MaiqTheTrue
Renrijra Krin
No bio...
User ID: 1783
MaiqTheTrue
Renrijra Krin
27d ago
I disagree re Musk. The man has run several companies and has managed to build all of them to be successful, he’s created new technologies that weren’t even on the table before he showed up. Nobody in 2010 thought that you could reuse the launch phase of a rocket. Musk figured that out and can actually have one caught in midair at this point. He’s dreaming the future, except that when Musk says he wants to see it, it stands an above average chance of happening. You don’t think that if (when) a guy steps out of a SpaceX vehicle on friggin’ Mars that he’s not going to resonate with average people who will be seeing him as “commanding authority?” I can’t think of anything that would get blue collar voters in line like “when NASA was busy booking trips on Russian rockets, Musk went to Mars.” They like doers, big thinkers, and bold adventures.
MaiqTheTrue
Renrijra Krin
27d ago
I tend to suspect that she’s doing word salads because she’s afraid to simply say what she actually thinks. Probably her handlers are worried that her actual opinions will turn off a part of the electorate. If she says anything substantial about Israel, she’s either going to lose the woke left (who are so pro-Palestine that a good number seem okay with Hamas) or she says something pro-Palestine and loses most of the evangelical vote (because to a good lot of them even mild criticism of Israel is blasphemy in the sense that they think God backs Israel). So in that case you don’t want to forthrightly answer the question. Now a good politician would say something like:
”We support a peace with strength in the region and we’re working with both Israel and our Allies in the region to secure that peace. Until then we are working with international partners to supply humanitarian aid to the people displaced by the conflict.”
This is, quite clearly, a nonanswer. There’s not much in the statement that can be construed as supporting either side. It’s simply a wish for a strong and lasting peace and support for displaced civilians.
Her word salads seem like they’re trying to do the same thing. She’s trying to come up with a statement that sounds convincing but doesn’t give any substantial, tangible information that can be used against her. Her problem is that she’s not particularly good at it. Probably because she’s actually spent most of her political career in state politics that didn’t need that skill as much. Her opinions would be pretty standard in big city California, so she could just say what she thinks without too much difficulty. Very few in California are pro-Israel or anti-abortion, so she can just give an opinion.
MaiqTheTrue
Renrijra Krin
27d ago
My views is that maybe 5-10% of converts are sincere, about 90% are LARPING, but much of the growth is births. There’s just too much talk about the trappings to be realistic. I’ve more of less come around to believing in high church Protestant Christianity as the genuine belief, but I don’t look for things like aesthetics of the building or service so much as genuine belief and that the general idea actually makes sense.
MaiqTheTrue
Renrijra Krin
28d ago
I’ve honestly never understood the appeal. I’m seeing all kinds of Twitter stuff from tradcaths and orthodox and it’s like they’re playing a game. Like they’re arguing about very odd theological beliefs— things that honestly have little to do with the lived experience of a religion. And they’re constantly calling other people— often priests and bishops heretical. I think at least half of the tradcaths who pride themselves on attending a Latin Catholic Church they can’t understand are also convinced that pope is a heretic. It seems almost LARP to me, a love for the medieval church and a world of European Christian culture.
I can understand the sentiment of wanting to go back to a simpler life. There’s some part of me that would very much like to live in a 19th century log cabin or something or maybe the Amish. I just don’t see why you’d choose religion based on aesthetics.
MaiqTheTrue
Renrijra Krin
28d ago
Well, first of all, I think it works like all restrictions— it makes it hard to just eat anything without thinking about it, reading labels, etc. This is important because America is stuffed full of convenience foods and they’re available just about everywhere you go. If you can’t eat processed foods, or seed oils, then you’re not going to be able to buy chips at the gas station, go through the drive through, get a pizza at the grocery store, etc.
Second I think there is something to hyper-palatable foods being a reasonable hypothesis as most processed foods have more intense flavors than anything in nature. The cheesyist natural cheese is not as intense as something like Cheetos. The sweetest fruits pale in flavor intensity compared to fruit flavored candies.
Third, processed foods often remove the things that allow your systems to feel full for example engineering mouthfeel (https://agrilifetoday.tamu.edu/2023/11/07/mouthfeel-of-food-determines-whether-people-go-back-for-seconds/) to induce purchases. Now the article was about hamburgers, but mouthfeel is just one aspect of the engineering of food to induce people to eat it. Now, once your diet reaches a certain point with foods engineered both to induce eating, and to perhaps keep you from feeling full, becoming at least overweight is pretty much a done deal.
MaiqTheTrue
Renrijra Krin
28d ago
I mean yes. Prediction markets avoid the two biggest problems of polling. One one side, it avoids the issue of shame and embarrassment entirely. If I’m in favor of something that is unpopular, I might not tell someone especially if I’m in a situation where other people might hear it. And second, they avoid falling for zealots. If the price for Kamala gets too high, people will sell Kamala and take the cash now before the election proves them wrong.
MaiqTheTrue
Renrijra Krin
28d ago
Hasn’t every King Charles dissolved parliament? I’d be rather disappointed if this Charles breaks tradition.
MaiqTheTrue
Renrijra Krin
28d ago
Rather off topic, but is that why there are a lot of genealogical texts in the Bible? It seems like a similar idea a way to connect all the places that exist. Or maybe I’m not understanding something.
MaiqTheTrue
Renrijra Krin
28d ago
How? I’m not sure paying people to be at a rally by booking a band translates to votes. She might be able to buy large rally crowds, but she’s not going to be able to convince them to vote for her. They often don’t actually stay for the rally part (actually quite surprised they haven’t noticed and moved the concert until after the rally).
MaiqTheTrue
Renrijra Krin
29d ago
Wars aren’t an act of God, but at the same time, a lot of the decisions about when to start one hinge more on conditions like military readiness, weather conditions, and the time needed to build up troops and material to carry forward an invasion. China isn’t stay out of Taiwan because Biden is a badass. They simply don’t yet have the assets in place to successfully invade Taiwan.
MaiqTheTrue
Renrijra Krin
30d ago
You realize that what you’re describing is marketing right? Maybe the man will surprise me, but I don’t see actions that live up to the hype. He hasn’t cleaned up Washington, he didn’t fix the border problems, he might have gotten lucky that no major wars broke out on his watch, but I didn’t think he was the cause of it. So what I’m left with is an incompetent ruler with excellent branding. Take away the branding, the hats, the merch, the big talk, and he’s really not that much different from GW Bush or Bill Clinton.
MaiqTheTrue
Renrijra Krin
30d ago
The only way to actually do that though is to disempower the state to do those things. It’s important because it’s everywhere doing everything and therefore you either take it over and use it to devour your enemies or you get devoured yourself. Taking for example LGBTQ issues. In 1990, the big issue was basically state recognition of gay marriages. This actually (on paper) affected maybe 3% of the us population and the wedding industry. Fast forward 30 years and now the issues of LGBTQ touch everything from education and child protection to medical care to sports and restrooms. The government controls very much more just on this set of issues alone. Go on to environmental issues and it’s now things like the car you drive, the kinds of appliances you own, the cost of electricity and fuel, getting roads built and so on. Given just how intrusive the government is over the government of Bill Clinton in 1992, it’s not much of a wonder that a much more powerful state is a much bigger prize that the elites of all stripes are eager to control. If the survival of an industry depends on the outcome of an election, or your right to know if your child has a gender identity issue hinges on the results of an election, elections become extremely important.
Drain the government of power over people and industries and nobody would care. If I could simply choose my school board and know they would not insert their political beliefs into the classrooms, I wouldn’t be super worried. People in 1900 barely knew who was running the central government because it didn’t actually touch them personally.
MaiqTheTrue
Renrijra Krin
30d ago
Yarvin is being a pretty good scientist here. He has a theory of history (one that actually holds up under scrutiny, unlike the Narrative Theory of History) that can actually lead him to making pretty accurate predictions about what kinds of things will happen— and he can do so making those predictions before the fact, something the Narrative Theory cannot do. Yes, he’s wrong more often, but it’s because he’s actually making a falsifiable prediction, not a prediction that can be nuanced into meaning whatever he needs it to mean. The “nuance” of the Narrative is exactly an attempt at avoiding falsifiable predictions. If they’re “wrong” it’s because they were misunderstood and if you just understood how complicated the system actually is, they were right, as always if only you understood the nuances.
The “Historian Predicted a bunch of Presidential Elections” bit is to me, exactly that. The keys are vague. Kamala can be an incumbent. Wars mean exactly what they need to mean. The economic indicators used can be anything. So even if he’s wrong, it’s actually right, but you missed the nuance.
MaiqTheTrue
Renrijra Krin
30d ago
Actually he didn’t even get that. He lost. The story isn’t “LA Times didn’t endorse Kamala.” The story is “The (evil) owner of the LA Times didn’t let them tell people they endorsed Kamala.” Which is a back door way of the LA Times endorsing Kamala (within days of whatever editorial the LAT was told not to publish) with the added insult that they got to say that the owner of the LAT was pushing for an outcome and that they the “responsible journalists” were pushing for The Truth. So not only did they get to endorse her, but they got to discredit the owner, and paint themselves as brave truth telling journalists in the process.
MaiqTheTrue
Renrijra Krin
30d ago
Why are average people reading news then? I mean I can sort of get why aperachniks are reading American Pravda rags, but again, as a useful activity, a person reading the news would be looking for accuracy on things that matter to them. As it becomes more obvious to average people that a given source isn’t accurate, then it’s really only useful to the choir as the point of them reading and watching news is to know what to say in dinner parties or business talk or whatever. NYT might be useful for that, but if most people now see a NYT article as simply skimping for wokeness and global order and so on, it’s not going to convince them of anything. In fact, it would probably do the opposite— if NYT starts telling me about civilian deaths in Gaza, my first thought is “Israel must have gotten an important target.” Beyond a certain point, obvious propaganda starts pushing people in the wrong direction from the POV of the writers.
MaiqTheTrue
Renrijra Krin
30d ago
But it’s not exactly right. If you’re in a fact-selling business, being right is at least a small part of credibility. Which is why they’re failing as the source of information for the rabble who no longer believe what’s on 60 minutes and in the NYT or the mainstream press. And where that ends up is these “credible sources” can no longer see their purpose and therefore are abandoned. How can they be trusted enough to indoctrinate the masses when the masses are choosing alternatives and not taking American Pravda seriously? Samsdat is accurate at least, and that accuracy isn’t fake. It’s like the loudspeakers in North Korea. They were giving accurate forecasts of the weather, so people listened to them over the government news.
MaiqTheTrue
Renrijra Krin
30d ago
I kind of agree here which is what makes this move so baffling. They know they’re not going to affect the outcome with this move, and they know that this kind of stupid reporting is only going to hurt their credibility. As it stands now, if the GOP candidate for 2028 were actually a Nazi, the credibility of the idea has been shot so badly that even if Candidate 2028 says “killing an entire ethnic group is actually a good idea,” who’s still listening? Very very people are still paying attention to the mainstream media as a source of information, and of those who are, it’s often as a sideline to looking for the same information from other sources less compromised by ideological capture. I don’t really pay attention to it. I don’t know of very many others who unironically believe anything coming out of a mainstream media outlet.
After all of the things done, and not even done well (I.e. the blatant edits of Kamala’s answers on 60 minutes), and in a biased way, I don’t see how any of these old journals can regain credibility. A “journalist” at this point is an ideological hack, unconcerned with accuracy, credibility, or neutrality. The mask is gone, and it’s almost impossible to restore the trust that they once enjoyed. For me, the only value in reading the NYT or watching mainstream news is to find out what the cathedral wants me to believe. Its value is in that area, but it’s no longer even directionally relevant or accurate.
MaiqTheTrue
Renrijra Krin
30d ago
The most fear-inducing message is the one they’ve used on every major Republican candidate for the last 24 years? I mean even as motivation it’s weak. And it’s not even a revelation as Harris had already been running ads to that effect.
MaiqTheTrue
Renrijra Krin
30d ago
What I don’t get is exactly how they thought a story first released in 2021, and that was debunked back then was supposed to move the needle. Not only is it old news, but the “my enemy is literally Hitler” game goes back to at least George W Bush. As an October Surprise, this is a nothing burger and the people pushing this narrative knew that. I suspect they have some other stories that this is softening the ground to build for.
MaiqTheTrue
Renrijra Krin
1mo ago
Define abuse. And I think honestly this is a thing where people are going to stop trusting the state even more, because here, it’s obviously political. The parents don’t agree that the child has trans, so they aren’t affirming. But this isn’t abuse, and further, given that this is a situation that can be induced, it’s an excellent weapon against the wrong sorts of parents raising kids.
MaiqTheTrue
Renrijra Krin
1mo ago
Press X to doubt. Not because I don’t think some business decisions might wait until they know the outcome, but because the state has so much inertia that it won’t matter all that much for the legal/regulatory system who actually wins. So it’s not going to make much impact beyond highly politicized business decisions. The environmental/green projects might be impacted, maybe some B2B projects that help with DEI compliance, maybe something else that depends on government funding or intervention. I don’t think a truly innovative AI project is that kind of a decision, nor are 90% of business decisions. The legal environment is pretty stable and a decision made today is going to be based on stable laws not the people decorating the Oval Office.
MaiqTheTrue
Renrijra Krin
1mo ago
I think a big part of it is that it galvanized the right, and it has been recruiting and motivating gold for republicans. Trans kids hits a lot of very sensitive spots, and it’s easy to understand why. First of all, you have the schools not only promoting, but enabling the trans kids. A kid who goes to a public school will be told that trans people are special, be told to celebrate them, etc. any kid who decides they might be trans will be given access to trans clothing, be allowed to change their name and pronouns, be allowed in cross gender spaces and sports teams, etc. the kids around them will be told how awesome they are, and be forced to acknowledge the new them. Parents are told none of this.
This first part alone is going to give a lot of parents the ick. They don’t trust schools anymore because the schools — by written policy — are keeping very serious matters secret from them specifically. They don’t like it when schools are teaching things that their religious beliefs call evil or wicked as normal and even praiseworthy. They would also eventually become concerned simply because the schools are much better at teaching state propaganda than they are at teaching reading, writing, math, and science.
The second part is that the transition itself harms kids. They’re starting kids on puberty blockers at 9-12 years old, and cross sex hormones follow after a few years. There’s the surgeries that remove or reposition healthy tissues on healthy bodies to fit a trendy mental health issue. And these things are driven by children the same kids who can’t remember to bring home their math book, or won’t eat vegetables, or can’t work up the courage to quit the baseball team. They simply are not mature enough to even grapple with the idea that what they’re doing toady will be something they will be living with at 40 or 60 or 80. They can’t even imagine what it’s like to really be an adult.
Finally, parents especially in cases of divorce are finding themselves threatened by the state if they don’t transition their kids. There are cases where a father and mother are fighting over custody and the judge will say “if you don’t allow your child to be transitioned, then you lose custody and visitation rights.” CPS has gotten involved in some liberal states because the child think they’re trans and the parents don’t agree, so the state comes in and says either get on board, or we take the child.
Now all of this creates fertile ground for GOP/MAGA recruiting. They are the party that will protect your kids from all of this. They are the ones who want the schools to stop teaching kids that trans is cool. They are the party that wants to force schools to actually tell you what your child is up to in school. They also are the party standing up to surgeons who want to medically and surgically transition your kids.
MaiqTheTrue
Renrijra Krin
1mo ago
It should be enough to raise a question. Keep in mind that both parties have their internal polling data so if she’s lying about the data, Trump can easily show that his polling data that disputes hers. Plus there is exit polling, and so on that can be used. A serious anomaly deserves to be investigated, not just to assure that the correct person takes office, but also to assure the public that the election process is free, fair, and not being tampered with.
MaiqTheTrue
Renrijra Krin
1mo ago
I’m personally a bit skeptical of the idea of stolen elections. I said so before. My concern is that if all discussion of the idea is banned, that this will be seen as confirmation of the truth of a conspiracy to steal an election. There’s a danger in my mind that doing so and potentially convincing people that the government is suppressing the discussion because the theory must be true.
It’s meant as a thought terminator. What they mean is that Trump is evil and therefore if you even consider voting Trump, you’re evil too. Nazi has never really had a definitive definition, nor has fascism, or racist, sexist, bigotry, and words that end in -phobic. They’re not supposed to. That’s not what those words are for. Orbán is fascist, Trump is, Hitler is, Mussolini is, so is Putin. What specifically do they all share in common? Name 3-5 policy positions that all 5 men and the movements around them have in common that aren’t shared by neo-liberal politicians. What are we talking about? But since there’s no set of positions that could be declared as defining fascism, it’s basically a sneer meant to stop all thought. You don’t have to think about what he wants to do, or what Kamala wants to do — he’s a fascist, so she has to get your vote unless you’re a fascist. Your grocery bills don’t matter. Building things in America doesn’t matter. You must accept the premise, and then act on it.
More options
Context Copy link