Capital_Room
rather dementor-like
Disabled Alaskan Monarchist doomer
User ID: 2666
Capital_Room
rather dementor-like
20hr ago
But even foreign demographics will collapse eventually.
Certain parts of Sub-Saharan Africa look like they're holding up for now, and if their demographics do eventually collapse, it probably won't be any time this century.
Capital_Room
rather dementor-like
20hr ago
For now, that outcome has been staved off with immigration.
And why can't that continue for many, many years to come? People use hyperbolic talk about recent immigration with terms like "flood," but we, particularly in America, have not seen anything like what an actual flood of immigrants would look like.
Capital_Room
rather dementor-like
20hr ago
10 years from now, are we seeing a new sub-class of horrifically incompetent 30 year olds? If so, how does that change policy outcomes.
Yes, and the likely effects on outcomes are:
- things get more dysfunctional
- left-wing "bioleninist" patronage expands, over and above the demographic trends, further cementing the left's total lock on power
- the remaining smart, functional people get squeezed harder to support this; and to prevent them from withdrawing or underperforming, the coercion applied will be greatly increased
- unrest will rise, legitimizing the increasing use (in a politically-biased manner) or improving technologies of surveillance and oppression
- the "Global American Empire" will increase its attempts to both expand the periphery, and further loot it, in hopes of directing as much of total global productivity as possible to keeping this system propped up, even as they "eat" more and more civilizational "seed corn" at home
- and humanity hurtles further toward the inevitable and irreversible collapse of industrial civilization.
Capital_Room
rather dementor-like
21hr ago
First, who or what is "JLF"? Second, everything I see on the ERE forums depends on being able to accumulate savings and/or investments. Third, you might be missing that I live in Alaska; everything is more expensive here (due to shipping costs), and so the cost of living is something like 17% higher than the national average.
Capital_Room
rather dementor-like
1d ago
Thanks, that does sound better. (And it may come in handy with my new therapist in the future.)
Capital_Room
rather dementor-like
1d ago
because I didn't get that in the original post.
Sure; I suppose it's just that I've posted here often enough about my situation — disabled, unemployable, living entirely off government handouts — that I took a certain familiarity with it for granted.
maybe you need to look at MMM or ERE to get help in how to navigate with poor income.
Not doable with Social Security's restrictions on savings: I'm not allowed to have total financial assets exceeding $2000.
What is your actual income level?
Not counting the rent subsidy or what Medicaid pays for my prescriptions, and just the money I (or rather, my representative payee) receive from the Federal and Alaskan governments? Approximately $1300/mo.
Capital_Room
rather dementor-like
3d ago
Is there such a thing as "distributed emotional blackmail," and if so, is there an established term for it?
I mean, instead of Alice saying to Bob, "You need to do X for me; because think of how it'll hurt my feelings if you don't; you owe it to me," or something like that, Alice instead says "You need to do X for Carol; because think of how it'll hurt her feelings if you don't; you owe it to her."
Capital_Room
rather dementor-like
3d ago
Since you are in for winters in a temperate/snowy place, why not suffer for 1 month (or 1 week minimum) in some sunny tropical place, just taking in the sun. No other goal, no need for tourism, no need to do something or achieve something. Complete free, unorganized, wandering. Pick a simple (cheap) B&B kind of place and go out all day - come back in night - sleep - repeat (go in to the markets, beach, anything).
I get that most people on the motte are upper-class enough not to really understand what "poor" means, but what part of "I'm dirt poor" is not getting through?
I can't afford any of this. After rent, utilities, and food, I have maybe $100 left for everything else. Soap and hygiene. Cleaning products. Foil/plastic wrap/etc. Toilet paper. Facial tissue. Laundry. Clothing. Transportation.
(And it looks like I'll be screwed by 2026, if not earlier, because when the rent subsidy goes? I'm homeless.)
Capital_Room
rather dementor-like
4d ago
Regarding the future years, float with the current. You are not going to reach anywhere in the end
There is no fun. I enjoy nothing. My existence is suffering, whether I struggle or I "float with the current." My suffering will only end with my death. The only reason to keep living and not kill myself is if there's some purpose to be achieved in doing so.
Capital_Room
rather dementor-like
4d ago
Okay, here’s the part you might not like. The only free version of this that I personally know of is church.
Yeah, people keep recommending that to me, despite my being a lifelong atheist who's never attended before. Though mostly from different reasons than what you seem to be pushing. Because I don't see the point of just sitting and neither listening to the sermons nor interacting with anyone.
You don’t want a megachurch
I don't think we have any big enough in Anchorage to fit that description
I would say you want to ID every church in a distance you think is achievable in winter time, then go check them all out.
I've kind of looked at them, and none seem like good fits.
Find one that has about 75-100 people in the pews
That sounds bigger than most of the churches around here, from what I've seen.
Bring an audiobook or something, put in an earbud
Isn't this both rude, and get in the way of the point of going, which is to meet and interact with new people? Because I don't see any point to just being around a bunch of people.
and just get used to being around a number of other people
You say that like I have a problem with "being around a number of other people."
If anyone says anything to you, just make the usual mouth noises
Having never attended a church, and being an unbeliever, I have no idea what those are.
Please don’t join a cult.
That rules out the closest church, because it's part of a Mexican cult. The "no whites allowed" Samoan church moved elsewhere. So that just leaves the black Baptist church that advertises local Democrat politicians, or the Lutheran church with the woman pastor whose LinkedIn page has the usual rainbow flags.
Capital_Room
rather dementor-like
6d ago
It's about what the State is trying to encourage/discourage. Think about the example I gave; see if you can come up with an idea for what it is that they're trying to do.
Speak fucking plainly. No, I'm not going to guess "what it is that they were trying to do" (note the past tense). You tell me exactly what you think the early 21st Century American government (with no-fault divorce, and civil rights and anti-discrimination law for LGB) was "trying to encourage/discourage"; why it's legitimate for them to encourage/discourage; how not legalizing gay marriage both works toward the end goal of that encouragement/discouragement, and is a constitutionally and legally valid means (because in American constitutional law, the US government is limited in the means it may use to secure even good and valid ends, with a number of judicial "tests" and levels of restriction depending on the importance of the ends and the nature of the means) of doing so.
Your continued mix of obtuseness, vaguery, and missing-the-point in this thread have been so frustrating, they've got me defending a position and argument I don't even believe myself here. There's a reason the sorts of arguments you're vaguely-gesturing-toward-but-not-actually-making lost the fight.
Capital_Room
rather dementor-like
6d ago
If I may ask, how is it that you are able to find these older posts you link to so readily? (Or, more specifically, that Reddit post? I've always found it a pain to search.)
Capital_Room
rather dementor-like
6d ago
This does not make their arguments somehow more "valid" in a political context than people of faith.
According to much 1st Amendment jurisprudence, and the popular understanding thereof, it absolutely does.
If that were the case, we'd have a weird situation where everyone would be in a rush to prove how atheist they are while also borrowing heavily from moral theology. It's actually kind of comical to think about - "Look at how excellent my purely rational reasoning is. DON'T LOOK AT THE GOD SHAPED HOLE"
As I see it, this perfectly describes the post-Puritan offshoot that is Wokism the Ideology That Will Not Let Itself Be Named, and how it rose to prominence. America, as a predominantly-Protestant country, developed a legal tradition of treating "religion" as being defined first and foremost by one's beliefs about God(s) and the supernatural, and in the doctrines derived therefrom; and so developed "antibodies" against religious "establishment" along these lines. Thus, the first dogmatic, crusading faith to ditch all that, make all their metaphysical priors as implicit and unspoken as possible, (yes, even with the glaring "God-shaped hole") was able to to get it's moral doctrines established without tripping the metaphorical immune response (like a virus mutating to shed a critical antigen), and become our unofficial official religion.
Capital_Room
rather dementor-like
6d ago
Marriage originated in a time when it was virtually impossible for medical science to tell ahead of time that someone was infertile.
Yes, but that just means that definition is obsolete — as science and medicine evolve, the law must evolve with them, no?
Capital_Room
rather dementor-like
6d ago
This "if" is precisely what my example points out is not true. The entire premise of the argument is simply false.
Well then, if the line between who should be allowed to marry isn't about who can produce children, then what is it about? What is the difference that justifies, in purely secular, non-religious terms, treating gay couples differently than straight ones?
Capital_Room
rather dementor-like
6d ago
reinforces the norm that you should marry someone of the opposite sex and encourages conformity to traditional morals
And the gay marriage proponents argue that the norm you posit is bad and discriminatory; that it is contrary to civil rights law, equality, and anti-discrimination; that it is nothing but anti-gay bigotry. They argue that the "traditional morals" you speak of outdated, and motivated purely by religious sentiment — which, again, makes it a violation of the 1st Amendment to enshrine into law. That, contra illiberal communist regimes, liberal Progressivism says we should erode these norms because what reason do you have that we should even want to "encourage conformity to traditional morals," if not some flavor of "because God says so"?
Capital_Room
rather dementor-like
6d ago
Do you live in a rural, suburban, or urban area?
Depends on how you draw the line between suburban or urban. Because I live in Anchorage, which is the largest city in Alaska, but which is also rather geographically spread out compared to towns in the Lower 48, and thus, by the density-based definition used by the federal government, this entire city — save the very core of downtown and a few blocks in our poorest neighborhood — are considered "suburban." Though, my area has also seen rising crime for the past couple of decades. Apparently, the local Walmart — where I get my prescriptions filled and do most of my grocery shopping — has the worst loss rates from shoplifting. Not the worst in the city, or the worst in the state, the worst period. It's probably going to close soon (I understand our state government is currently in talks with Walmart to try to prevent this), which will make my life harder.
So, probably best to go with "urban."
Do you have reasonable capability to transport yourself around your area? I.E., rural = vehicle, suburban = bike, urban = public transpo or your two feet?
I have a yearly bus pass (takes most of my PFD), and I walk when I can (but much of the winter that's not really doable), or take a cab when I must. Plus, now that summer's over and he's not out of town working on the retirement home, I can sometimes get rides from my Dad.
Do you hang out with people? If yes, small, medium, or large groups?
Does having dinner with my parents and one of my two brothers (who lives with them) a couple of times a month count? How about being invited to see a movie by a friend a couple times a year (when he needs a break from the house and five kids)?
Capital_Room
rather dementor-like
6d ago
Jesus, what is this, the sexual code for robots?
Seriously, though, I'd argue that it's just the inevitable conclusion of the "consent model of sexual ethics" (particularly in combination with the natural human instinct to protect women in particular), and of Western society's attitude on these issues for the last century or so. (People talk a lot about the "sexual revolution" of the 1960s, and forget the possibly bigger one in the 1920s.)
Personally, I hope Blue Tribe liberals keep embracing and promoting these norms as thoroughly and widely as they can.
Capital_Room
rather dementor-like
6d ago
Look north - Canada
I got that; I just thought @ThisIsSin must be referring to some specific public figure there. Now that you point it out, I suppose he's saying that you could get away with making these arguments in Canada, and at least get Alberta voting for you, if not anywhere else.
Capital_Room
rather dementor-like
6d ago
It's not just that he can afford takeout;
This year, I was working late
tells us he has a job, and
I told my wife
tells us he has a wife.
I've got several unfinished essays looking like they're about to turn into chapters of a book/manifesto laying out my views. With titles like "Society is Not a Van der Waals Gas" (on liberalism having faulty anthropology), "You are not Avalokiteśvara" (on concentric loyalties and telescopic philanthropy), and "Evolution is Not a Creation Myth" (on how most people who "believe in evolution" don't even understand it, treat it as something that doesn't apply to modern humans, have "Creationist-adjacent" views on central planning and "high modernism," and implicitly accept the Creationist position that telos inherently implies a conscious, telic "purpose-giver").
Capital_Room
rather dementor-like
7d ago
As mentioned below, there are actually laws saying that some people couldn't marry unless they could show that they were infertile. Your entire frame of reference simply does not make sense, and you need a pretty significant perspective change.
It's not my perspective — as you'd note if you'd read the part I'd linked — it's just the most common counter-argument the pro-gay-marriage side presents.
Your entire frame of reference simply does not make sense
What doesn't make sense about it? If you are saying the line between who can marry and who cannot, which puts gay couples on the "cannot" side, is drawn on the grounds of who can produce children and who cannot — that you're barring gay couples because they're non-reproducing rather than because they're gay — then the line has to be drawn between (straight) couples who can reproduce and couples, straight or gay, who cannot.
People made the "privacy" argument you made here, back when the debate was live. The first answer was that age is just as legible to the government "in terms of intrusiveness to privacy" as sex, and yet we let 70-year-old straight couples get married, despite being just as clearly not about producing children as in the case of gay couples.
(My reply to this is my linked argument about teleology, and "inherent" versus "accidental" characteristics in regard to such teleological orientations.)
The other is the argument (a much better one, IMO) that differences in the intrusiveness to enforce a rule between groups do not justify enforcing the rule unequally. Just because it's easier to enforce a ban against gay couples marrying than it is against infertile straight couples without massive state intrusion does not, under modern anti-discrimination law, make it acceptable or non-discriminatory to enforce it in a discriminatory matter, let alone set down such discriminatory enforcement in the law itself. If the rule is "too intrusive to enforce" against a particular group, then it can't be enforced, or a rule, at all.
Capital_Room
rather dementor-like
7d ago
This year, I was working late, and for various personal crisis reasons I didn't really want to do anything major, so I told my wife I wanted to get a little high and get a big takeout order of boneless wings and watch an old horror movie.
I can't begin to describe how bad this bit of humble-bragging on your part makes me feel.
Capital_Room
rather dementor-like
7d ago
I was going to reply with all my various objections and nitpicks about these suggestions (like mentioning how I go for regular walks, or my landlords' noise rules, or our anti-panhandling laws), but why bother?
I agree, though I might not draw the line in the same place you do. In particular, I see the key difference as somewhere between pre-modern state projects like, say, King Zhao of Qin ordering the construction of the Dūjiāngyàn irrigation and flood control project (around 256 BC, and still in use today!), and the sort of "High Modernist" technocratic projects discussed in James C. Scott's Seeing Like a State. Something like "ivory-tower Scientific Expertise" versus "ground-level metis."
More options
Context Copy link