@MaiqTheTrue's banner p

MaiqTheTrue

Renrijra Krin

1 follower   follows 0 users  
joined 2022 November 02 23:32:06 UTC

				

User ID: 1783

MaiqTheTrue

Renrijra Krin

1 follower   follows 0 users   joined 2022 November 02 23:32:06 UTC

					

No bio...


					

User ID: 1783

I think the less the general public knows about spree shooter’s manifestos the better. There’s at least some evidence that spree shooting can be contagious much like suicides and so the less sensational the reports on any given shooting, the less likely the shooting is to inspire copycats. I don’t think it changes if the motives are political.

I do think there’s a place for experts to study the motivations of spree shooters. I want cops and schools aware of the commonalities between the events, likely motivations, and best practices for preventing them or mitigating the damage during those kinds of events l.

I mean welcome to decline era Western politics. We have cookies. It’s been my frustration on all levels of modern western politics and one of the things that draws me to Moldbug. We’ve been so dominant on all fronts throughout the period from the 1960s to the 2010s that we really didn’t have to take political issues seriously (as in being practical and focused on real facts and real political goals) for most of the last century. I’m convinced that most politicians have no idea how to actually identify, study, and solve problems in the real world. And now that we have given away most of our manufacturing base to other countries, reduced our education system to basically a joke, haven’t modernized any infrastructure really (given the state of the roads, we aren’t really maintaining infrastructure either). We run on slogans and propaganda while our nation crumbles around us. Is it any wonder that the West truly believes that wars can be fought and won on the basis of “well, Russia was big mean by invading, therefore they’re destined to fail, and the plucky Ukrainian military run by a former comedian can win a war against a former KGB agent.”

The setup for this war is the worst of all worlds. A vibe based conflict with a nuclear power in which we have no plan to win, no strategy, no strategic reason to think that Ukraine itself is value to anyone (it’s an agricultural country, and mostly exports gains).

Even this analysis has a problem in the fact that the numbers aren’t telling the full story here. The cost of necessary household goods, groceries and gasoline have gone up much more than that 2.9% and because you feel the effects of this very strongly because it’s directly impacting QOL even more than the 2.9% number would suggest. Eggs were $2.02 in 2019 and $2.86 in 2022. The graph doesn’t go to 2024, but going from $2 to nearly $3 is a big hit to the budget. (https://www.usinflationcalculator.com/inflation/egg-prices-adjusted-for-inflation/). If you’re seeing those kinds of new prices, especially if rent and other bills are increasing faster than your paycheck, it’s not good.

And I just don’t see the party in power especially taking it seriously. Trump and RFK get it because they’re talking to ordinary people who struggle to afford things. I know lots of people who are constantly taking formerly normal things off the table. No more name brand stuff, staycation instead of vacation. No more meals out. Make clothes and shoes last longer. And as this continues, the appeal of candidates and media outlets that at least get it will be more popular. And unless the ruling elites start to get it, vibes don’t work as a bandaid. Kamala has a weakness hear because she doesn’t seem to actually get how the cost of living has changed since the Trump days.

I’m not sure how realistic it is, but I think a border along the Dniepro River is at least going to be a reasonably defensible border.

Political apparatchiks have an insular and provincial view of the American electorate based mostly on hearsay and things they learned from their political science courses. They aren’t necessarily reading the room as it actually is, but seeing it through lenses that are decades out of date and thus either don’t work anymore (seriously, who’s watching political ads on TV, let alone basing their votes on them? Hence Trump was able to get around the media gatekeepers because he understood that people are much more engaged with social media and online platforms and online news). RFK understands that most of the concerns of the working classes below the PMC are much more rubber meets the road kinds of problems than the high minded “let’s build the future” vibes that the major parties are putting out. The political class is baffled by the fact that most people think the economy is bad and that inflation is a major problem. They keep jabbing at random graphs and saying “look the numbers are going in the right direction!” And the people look up from their kitchen tables where they’re trying to squeeze their budget even tighter because rent, groceries, and gasoline went up again unimpressed with those graphs. Trump and RFK get that. They also get that people want things like safer streets, schools focused on the basics, etc.

I think at least some of the differences in mental health are caused by the nature of the movements. Liberals tend to move further left and tear down anyone who doesn’t go along completely on everything they believe. If you take the liberal positions of 2004, you are on the far right to most social liberals. And the same group is not shy about using their power over institutions to massively punish people for pretty small transgressions. The bleeding edge of social liberalism wants Harris gone for daring to say that what Hamas did on October 7 was bad. It’s a massive purity spiral that’s easy to fall off of requiring adherents to live in a 1984 world where you have to change your views on a dime and pretend that Oceana has always been at war with Eastasia.

Conservatives are much more chill about the whole thing. If you’re conservative, you are allowed to have beliefs outside of that. As long as you’re generally conservative on most things, they don’t really care. If I’m in favor of gay marriage and my more conservative friends are not, my friends will not scream at me, nor will the more conservative kids decide that my political beliefs warrent ruining thanksgiving dinner when they throw a fit and leave. If I work for a conservative, my job isn’t in jeopardy if he finds out I’m not super conservative. There’s not really a purity spiral either. If I stand still, I’m not going to find that the party as a whole finds my views abhorrent.

TBH I’ve never really had a deep offline conversation about politics that were really about politics and not ultimately vibes. What I mean by that is that left, right or libertarian (have yet to meet a communist) all seem to be picking positions based on “vibes” or “culture” rather than any specific position or set of facts about the outside world. The world of politics isn’t about rubber meets the road issues, but essentially about tribe proxies forming up based on shared cultural norms and interests.

TBH this is why I don’t trust either side completely. Neither one is actually interested in fixing things or building for the future. There’s no real problem solving going on there. I’ve come to the conclusion that whether it’s D or R that eventually pull the trigger, American democracy is essentially already comatose and on life support. Politics is about solving things, filling potholes, teaching kids to be literate, numerate and scientifically literate future citizens, creating a social structure that promotes human thriving, passing real budgets, and making good decisions about how best to protect the people from enemies and keep them healthy. None of that actually seems to happen, and while the government and the parties and the people themselves are distracted by various flavors of vibes-based Kafaybe arguments, our country is rotting from within.

In 1960, the median family could afford a modest home, a car, and a local road trip vacation. That same median household probably could walk around town without worry about crime. Homelessness and drug use were fairly rare. Most kids, even without college (which was, at the time, fairly affordable) could read and write on grade level. Attacking a teacher was absolutely unheard of, and school shooters were rare enough that schools allowed kids to keep hunting rifles in their cars. Every single one of these QOL indicators has gone down quite a lot since then, and all we have from our leaders, the parties, and “political groups” is Kafaybe and Vibes.

Actually I suspect that a lot of them if examined would not be mentally fit to vote anyway. If someone is in the ER for a mental health episode, it’s obviously pretty severe, with either heavy drugs or commitment as real possibilities. Add in that a doctor, if you’re in acute distress, hold a lot of power and authority over them. I’d love to be a fly on the wall, because I have a suspicion that it’s at least somewhat implied that help is contingent on them registering to vote.

I think it does though. I mean the interests of those who have a stake in the preservation of society and those whose interests lie in voting themselves ever larger benefits packages from the state. I think there’s a balance to be struck, and I think eventually those who have a stake in society will absolutely turn on people who do nothing especially when they do nothing and are proud of it.

To me, the bigger issue is the question of productivity. Men are orders of magnitude more likely to be in the important and well paid jobs simply because of the way that men think about work. Men think of work and political power in terms of getting things done. For a man, the point of working is money, power and prestige. To a woman, it’s more often decided on the basis of pleasing work environment, good hours, fun, friendly coworkers etc. if you took everything on that list away, men will still want the job if it pays enough. And in politics, it think it’s the same sort of idea. Men will take an uncomfortable civilization where hard work is rewarded because they want the rewards to come to them when they earn them. They aren’t worried about whether a policy seems mean or if it makes poverty more uncomfortable. It’s not mean, they just want a practical result of most people doing productive work even if the jobs are dirty.

I think that part is unquestionably true, but one thing I keep coming back to is just how easy it is to avoid or shift blame for catastrophic outcomes when the people making the decisions are in offices answering emails and doing spreadsheets thousands of miles from places where their consequences will be seen and quite often spread through several layers of bureaucracy between themselves and implementation of the policies they set in an e-mail while looking at numbers in a spreadsheet.

To be blunt about that part of the problem, the buck doesn’t stop there if someone in the C-suite hires a person incapable of the work, he knows he’s not going to be personally responsible for the outcome. He can blame those below him — the hiring manager, HR people, the hired person themselves— for anything that actually happens. He didn’t cause the near miss on the runway. It was all those people below him who didn’t implement his ideas properly. It’s quite often that those who defend the idea of DEI say that they don’t intend to lower quality, but to get more minorities who are capable into those positions. It’s the fault of those below for not seeing through the “hire diverse or else” rules to find competent candidates. If the C-suites were held responsible for failures, there would be less of a quality decline, because like everyone else the executive would value his reputation and keeping his job.

The past as another country or even a fantasy world as another country is something that IMO Asians do better than westerners. The western world has little experience of true culture shock simply because we’ve been dominating the culture wars for so long that by the time a westerner can easily get to a place, most of the big cities have become westernized with mostly western attitudes towards life and business. You can find western culture everywhere so it becomes harder to imagine a universe in which people don’t aspire to modern western neo-liberal ideals. Asians have the opposite experience—. They inhabit a world that doesn’t adapt itself to their own culture, their folkways, their tastes. So I think that makes them a bit more able to imagine worlds that aren’t like ours or theirs.

I found this most jarring with medieval stuff. I like to read about that world and the history of that world, and they are not like us at all. They were not secular in the least, they believed in God and Fate and Devine Rights. They didn’t worry much about anyone who wasn’t upper class except in the sense that they wanted productive lands and didn’t want revolts. Their lives were dominated by personal politics and looking to get more power for themselves. Even our most power hungry politicians are weaklings compared to what the actual medieval rulers were like.

I think it hurts us culturally because it means we have a hard time understanding people who aren’t culturally WEIRD. The aftermath of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan were made much worse by the cultural ignorance of American elites who just assumed that traditional Muslims would immediately become Enlightenment minded Jeffersonian Republicans as soon as Saddam or the Taliban were gone. We expected Russia to think like us about Eastern Europe after the Cold War and to value the Western ideal of popular sovereignty over what they wanted which is a secure border between themselves and NATO. It hurts our ability to figure out Israel Palestine because we’re a fairly secular democracy and both Israel and Palestine are religious countries for whom control of The Land is not just about territory but about religion.

There’s a big failure of imagination when the producers of culture have no understanding or close contact with people who don’t think like they do. Producers in America have only themselves and other Narrative-loving liberals to references.

That’s definitely a part of it, but it was also rare at the time. Like any other trope, you can only put it out there so many times before it becomes tiresome. I’m finding myself so bored with the trope that it no longer lands at all. Even the “save the world” trope of action movies seems a bit played out because it’s all that’s out there and eventually you no longer care about the world.

One thing I’ve always appreciated about Asian dramas in general is that they aren’t afraid to be themselves and tell a story without feeling the need to insert ironic humor or social or political fashions. It’s a story, and the needs of the story rule everything else going on. Thus the heroes can be really heroic, the love interests can be love interests, and so on. Western media has a harder time doing this because they have to insert corny ironic humor in the movie so it doesn’t seem super serious. They have to make sure the women in the show are badasses, feminist and not too feminine. Men cannot be too masculine, too competent, or if they happen to start that way, they must “learn their lesson” by the start of the third act.

Add in the insular world of movies and TV in which everyone has the same background, the same training, and are expected to follow “Save The Cat” to the letter, and I think it’s just a mess. Nobody can create an honest account of redneck masculinity because nobody in Hollywood comes from that background. If you’re going to film school and have the funds in hand to be effectively unemployed for 3-5 years, you’re not from anything like a working class background and more than likely have never had a ten minute conversation with someone from a working class background. It’s PMC class second sons all around and all they can do is ape media portrayals of things they’re generations away from first hand knowledge of. Here Be There Dragons.

Of course nothing in a conflict of this type is simple, but what I’m pointing out is that there are a lot of thing that go in favor of the rural areas and make the kind of fighting that the military would do a bit more complicated. Yes you could field a very large army in rural areas, but if you don’t know who’s fighting and who’s not, or where the IED is or drone strike or attack on infrastructure will come from. And trying to be everywhere isn’t easy, even the biggest military in the world is still finite and can’t control everything.

In a war that’s more a guerrilla conflict with unexpected attacks by small groups who blend in with the locals and have lots of wilderness areas to hide in, it’s going to be really hard for a conventional military to gain and maintain control over the territory and to protect the supply lines to several large cities at the same time. The Blues would have the major disadvantage of having to protect itself and its political leadership in the theater of war. We haven’t had to do so since 1865. And even then, the South was too genteel to try things like starving a city (Maryland surrounds DC and thus cutting off DC would have been possible even back then had they tried to invade). The problem for the military will be fighting an insurgent conflict with most of its tools prevented by the fact that the people doing it are Americans and thus you can’t do things like bomb the strongholds of the insurgents or go house to house collecting weapons.

I would argue otherwise at least in red tribe areas. Most red states are pretty rural often with few roads, and substantial wilderness in between small towns. The ideal strategy in that area would look a lot like what happened in Iraq or Afghanistan. You strike with a small group and slink off into the wilds. Or you plant bombs along the roadside. Or you take out the power grid. And so on. Tanks and drones don’t work well without defined targets. Air strikes can’t be called on people who aren’t there.

And big cities have a huge problem with supply chains— almost everything that a city needs comes from or through rural areas. If the trucks don’t come to DC for long enough, there’s not much that can be done from the government end.

I’m pro 2A mostly because of crime. The problem with being unarmed in America is that any criminal who wants a gun can get one so easily that it’s a safe assumption that anyone committing a crime would have one. Police are effectively corralled into coming several minutes later to write and file reports that — even if the do somehow find the criminal, that criminal won’t be prosecuted or if they are, it’s a very light sentence, and thus don’t matter— don’t help except in getting insurance to pay for repairs to the damage. This makes disarming the law-abiding effectively a unilateral disarmament in the face of rising criminality when no other help is available.

Most of the actual solutions to crime would be so long term as to be non solutions. Re-empowering the police to deal with crime as it happens would be good, and probably the only one that would help within the decade. Recriminalizing drugs would help by reducing crime associated with drug use and give cops a good way to get rid of known criminals. Beyond that, it’s things that need to change in the culture— stopping the glorification of guns, crime, and drug use, creating a culture of achievement, politeness, and regard for others — would be changes on the order of decades, assuming it’s even possible. Basically you’d have to turn American city culture into something at least like Europe or East Asia to get there, and I’m not sure you can do that.

Wouldn’t separating by education level (verified by testing) work better? If the problem is skill level, then measure the skills. Money might be a sort of proxy, but it can be gamed simply by borrowing or stealing from other family or friends or whoever.

Well i mean true, but the political outsiders have often tried to harness such people to get power for themselves. A speaker who can capture the imagination of young incels can use them quite effectively to destroy the old system. This has happened before, more than once. And it will eventually happen again.

I’m not at certain what her price controls are. I know the food production end of things (not the stores) is highly consolidated into a couple of big companies that therefore own most of the food market. Breaking up those monopolies seems like a good way to get grocery priced down a bit. If that’s what she’s actually proposing, I would support it. But she hasn’t been very clear on what her plan actually is.

I think more women would choose to be modest if the options were better. If you want modest stuff, it generally is either childish or tent-like or otherwise just ugly. I want to be modest enough to not attract sexual attention.

The case for modesty, to me, is much the same as any other standard— it’s about self respect and dignity. And keeping a high standard both personally and culturally is important because it treats yourself and others as people worthy of respect. When a person doesn’t dress appropriately, either because they’re immodestly dressed or dressed sloppily, it tells me that not only are they not someone who I should take seriously (because they don’t take themselves seriously) but that they don’t respect the fact that other people might not want to see someone dressed in that way.

The same can be said of other standards. If you don’t put forth your best efforts, or can’t behave in public, or a thousand other things you do among others every day, eventually you have a society in which everyone does the bare minimum, you’re surrounded by trash, and so on.

I don’t think that true. They want you to visit The Wilderness(tm) not go off wherever you want. I don’t think they’d prevent you from leaving the city entirely, but you’ll be directed towards nearby designated parks and nature preserves. And I think the bigger concern for me is that a car that’s entirely electric and hooked up to GPS alongside electronic currency sets up a situation easily controlled by a social credit score. Maybe your electric usage was too high and your car refuses to go anywhere but work and home.

I’ll agree to a point, but I think for a lot of people looking to build for business this could easily end up making it cheaper and faster to find places that don’t mandate those future ready things. That’s cost disease in a nutshell. I don’t have the money to lay that cable under my parking lot to maybe possibly use it five years later. And if the barriers are high, I might well end up either just not building at all and taking my business elsewhere. Which ultimately reduces jobs in the area, tax receipts, and just general quality of life for residents who have to either pay the premium to shop locally in places that bent the knee and need to recoup the costs of charging stations for cars that nobody owns, or drive their gas powered cars an extra twenty miles to the next town where they can save cash on goods they need.

Honestly, that’s the modern rot of Hollywood. I don’t know why but they seem to believe that unless you hit the audience over the head with the message that the Evil Regime is Evil and has no redeeming qualities, the audience will miss the point. Maybe I’m odd for reading a lot of medieval and renaissance history, but even then when the Church was very powerful and the concept of human rights was 300 years away and they still didn’t create societies with no redeeming qualities. They cared about stability and their own wealth and power, they had to be strong enough to fend off rivals. But they didn’t really spend a lot of time dreaming up ways to oppress the locals.