domain:x.com
MaiqTheTrue
Renrijra Krin
5m ago
I’ll be honest with you that most normies just don’t really care about politics and thus don’t really care if their votes actually count. It’s not a question of getting people upset about losing their vote in whatever form it takes, people honestly don’t care about politics except as a means to amuse themselves on social media or feel important because they’re “informed.” Go to any school board or planning committee meeting — these are things that have a real and lasting impact on community life — and nobody shows up and you’d have a hard time to find anyone who knows one out of 5-6 members of that board. Politics for the rabble isn’t about making decisions and changing things, it’s about feeling powerful feeling like they’re the good ones for being informed, and yelling at opponents who are “obviously screwing everything up.” As long as those things remain intact and the country is more or less running smoothly, the normies will be too busy watching sports and yelling at people online to notice that the votes the cast don’t matter.
Throwaway05
7m ago
Exactly! Is that enabling sclerotic politics? Is that perfect for enabling minority representation?
Shit I don't know but it is complicated and not a new political ethics problem caused by modern political division.
aldomilyar
12m ago
Yeah my understanding is that even in a lot of gerrymandered situations the boots on the ground for the party that's losing out would frequently rather have one ultra-secure seat to enable a 30 year tenure in the House versus 2 55-45 seats in which they've got competition coming both internally and from the other side. Plus more vulnerable to random macro upheavals.
There's a reason a bunch of the longest house tenures are Southern Democrats who essentially sit in Rotten boroughs.
I don’t know about the chick described in OP, but in my Lived Experience women are smarter than you (the general you) think. That is, women’s IQs are higher than what their personalities would suggest—as holding IQ constant, on average women are more basic and boring than men.
Men have the burden of performance. Hence women being less (intentionally) funny than men, and women consistently, substantially underperforming men in knowledgability tests, despite only a modest IQ gap if you’re Hanania-pilled. I doubt, in a hypothetical where their life is on the line, an above-Lizardman’s-Constant proportion of people would pick a randomly selected woman over a randomly selected man to win a trivia game to save their life.
The basicness is amplified for young attractive women, who are generally kind of “retarded” and clueless about the world, even if you know that their grades and test scores are/were high. Talking to a given hot chick outside of her preferred topics such as herself, TV/movies, make-up/fashion, celebrity gossip, or interpersonal drama runs the risk of her finding you WEIRD or—ironically enough, BORING—just as you might talk to a little girl about her favorite dolls, movies/TV shows, school friends to keep her engaged. I suppose there is no reason to be interesting or knowledgable when you’ve been coddled all your life, and people will pay attention to and accomodate you no matter what.
So the IQ gap between oneself and retarded hot chick [X] might be surprisingly small. And thus marrying a retarded hot chick doesn’t necessarily mean dooming your kids to be mid IQ-wise, or possibly retarded themselves.
Your calculations using the input assumptions look correct, but I question the applicability of the inputs to most situations smart young men would find themselves in, given assortative mating and homophilic social sorting (“Different Worlds” and Young Earth Creationists come to mind). A 40-point IQ gap is pretty vast for just an acquaintanceship to be made and maintained, much less a potential relationship.
A typical 130-IQ young man likely doesn’t have that many <= 90-IQ people in his social circle. Even without social sorting/assortative mating, <=90 IQ people are only 25% of a population with a mean of 100 and an SD of 15. If one’s social circle has a still-pretty-modest average IQ of 115 and an SD of 15, this already drops to under 5%. He likely doesn’t have too many prospects from online dating, social media, or IRL cold approaches (each of which would still have some social sorting and assortative mating). Plus, in your hypothetical, the girl’s offspring IQ would likely regress to a higher mean than 100 given her parent and sibling IQs.
I'd pay a lot to have my kids come out with an additional 12 points. I would fistfight a dog smaller than a labrador for a mere five.
If that dog is a near-labrador-sized member of the Breed of Peace: after the nannying experience, you might not still be around to see a given kid come out.
Pasha
Defend Kebab
16m ago
Where does this idea of lowering criminal sentences because the criminal is stupid or trashy originate from? Is this common across many countries? Just an Anglo thing? Recent? Old?
This woman had drawn the genetic short straw; the rest of her family consisted of high-achieving intellectuals.
Then any potential offspring would probably be fine, intellectually speaking at least.
Your kids aren’t a strict combination of you and your spouse - it’s your respective whole families being blended
I would be more worried if she was smart while her whole family were mouth breathers
ToaKraka
Dislikes you
21m ago
The trial judge convicted Trump of fraud, and on that basis imposed on Trump two separate punishments—disgorgement of several hundred megadollars, and disqualification from serving as an officer or director of any New York business for several years. Disgorgement is, not really punitive, but compensatory, meant to undo any damages that were done. The appeals panel ruled that the prosecutor failed to prove the quantity of damages caused by Trump's fraud, so the disgorgement had no basis. But the punitive disqualification still stands.
I have no opinion on what effect this will have on the prosecutor's reputation.
Skibboleth
It's never 4D Chess
34m ago
I don't know that you can separate them.
MotteInTheEye
49m ago
I don't think the "secret sauce" was ever that immigrants were universally viewed as just as good as anyone else. German immigrants, Irish and Italian immigrants, Chinese and Japanese immigrants, and now Mexican immigrants have always been viewed with suspicion and some resentment by large segments of the American society they were immigrating to. They came anyway because the opportunity afforded by the runaway growth of the American economy was irresistible to those with incredible grit or just those with no other options. And as a class they worked hard to seize that opportunity and to prove that they could belong just as much as native-born citizens, despite the suspicion they faced.
If something has changed in the modern era, I would argue that it stems from the welfare state. If you make it to America, you are effectively guaranteed some share in its riches whether you then work hard or not. This has the two-fold effect of removing the implicit filter on immigrant quality, and of creating larger proportions of the resulting immigrant population who bear out the nativists' suspicions. Also add to that the effect of explicit multiculturalism which weakened the incentives for immigrants to assimilate quickly.
It all adds up to a world where the nativists are increasingly justified in their complaints. If the dynamic driving modern immigration does not change, two out comes are possible. The nativists will eventually be strengthened to the point that they will kill the golden goose, using the power of the state to throw the baby out with the bathwater by cutting off opportunity for immigrants across the board. Or the center will not hold and American society will dissolve into disconnected groups of takers squabbling over their share of a rapidly shrinking pie.
Skibboleth
It's never 4D Chess
50m ago
What part of "the most gerrymandered states in the union are all blue; there is no more gerrymandering blue can do here" don't you understand?
The part where it's not true. TX in particular is not gerrymander as aggressively as it could be (though it is still gerrymandered). The same is not true of, e.g., WI, NC, or OH.
Conversely, NY, CA, WA, etc... could be significantly more gerrymandered. The biggest limitation here is not "room" for gerrymandering, but legal constraints for doing so.
birb_cromble
55m ago
One of my favorite parts of living in the middle of nowhere is the prevalence of cryptids in the local folklore.
Obviously you have your rock star cryptids like the Mothman and the Hopkinsville goblins, but the more obscure ones are great too.
In Northern West Virginia and Southern PA, people have reported sightings of an enormous snapping turtle that ranges in size from "as big as a man" to "twenty feet long". Sometimes it has two heads to match its monstrous size.
Obviously, there isn't a turtle half the size of a city bus tooling around the Monongahela, but sometimes I wonder if an unusually large alligator snapping turtle wandered north of its usual range. I remember living in Tennessee and seeing a local farmer pull one out of his pond that was nearly as big as I was, and he told me that it wasn't the largest one he'd ever seen.
Farther south, there's the Grafton monster, which is described as a giant, bipedal creature with no head. The most likely explanation I've heard for it is that a local black bear got into somebody's whiskey still, which was then witnessed by the still's owner (who had also gotten into it).
Do you have any local cryptids that haven't worked their way up to the national stage? Do you think they have a plausible natural explanation?
Yes, that would be an example of the phenomenon that I am referring to. I am interested in the justification for this discrepancy in the mind of a progressive or even classical liberal. @ThisIsSin care to weigh in?
Texas being gerrymandered isn't exactly new. Trump et al. just want to make it more gerrymandered.
Prior to the mid 2000s there was gerrymandering in both Red and Blue states, but it was piecemeal and wasn't that impactful because it was largely aimed at protecting state-level incumbents (and, in the South, keeping the wrong people out of power), not generating national political advantage (also it was harder without computers). Still not great, but not a hugely pressing issue.
In the mid 2000s the GOP put together a national strategy for gerrymandering their way to success. They largely succeeded, which is also why they've repeatedly refused offers of mutual disarmament. (That and the tribal mindset of the many conservative struggles with the idea of independent redistricting - a process which isn't biased in their favor must necessarily be biased against them).
Two critical problems with gerrymandering reform: 1) virtually nobody prioritizes it highly enough to mobilize voters against it, and even if they did, gerrymandering makes it extraordinarily difficult for electoral reform to win 2) even when the electorate avails themselves of means to override state governments, it is not uncommon for the state government to simply ignore them.
Throwaway05
1hr ago
AuDHD
Made up shit likely because of poor understanding of the underlying substrate and map/territory issues.
Something like about 75% of patients with autism meet the criteria for at least one other mental illness and of the pot of mental illnesses something like about 75% meet the criteria for ADHD.
So it's not everyone but pretty close enough.
That said, I state "meet the criteria for" instead of "has the disease" which usually isn't very important but is instructive in this case since it is very possible that the underlying cause of the symptoms is not the "problem with the brain's hardware and software that causes the majority of ADHD symptoms in individuals with no other mental illness" and is instead a sequence of behavioral deficits better explained as caused by the same underlying issues as the autism which does a lot for explaining the prognosis* and high degree of comorbidity and at the same time just means that the person is going to get the same treatment as everyone else.
Psychiatric formulation is mostly a kludge used to jam something that resembles the medical model in place for purposes of billing and ease of communication.
Needless to say from my rant you aren't likely to catch much clinical conversation using AuDHD unless its more word bad less word good type situations.
However most of the wild type implementations of AuDHD are likely to pattern match to people identifying with their mental illness and trash tier social media engagement about health.
Sorry recently triggered by a soccer mom.
*I'd have to do a lit review to be sure but I'd hazard that spontaneous remission rates in pure ADHD patients are higher than in the ADHD with comorbid AUD population however this would be likely be hard to research.
Amadan
Enjoying my short-lived victory
1hr ago
It's one thing to make inferences. Some inferences are reasonable, in the absence of evidence. But "leaps of logic" land you into assumptions based on the presumption that your inferences are accurate.
I think your Mafia/Zionist comparison is rather specious, but is the theory that a Zionist AG did a special favor for an Israeli plausible? I'll say I could be persuaded. But given that everyone making the "leap of logic" to assume it is true just happens to be someone who hates Jews, I find it reasonable to be skeptical and demand more evidence than someone's feelings about Jews.
Amadan
Enjoying my short-lived victory
1hr ago
You're incorrect about the modding. SS gets modded frequently for breaking rules (numerous) and he's still actually given more slack than some people harping on one-note issues in an inflammatory way and constantly making generalizations about the people they hate are given.
As for Chattah, I will simply reiterate that the thread began with an assumption that the District AG for Nevada personally intervened to give special considerations to an Israeli charged with a crime, and that she did this because she is a Zionist. So far, no one has offered any evidence for either claim. Instead, you are simply making arguments that she's a Zionist. Being a Zionist, or Jewish, or Israeli-born (it's other people who slide between these characteristics depending on what is convenient for their argument at the time, not me) does not prove any of the following: (1) That she intervened at all. (2) That she intervened out of loyalties to Isreel. (3) That Alexandrich's treatment is unusual.
This is basic reasoning and shouldn't be as difficult to grasp as it seems to be, but a lot of people really get wrapped around the axle when it comes to Jews.
Primaprimaprima
I am trying so hard not to say the MBTI type of everyone I reply to
1hr ago
You can probably endlessly subject all of this to Freudian psychoanalysis, but I don't care for it.
Funny enough, dream analysis has always been the least interesting aspect of psychoanalysis to me. Probably because I rarely have them, and when I do, their "meaning" is always quite manifest and apparent -- there's a clear causal relationship between what I'm dreaming about and something I was thinking about recently, or something I experienced at some point.
Although, I am curious on a meta-level if this says anything about me...
HereAndGone
1hr ago
Enlighten my ignorance. I'm going by headlines I see online, so is it that the court decided the damages awarded against Trump were too high so they were struck down, but the charges can stand?
And what does this mean for the NY AG Letitia James? Is she okay on the grounds that the charges were legit to bring against him, or is this going to damage her?
WhiningCoil
Ghost of Quokka's Future
1hr ago
Ruminate? Hmmm, from time to time. Though as far as yesterday goes, not at all.
I mean, this is a sad story. You didn't want to marry her for reasons, this guy doesn't want to marry her for reasons. (I do think there's an element of pride there about not wanting to be perceived as the male version of a gold-digger, but whatever).
She's not sleeping around because she's riding the cock carousel, as the crude phrase has it. According to you, she only had a handful of boyfriends and slept with them in the context of 'this is a serious long-term relationship'.
She wants to get married, but can't. This is not the temptress of redpill lore, she has all the perceived advantages in the dating marketplace but can't find a guy who wants to marry her, and it's not because she's looking for unattainable perfection.
An arranged marriage would be the best chance for her: her parents find a decent guy who will be happy enough with a ditzy (but loyal) wife who looks good, has enough knowledge of wealthy social circles to fill the role of running the household and hosting and supporting his career, and he is capable enough to take over the family business and not run it into the ground.
I hope she finds someone soon, this is wasting her life and chances for what sounds like a nice (if dumb) girl. Remind me to say a prayer for her, the traditional one I know is "St Anne, St Anne, find me a man" but looking it up online the other matchmaker saints (for women) are St. Andrew, St. Anthony of Padua, and the Archangel Raphael. I guess St. Nicolas of Myra fits there too with the dowries he arranged.
Primaprimaprima
I am trying so hard not to say the MBTI type of everyone I reply to
1hr ago
Ah, I was asking more about the symbolic meaning of the narrative -- the coming technological dystopia, the alienation from our humanity, a sense of impending irrevocable loss, etc. How often do you consciously ruminate on those sorts of things?
WhiningCoil
Ghost of Quokka's Future
1hr ago
It definitely had aesthetic aspects of Black Mirror episodes, especially Fifteen Million Merits. But the central conceit of people allowing AI to use part or all of their brains as cloud compute I don't think I was ever exposed to, or consciously thought of until the dream.
Templexious
1hr ago
I read the other comments so I'm responding to the whole chain rather than just this one comment.
You have a really twitchy mod finger for SS, and anyone talking about the actions of the state of Israel and its proponents.
The wiki article notes this, on her article:
Reporting on the controversy noted Chattah's history of negative remarks regarding Palestinians, including calling them "animals", calling for "wiping Gaza off the map", and calling 2 million Gazans, "even the children", "terrorists"; she deleted her personal X account shortly thereafter.[22]
Including a couple of other notes of her calling people she is against out of pocket, denigrating, terms. I'd daresay there is enough information on her loyalties from those proclamations. It's fair to call anyone who is Israeli born, who wants to kill gazan children, Zionist.
I'm confused why you choose to go after him so frequently.
That if you're reasoning in a hostile epistemic environment, you have to make leaps of logic without evidence because evidence will be denied to you.
If, hypothetically speaking, a murder was carried out in a heavily Italian-American town and the burly, besuited man caught with the gun in his hand disappeared from police custody and reappeared in Sicily with a new house and a nice car, you might suspect Mafia involvement. You won't have evidence for that suspicion, because those involved in the case aren't total idiots, but you might suspect it anyway. And your friend might say, quite reasonably, "Look, some of the police are Italian-American, yes, but not every Italian-American is in the Mafia. Do you have any actual hard evidence to back up your story except a DVD of the Godfather?" And you might reasonably say back, "Look, these people are not idiots who drop their receipts and a fax of their telecoms all over the place."
In short, because competent operators don't leave evidence on the ground, your opinion on 'Was this Zionist Jew removed from custody through the nefarious actions of other Zionists/Jews' is going to basically be a referendum on:
- How much influence do you think that Zionists/Jews have in supposedly impartial structures?
- How likely do you think they are to leverage that influence for dodgy in-group-assisting purposes?
And depending on the conclusion you reach, will probably shift your priors/needle on those questions a small but appreciable amount.
He sold?
Annouce ze rate couts.
More options
Context Copy link