domain:betonit.substack.com
netstack
Texas is freedom land
38m ago
Cute narrative, but demonstrably false.
[Taylor’s lawyer] Varghese continued: “Remember, these are all political appointees, and I don’t see a judge granting him bail pending appeal. So we may try, we may try and pray, but it’s highly unlikely.”
I think you’ll have a very hard time finding right-wingers happy to bend over and take it. What’s more universal than blaming the people in charge?
you-get-an-upvote
Hyperbole is bad
6m ago
Since you now know this comment exists and haven't modded it... it seems like my comment was accurate?
I'm mentally unhealthy enough that I've tracked my reports and gone back to see if mods actually did anything, and I've concluded my reports just waste moderator time.
NullHypothesis
33m ago
Isn't monogamy a modern concept anyway? Only 40% of males passed on their genes compared to 80% of females, (whether due to hypergamy, rape, men dying in wars/battles etc.) therefore monogamy must not have been as prevalent in our ancestors. And some analysis of DNA suggests 8000 years ago 17 women reproduced for every 1 man.
One could point to the Scandinavian Vikings that went around raping women across Europe (or any other conquering European force), or harems in the courts of kings and lords, or the sexually promiscuous times of the Romans and Greeks. I'm pretty sure it was also common even in married couples for there to be extramarital affairs (look at how many prostitutes existed in the Victorian era). Monogamy bundled together with the concept of love is extremely modern, most marriages were understood to be financial and social, not strictly based on love.
However, I'd argue monogamy has been a significant factor attributing to the success of civilization and the progress of humanity. There's no shortage of evidence supporting the notion that children grow up better in two-parent households, and it creates more stable societies too. A married man will work harder to support his family, which means he will pay more taxes and less likely to commit crimes and engage in things like protests. You don't want a large population of unmarried men sitting around, and historically the problem this posed was likely solved by sending them off to war.
netstack
Texas is freedom land
46m ago
Please avoid this kind of snarling at the groups you don’t like.
Felagund
1m ago
So it could be an attractive short term play for a certain "Pay me now" segment of the population.
And a terrible long term one. This does not belong in the Overton window.
What I've been saying here all along that within this new landscape of worldwide fiat currencies MMT is the only way to play.
Let me try to understand your model. You are saying something like: the US prints money to buy foreign goods. (Or alternatively, buys loans which it expects to finance by printing money later.) The net effect of this is that we have more goods in the US.
Two thoughts on this:
High inflation is risky, because that could affect how desirable dollars are, which could be bad for trade.
Inflating currency doesn't increase purchasing power, if ownership of it is distributed the same way as before. So if I understood your model rightly, that you want to use it buy foreign goods and services, then the inflating part isn't relevant so much as the spend a lot of money on foreign goods part. But I don't think there's really any reason to spend more resources (Yes, resources. They'll use those dollars, or at least, many of them, if they're not sitting in a foreign exchange reserve or something. And if in a foreign exchange reserve, it's only in expectation of future value, that is, resources.) on foreign goods rather than on development of US resources and investment into our own economy. So why not just let the price system allocate things efficiently, as it will tend to, rather than attempt to force things with government spending funded by a tax on dollars?
What do you think of all the places that decided to hyperinflate their currency? Did it work out well for them?
You don't go back to a gold or crypto deflationary hoarding mentality where the economy is constrained by tokens of wealth.(This caused a few major problems in the past if you recall)
Namely?
You treat money like what it is, an idea to be experimented and played with for the betterment of your country, to get the most real resources for the least value in return.
Sure. That's just not what your policy does, I don't think.
NullHypothesis
15m ago
I believe this was laid out in Robert Cialdini's book 'Influence'.
I couldn't find my book so I just looked it up online and it's the 2nd principle of Influence, Commitment. Basically people want to their beliefs to be consistent with their values. This desire for consistency and commitment means if you can get someone to admit to a small thing, they will gradually be moved to admit and agree to bigger things in order to be consistent with their past actions. Here's a summary: https://www.shortform.com/blog/psychological-manipulation-of-korean-war-american-pows/
epohon
40m ago
I want to die in my sleep I wanta to die in my sleep I want to deie in my sleep
gattsuru
7m ago
Along with the the impeachment process -- in New York, technically just 'removal', requires recommendation from the governor followed by two-thirds of the State Senate, gfl -- trial-level criminal court judges are appointed by the Mayor of New York City for a lengthy period, mandatory retirement at age 70. Judge Abena Darkeh's current term is set to expire in 2030, so you could just hold the New York City mayoral office for six years time, along with taking over the recommendation system. Again, gfl.
((There's also a rule about residence, but I have no clue if/how it's enforced.))
epohon
34m ago
Hard time?! Can you name even one right-winger not bending over and taking a hard woke tool in his ass?! There is no escape!!!
aardvark2
45m ago
Black women are well known for large secondary sexual characterics like big ass and breasts
I pretty much doubt black women have larger breasts than European women at same height and weight. Black women do not have to be as obese as in USA
2D3D
56m ago
I really like this article that @Stefferi posted, and it highlights the appeal of the third space. This line in particular:
from the point of view of inequality, equality or the environment
Was raised by the author of the article as a specific reason to object to these sauna deals. I for one hold this type of decision by committee in absolute contempt, especially if it is debated in a public forum. Some grandstanding blowhard endlessly harping about his stupid pet issue about how a major decision must be held back because an impact study on how one particular species of mud beaver is maybe going to be endangered will gum up necessary actions. Every additional participant in a committee increases the risk of some single issue militant holding everything hostage. This is precisely why these backrooms remain attractive: stay beyond the attention of roadblocks and just get shit done.
netstack
Texas is freedom land
59m ago
epohon
24m ago
In a century the scientists will wonder why it suddenly jumped to 170 to 1 during the previous few decades, and will conclude that it was because of patriarchy and toxic masculinity.
epohon
26m ago
That being your best example only validates my conclusion that death is the only escape.
Capital_Room
rather dementor-like
34m ago
The only thing that matters is who can kill or indefinitely imprison whom without any consequences.
Yes, and we need only look around us, look at history and who's been winning, to see the clear answer to that question.
netstack
Texas is freedom land
36m ago
It doesn’t appear to be in the queue, at least.
Please don’t speak for us.
gattsuru
50m ago
To be fair, the Aloha Spirit stuff was downstream of using a state statute to evaluate the state constitution.
To be less fair, that's not how that works for anything else. And the state constitutional provision had the exact same text as the federal Second Amendment. Which the Hawaii Supreme Court decided just didn't apply, with or without any aloha spirit.
Capital_Room
rather dementor-like
44m ago
So, why are federal gun laws enforced in gun-friendly states?
I can think of several factors that contribute to this.
First, what does it mean for a state to be "gun-friendly"? I mean, most people on the pro-gun side support "reasonable" restrictions — where "reasonable" is often heavily influenced by status-quo bias (the conservative side of the leftward ratchet) — and the "2nd Amendment right to personal nukes" position is mostly just a few fringe (if vocal) libertarian types. And states are not politically homogenous; even your most "gun-friendly" state is going to have plenty of people — particularly in the cities — who support increasing gun restrictions.
In particular, the people in state government — particularly the lawyers and paper-pushing bureaucrats — you'd be counting on to push and coordinate this resistance to enforcement skew both urban and especially college-educated, which means they skew left and anti-gun. (Personnel is policy, and modern forms of government ensure urban leftist personnel.)
Second, way too many on the right are believers in "the rule of law." Like the sportsman who will not respond to a cheating opponent by cheating back because he has too much "respect for the game," they believe in the importance of procedure over outcome — following the rules and doing the right thing over getting better results. They are deontologists and virtue ethicists, not utilitarians. Fiat justitia ruat caelum. For what does it profit a man to gain the whole world and forfeit his soul? Better to suffer defeat, torture, and death while upholding your values than to attain a political victory by compromising them. (Because God will reward you for the former and damn you for the latter.)
Indeed, for any "the left is doing [x], why isn't the right doing [x] back?" question you can pose, you're sure to find someone on the right insisting that our steadfast, virtuous refusal to do [x] is the thing that separates us from the left, that to do [x] back would not just be sinking to the level of our enemies, it would be to become our enemy, and that anyone who would consider doing [x] is a leftist, no matter their other positions.
Third, quod licet Jovi, non licet bovi. The master's tools will never dismantle the master's house. What works for the left against the right will not necessarily work for the right against the left. Leftists can get away with doing things for left-wing causes that would see rightists punished severely if they tried to use them for right-wing ones. It's not hypocrisy, it's hierarchy.
epohon
44m ago
Why do you care about ink smudges on dead wood? The only thing that matters is who can kill or indefinitely imprison whom without any consequences. There is no tooth fairy, and there is no constitution.
TowardsPanna
56m ago
Scamming will be a huge growth industry. :P
Greg Abbott?
And that’s not what I said. Chill out.
More options
Context Copy link