domain:reddit.com
FtSoA
6hr ago
Man, my APUSH class included a lot of leftwing stuff, like reading a good chunk of A People's History of the United States. (And it was not because the teacher was a real lefty or anything--he was very focused on doing what we needed to pass.)
But in general I'd say everything you described was "classic center-left polite society civic religion of the professional class" and not "classical liberalism," even if one can still see the archeological roots. And then I have no idea exactly how bad it's gotten since, but all signs point to "not great" on matters of both economics and the Culture War.
I do think it's oversold how much the Founders got wrong and undersold how much they got right--particularly regarding a limited government as a strong guiding principle. Post-FDR, that's been out the window with only a bit of neoliberalism to at least focus on economic efficiency.
That's a pretty good collection you have going. I'd love to have the ~full U.S. inventory for WWI and WWII at some point (if a replica in some cases).
The_Nybbler
In the game of roller derby, women aren't just the opposing team; they're the ball.
6hr ago
I originally thought "emancipation" was just acting as a floating signifier, an applause light. But she actually does define it and her form of "freedom" in a few places, if not in terms that are very concrete themselves.
It touches upon the very essence of what it means to be free. I remain loyal to the feminist promise, however battered or dimmed, of genuine emancipation for women. This vision is not content to merely manage or glorify womanhood, but to transcend its limitations altogether, to be more than a body assigned a function, to move beyond the scripts of sex and tradition, and to claim the dignity of self-authorship. I never wanted merely to be accepted as a woman; I wanted to be free.
Freedom is not safety. It is the fragile space in which one may choose what binds.
To be free is not to become a better woman; it is to cease being one, politically.
But the first and last of these are impossible, and for a feminist, self contradictory. One might reasonably imagine a world where skin color failed to matter aside from one's household sunscreen budget, but a world in which one's sex doesn't matter is not one populated with humans. And to be a feminist is to be concerned with the interests of women, politically.
The second is also impossible for most. At the trivial level, one must eat and drink, one must obtain protection from the elements, and one has no choice about that. Further, one's role is limited by both social and biological realities. Oddly she scorns the people who deny this the hardest -- the trans activists.
So, she seems to be asking for something impossible and which men also don't have. It is no surprise she is disappointed.
vorpa-glavo
6hr ago
I wonder if some of the rise in transmen isn't mediated by trying to find a secular alternative to this phenomenon.
Maybe autistic girls who really have trouble succeeding as women, find it far easier to be a short guy than to continue living with the weight of expectations of womanhood. The fact that surgeries and hormones "destroy their body" ends up being a benefit, not a drawback.
vorpa-glavo
6hr ago
The people who think those on benefits have it easy have never had to live in poverty.
Yeah, as a child of upper middle class parents, it was a bit of a system shock years ago when I truly grokked that people had radically different backgrounds.
My college girlfriend broke down crying when she first saw my childhood home, because I "lived in a mansion" (I didn't) while her parents had been forced to sell her childhood home because they couldn't afford it, and one of the members of my Esperanto club was the first disabled man I ever interacted with at length and it was kind of heartbreaking seeing the squalor a person my age could live in even with supportive friends and family and disability payments.
FtSoA
6hr ago
The problem is almost never that an agency outlives the original purpose, like horses becoming largely irrelevant.
The problem is that the original purpose is inflated, particularly in a regulatory way. But that's usually not literally the agency's fault. It's usually a combo the Congress and the courts, and/or a presidential initiative. So the Department of Transportation is forever, horses or not. "Do they have good policies?" is the real question and a harder one to answer.
We have the system we have because "we" "wanted" it. Manual reapproval would be very hard to even design--look at how there's gridlock for the budget. Scaling that up won't help us get an effective limited government.
John_Doe_Fletcher
anarcho-heretic, Quokkit guy
6hr ago
FUTO Keyboard has this as well, plus swipe typing, minus Microsoft selling your input data. Worth checking out. I can just long-press H and the em-dash is the first symbol option.
hydroacetylene
6hr ago
Elon could at least conceivably give up all his wealth, his titles, his positions of symbolic authority, and start from zero. Because the male body has little to no intrinsic value, it's easier for men to become a "blank slate". But when your body itself is the source of this overbearing value? That's a bit harder to rid yourself of.
The lindy way for high status men to do this is to enter a monastery(and honestly, while I'm not expecting Elon to do this, it'd be the least surprising tech billionaire). This option is also open to women; both Christian and Buddhist monasteries have convents to go with them.
god_from_celegans
6hr ago
One idea is to detect slop, by looking at how surprising and compressible an essay is. Einsteins theory of relativity would have been surprising for an LLM
MaiqTheTrue
Renrijra Krin
6hr ago
I’d agree very strongly with balanced budget amendments as good. But I don’t see any way to slow the growth of regulatory agencies other than having the government — be it executive or legislative — have to manually re-approve the agency (with the default being no) at regular intervals will at least allow for review and revision and avoid mission creep. If we have a department of horse welfare in 2025, it doesn’t need to exist anymore because few people need horses for transportation.
vorpa-glavo
6hr ago
She correctly perceives that when people (well, men, at least) think about men, the properties they notice in order of salience are "web developer, white, middle class, male, father...", something like that. But when people think about her, the ordering is "woman, web developer, white, middle class...". Her body is what people want, it's what they're seeking; or at least, this is always necessarily a lurking suspicion.
I agree with some of your points, but I'm not sure if I fully agree here.
While the idea that "men do, women are" is accepted as a truism in some online circles, and I even think there are probably evopsych forces pushing in that direction, I think there are plenty of women who find fulfilling communities, hobbies, etc. where the fact that they are the "scare resource" in reproduction isn't really that relevant one way or another.
Consider Youtube channels like this one for scrapbooking, or this one for miniatures. Both women are just disembodied hands, and yet I know people like my mom (who does scrapbooking and homemade cards) and an older family friend of ours (who made elaborate miniature dollhouses when her health was better) love these kinds of channels, watching them obsessively for ideas to try out.
I also have several lesbian friends, and they tend to have crafty hobbies that they love. One (whose day job is as a web developer) is an amazing seamstress, and has won cosplay contest awards for historical accuracy (due to her obsessively deep diving into Chinese clothing history for a costume she did.) One loves crochet and once made dozens of crochet stuffed animals (including several quite large ones) to give away for a party. Both of them seem to be pretty satisfied with their lot in life, most of the time, and neither their professions nor their hobbies seem to be affected very much by the fact that they're the scarce resource biologically.
Now, I grant that all of these are female-dominated hobbies that probably appeal to a "people-oriented" personality more, but it really isn't that hard in the modern day to have a friend group consisting of almost no straight guys, which has the practical effect of reducing the salience of being the scarce resource biologically to practically zero.
MaiqTheTrue
Renrijra Krin
6hr ago
I tend to agree with this. I think also that in any case, “freedom” is more of a marketing strategy than a reality. No one is actually free, or at least anyone who is actually “free” lives naked in the woods somewhere. If you are powerful, you are unfree because the wolves and the jackals hunger for your position and any show of weakness is at least a road to losing power. The weak are not free either as they need protection from the strong and they need to survive in the world the powerful created. The rich need you to make them richer, but if you want to eat, you’ll have to do whatever your bosses want.
But I think in answer to the question, a lot of position-jealousy is that people tend to over estimate other people’s benefits while discounting their costs. So a woman who thinks men have more freedom than they do see things like more interesting work, being able to go out and golf on weekends, or whatever. What they don’t see is the work behind it, the stress of needing to chase after promotions to things they don’t really get the luxury of thinking about whether they even want the next job, or even enjoy the work they do because they have to feed, house and clothe the family. When you see the benefits but not the cost, you think they have a good deal. King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia has a lot of cool cars, multiple palaces, jets, and goes on lots of vacations. Of course, he has the sole responsibility of running Saudi Arabia, and fighting jihadists and trying to thread the needle on trading with rich Jews in Israel while not pissing off the good Muslims supporting Palestinian people. The people who think those on benefits have it easy have never had to live in poverty.
quiet_NaN
7hr ago
I think the question of authenticity is very simple to answer. The media I was exposed to in my formative teen years was obviously very authentic and deep. Anything produced since I have turned into a cynical adult is shallow consumerist drivel.
For real, I think that there are differences in authenticity. Take video games. On the one end of the spectrum you have games like nethack or dwarf fortress, where the motivation to build the game was clearly not not get rich. On the other hand of the spectrum, you have EA ${sport_franchise} ${current_year}. Perhaps there are devs in the world whose dream job is it to publish the same soccer game every year for a decade, each time with slightly better graphics and the current (licensed) roster, and they would totally do it as a hobby (if it was not for the license fees). But it seems more likely that EA has found that enough people will spend 50 Euros (or whatever) on the latest soccer game every year and are determined to milk that cash cow for the rest of time, and the devs of FIFA are only slightly more enthusiastic about their products than the devs of SAP.
Most games fall somewhere in the middle, with the devs seeing it as a dayjob which (hopefully) pays the bills while also being more fun than writing enterprise Java.
Likewise, there is value in originality. Stardew Valley is a competently written game of its genre, but that is not its claim to fame. It's claim to fame is that it basically invented the genre.
These two measures of authenticity are of course correlated. Large gaming studios are mostly risk-averse, and the bigger the title the less risk people are willing to take. If Stardew Valley had flopped in beta, ConcernedApe would have had to find a different way to make a living. If an AAA title tanks, quite a few people (some of them with decent paychecks) might lose their job. So of course the big studios imitate the indie devs who made it big, better a 80% chance at making a decent game than a 20% chance at making a groundbreaking game.
Hot on the heels of failing out of art school and declaring himself the robofuhrer, Grok now has an update that makes him even smarter but less fascist.
And... xAI releases AI companions native to the Grok App.
And holy...
SHIT. It has a NSFW mode. (NSFW, but nothing obscene either) Jiggle Physics Confirmed.
EDIT: Watch this demo then TELL ME this thing isn't going to absolutely mindkill some lonely nerds. Not only can it fake interest in literally any topic you find cool, they nailed the voice tones too.
I'm actually now suspicious that the "Mecha-Hitler" events were a very intentional marketing gambit to ensure that Grok was all over news (and their competitors were not) when they dropped THIS on the unsuspecting public.
This... feels like it will be an inflection point. AI girlfriends (and boyfriends) have already one-shotted some of the more mentally vulnerable of the population. But now we've got one backed by some of the biggest companies in the world, marketed to a mainstream audience.
And designed like a fucking superstimulus.
I've talked about how I feel there are way too many superstimuli around for your average, immature teens and young adults to navigate safely. This... THIS is like introducing a full grown Bengal tiger into the Quokka island.
Forget finding a stack of playboys in the forest or under your dad's bed. Forget stumbling onto PornHub for the first time, if THIS is a teen boy's first encounter with their own sexuality and how it interacts with the female form, how the hell will he ever form a normal relationship with a flesh-and-blood woman? Why would he WANT to?
And what happens when this becomes yet another avenue for serving up ads and draining money from the poor addicted suckers.
This is NOT something parents can be expected to foresee and guide their kids through.
Like I said earlier:
"Who would win, a literal child whose brain hasn't even developed higher reasoning, with a smartphone and internet access, or a remorseless, massive corporation that has spent millions upon millions of dollars optimizing its products and services for extracting money from every single person it gets its clutches on?"
I've felt the looming, ever growing concern for AI's impact on society, jobs, human relationships, and the risk of killing us for a couple years now... but I can at least wrap those prickly thoughts in the soft gauze of the uncertain future. THIS thing sent an immediate shiver up my spine and set off blaring red alarms immediately. Even if THIS is where AI stops improving, we just created a massive filter, an evolutionary bottleneck that basically only the Amish are likely to pass through. Slight hyperbole, but only slight.
Right now the primary obstacle is that it costs $300 a month to run.
But once again, wait until they start serving ads through it as a means of letting the more destitute types get access.
And yes, Elon is already promising to make them real.
Its like we've transcended the movie HER and went straight to Weird Science.
Can't help but think of this classic tweet.
"At long last, we have created the Digital Superstimulus Relationship Simulator from the Classic Scifi Novel 'For the Love of All That is Holy Never Create a Digital Superstimulus Relationship Simulator.'"
I think I would be sucked in by this if I hadn't developed an actul aversion to Anime-Style women (especially the current gen with the massive eyes) over the years. And they're probably going to cook up something that works for me, too.
netstack
Texas is freedom land
7hr ago
Yes, actually.
I took APUSH only slightly more recently than you. Pre-Hamilton and too dry for that style of pop history. Very definitely pre-1619. Lots of time spent on westward expansion before and after the Civil War. Not particularly apologetic, either, if I recall correctly.
The one that really struck me as institutionally liberal was AP Gov. It was 75% Bill of Rights court cases with a clear admiration for the Marshall Court.
Macroeconomics was incredibly Keynesian in a matter-of-fact way. Here’s the money multiplier, here’s an equation for aggregate demand, don’t worry about it too much. What a strange class.
I would absolutely love to shoot a pattern 1917. I adore my No. 4 Lee-Enfield, which was my first historic gun. I’m working towards a collection of the major service rifles, but somehow let myself get sidetracked by a gorgeous Swiss K31. So it’ll be a while before I let myself fill out the set with a Mauser and an Arisaka.
I also have a real soft spot for the M1 carbine. But mine is a real pain and doesn’t like to feed properly. Haven’t figured out what to do with it yet.
Jealous of your steel range. Some day!
Primaprimaprima
...something all admit only "TRUMP", and the Trump Administration, can do.
7hr ago
· Edited 4hr ago
New in Compact Magazine: Neither Side Wants to Emancipate Women
Twice this year, I found myself at conferences where a familiar question surfaced: Why do women not vote conservative? The tone was not hostile, only puzzled. Conservative women asked it themselves, with a kind of weary civility. But none of the answers seemed to satisfy. Some cited the state’s failure to support both motherhood and career; others blamed the lingering shadow of a conservatism that once sought to tether women to secondary roles.
No one could explain why so many women still turn away from even the most progressive forms of the right. Why do they keep voting for a left that consistently throws them under the bus, prioritizing for instance ideologies that deny biological sex and insist on men’s feelings and desires? The answer is simple, although no one wants to see it: Conservatives offer women performative reverence. Progressives offer equally performative protection. But no one offers women the thing they were once promised: freedom.
What freedom? How are you not free?
Of course, we already know that there's something rhetorical about this question, at least in the sense that we can reasonably ask whether anyone is in fact free. It's not an easy thing to nail down, you know? Lenin was asked if the revolution would bring freedom; he responded, "freedom to do what?". You have to specify, it's not self-evident. It's easy to be envious of the apparent freedom of others while also failing to appreciate their own unique forms of unfreedom. The master is relatively more free than the slave, no one can deny this; rare is the master who would switch places. But is the master free, simpliciter? Now it's not so clear. Marxists would say that no one is free, not even the capitalists, not as long as the task of capitalism remains unfulfilled. Capitalism is freedom, to be sure, but it is an unfree freedom, a freedom that poses a riddle that remains unsolved. But, let's stick to the issue at hand.
In the United States, women have leaned left for decades, not out of fervent ideological commitment, but through the steady pull of education, work, and shifting social norms. In 2020, Edison exit polls showed that 57 percent of women voted for Joe Biden, compared to 45 percent of men. Across Europe, too, women often favor center-left parties offering tangible supports: childcare, healthcare, material security.
But the dilemma runs far deeper than electoral politics. It touches upon the very essence of what it means to be free. I remain loyal to the feminist promise, however battered or dimmed, of genuine emancipation for women. This vision is not content to merely manage or glorify womanhood, but to transcend its limitations altogether, to be more than a body assigned a function, to move beyond the scripts of sex and tradition, and to claim the dignity of self-authorship. I never wanted merely to be accepted as a woman; I wanted to be free.
[...]Women do not lean left because it offers a credible path to emancipation. They do so because the right never even tried, and because the left, despite everything, still carries a faint echo of that promise.
What are you "transcending", and how? How do you not already have the "dignity of self-authorship"? What are you talking about?
(I'm going to tell you what I think she's talking about, just hang tight.)
Well, let's start with the objective facts of the matter. Women can already "self-author" themselves into essentially anything. Vice President (admittedly not President of the United States yet, but there's no reason we couldn't get there in short order), professor or artist, blue collar laborer, criminal, and anything else above, below, or in between. There are plenty of female role models to follow in all these categories. To the extent that there still exist "systemic privileges", actual explicit institutional privileges, they're mostly in favor of women now: in university admissions, in hiring, in divorce and family courts, and so on. Women are doing pretty good for themselves! Maybe they weren't 150 years ago, maybe they aren't if we're talking about Saudi Arabia or Iran, but in the 2025 Western first world? What freedoms are they missing?
And yet the author of the linked article perceives that something is missing. She perceives that women, as a class, do not have freedom, do not have the dignity of self-authorship. What do these terms mean? She doesn't say. But nonetheless, we should take her concerns quite seriously. Plainly, there are millions of women who share in her feelings, and millions of men who think she's onto something, and this continues to be the animating impulse of a great deal of cultural and political activity that goes under the heading of "feminism". Millions of people don't make things up. They're always responding to something, although their own interpretation of what they're responding to and what their response means can be mistaken. Plus, the author alleges that whatever phenomenon she's getting at, it plays a role in electoral politics, so you should care about it in that sense as well.
We should again note the author's hesitation to concretely specify her demands. If the issue were "the freedom to have an abortion" or "the dignity of being taken seriously in STEM", then presumably, she would have simply said that. But she makes it clear that the issue is freedom as such, and dignity as such; it's a gnawing, pervasive concern that you can't quite put your finger on. It's an abstract concern. So, we may be inclined to try a more abstract mode of explanation to explain why she feels the way she does.
Human interaction is predicated upon the exchange of value. There'd be no reason to stick around with someone if you weren't getting something out of it, even if all you're getting is some company and a good time. (There is a philosophical problem regarding whether pure altruism is conceptually possible; if you help someone, and you receive in exchange nothing but the satisfaction of having helped someone, then haven't you received something of value, thereby rendering the altruistic act "impure"? What if you don't even feel good about it, could it be pure then? But then, how were you motivated to help in the first place if you didn't even feel good about it? Regardless of how we answer these questions, I believe we can put the idea of absolute pure altruism to the side, because if it exists at all, it surely encompasses a minority of human interactions.)
We want to provide things of value to other people. But value is both a blessing and a curse. You want to have it, but it also weighs you down, it gets you entangled in obligations that you can't quite extricate yourself from. When you have something of great value, it tends to become the only thing that people ever want from you. We can consider Elon Musk as a figure of intense material and symbolic value. He's one of the wealthiest men alive, he runs X, he runs SpaceX, he had a spectacularly public falling out with Trump, and these factors undoubtedly dominate in virtually all of his interpersonal interactions. It's probably a bit hard for him to just be a "normal guy" with "normal friends", innit? Imagine him saying to someone, "when we're hanging out, I don't want to be Elon Musk, I just want to be Elon, y'know? Don't think of me as Elon the business tycoon and political figure. Think of me as, Elon the model train builder, or Elon the DotA player. Yeah, think of me like that instead. That's the identity I want you to symbolically affirm for me". His relations might make an attempt to humor him, although I don't think they'd be particularly successful in their attempts. His extreme wealth alone will always warp his interactions in ways both conscious and unconscious.
It is my contention that (healthy, reasonably attractive) women experience a heavily attenuated version of this phenomenon essentially from birth, which helps explain the pervasive irritation that some women feel at the simple fact of, well, being women. The constant nagging feeling that something is still not quite right, no matter how much progress is made on formal and even cultural equality (or even cultural domination, as may be the case in certain contexts).
If you were born with a female body, then you were gifted ownership of one of the most valuable possessions on planet earth. This is, again, both a blessing and a curse. This confers to you certain privileges and opportunities, but on the flip side, there is no way to ever turn this value off (aside from ageing -- but, even then...), to take respite from this fountain of value. You're in for the whole bargain, all of it, all the time. The value of the female body is a matter of pure economics; it is not based on the internal subjective psychological states of any individual or class of individuals. A man can impregnate many women in a single week. A woman, once impregnated, is tied up for 9 months. Her time cannot be apportioned as freely. Scarcity is the precondition of value; this is the law of everything that is, was, and shall be.
As a natural consequence of the extreme value of her body, the body comes to dominate her relations with others, both materially and symbolically. She correctly perceives that when people (well, men, at least) think about men, the properties they notice in order of salience are "web developer, white, middle class, male, father...", something like that. But when people think about her, the ordering is "woman, web developer, white, middle class...". Her body is what people want, it's what they're seeking; or at least, this is always necessarily a lurking suspicion. This, I believe, is the root of the aforementioned "abstract" concern with "the dignity of self-authorship"; it's not just the ability to become say, a prominent mathematician or artist in material reality, but to have that reciprocally affirmed as your primary symbolic identity by others. That's when we feel like we have dignity: when we can control how other people see us. I don't doubt that there have been times when a woman was being congratulated by male colleagues on the attainment of her PhD, or her promotion to the C-suite, and still there was a nagging doubt in the back of her mind that went, "........but you still see me as a woman before anything else, don't you?" Or, perhaps on the verge of frustration when talking with a male friend, she wanted to say, "look, I know every time you look at me I have this glowing halo effect around me, like you're wearing fucking AR goggles and they're telling you I'm an NPC that will give you a quest item or some shit, but can you please just take the goggles off for one day and just look at me as, well, me for a change?" And, I'm sorry to say, but here comes the really depressing part of the story: the goggles can't be removed. That glowing halo effect is glued to your tooshie, and it's not going anywhere. "Sexists" are at least appreciated for their forthrightness on this point; the reviled "male feminist" is correctly perceived to be simply dishonest about it. I suppose that's a bit of a downer. But, we all got our own shit to deal with. Take solace in the fact that you're just like everyone else in that regard.
Elon could at least conceivably give up all his wealth, his titles, his positions of symbolic authority, and start from zero. Because the male body has little to no intrinsic value, it's easier for men to become a "blank slate". But when your body itself is the source of this overbearing value? That's a bit harder to rid yourself of.
This, at any rate, is a psychological theory to explain the origin of the discourse in the linked article, a discourse that would otherwise seem to fly in the face of all available evidence. But I'm open to alternative theories.
pusher_robot
PLEASE GO STAND BY THE STAIRS
7hr ago
Should I buy a Model 3? I own a 2012 Fusion with 128,000 miles that runs fine but is almost 15 years old. The $7500 EV credit is expiring in September, so assuming that I like the Model 3 and it meets my needs, should I buy one before then or try to milk this Fusion another few years? It seems like really good value for the money right now, but I'm uncertain how much of the tax credit removal will be eaten by Tesla and how much will go into a straight price increase
No_one
7hr ago
If you have a selective exam but don't get enough applicants because e.g. the wages are not that attractive anymore, or the institution has a bad smell, you're not going to get as good a selection.
e.g.
96-140k. 140K after six years isn't going to get you top talent these days.
Is England a better place where nobody cares about the Legend of King Arthur anymore?
Better? I don't know about that. But worse? Almost certainly not.
If the very idea of "King Arthur" somehow fell out of the collective consciousness, then as far as I can tell, nobody would really notice or care. Maybe we might see an improvement in GDP figures when fewer awful movies come out every few years and then bomb at the box office.
Now, the current state of England, or the UK as a whole, leaves much to be desired, but I can recall no point in history, even at its absolute prime, when success or governmental continuity was load-bearing on watery tarts handing out swords. And even back then, people treated it as a nice story, rather than historical fact or the basis for their identity. England was conquered by the Danes and the Saxons after all, well after the knights of the not-square table were done gallivanting about.
On a more general level, I fail to see your case, or at least I don't think there's a reason to choose false stories or myths over ideas that are true, or at least not accurately described as either.
The French made liberty, equality and fraternity their rallying cry to great effect. I do not think any 3 of those concepts are falsifiable, but they still accurately capture values and goals.
FtSoA
7hr ago
Every year, technically, agencies have to justify their budgets. Any given agency could be eliminated by Congress at nearly any time, if they so chose. The USAID demolition for example is a problem procedurally because Trump is trying to use the executive branch to effectively nullify what the legislative has done in creating and funding it. If you think a weak legislative branch and a lack of separation of powers is a big problem, this is not a positive development overall.
Sunset clauses always sound better in theory than they work in practice as an accountability mechanism. (Just ask the haters of FISA 702 about that.)
Nothing but mandated fiscal responsibility solves the overall problem of government spending growth. Regulatory growth is a harder nut to crack, since no budget is necessarily required. Perhaps law sunsets could help there because they would at least force a review, but that also generates a lot of work that itself could be a pretty big drag.
ThisIsSin
Cainanites and Abelists
8hr ago
basically everyone here was really a progressive?
And my extension to that is that everyone here is a traditionalist, and the only real difference between traditionalists and progressives (in terms of moral foundations and what otherwise motivates them to hold those views) to someone who is neither of those things is "about 50 years". Yes, progressives seem iconoclastic and style themselves on hatred of traditionalists, but in reality they converge on the same solutions via different ideological lenses.
(For example, traditionalists would have seduction punished because it devalues the father's property, progressives would have seduction punished because it devalues the mother [and her ability to attract men]- both see this as bad, both have the same motivations, it's just that one couches it through androsupremacy and the other through gynosupremacy).
The death of the word 'liberal' as a meaningful term had consequences.
FtSoA
8hr ago
In general, yes.
But consider that the State Department has continued to use a very selective hiring process, starting with an exam, this whole time and was corrupted by other forces.
This is not really true.
Wilson's Bureaucracy does a good job of showing empirical cases where agencies resisted growth and scope creep, but it was hoisted upon them.
Public choice theory is great overall, but Wilson pointed out where it got a little overdone in some respects.
Oh, and it's true because the bureaucracy grew a ton starting in the 30s, but in terms of government civilians it's been flat (and therefore proportionately lower) for some decades now. Of course, spending and regulation has gone up, overall including spending on contractors and NGOs.
There should always be the countermeasure of "can we afford this?"
Deficit spending outside defined emergency conditions ought to be unpermitted.
wayfarer
8hr ago
Note that it is about small subset of "aliens". It is supposed to be:
- aliens capable of Weird Stuff
- detected by USA military
- coverup done by US military for long time
- not detected by others or they joined coverup
- all released evidence is clearly faked, unconvincing or dubious
- and so on
If FTL is possible then I expect to aliens be undetectable or just trample over us.
Not fit in weird area required for stories by UFO enthusiasts to be true at all.
I entirely believe in existence of elephants. But if my aunt starts claiming that he has herd of twenty elephants in her house, then last thing I would expect to be there is herd of living elephants.
FtSoA
8hr ago
Oh I completely agree. The theory was something like: "The sniper was shooting around Trump, not at Trump, and Trump had a blood capsule to burst on his ear." People had to die to really sell it.
Nothing here makes sense in terms of risk/reward. And there's objective evidence to disprove it.
And yet.
I'm honestly surprised the shooter was just good enough to narrowly miss a headshot, but then couldn't even get a body shot for his follow ups. He got off at least three controlled shots before Trump ducked down.
(But we do have a number of people on this very forum that apply roughly the same level of credulity to Ghislaine Maxwell having a longstanding poweruser Reddit account, clearly authored by a Malaysian man, for actually not even a coherent motive. People want to believe.)
Yes, it would be much better.
England would be better if the English believed, to this day, that God chose them to build a global empire to spread Christian civilization and Protestant values to the world.
More options
Context Copy link