MaiqTheTrue
Renrijra Krin
No bio...
User ID: 1783
MaiqTheTrue
Renrijra Krin
16d ago
What puts me off of UAPs and the idea that “they have proof” is just how little physical evidence of life, not intelligent life, just plain ordinary life, exists. The best the Pro-UAP can do is a plausible fossilized bacteria sample found on Mars. They have no ships, megastructures, signals, planets with obvious life-signs. It doesn’t surprise me that people into UAPs are into non physical phenomena as they need some plausible way to explain how these things exist without leaving physical proof.
MaiqTheTrue
Renrijra Krin
16d ago
I’m expecting precisely nobody to accept the results. Baked in. One side believes the election was stolen, both believe the election is being stolen now (they differ on methods and direction, but in both cases, it’s against them). One side believes the other is Nazis. The other side believes that the others are communists.
MaiqTheTrue
Renrijra Krin
16d ago
Acceptable to the NPR listeners would be my definition. The idea being that left leaning outlets work to put entertainers and podcasters and news outlets into a heretical works pile where they lose advertising and support and get relegated to right leaning channels and advertising for support. Liberals generally shun such media so it hurts them to be branded as « not mainstream credible « .
MaiqTheTrue
Renrijra Krin
17d ago
I think either group is going to be a problem. However, some states have been calling up NG (https://www.cnn.com/2024/11/02/us/washington-oregon-nevada-national-guard-election/index.html) especially it appears in Blue states. This seems rather telling, because it seems like the elites are expecting unrest in Blue areas not red ones. This makes me suspect that they’re anticipating a Red win, as that’s what would cause trouble in Blue areas. The Proud boys aren’t going to Portland. But Antifa goes there all the time.
MaiqTheTrue
Renrijra Krin
17d ago
I’m not surprised in the least. I’m not sure if it’s evolutionary psychology, but I tend to find that women have perfected the game of weaponizing the system against other people. In this case, it’s animal laws, but it could be technical violations of any rules to force other people to give them what they want. I’ve always somewhat assumed that it goes down to avenues of actual power. Men have access to physical strength, technical knowledge, and the actual levers of power. Women have limited access perhaps to the levers o& power. Not as much as people think, because they are rarely the main decision makers on projects, in business, or in government. So the best way for the median woman to get her way is to basically get a man to wield actual power for her.
Puritanical rule enforcement is a part of that. It’s a way to create new offenses women can use to shame people into giving them what they want.
MaiqTheTrue
Renrijra Krin
17d ago
I think it has some use if you’re in a position to be doing long term planning either because the campaign is promising things that will help or harm your group, or because the change in regulations promised will affect a business project. If Trump is going to end a subsidy for solar panels then maybe the fact that he’s way up in the polling would change how you do business. Or maybe you’re trans and worried about your rights in your home state. Or you’re gay and looking to adopt. There are some people who for various reasons need to plan based on who wins in 2024.
For the vast majority of people, the winner of any election will only affect you on the margins. It’s just human history. Unless a regime was specifically looking to harm a group of people, for the most part, life goes on with very little change. If you woke up tomorrow and you were under a Maoist dictatorship, unless you owned a big corporation or challenged the regime in some way, you could live very comfortably. The basics of life don’t change that much. There will still be jobs, schools, sporting events, and people will still get drunk on weekends.
MaiqTheTrue
Renrijra Krin
18d ago
I think it depends on the group of smart people and what their domain of knowledge actually is. My observation is that smart people tend to vastly overestimate their ability to understand things not in their own domain. They think the6 can tell if someone is scamming them in another area but often they’re just as vulnerable as anyone else.
Part of this is the way society works. Everyone specializes in one or two areas, and outside of those areas you really don’t have much more base knowledge than the average person. This makes it much easier to sell a scientist on a financial scam. Not because the guy is stupid, but because he doesn’t know much about finance and doesn’t spend a great deal of time thinking about it. Or maybe it’s home repairs where a roofer can come into a neighborhood full of lawyers after a big storm and make bank by scamming the lawyers on repairs they don’t need and cheap materials that don’t last.
The other part is plain ego. Smart people have been praised for their intelligence for a long time. Everybody since their third grade teacher has probably told them how smart they are. Add in the success they get in their domain, and you believe it. They’re smart and can figure it out. And they actually are much more vulnerable simply because their ego won’t let them notice that something is off. In fact I would consider this an advantage for the less intelligent. They know how much they don’t understand about stuff they didn’t understand at school.
MaiqTheTrue
Renrijra Krin
18d ago
What about doing things like what Sports betting does with pro sports. If you could form teams and try to bet on their performance in the election, I think it would be a way to get more money in. And the money put in could be used as push polling because if you can change the odds, then I mean you can change the outcome of the actual election.
MaiqTheTrue
Renrijra Krin
18d ago
It would be odd for that result to show in polls, however I think it could be correct simply because everyone is measuring the exact same data. They should be getting results within the error margin of the correct answer. And the reason I tend to buy a dead heat is that Americans are highly polarized on almost every topic. Abortion, Israel, Ukraine, the economy, education, culture, etc. all are by now completely coded blue or red. There’s very littLe left to persuade in the middle. It’s all about the base. That should be producing a very tight race.
MaiqTheTrue
Renrijra Krin
18d ago
I’ve always thought that “at least he isn’t X” as a particularly good long term strategy. It marginally works when neither candidate is exciting their base well, and the Not-X candidate is at least a competent seeming middle of the road person who will do nothing more than keep going down the path. But if not, then it’s really more of a choice between X but he’s doing thing people like, or Not-X and incompetent.
There’s really nothing in the Kamala campaign that’s telling us she wants to do anything as president. When she makes her campaign stops, she’s talking about how scary and weird the other guys are. Well, after the concert anyway. But after nearly ten years of “he’s terrible, horrible, they’re evil” and him doing very little of evil, terrible, horrible things, it’s not landing anymore. Outside of the breathless true believers, nobody thinks Trump is evil. And now that this is gone, what’s left to scare people to the polls to vote Kamala? They don’t hate her, but what is there, besides the rapidly failing “Orange Man Bad” meme is there to get people to actually choose to stand in line for an hour for Kamala?
MaiqTheTrue
Renrijra Krin
19d ago
I’m sort of disagreeing here. The point of a debate forum is to debate in good faith. And quite often political debates are capable of being good faith debates.
MaiqTheTrue
Renrijra Krin
19d ago
That’s not the value of lived experience in narratives. The value of having fought in a war (Hemingway for example) is that he understands the way war is in the real world and can thus create characters who feel like they’re fighting a war instead of characters that think and act like people who make movies think people in wars behave. Or if you want to write about life in a black ghetto, it’s going to feel more real if written by someone with at least some idea, even second hand, of what that life is actually like. There’s a phrase in philosophy that I think captures the idea. It is like something to be a person in any situation you come up with. It’s like something to be poor, or Palestinian, or a cop, or a soldier. And stories become much better is the author at least has some idea of what those things are actually like, rather than going off TV/movie tropes, or stereotypical ideas, or other sources with no real connection to the thing being described. It’s a fidelity issue. A copy of a copy of a copy eventually looks nothing like the original.
MaiqTheTrue
Renrijra Krin
19d ago
Crises, especially ones with a large risk of death tend to drive evolution. Who got to survive after a collapse? Smart people with a higher time preference survived because they were the ones prepared to survive the collapse and to rebuild afterwards. The ones who die are the ones who are dumb and therefore do stupid things to kill themselves, are unable to plan ahead, and lack a solid work ethic.
Now the reverse is true of High Civilization like Greece and Rome. We say it ourselves — good times make weak men. The Greeks and Romans used slaves for everything and had a pretty decent welfare state in Rome itself. The chief problem for Rome was a large class of unemployed in Rome who had to be entertained. In such a city, one could live a comfortable life and never have to break a sweat doing anything productive. And so if you were lazy, stupid, and uninterested in working or getting educated, not a problem. And so while those people die quickly in a collapse, they didn’t really suffer all that much in Rome. So those types would definitely lower the IQ of classic civilization.
MaiqTheTrue
Renrijra Krin
20d ago
No, because I noticed the same. The people making films today all come from the PMC for the most part and know no other lifestyle. It’s also just that in the 1950s society was much more economically integrated in the sense that the emerging PMC was very likely to grow up in neighborhoods and attend schools with the working class. Most of the generation that marched off to college after the war (or sent their kids to college) grew up working factory, sales, or skilled labor jobs or at least knew people who did. Modern elites are much less likely to have any significant contact with blue collar types, less likely to have served in the military, etc. so what they know about war, blue collar work, small towns, religion, and so on, come through narrative fiction.
MaiqTheTrue
Renrijra Krin
20d ago
I think honestly it’s one of the things I like about the modern era that’s most bizarre about the current crop of elite. Not only do these guys speak an odd dialect of lawyer, but they’re fantastically uneducated about how anything is actually done or made. And it is off putting to average people because they don’t hide behind statistics and spreadsheets. They do things, make things, and watch or play games.
It’s like if I had a bookie describe the last game of the World Series, and then a plumber from Brooklyn. They’d both be describing the same events but only one guy would have described a baseball game. The other guy is describing a graph describing the baseball game. And I think that’s actually why the elites running the systems cannot fix things. The old deep knowledge of the processes their graphs and lawyered language describe is gone. They’ve never done any of that kind of work, nor, increasingly do they even know anyone who does that work. Without knowing how the game of baseball actually is played, without knowing what is going on on the field, moneyball simply doesn’t work.
And I think this is what people are reacting to. Trump at least comes across as the guy who actually understands baseball instead of baseball statistics. They have plenty of real life experience of working with idiots who only see the world through screens. Those people might be educated, as in having attended a lot of very expensive colleges and having a couple of $100K sheepskins on the wall. But talk to anyone in the trenches of any operation and it’s pretty universal that the spreadsheet jockeys often make arbitrary decisions that make their job harder to impossible. The general problem for a lot of ground level managers is to make it look like they’re following the new, stupid procedures dictated by a spreadsheet jockey, while still getting productive work actually done. They’re used to idiots who talk like Harris, and they know her practical knowledge of the stuff she has policies for is precisely as bad as the local regional manager o& their corporate masters— she looks at graphs and knows the graphs go up if you do a thing.
I’m not sure that it’s a communication problem at all. The problem for the elites is that the culturally coded language they use bespeaks of their ignorance. Nobody takes them seriously because not only do they mistake their maps as territory, but it’s often the case that the6 have no idea there’s a real territory out there being impacted. We can just make fossil fuels a thing of the past, without using nuclear. Just look at my graph.
MaiqTheTrue
Renrijra Krin
20d ago
It depends on the jurisdiction. In some places, these shop owners do try to get people prosecuted, do cooperate, and it turns out that the state is much less concerned about putting the guy in jail and thus they see the effort as a waste of time. It’s an odd situation. They’re kind of stuck, not only because of the costs, but the risks that they can count on other people to care about. If they testify and press charges, do the next group of lawless thugs come in and shoot potential witnesses? Are they or their children going to be targeted because snitches get stitches? And if they need the cops are the cops going to bother to show?
See the situation in lawless areas is because of years of neglect and distrust in which the criminals tend to get away with it. The only solution to my mind is to create a system, even if extremely flawed (inquisition is far from ideal) in which you can hope to put enough of the gang members in jail to lower the crime rate and have people willing to participate. If I lived in a place controlled by gangs, I’m not cooperating simply because of the two, the cops are the weak ones, and they can’t or won’t protect me.
MaiqTheTrue
Renrijra Krin
20d ago
The fact that he’s into Moldbug also suggests Rat adjacent. I mean I’m not surprised at all that someone reading Moldbug also reads Slatestar.
MaiqTheTrue
Renrijra Krin
20d ago
I disagree because if the vote on the side you actually like cannot win, not only are you not getting what you want, but often moving the country in the opposite direction. In fact, this is the theory behind stocking horse candidates— run someone very similar to the mainstream candidate that you want to lose, split that vote and cruise to victory.
This is just simply power games. The thing that a lot of people don’t get about politics is that it isn’t in the least about being right, no matter what system you’re trying to get power under. The person with the right policies is a nobody. The guy who has power gets to decide what the right answer is. The correct answer is thusly form a very strong tribe that votes as a bloc. Then use that power base to essentially hold the political party nearest to your own side to account for not voting your way. Vote out bad politicians in the primaries. This is how the GOP was gradually moved rightward. If someone didn’t vote right, they were prinaried out of office. But the GOP was still winning because people were still with the Rightist party so they won elections. That would be the optimum strategy— vote as you please in the primaries, then vote GOP in the general election. You take power because the vote isn’t split, but you’re also to be feared because rinos get removed from the party.
MaiqTheTrue
Renrijra Krin
21d ago
Just to steelman this, unless the people guilty of stealing have reason to fear getting punished, the law against stealing is basically dead. There are large portions of most major cities where these kinds of situations exist. The laws against stealing, drug dealing, and murder are not enforced consistently. The results are not freer people unconcerned about crime, in fact it’s the opposite. In those areas, since the cops can’t (often because of government policies) deter crime or reliably enforce the laws, the people who can’t afford to leave take the job of self protection on themselves. Bars go over windows, people carry weapons, and gangs take over to protect criminals from other criminals. It’s basically a post collapse society on display in the middle of downtown Chicago or St. Louis.
Sure an inquisition isn’t a great system for a modern functioning state. It’s not something that’s compatible with civil rights as we know them. But the other side is that the alternative is also terrible for civil rights. You have a right to private property. Sure, but what good is it when the cops for lack of proper paperwork and prosecutorial authority simply shrug as local thugs help themselves to anything not physically impossible to steal? What good is it to be protected from the cops detaining you when you and your family are prisoners in your own homes behind barred windows because your neighborhood is to unsafe to be outside in? What good is it to say “I am safe from the cops shooting me” when you have to worry about getting caught in a drive by shooting? Freedom isn’t just freedom from the state, but the presence of law, order and justice. If you don’t have the ability to come and go as you please without fear of the Cripps, it’s not far off from not being able to come and go for fear of the cops.
MaiqTheTrue
Renrijra Krin
21d ago
The problem being that voting for your third parties splits your vote, and that only has a good outcome when everybody on all sides are doing so. If one side defects then they win because their vote isn’t split between several different parties, it’s concentrated in one party. So if conservatives choose between Reform, Constitution, Libertarian, and Republican, each gets 1/4 of the total conservative votes available. If democrats all vote for the Democratic Party, they get all available democratic votes. If you assume that the parties are roughly equal in support, the democrats will win even though the6 don’t have more votes.
MaiqTheTrue
Renrijra Krin
21d ago
I think I recommend that you stop trying to goad yourself with rewards. If the only reason you’re doing something is a reward, it’s only going to work so long as the rewards are worth the pain. And of course the other part is that you’re setting yourself up to see the task as an unpleasant thing to be suffered through so you can get to the reward.
Try just scheduling the task and removing any obstacles to doing that task at that time. If you’re exercising, for example, schedule that, and just … exercise. Make sure it’s a kind of exercise you like, or listen to music while doing it, but do it, and stop when the session is over. Put the gym clothes on a chair in the bedroom and keep the weights there and so on to make it easy to just start doing it automatically. And sooner or later, you’ll just automatically do it. You’ll get to the point where working out at 3pm on MWF is just something you do.
Another thing to try is get a group of people and just start doing things together. If you’re working on programming than a group learning to program will be muc( better than just doing it alone.
MaiqTheTrue
Renrijra Krin
21d ago
To be honest I’m not sure. But either solution— a fight until someone capitulates— is much more likely to be a stable solution than the current globohomo enforced stalemate that stokes resentment and causes constant attacks and the deaths and destruction that come along with it.
MaiqTheTrue
Renrijra Krin
21d ago
I’m less enamored in the idea of “world police” ideas. In fact, I think they tend to drag out conflicts rather than provide peace and stability. Had the west stayed out of this, or not gotten involved in Israel, both conflicts would likely be over. Israel would have taken over Gaza, and while it would suck for the Gazans it would be a stable peace, perhaps with all of Palestine on the West Bank or something. Instead, we “negotiate” a few years of peace and then start again because the Palestinians are counting on the West to soften the blow. Without that, the Palestinians would have long ago been forced to accept that they’d either join Israel in some form or fashion, leave, or get flattened. The results would probably be much more peace and stability. Instead, we get a fresh one sided war about once every 7-10 years, terrorist attacks on Israel, and a radicalized Middle East. In Ukraine, our intervention has made what, in natural circumstances would have been a war over in weeks to months and turned it into a war lasting nearly four years. Is this actually better? Is it better to feed thousands of men into a conflict that is probably going to last until we run out of Ukrainian men to fight it and probably eventually get conquered anyway. Ending conflicts the old fashioned way of letting them go to their natural end instead of creating perpetual stalemates that aren’t resolved.
MaiqTheTrue
Renrijra Krin
21d ago
To be fair, Ukraine is only holding its own because we’re sending trillions a year into the country, and that’s quite simply only until they run out of people to draft into the war. They’re already needing to kidnap people off the streets to force them to fight. I don’t think that’s sustainable as a long term solution. Add in that the war has increased food prices because the “breadbasket of Europe” can’t plant crops, and the increase in fuel prices because we’re at war with a major oil producer, and it’s a giant mess.
I’m also concerned that spending so much on Ukraine is going to mean losing Taiwan to China. Taiwan makes many of the world’s top end microchips, and losing that to a hostile rival is insane. But that’s where I think we’re heading. The public’s will to continue propping up allied states is nearly gone. The money is going fast, and the weapons systems we’re sending to Ukraine probably won’t be replenished in time for a Taiwan war. It’s insane.
2024 is going to be “The Year Politics Went Full Retard” for me. It’s just a level of crazy that I would not believe if it had been pitched as the new season of a political drama. A candidate is nearly thrown off the ballot in CO? The same guy convicted of several felonies? And then his opponent is revealed to be unfit for office on live television? Then the same candidate gets shot. Then the opposition candidate drops out and is replaced without a vote. Then the protests at the DNC over Israel. Another Trump assassination. Like WTF? The crazy around 2024 is insane. And of course the discourse itself — debates around transitions for middle school kids, why FEMA is slowing down aid in hurricane zones, some people are convinced of weather manipulation (which I did not have on my bingo card), claims of election fraud, it’s just wild. And frankly exhausting tbh.
More options
Context Copy link