets up a metaphysical science fiction story that's much more interesting that it with its ending and never delivers on it.

I want to see that world 2000 years in.

I'm surprised no one compiled a list of all of the jobs or things he claimed to have experience with, but I wasn't about to spend the time going through his comment history to do it.

If you or anyone actually does have a list like this, it would be helpful. People keep handwaving that he was doing all sorts of nefarious debate tricks but nobody can actually point to any examples. Nobody has receipts, so they broadly fall back on "trust me bro".

"Engaging in good faith" seems to be synonymous with "only disagrees with me within certain bounds".

4chan is already controlled by the American Intelligence Community, that's the only meaningful difference.

what the internet did is not make people crazy, but show them how much of a fraud the world they lived in is.

It specifically made them think the world they currently live in is a fraud much more than ever before. The Right takes this to mean we must RETVRN to the 1950's (when we didn't notice the fraud) while the Left takes it to mean insane purity-spiral wokeism is the only cure.

Overwhelmingly, every time it's put to a vote, people vote for less immigration. People vote against affirmative action policies. People vote against racial carve outs. Don't pretend the call is coming from inside the house, and whites are inflicting this on themselves. The government is running amok, either because racial spoils are easy to lie about but still deliver votes, or because some unaccountable aspect of it has been captured by racial interest groups. Might be worth looking into that "Critical Race Theory" thing. Whenever it comes up, I always hear it's defenders claim "They aren't teaching that in schools, it's only a legal theory".

the once-oppressed Chinese have been content with their rising standards of living.

isn't the US in a fentanyl epidemic?, last I heard it came to the US through Cartels that bought the necessary precursors from the Chinese.

Part of adversary proof production for the modern U.S. would almost certainly be near-shoring; Mexico has one of the largest manufacturing sectors in the world and it’s probably easier to convert a pickup truck factory into a humvee factory than to build a new factory.

The other thing that seems often left out of these discussions is diversion of civilian goods(probably through rationing). Civilian boots, food, fuel, mechanical parts- it can all get diverted to the army. This is part of why I think it unlikely the modern U.S. will engage in a full blown war anytime soon- thé cuts to civilian standard of living would be a no go.

The series starts very strong but gets worse as it continues, not to mention that it eventually segues into something like superhero fiction. Last one I read was The Labyrinth Index and I will not be proceeding.

I'm actually surprised at how effectively Stross keeps his leftist ideology from ruining the books entirely. It does make it through sometimes but generally can be ignored. There's much handwringing in later books about how 'society' basically renders middle-aged women 'invisible' e.g. Sure I rolled my eyes but no big deal.

Here's James Spann talking with other meteorologists about the Texas floods last night, will take me a few hours to listen to it in full https://youtube.com/live/T-mT7v6tjc0

Sounds more experimental than anything but you've piqued my curiosity.

  1. Yup, but this isn't medication, or mental illness. This is a choice. You may not like the choice, but that doesn't make it mental illness.

  2. If anyone is carving out the founding stock, it is the founding stock themselves. Indians, Mexicans and whatever else can't do anything they are not allowed to do. The vast majority of your political apparatus is white. This isn't colonization or invasion. It's invitation. And it is invitation largely because of the white guilt felt by large numbers of your fellow white Americans. You can't fix that by making them do the same thing they felt the guilt about in the first place. If you think it is a problem (and it legitimately might be!) then you have to resolve it, not repeat the actions that led to it. Unfortunately this is one of the dividing issues your nation has faced since its founding. It was called out at its founding this was going to be a huge problem in fact. The Civil War, Civil Rights movement, wokism is all downstream of the choices your ancestors made.

I don't see a good answer, with the possible exception (and even this is shaky) as you point out as going all in for blacks. Affirmative action for blacks only, reparations for blacks only, attempt to help your fellow white Americans extirpate their guilt by focusing on the main group that was harmed so others don't get pattern matched in. But that guilt is the foundational issue you are going to have to deal with. Letting immigrants in is asymmetric. It takes much less effort to do so, than try and get rid of them afterwards. So you have to find a way to make them stop wanting to. To make them stop feeling guilty about being so privileged and about how that privilege was used against yes primarily black people through American history.

I don't think you can do that, by going back to the same behaviors that got you here in the first place.

Respond to women in variable ratio intervals, and only in a way that increases their engagement.

I suspect Ryan Coogler wanted to make a movie about a juke joint in the Mississippi Delta in the 30s, and then tacked on some vampires and gunfights to give it enough mass market appeal to get produced and make money.

what's your opinion/review on the Hundred Line game?

It's a lot of fun! Definitely recommended. If you liked any of Kodaka's or Uchikoshi's other games you'll like this too. Especially if you liked Danganronpa, because although it's a very different kind of story than Danganronpa it's got a similar "vibe".

you called it a VN where I got the impression it's more like a TRPG. How do the two mesh together?

Yeah so it's not a "pure" VN because it does have a combat system, but most people I've talked to classify it as a VN. (The main gameplay loop is long VN segment with a chance to upgrade units -> battle -> another long VN segment -> repeat). The combat (assuming you play on normal mode, I finished the game before the patch that added hard mode) is more than just a "formality", but it never gets super difficult. It's less complex and involved than what you would find in a game like Fire Emblem or FFT. You're really here for the story, not the combat.

Plus if you keep playing long enough (meaning you explore multiple routes instead of just making a beeline for the true ending) you basically get the ability to just skip combat altogether, which means you're just free to explore and at that point the game becomes a "pure" VN.

  1. Sometimes people with severe mental illnesses go off their medication because they feel better and think they no longer need it. They don't like the side effects, etc. Just because the medicine doesn't feel good doesn't mean you don't need it.

  2. Even assuming I agree, that only goes for Blacks. How does it go for Indians, Jews, Asians, Arabs, Mexicans and every other nationality colonizing America and carving it's founding stock out of it?

It's also helpful to remember that in the case of actual wartime production happening even the less-competitive producers will likely be going full-tilt.

Here's my home-grown definition - defense treaties like NATO also need to include some economic provisions that ensure that every aspect of wartime production is covered by at least one of the member states. It's shameful that the NATO countries together cannot produce sufficient rare earth materials to supply our collective armies. Within member states, there should be enough capability to grow sufficient food, mine sufficient materials, process sufficient materials, produce sufficient sources of energy, etc so that if NATO countries went to war with a major adversary it could do so without pagers exploding or power grids being kill-switched.

"Adversary-proof production" doesn't mean Isolated America vs the World. It would mean blocks of allies against at least one adversary. There can be market competition between allies.

What if they preferentially hire whites the same way Indians favor Indians, or Jews favor Jews? What if they aggressively subsidize and import white residents the same way the federal government bombs small Midwestern towns with Haitians or Somalians?

I mean they did right? Even more than that actually. This is something white Americans already did. It's how you ended up where you are now. Do you think trying it again is going to work better? You have affirmative action and white guilt, people trying to make things up to black farmers and the like because this is what happened before and white people decided, actually this makes us feel pretty bad when we look at in comparison to our theoretical national values.

Whites had the nation you are envisaging and even more than that. Then they decided they didn't like it. Black people didn't have the power to change it. White people themselves did.

The things you complain about are already the tat for white peoples tit! (so to speak!), to try and make up for slavery and Jim Crow and so on and so forth. Instigated by white people themselves!

They already did the "What if?" You know how it ended.

I don't think "something that can float" helps much in raging floodwaters, unfortunately. As an experienced (if a bit rusty) camper, you really want vertical above the river in this situation (maybe not the very top of the hill in a thunderstorm). But it's much easier to say that academically than to expect a bunch of little girls to know they should seek high ground and actually charge out into the torrential rain.

Like, how would a nightclub make sense financially in rural Mississippi (?), specifically for black people which were mostly sharecroppers and low-wage laborers? And the Twins should know this, since they worked and/or were in close-enough proximity in this sector.

I mean this part is roughly historically accurate. Clarksdale did have a number of juke joints, it even has festivals to this day celebrating them. It's one of the important stops on the Mississipi Blues Trail for just this reason. Many of them did struggle financially as their clientele were mostly poor black sharecroppers, but they did also have a mostly captive clientele, blacks weren't allowed in white establishments, so something was going to spring up to cater to that segment. The population of the city itself then was about 10,000 but it had significant cotton plantations around it and those workers wanted somewhere to drink and so on.

"Classic juke joints, found for example at rural crossroads, catered to the rural work force that began to emerge after emancipation.[1] Plantation workers and sharecroppers needed a place to relax and socialize following a hard week, particularly since they were barred from most white establishments by Jim Crow laws."

What is "adversary-proof production"? What does it look like? What policies achieve that end state or detract from it?

This has been on my mind for a while. It comes up regularly in discussions concerning international trade, tariffs and other trade policy, manufacturing, agriculture, defense, and geopolitics. I've joked about it before:

North Korea now "produces" its own airplanes. Which I guess is cool if you want to make sure that you have whatever metric of "adversary-proof" (I'm not convinced it actually is, but it depends highly on the metric you use) and if you're okay with only being able to produce what are essentially copies of extremely old Cessnas. Maybe in 50 years, they'll be able to produce their own WWII-era fighter jets, which I guess is "adversary-proof" to one metric, but probably not all that "adversary-proof" according to other metrics.

I remarked in that comment that I was kind of joking, but only kind of. I think it really is that I just actually don't know what "adversary-proof production" actually means. I don't think I have a set of criteria to go check whether or to what extent a country's production is adversary-proof. Thus, I don't think I have a way of determining whether any particular policy proposal would or would not contribute toward that goal.

With this context, one of my various aggregators linked to this tweet:

Rice prices have exploded in Japan. The country goes grows about 99% of the rice it consumes, a condition approaching autarky, because of a lattice of subsidies, political influence and protectionism, which all make the market incredibly vulnerable to shocks.

The tweet includes a price chart. I checked reasonably quickly to make sure it wasn't totally off the wall and found articles like this. Apparently, there are a bunch of subsidies/market controls on the domestic production of rice in Japan. Moreover, there is only a very small amount of imported rice allowed without tariffs. The result is that the vast vast majority of Japanese-consumed rice is grown in Japan. There are very few companies that have established any sort of importation supply chain, no relations with international producers, no pre-existing options deals, no experience with the logistics of importing.

And thus, because of some supply (and possibly some demand) factors (one might quibble with the details here, and it seems like different authors point to similar buy slightly different details; I don't think it matters too much), the price of rice in Japan has skyrocketed. One might not worry too much, though. The government is here to help. They have a strategic stockpile of rice! (What a thing for a government to choose to do, have the expertise to manage, etc.) Which they've opened, and only slightly pushed prices a bit.

If you can't tell, I am sympathetic to the view of the tweet author. I don't think that what "adversary-proof production" means is that you shut out international trade, regulate production in order to make sure you preserve some sense of what you think the domestic market "should" look like, and have almost the entirety of your production be domestic.

...but that still leaves me wanting to know... what is "adversary-proof production"? What does it actually look like? I tried my typical strategy of hopping over to google scholar to see if I could find some academic writing on the topic, but perhaps they just use different key terminology, and I'm missing it. Can TheMotte help? Any academic work? Or even your home-grown (autarkic?) definition?

At the moment, most people openly advocating for racial segregation are Neo-Nazis. I think I speak for the vast majority of Whites, HBD-pilled or otherwise, when I say I would much rather have a randomly selected Black person as a neighbor than a Neo-Nazi for purely selfish Bayesian reasons.

But this goes to the core of it. What if normal whites have noticed enough that they decide "You know what, I'm going to act like every other race treats me." What if they preferentially hire whites the same way Indians favor Indians, or Jews favor Jews? What if they aggressively subsidize and import white residents the same way the federal government bombs small Midwestern towns with Haitians or Somalians? What if they start giving out contracts to white owned businesses the same way the federal government gives contracts only to black or minority owned businesses? What if they forgive debt for white's the same way the federal government keeps finding way to forgive debts exclusively for blacks? What if they give preferential medical treatments to whites the same way preferential treatments were given to blacks?

None of this requires deep supremacist neo-nazi beliefs. Just noticing and then going tit-for-tat. Realizing if you don't, you have no future.

Remember the poster who always posts on here saying we need an immigration law that says "you have to deport illegals this time for real pretty please" and then the Democrat president will do it.

This is just another example of the president's ability to pretty much poof away any law.

A lot of folks here are extremely blackpilled about politics, but this to me seems a perfect example of how democracy is supposed to work.

Hey I'm one of these people.

There's currently a flood of YIMBY legislation going in across America, it's actually pretty awesome to see. Makes me pretty jealous tbh, my girlfriend and I joke about moving to the states a lot, and if you guys actually manage to bring down housing prices I might actually pull the trigger.

I'm hoping Canada sees it work for you and follow suit, but we have such an unbelievably strong status-quo bias/risk & change aversion I don't want to get too hopeful lol