MaiqTheTrue
Renrijra Krin
No bio...
User ID: 1783
I think the “better fencers” theory makes the most sense. Swordsmanship was the job of a class of people, and you’d to some degree just pick things up from being around swordsmen training. The other thing is that you wouldn’t necessarily want to create a book for your school that gives everything away, as rivals can use that to train countermeasures against your school of fencing.
Black block was wild back in the day as well.
Except that there have been moves away from the petrodollar as global currency. Saudi Arabia nearly dropped the Petrodollar, and the Russian sphere from what I gather has already switched to the Ruble. China wants to make the Renbei the reserve currency. If (and I think it’s a when ) the world stops using petrodollars, not only will the debt and trade deficit matter a lot, but given the number of dollars in circulation globally, we’re talking about Zimbabwean levels of inflation.
It’s one of many reasons that I’ve long since stopped paying any attention to that stuff. The LARP is funny in a sort of Disney movie way — overacted sanctimonious and generally silly to people with a working understanding of OPSEC and grey man. I watched what the Hong Kongers were doing to protest the Chinese government’s takeover. They were serious, came prepared for teargas, took precautions to not out themselves or their comrades, hid their faces to avoid being identified, paid for things in cash.
Even those in government are pretty stupid as far as actually getting things done. Nobody who really wants to obstruct an authoritarian regime is going to hold a press conference announcing it. If Trump does declare martial law in some form, doing that doesn’t prevent him from sending in ICE in the least, it just signs your death warrant or maybe if you’re lucky you just get fired. Either way, it’s ineffective, but near term good for campaign contributions.
I’d hardly call it martyrdom the way most dissidents on the left are doing it. They just have no sense of seriousness. It’s like a game. They are not organized or even trying to organize. They have very little sense of strategy (one woman legitimately thinks that getting into the face of an ICE agent with a gun on her hip and filming while aggressively asking questions is going to end well. Obviously it won’t as the gun alone is reason to act in self defense, which at best means they’re going to aggressively arrest you, but they could just shoot and probably get away with it.) they fear martial law but also are giving money via credit cards and direct payments— both of which give the full name and are easily obtained via the database of the company or their bank. They also can’t keep their mouths shut on Facebook. I’m talking people using their full name Facebook accounts, tagging fellow protesters in their posts, taking pictures at the event and posting them from the event with their personal cellphone.
I just can’t take these people seriously. They’re almost going out of their way to be easy for any real authoritarian government to round up, by being obvious about their identity.
In defense of some of this, I think they’re meant less as a stand alone list and more of a “add these books to supplement the standard Woke books list that almost everyone gets through high school” list. And the job of the list is to simply correct for just how far left, multicultural and woke the usual readings are. And that is done by curating a book list that specifically includes things left off of those more woke lists. They’re corrective lenses to fix the gaps of literary history, and as such they don’t need the more progressive, liberal, or multicultural voices included because the stuff most kids read or are otherwise exposed to.
For an exhaustive list, sure, I think I’d balance things out more. I want kids exposed to as many views as possible. It builds character to have to understand ideas and perspectives you don’t agree with. But if 99% of the standard curriculum is Woke leaning and multicultural, you don’t correct it with a perfectly balanced curriculum that includes more woke multicultural stuff, you correct it by introducing conservative books.
I think the “rot” goes back much farther than people think. The biggest difference between modern society and much more ancient ones is that we have lost the idea of purpose, or to be more precise a purpose other than selfish hedonism. Why are we here, and what is our society actually supposed to accomplish and how every person fits into that great plan for society. Most traditional societies have that, usually connected to religion. You fit into the world created by God or the gods to do something either great or small to bring about whatever the will of the universe. Sometimes it’s secular, bringing about freedom for everyone, civilizing a frontier, colonizing a place (even mars). But it’s something all of society is striving for. We have “money and bitches” more or less. That’s the grand narrative— you exist as an atomized human in a society and your job is to get what you can for yourself and to have fun in any way you choose. Anyone getting in the way of your hedonistic desires or your wealth is bad.
This is no way to build anything. A society of atomized humans is not a society, just like a herd of cats — it’s not a cohesive unit coordinating to do things, it’s a bunch of cats who happen to be in the same place at the same time. And they cannot possibly trust any other cat to not steal their Fancy Feast, or not scratch them, or to let them use the scratching post. A herd of atomized humans is the same. You don’t form a community, you just exist around each other. And as such you don’t expect that anyone will not try to take advantage of you, or let you have things you need, or just simply leave you alone if need be.
I think that the decline of blue collar work has caused or at least exacerbated many of our social problems. The reason that jobs you can get right out of college suck for a lot of people (tech is at the moment, an exception) is the absolute glut of college graduates. But why? Why did 80% of Americans decide that they needed to spend $60,000 to get a degree? What other options are there? So off we go to college and unless you are super talented, you don’t get much for it except the loan you’re paying off. Why is there so much homelessness? The good paying jobs aren’t there. Blacks in Detroit can’t get jobs at ford anymore, so they deal drugs and form gangs. Basically our economy only works if you’re one of the elite who can manage to get a STEM degree, do all of the unpaid internships and build a good GitHub. The rest will probably struggle to reach such milestones as “paying for rent and groceries on one paycheck without 6 roommates”.
Whether tariffs will fix it, I don’t know. But the economy is hollowed out and importing more workers when those at home can’t afford food and rent, so why not try it?
In bang for buck, I think you could do much the same thing with less cost and less lost opportunities (another cost of college is that you’re keeping your 18-24 year old young adults out of the workforce, which not only means they aren’t earning money for the company, but it effectively means that they don’t start households until later on and thus aren’t buying things and are behind on saving for a house and for eventually having kids), by having the high school diplomas do the same thing. If you’re not reading and doin* maths on grade level, you shouldn’t graduate high school and the reason that college became the “well at least he can read” degree is that high school diplomas stopped being that.
They’re a net negative at present because most companies are tooled for a free-trade environment. They generally outsource the labor needed to produce goods by building factories overseas or importing goods or inputs. Depending on what happens, 5 years from now it might not be a problem at all.
I mean he’s not exactly wrong which is why I’m much less enamored with the idea that final authority should rest with the people and that the legitimacy or rulership should rest on the people.
It creates a lot of really strange results simply because it rests on a flimsy idea. The basic idea is that somehow the sum of several million people who don’t understand a system voting on how to run the system somehow results in a well run system. Or the sum of ignorance is knowledge. This doesn’t work. 300 people who know jack all about city planning simply cannot accidentally figure out how to time traffic lights. 300 million people who can’t even find Ukraine on a map cannot possibly be making a good decision on whether to conduct a war there, how to conduct it, or when to end it. No other place on earth do we do this. Parents generally do not get their four year olds approval on dinner because they’d choose ice cream. Children are not trusted with the family budget. Soldiers are not asked to approve of war strategy. Workers are not given the right to vote on the direction the company will take in the next year. And on it goes — when we need a system that just works, we put competent people in charge and let them run the thing. Except government where anyone over 18 can choose the general direction of almost every function of government by choosing leaders to do as they promised when asking for their votes.
And as Hanania rightly points out, modern democratic governments are highly tuned to avoiding the realities they exist in. Whether or not a policy is a good idea doesn’t matter. What matters is that the public supports it. Giveaway programs of various types are always popular — leading to a famous warning from Alexis de Tocqueville that democracy would only last until people discover that they can vote themselves largess from the public coffers. And so we have. Welfare, student loans guaranteed by the government, a big push for universal healthcare (provided by the government) etc. it doesn’t matter if these things work — it can easily be shown that government guarantees of student loans has ruined not only education (dumbing down college to the point where anyone who graduated high school can go, and lowering standards until literally anyone can pass), but job markets (as lots of jobs that require no higher order skills now require 4-year degrees as a minimum). This is just one reality avoided — we don’t have infinite money, and even if we did, handing out money tends to distort markets and create more problems than it solves. You can add in things like social liberalism where every form of deviant behavior is tolerated if not celebrated. Don’t kink shame adult babies, porn actresses, furries, or drag queens, and don’t keep them away from kids, even if their fetish is only plausibly not pedophilia. And again, a lot of this turns out to be bad for society. But it gets votes, so who cares.
But beyond that, it’s the perfect engine for avoiding responsibility. Who is responsible for the decisions in a democracy? The people. They voted for the guy who did the thing. He was only doing what the people wanted. So 300 million of us are responsible for the results of the tariffs. Or the negotiations with Russia. Or the bombing of the Houthis. Or whatever happens with Iran. Or anything else that happens. It’s even better for elected representatives when it goes through a parliament or congress. They can do nothing, collect a paycheck and come back for reelection and blame everything on those other guys for messing it all up. If you send us back we’ll fix it. And if it doesn’t work or doesn’t pass, blame the other guys and run again. At no point is anyone In government accountable for the results of the votes he casts or tge decisions he made. The people voted for it!
I’m not impressed with the defense. Every single person cited as evidence that she shouldn’t be deported has at least some interest in her staying, either for professional reasons or personal reasons. It’s like saying that “my mother says im a nice person” — you’d have to be extraordinarily naive to take as gospel the words of such people, especially when other neutral parties are silent. If the Jewish Student Union were standing up for her, that would be evidence. Her friends? Her coworkers? Her defense lawyer? It’s not impressive.
It doesn’t make you uninformed, it does quite often make you misinformed. Yes, if you read NYT, you’ll know there’s a recession, you’ll know the unemployment rates, stock prices, and so on. But it will be misleadingly contextualized to appear that the recession is All Trump’s fault. And they’ll use their think piece section to push the idea that “is this the end of the Trump Era?”, “Will the Trump-cession cost Republicans control of Congress?” But when Biden was in charge, the NYT would cover the inflation and people not affording groceries as if it just happens like that sometimes. It’s the typical thing where they’re looking to the business cycle, Covid, the Republican Party holding up stimulus checks, bird flu, and everything else even if it’s nonsense. Conversely, economic booms are always caused by the Democrats’ economic policy — even when that democrat hasn’t been in power for years and most of the policies have been curtailed or reversed. The Trump boom, boys and girls, was really the Obama boom, at least according to the NYT.
To me, a big thing that gaming companies got wrong is that they essentially started chasing graphics over gameplay. This wasn’t obvious at the time, because graphics are a very obvious selling point when graphics capacity is growing fast. But it seems a dead end especially once you get to high levels of graphics that are photo realistic. Except this takes the place of doing other things: gameplay itself, storytelling, characters. There were a lot of games in the late 2000s that were beautiful to look at and so boring to play that it just wasn’t fun. This is something that Nintendo has always got right — they focused first and foremost on whether or not the player was having fun.
Not very impressed. I mean ever person listed has at least some vested interest in her staying in country. It’s not even neutral people say in the newspaper office saying that she wasn’t that political except to write this one thing, or someone at the protest talking about her being polite to Jews or something. It’s all her lawyer, her friends, and her colleagues— people who benefit if she stays.
The good times are always temporary. Having an entire society essentially doing nothing but poetry simply means that no production happens and you import laborers and goods because you don’t want to produce things. And eventually your wealth dissipates shipped off to other countries or paid out to guest workers who send the money home.
I’m assuming that they went to college assuming they were that good of students that such a path was open to them. For the vast majority, that was never true, and if we had a university that could only extract loan payments for those who successfully graduated and got good jobs afterwards, the university would not have admitted them. There are students in university paying 100K over 4 years and who need remedial math, reading, and writing courses. We’re letting them basically LARP for the government backed loans; they have absolutely no business going to university, and a sane education system would have told them no probably long before they got onto the college bound track in the first place.
If the students in question are not capable of college level work, then they need to get over it and look for other options more in line with their actual intellectual capacity. I’ve always been firmly convinced that schools should track kids (with periodic reassessment) so that we don’t create the glut of overeducated “failsons” that are too good to work with their hands, yet too unaccomplished to get jobs doing mental work. If you aren’t suited to the work you’ve been trained to do, it’s the education system exploiting you by dangling dreams in front of you.
I don’t think it’s that weird. Kids just naturally absorb what they’re told about the world, and have an extreme need to please the tribe (I believe this is evolutionary as a child to young to hunt and defend himself is absolutely dependent on the good will of his tribe) a condition that usually persists until at least late high school and for many people until they move away from home.
And so when a child is affirmed for a statement of “wanting to be the opposite gender” (whatever form this might take) at an age before they can possibly understand what it means (some kids start in kindergarten) and are immediately praised and celebrated and given new names and new clothes and redecorate their room and whatever else, it’s hard to stop. Kids will stay in activities they absolutely despise to please mom and dad who are so proud to have a baseball player in the family, or a musician, or whatever. So they keep playing, hate it, but dad is reliving his childhood. That’s nothing compared to the pre-transition social transitions in which everything is redone to conform to the new gender: name, dress, social activity, manners. To “quit” means to not only give up the stunning and brave status, but to lose friends, to change their name back, to learn to dress and act like their natal gender (and probably fail at it), and probably disappoint their parents and teachers as they lose status.
Not only that, but I think we have a lot of over-education in America where people are choosing college as a path of least resistance who really don’t have the talent or inclination to succeed in academia. I think if given a viable alternative— trades, culinary, or general labor — a lot of people would choose that instead.
It plausible as well. It takes someone who knows economic theory well enough to do it right. I don’t think Trump is that kind of an expert. But it’s not insane to do something like that temporarily to protect a nascent industry until it’s strong enough for the global market.
Labor though is by necessity at least somewhat bound to the land simply because you can not easily pick up and move even within a large country like the USA to say nothing of moving from country to country in search of work. The jobs may be more plentiful in Kenya, but there are a lot of reasons I won’t be moving there.
Smart tarries can help by essentially protecting an industry of national security interests or an industry that the government wants to invest in for eventual export. If I have an industry like chips manufacturing, I want to keep it protected because those chips are also used in military gear, so I might heavily tax imports o& chips so that native chip manufacturers don’t get undercut by cheaper imports and we are then dependent on those imports for vital products or military hardware. Or you might decide that the future is solar panels an$ thus create a huge tariff on solar panels until your own are good enough to compete on the world market.
I think there are twin dangers of this.
First is that basically, for want of a better way to put this, cries of “this is literally Hitler” have done more to normalize Hitler than anything done by Nazis in the time since tge Second World War. If a guy looking for fraud in the government and who dreams of mars colonies is fascism, it’s actually not that bad. If the worst of literally Hitler is someone like Trump, who’s Blitzkreig thus far has managed to make whistle stops in Greenland, negotiate with Putin, and rename the Gulf of Mexico, Hitler isn’t that bad. Nobody is frightened of this government, and the left has no cards to play. And so, Hitler isn’t that boogeyman Voldemort that everyone fears. He’s just a conservative.
Secondly, there’s no longer any effective way to alert the public if a fascist actually shows up. After 40 years of everything I don’t like is Hitler, if a guy who actually wants to genocide Muslims shows up, it’s no longer possible to find unused verbiage that will tell them that the Antichrist is here and he wants to kill everyone.
I think most of the perpetual childhood stuff is social permissions. A woman is generally permitted to be the second income, worry about such nonsense as “work life balance” (which generally means working 40 hours a week or less, rarely taking work home, and getting lots of PTO), whether or not the job is fulfilling (in other words is it fun and do things that are good for virtue signaling), and so on. Men, unless they’re extremely privileged don’t get to think that way because their career has to feed, house and clothe the family. Sure, the wife’s income might supplement, but she almost always makes a lot less than he does. A man is expected to protect himself, his family, and if there’s a war, his country. In both cases, his actual wants take a very strong step back to the practical aspects of the job market. Men are forced to look to high paid jobs whether or not they want to do that sort of work. They are forced to work longer than they actually want to because they need to take care of a family, and they need to suck up to the boss by working late, they need to manage themselves to take advantage of trainings and promotions or job hopping opportunities even if they’re not interested in that work for itself because they have a family.
Even in social situations, there’s a constant need to make sure to not show weakness, or to be emotional, both of which make them look weak. The number of men who made an early on in dating mistake of admitting to being sad about something and thus lost someone they loved is astounding. Women are allowed feelings, in fact women are basically allowed tantrums over stupid things that they don’t have any right to be upset about. There are viral videos of women pissed off because their man can’t load the dishwasher. Left out — she’s generally a stay at home mom in a nice middle class neighborhood and he’s working 60+ hours a week so she can complain that he doesn’t do enough chores on top of all of that.
- Prev
- Next
It’s not “accountability” in some nebulous sense. It’s accountability to having done the right process regardless of what happens. And this does skew things away from actually getting things done because there’s always a chance that doing something will result in a bad outcome that could be prevented by doing the processes. So in order to avoid the consequences of being wrong and held to account for a potential failure, you do processes to cover your own ass and who cares if the project gets done at all. It’s a question of the incentives being put in place such that you avoid actual accountability by abusing the accountability system such that you protect yourself from accountability by doing and creating lots of processes and not actually getting things done.
The solution, to my mind is to shift accountability to the results of the project. If you can’t get the job done, you’re accountable for that, and if you can’t do the project right you’re accountable for that. If the project is building a road, the accountability should not be in filling out forms to authorize the road, or quadruple checking that the processes are followed to the letter. Instead shift accountability to the correct, safe, and timely building of the road.
More options
Context Copy link