domain:betonit.substack.com
Framing citizenship as a "reward" is completely nonsensical. Citizenship is the codified form of the chains of responsibility and liberty that bind individuals and their communities together. Whether someone is born to illegal parents has no bearing on whether they dutifully maintain those chains. You're correct that dirt isn't magic, but you're completely ignoring the fact that blood isn't either-- citizens by Jus Sanguis don't have an intrinsically stronger claim. Rather, it's mundane, ordinary, sweat that ultimately cements the body politic together, and the children of illegal immigrants donate plenty of theirs. Understanding that, America grants them their citizenship without regard for the the sins of their fathers. And that would be the right, and just, and honorable way to do things even if illegal immigrants and their children weren't an economic net positive.
(I could accept the argument that America shouldn't extend citizenship to people who don't work or pay taxes in america. But only if you apply it globally and say that at the minimum America should ban dual citizenship for everyone, and at maximum all expats should be given nansen passports.)
That study doesn't even control for basic shit like differences in average education levels between those who get vs don't get vaccines. When you do that I expect all the effect to go away.
I'm not sure I understand what would it mean exactly for qualia to be physical. Isn't it like...obviously something fundamentally distinct?
Mainstream secular stance of "conscious states trace material configurations" feels more like soft-dualism where the mind part plays the junior role, but it's still there
Which non-communist countries would these be?
France.
Because I think the single unifying trait you are ignoring here is communism.
Definitionally atheist communism, yes. I observed nothing about China's fall, I said the worst of them all was the nation that never had Christianity to discard. This is a fact. Weimar, and especially Rome, you can't just say "Wrong." Not here.
Sure, but I could name a bunch of other ruinous traits also easily found in most countries in decline. This argument is specifically about whether it's control of women (or lack thereof) that is a unifying thread. You mentioned automation. I could mention that and a host of other economic, technological, and tribal concerns that probably figure much more prominently in any potential societal collapse than the "mistake" of letting women have sexual agency.
What do I make of every one of your responses being a mix of snide quips and "Nuh-uh"? I would make that you have personal and significant emotional investment in my assessment being wrong.
Same, mostly. I would be happy to be wrong. I don't care about these things. I want my mental model of the world to align with with the world. I have no personal investment in the actual "why" of the fall of Rome or Weimar Germany or even the decline of America. I'm American, so it affects me and I am personally invested in it stopping, but I don't attach moral significance to any particular interpretation of the decline. If it turned out the problem was in fact women's liberation not going far enough, then that's the truth. It's what I'd want it to be, mostly, I would have an ethical problem with any attempt to empirically justify abortions, but if "sexual agency" is not just a euphemism for the freedom to make terrible decisions and can actually be quantified as beneficial, then once again, that's the truth, and I'll heed it. I dislike being incorrect, if my paradigm is wrong and my interpretation for why we're in decline is wrong, then I will change them, but you gotta show me why.
I'll go a little more on this in the next paragraph but I want to take a moment to be clear. I'd resent any implication of misogyny, and you haven't done that one bit, but for anyone else reading. I truly love women and I don't mean this as the cad. I'm a guy and there are big expectations on me but none of them will ever be as important as giving birth. The woman has immediate existential value, but in that, she is predefined. She has an easier time of it because, as with almost all of them, the only mark she'll leave on the world is her children. This is true for men but not true in the same way. It's not our bodies getting pregnant, it's not our certainty of pain and risk of injury and death. It's not that the reason we exist might be exactly what kills us. The angst and the implicit body horror must be profound, especially in this paradox of it being bound with the most wonderful and beautiful thing; the maybe singular yet perfect example of something a person can't understand in theory but only if they face it. The ideal would be that sex could just be for fun, that permanent bonding was voluntary, that pregnancies were always safe and could only occur when they were wanted. The ideal would be liberation--what we've done isn't that. What we've done is pretty God-damned far from liberation.
Rome. I may be overemphasizing in saying it was the singular cause, but I am not wrong that it was a major contributing factor. Between the work of Walter Scheidel, Mary Beard, and Kyle Harper the declining birthrate can be concluded as a ranking culprit. Scheidel has the numbers of how high the mortality rates were and how women had to have a lot of children just to keep the population static. Beard, and what I said above I return to here, talks about what it meant to be a woman in Rome, what it meant to become pregnant. Every time she was risking death, and the risk was high. 1 in 50 births overall, for an individual woman, about a 1 in 10 chance she dies during childbirth. Is there any wonder she would want things different?
Harper talks about birth rates, his work is seminal, all future study should incorporate it, as he considers disease and weather. What happens when a population with underdeveloped immune systems gets hit with plague? They die. What happened in Roman history? Plague at three key junctures, or perhaps plague that made three key junctures. Except we know stable societies not only tolerate plagues, they bounce back and flourish. Assuming it doesn't wipe them out as it did in South America, but it didn't in Rome. Unoccupied land there for the taking, the demand for laborers rising and their pay and treatment improving, the political structures weakened and allowing reforms. Renaissance followed the Black Death. Rome wasn't ended by plagues because they were that bad, Rome was already weak and plagues finished them off. What made them weak? Not enough people. Even the authors who know how many mothers died in childbirth fail to observe "Well they had the choice not to, of course they took it; thus went Rome."
I condemn Weimar Germany for their last depravities. I assign no moral condemnation to Rome. Caprice is a charged word so I can't claim I've spoken on this with clinical detachment, but I've tried, and maybe failed anyway, to use language that indicates my slant. I hate the conditions that cause these choices, not the individuals who make them.
A Roman woman who had just one child and didn't want to risk death by having a second, who could find blame in her? Of the civilizations that allow women to make that choice, yes maybe they fall, but isn't that a worthy reason? Said another way, if I'm right about how societies that don't control women -- that don't force women to have babies over and over until they have enough or die -- will inevitably collapse, those societies would be completely right to refuse that control, and noble if they did so knowing what it would cost. Today, today, what do we do about the pandemic today of bastard and layabout men? Who could say today it's worth forcing women to stay with and give a half-dozen kids to men who treat them right at first only to become monsters 5 or 10 years into marriage? It's important to say this is not the rule, it's important to say this is presented as commonplace in no small reason because fearmongering is politically useful, when most men, most people, are good, or good enough. But America alone has more than 350 million people, and a percent of a percent is an unacceptable number. What do we do? The woman can divorce him, then what? Take her kids and carry on with their life-sized baggage? Does she risk that, or does she live the only way she knows, the way society today encourages, periodically coupling, while hoping to find the love of her life, eventually. Of course she'd choose the second! When those are the choices? Shit sucks, it's that simple, it just sucks.
I want this to be the better way, not being cavalier about sex, but at least not rushing to marriage, having several relationships so you can learn, or nowadays, so men and women have enough time to learn the qualities of their partners and what's best for each before they commit to each other for life so they can make more humans. I want it to be, because for the most part, this is the better way. But I can't disregard the facts in front of me just because they would mean the world is a darker place. Whatever kind of world we live in, that is the world, it doesn't change by how we feel about it, it changes when we know the truth, because it's only from the truth that we can do something about it.
Did Congress declare war on Iran when I wasn't looking?
Yes. Leone literally decided to make the film while discussing Yojimbo with a colleague immediately after seeing it. Kurosawa's inspiration is less clear, but he was known to be a fan of noir and Hammett in particular, with Red Harvest being one of Hammett's best and most famous works. It seems unlikely that he missed it.
I'm not familiar enough with the US anymore to know if what you say about reds (not) wielding injunctions is accurate, but one could imagine the theoretical possibility playing a role even if reds never did it, if, for example, we posit that blues had a more accurate picture of what the different jurisdictions could do and therefore avoided taking executive steps they know would be stopped by injunction.
Have there been any notable cases of national injunctions being used to successfully gain value? All the ones I've heard of have been wielded by blues. If this tool hasn't been used by reds, why would removing it put reds in a worse position?
A lot of things seem to work this way lately; if a thing is only of value to one tribe, the other tribe has little incentive to preserve it.
Trump v. CASA, Inc.
So after this decision, what is actually the intended recourse for classes of individuals if the federal government subjects them to putative unconstitutional action (possibly even gish-gallopping different actions to achieve the same unconstitutional outcome)? I can see how the previous arrangement created an asymmetry in favour of case-and-jurisdiction shoppers, but the new one seems like it might equally create an asymmetry in favour of executive obsessions.
I understand that you are happy to see what you saw as an important weapon in your enemy's toolkit denied, but well, the enemy is best presumed to be crafty. If you were a progressive operative, could you imagine a way this decision could be turned against conservatives once you control the executive again?
Did you ever play Breath of Fire Dragon Quarter? That had a really cool meta progression system tied to it, but the gameplay didn't really get fun until you got dragon powers - like 15 hours in. I wish more games did stuff like that though, Dead Rising lost so much charm when it dropped the time limit (although I still enjoyed the fourth game in a mindless way.)
Watership Down is a fantastic book. It does such a fantastic job of anthropomorphising the characters while still keeping them grounded in the reality of life as a rabbit. The British animated film is a pretty good adaptation too, although the death rabbit scared the everliving shit out of me as a kid. Plus it gave us Art Garfunkel's only excellent solo work - Bright Eyes.
I think it can be fixed. If your parents were legal at the time of your birth, you should be a citizen. If your mom crossed the border while in labor specifically so you’d be born in America, you should not be.
The idea is to find some sympathetic plaintiff who would be affected by a statute or executive action you don't like, shop around the whole country until you find a judge who agrees with you, and then get that judge--before the case has even been tried--to indefinitely prevent the government from applying the challenged law/regulation/action to anyone, anywhere in the country. This opinion represents a potentially huge obstacle to progressive activist's attempts to stymie Trump's immigration agenda.
I think this is the right decision, BUT need some safeguards. First one is the government should be mandated to appeal or accept the outcome as nationwide precedent. A situation in which there is lawsuit in the middle of nowhere and government loses, but doesn't appeal and do what it feels in the other circuits is probably not an optimal one. Right now by not appealing the government can decide what kind of cases come to the supreme court. There must be a way for cases to percolate to SCOTUS that the government itself doesn't want to be heard.
The only crime I usually see from women is getting their husbands killed with their boyfriends which has been happening a whole lot more now.
Women usually outsource their murders through a man like this. The unjust thing is that the man as the physical actor always gets a larger prison sentence.
Using your child as a shield and making them do bad things.
Men do this too, but there seems to be a theme where women use agents to act in their stead.
This period was not because of the amnesty but because of the win of the cold war.
Unfortunately, the other end of the spectrum is a permanent generation-on-generation underclass of non-citizens like Turkish and Arab immigrant communities in Germany.
I see no problem here. They can always return to turkey or whatever.
Is 200 k$ the limit on the amount that Keith's insurance would cover?
No, it's the limit on the amount that Carlos's insurance would cover.
If not then Keith is entirely in the right here, and the bankruptcy judge should not have required the limit of 200 k$ in the first place.
To clarify: This situation arose solely because Keith was impatient. He asked the two judges to impose the 200-k$ limit because he wanted to get his money ASAP, without waiting for the bankruptcy proceedings to finish.
Thailand is a good place, you see a lot of female uber drivers, food delivery drivers, something that I had never seen in India as that place is safe. Girls I met from the west who were tourists like me were surprised that they could walk the streets at any hour without worrying about any safety.
In general I suspect women are better at following 'the rules' which has downstream impacts on criminality
They are very agreeable which is also why they get exploited int the workplace more, ignore the diverstiy hires in large tech firms, life away from the ivory towers is pretty harsh if you are a woman. My mother works a lot more than my dad who techncially has to do jack all as he is a senior professor (no tenture in this nation but he is unfireable). My mother begrudginly agrees with a lot of requests whilst my dad made a name for himself for taking the uni to court and winning many times over, to the point where people respect him. Gender differences are quite apparent in workplaces not clouded by obvious globohomo ideas.
On the crime part, even in female prisons, trans women commit more rapes than males would in a male prison. The only crime I usually see from women is getting their husbands killed with their boyfriends which has been happening a whole lot more now.
I've seen quite a few porch pirates use their children to steal
Pathetic, disgusting. Using your child as a shield and making them do bad things. I have heard that some places like SF dont have felony charges unless you dont strike a threshold amount, meaning that you can legally send kids to steal a lot of stuff regularly and not face any consequences legally either.
Reading updates - fable edition. Do post if you are reading anything this weekend.
I begun reading watership down and its been nice so far. Anytime I read something, it seemds to be mostly old or older than our current times. Besides non fiction like the very enjoyable Masters of Doom, I keep coming back to the question of art and why modern art is not as good. Paul Graham's essay Hackers and Painters give a paraller of painting and hacking wherein paintings peaked at a point and its been worse since, modern times being the age of hacking. What causes such peaks and declines? Is it due to the innate biology of the people, the social environemtns, combination of both or just the story of life.
Rabbits are small cute little creatures that live very short lives. We may look down upon fables, I certaintly did and I am somehwat pleased to say that I have a better understadning now due to this book suggestion. There are two great fables in the Hindu tradition, Pancatantra and Hitopadesa. I read the first as a child and loved it, though I did not remember any stories, you could sense that it affected or at least encapsuated a lot of the vlaues of the time. During a recent discussion I was made aware of how it conceals very harsh truths that would get you isolated from broader society due to them being true.
Which brings me to Richard Adams watership down which is an epic that involves rabbits in a believable world. I bought on the suggestion of my mentor and was surprised to see that the publication logo featured a smaller version the tux like penguin of penguin publications since this book is sold by their childrends division puffin. As an adult, you can appreciate the story quite a bit, the undertones and themse in many similar texts go beyond what kids can understand whilst imaprting them with some appreciation for these values. I watched Lord of the Rings as an adult, by the end of the movie, I could feel the things Tolkien held dear and saw as virtous. Good texts need to be passed down,, even if you cannot grasp them fully, you embody a lot of the underlynig tones.
Despite their being infinitely more entertainment avalible to us, we mostly seem to consume the worst sorts. I hope more kids grow up reading these stories. By time I get done reading something really good, I always gain a better feel for the world, anytime I spend time online, even though it seems helpful to keep up with tech news, I come back feeling worse. The subtext for good texts has an element of heroic valor whilst modern internet subtext is that of envy, lethargy, learned helplessness. Texts for the longest time were not a revenue stream the way modern books are. This is not some novel piece of information, I wanted to write out some things I felt to be true.
Gift your kids books, these fables do a lot of good modern media cannot. The world needs more heroes.
Women are more hostile to COVID vaccination, perhaps reflecting a female urge to make politics revolve around their bodies.
I don't understand the supposed logic here. Wanting politics to revolve around one's body is orthogonal to one's opinion about COVID vaccination. If you want politics to revolve around your body, that could equally easily make you a fervent COVID vaccination supporter or a fervent COVID vaccination skeptic.
Hmm. I was going to disagree, but some back of envelope bayes-rule calculations actually do seem to agree I understated the case so I guess I stand corrected on that front.
You can't use DNA evidence from a place to prove you weren't there, which is what he's trying to do.
Great observation, human beings also innately have some desires that cannot be verbalised properly by most except for a handful of blessed minds. Epics everywhere despite not being epxlicitly related have shown similar themes time and time again. Goethe referenced Kalidasa who himself referenced ancient texts here that themelsves had a lot of references from the origin of the Indo europeans. Some part of modern day steppe effectively influenced a seminal author who himself influenced the world and these things came from different parts but did have some shared ancestry.
I often ask myself if the reason behind the world not having good art now is due to the fact that like everything in life, things begin, peak and then plateau before thier end or because society truly is so bad socially and biologically that these things cannot be done again. Technology is a good example of this wherein the fastest pace of progress we saw was a cetntuy ago which allows silicon valley to LARP as tech innovators whilst making b2b saas trinkets that do not do very much.
On the same note as what OP mentioned, Moldbug famously avoids reading anything written by other NRx (neoreactionaries) to avoid copying thier ideas but they all reference the same people modlbug references anyway.
This is a very good point given that we have IP laws now yet things are staler than before. One more thing that maybe has an impact on this is that authors today need to sell a lot of copies to make money and get status, something that was not true for a long time thanks to patronage and fixed classes/castes.
I've seen quite a few porch pirates use their children to steal, so none of this surprises me any more. Lots of ragebait videos out there about this sort of thing if you go looking.
You're right though. In general I suspect women are better at following 'the rules' (agreeableness) which has downstream impacts on criminality. I remember once hearing about a SE Asian nation (Thailand?) only hiring women as traffic police because they wouldn't extort bribes like the men would.
Anyone who gives birth on our soil, after no matter how short a period and with no matter how temporary a status, gives birth to a US citizen. Surely, justice demands there must be some quantity of sweat expended over some period of time before we recognize a deep tie of kinship and mutual responsibility?
More options
Context Copy link