domain:savenshine.com
Actually, many rural republicans I know do self identify as people who don't need to or just don't go to a doctor. But that's more a matter of stupidity in those cases.
At no point am I arguing that rural healthcare won't be harmed, I'm arguing that they don't think it will be.
I would love to read a regular "weird court cases" topic.
Replying here to both your comments.
Pakistan, Afghanistan and Bangladesh are inherently worse than India despite the only major difference being lack of Hinduism and castes.
This is a big claim when from my perspective the historical performance of pakistan and india have been pretty similar in terms of GDP per capita. The main reversal has come only recently, which seems like it would directly counter your complaints about indian society becoming more dysgenic. And saying that there's not a lot of differences between those countries-- and that those differences are shared with countries that perform both better and worse than india on an IQ and economic basis-- indicates that those differences are not decisive in increasing indian IQ.
India needed castes to create smarter outliers at the cost of dumber underclass which is a better deal than Bangladesh.
Elites are smarter than their underclass everywhere. You don't need castes to do it. Rather, the evidence is that creating caste-based elites makes your nation underperform relative to other nations with similar capacity for elite formation. Consider Mexico, which got mogged by brazil and the US in the 20th century at least in part due to political instability caused by the remanants of its caste system. Consider how recent european history is basically just relatively meritocratic states stunting on relatively aristocratic states. Picking smart people to form your elite just works better in every way that picking an elite and trying to make them smart.
This is simply untrue, these exams are the reason why French revolution happened
source? And what does that have to do with my argument about selecting for IQ? Even if you're right, it seems to fit pretty smoothly into my model of, "create intermarrying genetic castes -> castes put on bottom have a rational reason to revolt".
and also why you see Asians represented disproportionately in places as their society lives and dies by exam conferred status.
And this counters my argument how?
Did China or Korea produce anything resembling what Indo Europeans did until the 21st century?
Um, yes? From here:
For the Roman Empire ca. 165 CE we accept an estimate of a total population of 75 million and of an imperial income per capita of kg750 of wheat equivalent...$900
For the Han Empire ca. 2 CE we accept an estimate of a total population of 57.7 million and of an imperial income per capita of 1.88 times the subsistence minimum, or $750.
Also relevant,
1.72 subsistence minima ($690) recently estimated for the Aztec Empire ca. 149211. For the Byzantine Empire ca. 1000, an income level comparable to the Aztec has been proposed38.
It's not an exact match, but considering that rome then proceeded to collapse and never re-unite while china had long stretches of stability, it's fair to say that European and Chinese civilization were probably fairly comparable at various points in history.
The world has natural order which wants the blue blooded to be with the blue blooded, the son also rises as they say. Why are castes bad? Do you prefer a slightly higher median with a way fewer smart people. Castes are religious but I'll only defend the sociological factors here.
You foundational assumption-- that castes increase the total amount of very-smart people-- is wrong. India has the same normal distribution of IQs as everyone else. If you were right, India would have a right-skewed distribution. The caste system may or may not provide IQ benefits to the elite castes (I'd guess "not" looking at how the Indian elite underperform relative to the european and chinese elite), but it definitely fails to provide that benefit to society at large. At best, castes don't do anything except split India into a variety of fueding interest groups. At worst, they reduce global selection pressures for IQ without actually doing much to improve outcomes locally.
Johnson and Pascal do have some chemistry with one another, but as my girlfriend pointed out, it's the chemistry you expect between a girl and her gay best friend, or perhaps a girl and her cool uncle. It was hard for me to believe they were romantically interested in one another, even if it's implied that Pascal's character is significantly older than Johnson's (although probably not quite as much as their IRL age gap of ~15 years).
It's been a while since I saw it but that one I thought was deliberate.
The revelation about his character casts their entire relationship in a different light.
Pascal's character didn't approach her because of chemistry, but for validation.
I don't know if Chris Evans is a bad actor so much as out of practice. His post MCU run isn't exactly a Pattinson/Radcliffe-style rush to stretch himself.
This is the first real movie I've seen him in since like Knives Out (which he was fine in). The rest has been streaming slop like Ghosted and Gray Man that might as well be AI generated and he could probably do in his sleep.
BP "beyond petroleum" Their logo of a sun exploding or expanding, which would be the end of the earth, and also the end of petroleum extraction on the planet.
In the YIMBY / NIMBY realm that I'm active in, a housing project will only receive funding (tax breaks, grants, etc.) if it can prove that a certain number of its contractors are women-owned businesses.
This is a classic example of "spending money to incentivise a change in outcomes". It's not legally enforcing that a certain number of a housing project's contractors must be women-owned businesses, it's just providing additional funding to those who employ a certain proportion of women-owned businesses. In much the same way that initiatives like providing women with supports, extra networking opportunities (see page 44 here) or extra education + credentials indirectly results in the hiring of women into certain occupations by favouring one half of the population in such a way that they will be more noticeable by or desirable to employers, this policy structures things in a way which indirectly gets people to select women-owned businesses, thus changing outcomes via changing incentives. I don't agree with the idea that the examples provided in my post are materially different from the one you've provided as an example of DEI. You could possibly draw another (IMO even more arbitrary and fine-grained) distinction between the two which doesn't rely on the distinction between "mandating an outcome" vs just "incentivising it via funding", but that conflicts with the prior definition of DEI you've set out and suggests that you likely did not have a clear understanding of the supposed distinction in the first place.
I will also note that in one of the budget statements I referred to, "employers, training providers, schools and community organisations" were being provided grants to "facilitate career opportunities and pathways for women, particularly in non-traditional industries and occupations" (page 40 here). Employers being provided grants to create career opportunities for women is pretty on-the-nose, and I'm not sure how any of that particularly differs from the "women-owned businesses" example you provided.
In addition, I disagree with how you've generally approached defining terms throughout the span of this conversation - your definition of DEI is overly centred around extreme levels of hair-splitting about means in spite of any shared ends, and I think your "retroactivity" argument fails as a defence of it (nor is calling it a "broadbrush" particularly convincing to me). For my part I can't help but argue against the repeated insistence that one should adopt terminology which "acknowledges" three million fine-grained gradations of difference while depriving people of large-scale concepts; it’s almost as if you want people never to refer to broad concepts like "blue" because there are differences between powder blue and ultramarine - but that won’t change how people feel about movements and initiatives that are clearly closely and intimately related. The very idea of categorisation exists so people can collectively refer to meaningfully related phenomena, and you can have different levels of categorisation which are more high or low-level. As such, I steadfastly reject the accusation of broadbrushing, and maintain that the usage of the term "DEI" to encapsulate all of the described initiatives is more or less appropriate.
EDIT: added more
I am connected to two tribes of rural republicans, albeit not the poorer sorts. Having been around poor people who didn't like democrats, their likelihood of voting is rather low.
Also, for anyone considering Vic 3
The game has improved significantly with 1.9, but still has some glaring issues. I think by 1.11 it'll be an un-ironically good game.
I recommend buying vanilla on sale, as access to Steam workshop is MANDATORY (seriously, mods make this game so much better). It's incredibly easy to CreamAPI the DLC for free once you own the base game.
That's not all that big of a gap.
No, it isn't. If he hadn't bothered to get any Botox or cosmetic surgery, I think he would have been entirely believable as a 37-year-old: even if he looked a little older, it might have made sense given that his character works unsociable hours, shares a crummy apartment with two of his mates and has a bad diet. But Evans is obviously sufficiently vain and/or concerned about his career prospects that he felt medical interventions were necessary, so we're stuck with this flat, impassive uncanny valley appearance.
I wonder how much control a director (vs the studio) has over this kind of thing (that is, the casting of the main actors).
I would be surprised if any of the three leads were Song's first choices for their respective roles.
Legit, you see people on the forums suffering through issues that they could solve in 10 seconds with a debug_mode mod and "~"
Victoria 3 might actually be the worst for this too. I find myself constantly needing to tag over to other countries to fix whatever insane and dumb shit they (since 1.9, 90% of the time its France) get themselves into.
Also the WORST border gore, oh god the border gore.
This seems to be a bedrock of how you feel about this topic. How did you first form this opinion,
Taxes
and what keeps you feeling this way?
I don't really see much difference between Reagan's welfare queen and the Walton family, whose business is only viable because the government enables them to pay below-livable wages with their welfare programs. Both parties simply exploited a bureaucracy.
Yes.
I don't know what to say. I have a visceral disgust reaction towards people who can't even support themselves. Taking my money to give to them, no matter how round about it is, just adds insult to injury.
Sometimes I think of the wisdom of say, giving out free food on Thanksgiving versus all year round. If the food is a one day thing where you get to enjoy a nice meal with some dignity, awesome. If it's a stipend that lets you indulge in the dangerous delusion that you're actually taking care of yourself, or capable to producing dependents, well that's another thing entirely.
But then you started circling the idea of bullshit jobs too, and how much work is actually productive. One man's blue sky research is another man's wasteful spending. Sometimes you get Xerox PARC or Bell Lab's Idea Factory, and sometimes you get whatever the fuck this is, NSFW btw. I might have a bullshit job. I might not. Gun to my head I might just be a bit player on the outskirts of an industry that may or may not generate some ecosystem of products that makes the world marginally better to live in. If I'm lucky. What can I say?
Are you a poor or rural republican? Your logic makes sense, but I'm looking for insights specifically into their psychology.
has made such "poor form" necessary for intellectual hygiene
That's cope and you know it. Either address my point or concede it. I'm not doing a gish gallop; I made an argument around a single point and provided concrete evidence to support it. I'm not trying to troll you-- or at least, as per the rules of the motte, you should assume in good faith that I'm not, and you should report me if you find evidence otherwise. It's fair to say that on the internet you need to be wary about expending way more effort than an opponent who just wants to provoke a response, but it should be obvious that that's not the situation you're currently in. You put in some effort to make an argument. I put in some effort to counter it, and a little on top of that to find a source. You can surely afford to put in a little little more, knowing that if I fail to respond after that point I have effectively conceded the argument.
If someone sincerely believed in the benefits of smoking and took the effort to post a source in support, the least I could do is post a single study countering.
Awesome read.
I didn’t own a car for ten years in South Florida and bicycled 2 hours a day usually.
I always dreamed of doing something like what you wrote. But also reading what you wrote I realize that I don’t think it’s up my alley. It sounds amazing - but I just want a relaxed trip on a road with a pub at the end of a few hours.
What was your most relaxed bicycling trip been ?
Yeah, this whole thread, I'm thinking, "someone mention that the costs are too high", and you got the closest. If you showed this thread to Trump, he'd probably argue that he's working on pressuring the drug companies to bring prices down. How likely that is to work is another matter entirely.
I suspect that, if prices don't come down, this will mean budget cuts for my workplace, and that will almost certainly result in some unpleasantness with supplies and their quality.
This is a really well thought out comment, thank you for writing it.
I think I agree with most of it. I still think the "mechanism of action" for a cat-call vs skimpy shorts (or whatever) is far enough apart that they don't compare well, but I'll concede they're on the same spectrum of human behaviour/motivations.
I'm gonna read this again later when I'm not in motion, thanks again.
I was referring to Alligator Alcatraz, and how much of the most public support is brazenly transparent about how the current push against immigration is about race and genetics - and not just illegal immigration, but immigration of all types.
stop creating a dependent population with excessive charity
This seems to be a bedrock of how you feel about this topic. How did you first form this opinion, and what keeps you feeling this way?
I personally don't think that many people create much value for society. Big David Graeber fan over here. Furthermore, I think a lot of people who think they create value for society are in the best case simply leeches on the public welfare, and in the worst case actively harming society. I see eye-to-eye with many of the posts on Hacker News lamenting that an entire generation of our greatest engineers were gobbled up by big tech in order to serve hypertargeted advertisements - with a sprinkling of all the negative externalities that the attention economy creates.
It's funny, actually, as I think some of the work that (illegal) immigrants do create the most directly positive value for society, like harvesting fruits and vegetables and building and improving housing stock.
I don't really see much difference between Reagan's welfare queen and the Walton family, whose business is only viable because the government enables them to pay below-livable wages with their welfare programs. Both parties simply exploited a bureaucracy.
The year is 2100. The US, China, even Brazil- all, faced with declining populations, they drain their hinterlands- not exactly demographically healthy themselves in lots of cases- for workers to maintain their economies. Vast swaths of Latin America are empty; the world's largest hippo population is now in lake Maracaibo, Venezuela, having expanded from their range in Columbia since the human population left the place empty, having walked to the US or Mexico or Brazil for better economic opportunity cleaning bedpans and pouring concrete and sewing jeans. Venezuela itself has not a single soul under fifty; they export all of them to be hired by Exxon and Pemex and then expat in their home country extracting oil. In China, Tajik and Kazakh workers earn a good wage in the factories, they fly back to their home countries on the holidays to build better hovels they'll retire in. The taliban still holds on in Afghanistan, having deported their entire Hazara population to Iran, desperate for young shiites to prop up the country.
India can no longer fill its sweatshops; Pakistan has attained conventional military superiority due to having more young people and retaken Kashmir. US backing is sufficient to keep Pakistan from expanding further south. In the middle east, Israel regularly conquers territory from its neighbors with declining population, and partners with Ethiopia to occupy Yemen and keep Egypt occupied. Further south in Africa, the megastates launch grinding trench warfare over resources they can trade for Russian or American or Canadian or Argentine grain. A small handful of western mercenaries can turn the tide for million man armies; the Afrikaner breakaway state in South Africa secured international recognition by acting as backer in several cases.
brutal benefits cliffs
Very true, and in some states it's a cliff on both sides of the coin. In some states that didn't adopt the medicaid expansion portion of obamacare you can't get government insurance in a situation where you don't have a job yet if you had anything other than the very lowest paying job possible you wouldnt qualify anyway.
I understand the reasoning behind not wanting to subsidize jobless bum's insurance, but it isnt hard to imagine a case of a non bum falling into this crack and having to go into medical debt over a broken arm or whatever.
That's a valid enough point. I checked for the governor, but didn't think to look at the legislature.
Regardless, there's no reason to think there's a connection to Trump and the OBBBA based on that article. This was decided at the state levels months before the bill passed, or was even finalized.
One problem with family law cases is that the guiding standard is often "the best interests of the child." It's about as vague as one can get, and unless a state legislature has clearly laid out what counts as best interests and how to weigh factors against each other, it leads to judges speculating and pontificating on what those best interests are. Knowing the biological father, not knowing the biological father when knowing would upset the stable conditions of a lifelong relationship, avoiding the appearance of illegitimacy, taking the kid away from this dysfunctional trio and giving him to a high-income, photogenic couple who has already successfully fostered 3 kids, and a dozen other things could all be in the best interests of the child, but somehow judges are supposed to sensibly pick among them.
This will probably be the Chinese when they eventually realize how easy it is to increase TFR
Uhh... Fertility is a coordination problem. Coordination problems are hard.
I don’t understand this common argument. Without welfare, wouldn’t the employees be more desperate, enabling walmart to pay them far less?
And to look at the problem from the other side: let's say Bernie decides that the state guarantees a minimum standard of living to everyone, regardless or work status, and raise that to equal or higher than whatever walmart pays : as a consequence, no one works at walmart anymore and the state pays everyone a walmart salary. It's a gigantic loss for the state. What I mean is, it's actually walmart who helps the state give money to people so they have an acceptable living standard (which is the responsibility of the state, according to leftists), not the other way around.
More options
Context Copy link