domain:amphobian.info
mrvanillasky
Indo Aryan Thot Leader
4d ago
Brahmins supported the usurpation of feudal kingdoms to extract more power as they believed that exams and a democratic regime would favor them, it made us powerless and them homeless where the highest Tamil Brahmin can ever be is an employee and not a divine saint the way they could before. Iq is an important factor but not the most important, you can ce exams and have some outlier geniuses but that's not enough to have a functional sovereign society.
Yes, the focus is on saving what can be saved, though I'd much rather support a neo pagan than a Muslim Indian.
Rosencrantz2
4d ago
What can I say, I just want to starve on a dying planet in the arms of my loved ones, instead of having to eat or be eaten by them.
(In reality most of the time I am personally extremely unconfident about whether AI, low fertility or climate change will in the long-run hasten or put off the demise of our species, so actual existential continuity tends to fade into the background of my thinking on most issues.)
Also, yes, you are right, heat death is not actually certain.
mrvanillasky
Indo Aryan Thot Leader
4d ago
There's zero Jain or Christian influence on Trika, which in itself differs from Vedanta, which also is the same, yes, there were Buddhist influences but the distinctions between Hinduism and Buddhism was not that significant in the Himalayas, where meditation was a thing that had existed for a millenia.
You have a personal, familial, societal God, faith, order and practice. There's an understanding that your own personal path is not fit for broader social order.
naraburns
nihil supernum
4d ago
I think it's more an active vs passive thing.
I think you're definitely supposed to think about it this way, in connection with women's dress at minimum, but I also think this simply doesn't hold up to scrutiny. Catcalling is no more active a choice than wearing a bikini, especially with the intent to wear it somewhere conspicuous (i.e. not at the beach, although even at the beach a bikini can be pretty damn conspicuous). You are no more forced to listen to catcalls than you are forced to look at someone in a bikini--though you may not be able to initially prevent yourself from hearing the first or seeing the second, you can always respond to either by plugging your ears or closing your eyes. The idea that catcalling is somehow more "intrusive" doesn't make any sense; we're talking about people sharing public spaces, and finding the proper balance allowing that space to be used by everyone for the activities they prefer. Why does a man's preference for catcalling rank below a woman's preference against it? The answer can't be "intrusiveness" because we actually often want intrusiveness to be a feature of shared public spaces--for example, political protests are deliberately intrusive, and lose their effect when they are not at least somewhat intrusive.
(I think the most likely answer, as others have noted, is probably just "public hetero male horniness is a low class signal," and nobody wants to speak for the interests of horny low class males, who are also often criminal elements, undesired immigrants, the uneducated, the antisocial, etc. Plus I suspect that many men who can keep their mouths shut would like the catcallers to stop, simply because living in a culture where women regularly go out in public half naked is something many heterosexual men prefer, and quietly enjoy.)
Part of this may be a "noncentral fallacy" problem, too--honking your car's horn at a pedestrian when there's no actual danger is a very obnoxious thing to do quite regardless of whether it is part of "catcalling" someone. Whereas wolf whistling is not coded as threatening (though some women take it that way, and seem to think every woman should, even though this is actually fairly paranoid on their part). To use some other examples of obnoxious public behavior, carrying around a protest sign with graphic imagery of aborted babies is gross. It's surely as "intrusive" as someone yelling sloppy compliments in your direction. "Well you don't have to look at it" doesn't really acknowledge the depth of discomfort many people experience when seeing such imagery.
TowardsPanna
4d ago
LOTR is a good pick. I've even watched much of the extra material a few times
RenOS
something is wrong
4d ago
In general I rarely watch things multiple times. Even on this list, nothing has probably hit double digits. But these are just very relaxing for me, and I come back to them when I just want something comforting.
For me:
- Harry Potter movies, especially the first 4
- Lord of the Rings
- Supernatural (mostly the first few seasons)
- Haibane Renmei
- Tatami Galaxy
- Mushishi
For my wife:
- Three Hazelnuts for Cinderella
- Gilmore Girls
incognitomaorach
4d ago
That's interesting. I know of these differences just from reading around, wikipedia and the like.
I suppose why I said that they, to me, seem like different religions is that the differences theologically between Judaism, Christianity, and Islam are essentially whether the single supreme God (who we all agree behaved in the same way up to ~0 AD, and is the same entity) sent a Messiah or not, the nature of that Messiah, and then subsequent contact and contracts he had with the human world (via a prophet and a book). Then there are somewhat different practical legal matters that must be resolved. Islam and Judaism differ remarkably little in core theology imo.
The differences between the branches of Christianity, which have sparked wars, range from the relatively large (the precise metaphysical nature of Jesus, or different aspects of God) to the small (the matters of ordination, celibacy amongst priests). Considering your own former branch vs. say Advaita Vedanta (or even your current path), one strictly monist, one dualist, the different devotional practices and liturgy, the different teachers, the different Gods, the disagreements in the nature of those entities. I'm sure you know much more about this than me, and I guess you could say "well at the end of the day they still have the same origin", but they do seem rather different. What counts as a religion is probably a bit like what counts as a different language, relying on socio-political aspects as well.
And then finally it doesn't appear to me to be immediately obvious that the more refined and philosophically elite practices of Hinduism (e.g. Kashmir Shaivism or Advaita Vedanta) are the same religion as that of the Indo-Aryans, let alone the Indo-Europeans. There have been centuries of Buddhist, Jain and Islamic influence on these practices, even Christian, so a 19th century or 20th century revival which posits essentially a monotheistic faith with dharmic elements doesn't appear to me to be obviously close to ancient polytheism as does say neo-Platonism or Sol Invictus to the faith of the anicent Greeks or Romans. And as we know, those practices influenced early Christianity heavily, especially aesthetically.
magic9mushroom
If you're going to downvote me, and nobody's already voiced your objection, please reply and tell me
4d ago
And of course, no amount of money can save you from the true black swans e.g unaligned superintelligence, gain of function^2 electric boogaloo or nuclear war
The first, sure. The latter two aren't that hard.
The middle one requires a few million for the bunker, and quite a bit more than that if you want a bunker-ready wife (bunker-ready as in, won't break quarantine even when the government is still pretending everything's fine) and money's the only lever you have in that regard (if you have other levers, much less so). So yes, expensive, but a billion's definitely enough.
The last one is really not that hard. I'm mostly on top of that one for like $1000, although there are some things I'd be buying closer to the date. Admittedly, it gets trickier if you're in the USA, because the USA's far more likely to go tits-up in the aftermath (fallout's also a bigger deal), but "move to Ireland/Guyana/Insert Country Unlikely to be Nuked Here" is still something you can definitely do for like $10 million max.
biboo-taxation
4d ago
I wonder if this is really true. Let's say you're on your deathbed, everyone you personally care about is dead, you have the option to give yourself a bit of morphine on the way out but it will make everyone currently alive not want to have children and as such humanity will die out in a few generations . Do you press that button? I consider myself rather nihilistic but I wouldn't press the button, so I have to assume I have some preference somewhere for humanity to continue on. This means it's not actually a categorical preference but one based on trade offs.
Series of court opinions:
-
A wife gives birth to a child. However, around the time of the child's conception, the wife was intimate not only with her husband but also with a paramour, so the child's paternity is uncertain. When informed of the pregnancy, the paramour at first disclaims interest in it, but a week later changes his mind. Shortly after the child is born, the paramour files a lawsuit to compel genetic testing and establish paternity. The husband testifies that, regardless of any DNA test's result, he will continue to love and care for the child.
-
The trial judge rejects the paramour's request. (1) State caselaw incorporates an irrebuttable presumption of legitimacy: If paternity is uncertain, but around the time of conception the mother was in an intact marriage with a husband who was not absent, impotent, or sterile, then the husband is automatically considered the father, and this determination cannot be changed even with a DNA test. (2) State caselaw incorporates paternity by estoppel: After the paramour disclaimed interest in the child, the child and the husband were entitled to rely on that declaration, and the paramour was not permitted to change his mind and "pull the carpet out from under" the developing relationship between the child and the husband. The appeals panel affirms, solely on the first basis since it is dispositive.
-
The state supreme court vacates and remands. The irrebuttability of the presumption of legitimacy is an outdated relic of the days before in vitro fertilization, minimally-invasive (cheek-swab rather than blood-vial) DNA testing, and nondiscrimination against illegitimate children. The presumption of legitimacy now can be rebutted with a DNA test if (1) there is a reasonable possibility that DNA testing will reveal the paramour to be the father and (2) DNA testing serves the best interest of the child. (The doctrine of paternity by estoppel is left unchanged. On remand, it may serve as an alternative basis to affirm the trial judge's ruling.)
-
Two of the state supreme court's seven justices dissent in part. They think that the presumption of legitimacy already has been eliminated by the legislature, and therefore courts should be empowered to order DNA testing without a pointless multifactor test. One of the dissenters would go even further:
I cannot cling to the notion that it is the public policy of this Commonwealth that children’s interests are necessarily served by "the stability of an intact family unit" led by married parents. I would emphasize that families regularly flourish under non-traditional configurations and that families regularly falter under traditional ones. Nowhere is it assured that a stable family unit, defined as one involving a married couple, will remain as such for any prescribed period of time let alone the entirety of a childhood. Ultimately, it is the legislative prerogative to identify and implement the Commonwealth’s policy preference, especially in an arena as sensitive as marriage and child-rearing. The Legislature provided for no fault divorce, making severance of marriages relatively easy; it endorsed scientific testing to determine paternity allowing for the potential involvement of a third party in a married couple’s family unit. As to the preferred structure of the family unit, the clearest statement of the Legislature is that in all cases, the best interests of the child must prevail in custody matters. Given the co-existence of the statutes that recognize expedient termination of marriages, the recognition of a third party’s genetic paternity to a child born to a married couple and the dominance of the child’s best interests in custody matters, I am hard pressed to find a legislative declaration that it is the clear public policy of the Commonwealth that marriages involving children must be preserved.
(The other dissenter refrains from joining this footnote.) -
On remand, the appeals panel reverses the trial judge. Regarding the presumption of legitimacy: DNA testing serves the interest of the child in knowing its biological father. Regarding paternity by estoppel: In past cases, the doctrine has been applied when a paramour filed his paternity lawsuit multiple years after the child's birth. However, in this case the paramour filed his paternity lawsuit just eight days after the child's birth, so there was hardly any "developing relationship between the child and the husband" to be torn asunder. (Of course, after all this lawyering the child is two years old.)
RandomRanger
Just build nuclear plants!
5d ago
Nobody has ever benchmarked a parrot or if they have it's 'wow this parrot knows 250 words!' The only things we benchmark on mental tasks like this are people with exams, then we use those benchmarks to decide who does what job.
When cats and hamsters can write even a few schizo dialogues about their inner life then I'll be inclined to entertain this comparison. Or when we start seeing Ape Intelligence engineers getting chimps to do white-collar work for us.
Yet Ape Intelligence isn't a thing. These animals really are not smart in a significant sense.
magic9mushroom
If you're going to downvote me, and nobody's already voiced your objection, please reply and tell me
5d ago
If progress results in civilization ending within a generation, then at least one generation has enjoyed the fruits of progress. If civilization continues forever without progress, then, from the point of view of at least N=1 progressive, what's the point of civilization?
I mean, okay, let's run with this hypothetical.
You do progress. This undermines the basis of civilisation (this being your "if"). Civilisation "ends", by which we mean there's no stable law, the modern economy (including agriculture) disintegrates because you can't have trade without functioning laws against theft, half the population eats the other half, infrastructure disintegrates.
But that's not extinction. Humans still exist, a lot of knowledge will be retained, agriculture will persist in some less-efficient form. You'll get governments, sooner or later, as warlords put together enough force to cow people. I don't think their policies are going to be very progressive, particularly since they'll (correctly, in this hypothetical) blame your progress for the apocalypse and warlords are not known for wanting to be eaten.
Sure, maybe they'll come back to where we are now in a hundred years or so. But this doesn't seem to maximise the average amount of progress over time. Unless you think that very-recent and near-future progress is far more important than that from, oh, 1770 to 1970?
theincompetencetheorist
5d ago
Another effect is the removal of GLP-1 drug coverage for obesity. I don't think I need to prove that they're very effective at weight loss, and obesity is a major health issue so a lot of people finally finding themselves losing weight are going to be hurting in the next few months as their prescriptions get cut. While GLP-1 medications isn't yet a net positive financially, the impact it has on people's health can not be ignored.
Here is a fun idea maybe the junk food producers lobbied to get the coverage removed. It is a net positive in cost for everyone except those who profit to keep people eating pseudo-food and selling medications to fix the symptoms caused by obesity.
Hephzivah
5d ago
The ideal woman praised in Proverbs 31 is a pioneer. She is strong, industrious, and business savvy....all while taking care of the home and children.
Crowstep
5d ago
My immediate thought was those videos of women recording themselves getting harassed by immigrant men (Brussels) or black/hispanic men (NYC) - both women studiously denied the obvious racial angle that everyone else could see, naturally - .
I'm not sure whether most catcallers in the UK would be the native underclass or immigrants, but I'm fine with the police going after either group. Catcalling is an antisocial act, it's not asking a woman out, it's shouting at her in public, very different. If Surrey Police are doing it for feminist reasons that doesn't bother me, it might be good for these policewomen to learn who the antisocial men on their beats actually are.
I wish the police used the same logic in setting up bait bikes to catch bike thieves.
magic9mushroom
If you're going to downvote me, and nobody's already voiced your objection, please reply and tell me
5d ago
Without opining on the object-level question, I will point out that there is a difference between tyranny on the one hand, and civilisational collapse on the other. One can believe in one without believing in the other, and certainly the latter is pretty far from experience in the West (I mean, when was the last time a Western country had state failure? The Wild West kinda counts - although it wasn't a case of state failure so much as a state not previously existing there - but I can't think of anything more recent).
A_Wee_Hearts_Toll
5d ago
I read it like Chsterton's:
The Christian ideal has not been tried and found wanting. It has been found difficult; and left untried.
Southkraut
The rain fell gentlier.
5d ago
My ancestors (please forgive the cliché term) expended a lot of effort to get me where I am, and I won't be the one to chuck it all overboard because "lol who gives a shit about anything so long as I go to the grave on a road of dopamine". I only have it as good as I do because others worked hard and contributed to the edifice of the commons to the best of their abilities. To look to myself and only myself instead of paying it forward strikes me as the very peak of ingratitude.
And I guess that's where the exchange ends. You just put your view out there, here's mine, I don't think there's much to be done either way. Enjoy continuing to extract benefits from those who care more than you.
A_Wee_Hearts_Toll
5d ago
We do not want to be like the Greeks, powerful and prosperous wherever we settle, but with a dead Greece behind us - John Buchan
Capital_Room
rather dementor-like
5d ago
It seems like there are still pockets of competence to be found and an increasing motivation to overcome short term political obstacles and create some robust institutions
Increasing motivation does not imply increasing ability. It doesn't matter how much people want to overcome the political obstacles if those obstacles are totally insurmountable. And it looks to me like they are just that.
I think that even in the worst case scenarios of the U.S. FedGov starting to collapse, state governments are capable of acting as a backstop.
I disagree. First, because as FedGov starts to collapse, one of the highest priorities for uses of its fading power will be to crush any and all rivals, particularly state governments. And even without that, well, it might just be me looking at the government of my state, but I don't see this capacity.
If Starship is successful and we get some orbital infrastructure, its JUST possible we can get some self-sufficient or semi-self sufficient off-world communities.
I attended talks by the Mars Society back at Caltech in the early aughts, so I'm far from unfamiliar with the topic of space settlement — and the barriers involved. Barring some miracle, I don't see us getting any kind of long-term off-world presence of biological humans, let alone "semi-self sufficient communities" in the next hundred years.
Tree
5d ago
People think their cats and hamsters have complicated personalities. They thought gorillas and chimps could form new complex sentences, when they were just asking for bananas and tickles the whole time.
Rosencrantz2
5d ago
Classically, catcalling is a builder who is with his mates, not by himself. It's done for the mates to strengthen the group and give them the small stroke of pointing out a hot woman to look at or whose reaction to be amused by.
clo
5d ago
Of course I want living standards to continue to be good during my generation at least
Ay, there's the rub, isn't it?
I understand your thought process, despite being ideologically opposed as someone who is very much attached to civilization and its fruits. But what makes you think that your living standards might continue to be good during your generation? There is a lot of decline to go, and you can always be one of the rats clinging to the planks, but the effort required to do so will only increase in future.
My interest in cratering TFR is not because I find it an interesting hobbyhorse in the abstract, or because I am attached to the idea of human civilization, even though I wholly admit that is where my biases lie. I am extremely worried about what the governments of the world will enact on me and mine in the pursuit of keeping the flywheel spinning just a bit longer. Maybe you have some idea or experience dealing with others when you threaten their rice bowls. If you do, you should have at least some inkling of what it is like or what things they will do.
I believe, in the name of restoring TFR the tax base to pay for benefits their own salaries, there will be a huge attempted clampdown on sexual freedom with predictable results. Governments will first offer tax breaks for families and then increase taxes significantly on the single. I also see this having predictable results: imagine, if you will, the nothing-to-lose incel hordes stitched to financial incentives. And who knows, maybe there will be more countries led by the lizard-brained enough to go back to pillaging other countries to take their stuff, or willing to feed large numbers of their population into the meat grinder of drones, artillery and shrapnel so they can make a dent in those depending on the government for long-term palliative care.
FistfullOfCrows
5d ago
I am so through with the performative institutional feminism. Watch as these police decoys don't jog in the no go zones, instead doing circles along rich neighborhoods for the photo op, convenient material to gaslight "all men" about something only the underclass does. Hell, you got these old women jogging, where are the very young police girls jogging near the Pakistani and Nafri neighborhoods?
I get what you mean, you could have messaged this exact thing, though I won't take offence since you mean well. I'm doing better and themotte is my only culture war outlet as I'm usually offline.
More options
Context Copy link