domain:nunosempere.com
NewCharlesInCharge
23hr ago
I would like to see some kind of personal liability for legislators that are clearly flouting previous rulings. You shouldn't be able to use the state to deprive citizens of their rights with complete immunity.
ThisIsSin
Personal corporatehood
23hr ago
Or more generally:
The ultimate arbitrator of what constitutes success in [subject] should be [a structure men have significant biological specialization into manipulating], not a [a structure women have significant biological specialization into manipulating]
I don't think there's anything more complex than that going on here. I think the lack of biological specialization in objective usefulness is a serious problem to people who were sold "if you waste your life on this degree, you'll be just as objectively useful as men are", and so need to compensate [in a way indistinguishable from them truly believing it].
And the way you compensate in a zero-sum environment... is to impose taxes. And if you want to levy taxes, you need a good excuse, and what better excuse to use than something currently intractable like "disparate impact"?
HighResolutionSleep
23hr ago
Really? No posts on Wellness Wednesday? Any wellers in chat?
dasfoo
23hr ago
Is it a wise choice for a woman to opt into an identity with a mandatory retirement policy that's at most decade out? What's she supposed to envision doing for the rest of the time?
A person's value can change over time from one asset to another.
I know you want to read a lot into this, but it's reall very simple, and universal for both men and women:
If you want to be valued (beyond the default "all human life has value" value, which is a wash across the board), you need to provide value.
A young man, for example, is generally valuable for his strong back and plentiful energy; an old man is generally valuable for his learned wisdom, accrued wealth and maybe even skill at the management of young men. If an old man is stupid, poor and cannot lead the young, he is shirking his own value. It doesn't matter if other people want to imbue him with value or not, he provides nothing.
Women, likewise, can be valuable for a lot of things when they're younger, and less valuable for those things later, but valuable for other properties that align with their age and experience.
I am not proscribing that women only do certain things -- certainly there is variability with every person, and I'm libertarian in terms of what part the law should play in this -- but rather suggesting that women who complain that they aren't valued are probably not providing value out of their own choice. Just like men who don't feel valued by women. This type of value is not innate but something one must identify correctly and work towards providing. Old-fashioned gender roles were better at teaching young people how they can be of value to others than today's gender roles are.
ThisIsSin
Personal corporatehood
23hr ago
In Canada, our Charter of Rights explicitly lists "freedom of expression"
S. 1 of the CCRF is the explicit "everything after this section is functionally meaningless" part. It's difficult to miss, being at the top and all. And if that wasn't enough, there's S. 33 (which normally gets used for provincial vs. federal slapfights).
and it was worried that including it would imply rights not listed did not exist.
Well, given how they treat the rights that are listed...
NewCharlesInCharge
23hr ago
And had the bill passed they'd be telling immigrants to claim they were waterboarded, since it is a form of torture that leave no physical evidence on the victim, for which they'd qualify to remain in country.
sliders1234
22hr ago
Fairly sure you are technically wrong on “illegals immigrants”. Being intellectually honest when these debates were going on the asylum seekers are “legal”. They are allowed to claim asylum without proof but that status makes them legally allowed to be in the U.S.
But I too just call them illegals immigrants for dramatic effect. But the Biden administration has in fact found a way to make them “legal”. It’s embarrassing that illegal is technically wrong.
ThisIsSin
Personal corporatehood
22hr ago
Old-fashioned gender roles were better at teaching young people how they can be of value to others than today's gender roles are.
The gender roles were also very good at determining/controlling pitfalls, too; a society that is only capable of condemning stupidity/violence in men [who provide value by doing], or anger/entitlement in women [who provide value by being], is inherently divided against itself simply because that is the most common failure mode of each gender. It gets worse when those faults are portrayed as positive.
If you want to be valued (beyond the default "all human life has value" value, which is a wash across the board), you need to provide value.
Maybe, but along came mechanization and post-scarcity, and the West hasn't quite figured out how to deal with that yet; now, men need to act like women to succeed (sit down, shut up, regurgitate is how they'll waste their physical and mental peak times of their lives), and women need to act like men to succeed (you have to waste your physical peak proving you're fit to receive the welfare that is most public service jobs and by the time you've done that you're already starting to wilt- divorce doesn't pay well, after all).
And when "how well you can pass as the other gender" is the order of the day, it's not a surprise that men-acting-as-women aren't attractive to women, and women-acting-as-men aren't attractive to men. And while that's great for man-women and woman-men, maybe most people are better off steering clear.
(And really, it's threading the needle: making sure the bi-gender people aren't held back, but at the same time pointing out that cargo-culting their inherent success is a bad idea. If humanity was capable of understanding that nuance we'd probably be better off, but I don't think the average human is and it doesn't remain stable between generations either.)
FirmWeird
Randomly Generated Reddit Username
22hr ago
How about a government funded Red Team who's raison d'etre is taking out insecure household devices?
I think this is a great idea, though I'm sure China and Russia are doing it already.
I first came across it when it was mentioned on /r/CredibleDefense in the days after October 7. I couldn't believe Israel would be so shortsighted to make such a deal because of the obvious incentives it would give to potential hostage takers with such an exchange ratio (1000+ prisoners for 1 hostage).
According to one poll a the time, 79% of Israelis supported the deal with 14% opposed so it seemed to have broad public support. Some released prisoners unsurprisingly went on to commit more attacks against Israel.
The deal was bad for Israel. Incredibly bad. It probably influenced hostage taking on October 7.
Some other tidbits:
- A high end PR firm ran a propaganda campaign to sway public opinion to clinch the deal
- Similar bad ratio prisoner/hostage exchanges had been made by Israel before (eg Jibril Agreement)
- Some interesting further reading in this Quora Q&A
Edit: It seems the Israeli consensus may have been driven by a high value placed on their children due to historical persecution and cultural values. I still think it was incredibly shortsighted because they saved one life to incentivise the loss of many many more in the future.
pusher_robot
PLEASE GO STAND BY THE STAIRS
20hr ago
Despite those restrictions, under the current numbers Biden would be required to use the authority.
Or else what?
fishtwanger
20hr ago
Together they fight crime?
ulyssessword
20hr ago
Would you call "...openly carry military weapons..." a broad interpretation of that part? From my point of view, that's about as narrow as you can get before you start chipping away at the text. A broad interpretation would exempt American citizens from nonproliferation treaties.
FirmWeird
Randomly Generated Reddit Username
20hr ago
Let's go with a simple one - the shale fracking revolution in the oil/gas industry.
This isn't exactly a revolution. The tech behind shale fracking was known for quite some time, it just wasn't put to use because the costs associated with it meant that it was uneconomical. It wasn't a major shift or technological advance that unlocked shale, but an increase in the cost of energy and a lot of financial chicanery that made it competitive with traditional fuel sources. There's a very plausible case to be made that the technology is ultimately a loser, and that the environmental damage it causes in the long run will be more expensive than the economic value derived from the crap fuels you get out of it.
George_E_Hale
insufferable blowhard
20hr ago
Was wondering the same when I checked this morning, and actually checked the news to see if some grand event was taking up people's time in the wide world. Nothing beyond the usual wars and lawsuits.
Felagund
20hr ago
The US will never default, we are in a better place than all other countries, hence the strong dollar.
Okay, the US won't default, but at some point it'll need to start printing money, at least, to avoid it.
That is:
The US wants to pay for stuff.
To raise funds to do so, it sells bonds.
Demand for bonds is not limitless.
US spending keeps growing.
Eventually it will hit the limit of those willing to buy US debt.
At that point, it must either print money to pay for things, or fail to pay for things (that is, default).
Unless you think all other players are totally irrational investing in it?
It wouldn't surprise me. But really, all you need to buy a bond is just to think that things will be fine within the lifetime of the bond, which is entirely possible even if you think it's going to collapse in a few decades.
If we are defaulting, the rest of the world has already fallen apart and it doesn't matter. Like people who buy gold for the apocalypse...when what you really need is beans and bullets.
I see no reason to think the former is true. And the latter depends heavily on what kind of apocalypse you're in.
xpym
19hr ago
Well, the point is that Russia hasn't had any other context basically throughout the entire thousand years it existed, so this isn't held against Putin by anybody other than an irrelevant fringe. This doesn't mean that any tsar is automatically popular, he has to maintain decent standards of living and the kayfabe of Russia as a great power. Especially if the reality is that Russia is in fact a gas station with nukes which is fucked in the long tern regardless of what any likely tsar might do, so going out with a bang instead of a whimper is actually preferable to many nationalists who can see through the kayfabe.
epohon
19hr ago
Govt. number: DO NOT REDEEM THE CARD SIR. You think that idea would be to a net benefit of the normies?
epohon
19hr ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SCUM_Manifesto etc. etc. etc.
Stefferi
Chief Suomiposter
18hr ago
Okay, can you list the "etc.", "etc.", and "etc."? Because whenever I've seen this claim the reference point is always the SCUM Manifesto, and that sort of a thing kind of makes one think there are, in fact, no other reference points.
Harlequin5942
18hr ago
Such a discussion would be hard. MMT advocates tend to see themselves as primarily stating a profound critique of standard theories of public finance that is true as a simple matter of institutional facts + accounting, whereas I see them as warming up a few ideas that almost all Keynesians abandoned long ago. So the very terms of the debate would likely be messed up. This has been my experience debating MMTists in the past, e.g. they say, "Do you admit X?", I show that X has been standard econ for 100+ years, and they say "Oh, so you admit X!", I say "Of course", and then they say, "Well, this politician says otherwise, and he did PPE at Oxford, so economists must teach otherwise!"
Great post. The simple truth is that unless…
- Trump wins
- The GOP get a trifecta with a very comfortable senate majority
- They abolish the filibuster
- Trump is suddenly hugely more competent at wrangling Congress
…there will be no better deal than this one. That is to say that even if Trump wins, the chance of a better border control bill is minimal at best. If this hill had passed under Trump, he would have signed it. Of course it wouldn’t, because there’s no way Democrats would vote for it in that case.
There is no way this isn’t a mega black pill. But the ultimate black pill is that it’s really all about Trump. There is no ‘national conservative’ movement. There is no ‘Trumpist’ party with a coherent, European-style nationalist policy platform. There’s a Trump personality cult with very little genuine infrastructure behind it, sitting on top of the carcass of the post-Tea Party GOP, which itself is a hollowed-out shell of what it once was even ten years ago. The fact that Trump was personally able to kill this bill is testament to the extent to which service to his personal whims and (perceived) self-interest are now the sole metric by which congressional Republicans are and wish to be judged.
There is no plan, and if there is, Trump doesn’t even seem committed to following it. Sure, I’ll still vote for him, that’s the reality of a two-party system. But no Trump voter should be under any illusions that his second term won’t be him attempting some (likely unsuccessful) crusade against those he believes have wronged him (personally) while behind the scenes very little changes.
“Buh buh buh this doesn’t deport 10/12/15 million illegals”. Yeah, and neither will anything that Donald Trump can, let alone will, accomplish in office. Moreover, if by some stroke of luck this bill had passed and Trump won and decided to become competent, it would afford him MORE power to reduce inflows and impose ZERO meaningful restrictions on additional actions by the president or congress to increase deportations.
Moreover, 50,000 additional immigration visas a year is nothing compared to the current numbers of legal and illegal immigrants, so focusing on this was especially retarded.
Few things make me seethe more than what happened with this bill. As many on the right acknowledge, immigration is the only thing that matters. It is the central issue upon which every other issue ultimately depends. Even a minor shift in the right direction, even something that delays demographic destiny by a few more years buys the right more time. Every single measure that reduces total inflows must pass. Unless, apparently, it might make it a little harder for Donald Trump to win the presidency and accomplish nothing, again.
Huh, I don't know where I'd heard it but it looks like I'm 100% wrong. Thanks for the correction.
More options
Context Copy link