MaiqTheTrue
Renrijra Krin
No bio...
User ID: 1783
I think we agree on that. But my issue with current policy is that the most reliable way to get into America is hopping the fence because the legal immigration process is pretty broken. Which increases the burden on the Border Patrol, ICE and law enforcement because of all the people who should be able to get in legally choosing to be illegal immigrants instead. I think it’s a Both And situation. You enforce the laws, but you also fix the system such that those who are employable and have no criminal record and a command of English can get in by legal immigration. Having a system — a sane, easy to understand system that doesn’t take a decade to get your visa — would tend to encourage people to use that system. I don’t think anyone is aspiring to be an illegals immigrant.
He has given several red lines about under what conditions he’d consider using nuclear weapons. The latest one being “don’t allow Ukraine to strike deep into Russia. Good thing we’re doing exactly that…
They’re paying a cost, but I would argue Ukraine is paying a much greater one and thus losing. Ukraine always had a much smaller population, was less militarized, more rural, etc. than Russia. If NATO a we’re not sending billions in aide and weapons, Russia would be much closer to victory than they are now. Ukraine can absolutely stalemate them for a while — until their military population shrinks to the point where they can’t hold territory, or the “allowance” gets cut off, or the public turns against the war because life without electricity and running water is miserable. Basically all we can do is keep Ukraine from losing for a while, at a cost of billions a month, at risk of Russia going after NATO, and until the last Ukrainian dies in a foxhole. That’s not us winning. It’s certainly not winning for Ukraine.
Confession is not the same as a long conversation with a pastor or priest about serious life issue or worries. I tend to think that people who know you well will give better advice than someone whose paycheck depends on telling you things that will make you happy.
I think if Gaza, South Africa we’re doing what Gaza, Israel is and has been doing, it might at least be seen as a low grade war. The Gaza situation arose because of a pretty serious terrorist attack. But even before that, the state had been lobbing missiles into the rest of Israel. And the history before the Hamas takeover of Gaza was one of repeated intifadas and terrorist attacks.
I’m not going to suggest that the Jews did nothing wrong, nor that they’re not doing anything wrong now. Obviously bombing hospitals and refugee encampments is a bad thing, to say the least. Flattening all of Gaza isn’t a good look here. But I think a lot of the over the top reactions are based on the Israeli fear that this might be the last time that they can do anything on Gaza because of world sentiment, and the frustration of thinking that these attacks will happen again as soon as the pressure is off.
If a war like that between two countries that hate each other, or even a civil war, I’m not sure how much anyone would care. Nobody cares about the Uyghur. Nobody is boycotting Saudi goods over Yemen. There’s been a low grade civil war between the Colombian government and FARC for decades. How many people care about the various other low grade wars going on? And how many would care if there weren’t sizeable Muslim and Jewish enclaves in major countries?
I’m not suggesting don’t enforce the border. TBH I thought that was a given. But the point I’m making is that if that right now the standard for legal immigration is absurdly long, and not much of a real system. And I think it’s something that needs to be addressed. A sane immigration system will prevent people from trying to enter illegally because it’s plausible that one can do so legally. That doesn’t mean those who can’t won’t jump the fence and need to be deported. That’s going to be true, no matter what the system is.
I’m not convinced that this is worse than a human. There’s a fair number of patients of human doctors who believe that their shrink is in a relationship with them and some think they’re cheating. Keep in mind that the kind of person who would turn to therapy to fix themselves is likely someone with few friends and family to talk to and thus are putting a lot of eggs in the psychiatrist basket. That it’s going through AI is not really surprising to me.
I agree this is correct, but one thing that I note about the MAGA in General is that there is a vision, a purpose, he’s here to get the things done. Most other political people just don’t do that. They have a vision. They have policies maybe, but you never get the sense that they have any idea what the country is supposed to look like.
With Trump, whether you agree or not, has a vision. He wants the streets safe to walk down, a border that’s essentially closed, cheap food and gas and to have things made in America. His vision in short is American life looking like it did in 1960 or so.
I just can’t get excited for AI therapy because honestly, unless you have literally nobody in your life to talk through things with, there’s no value to therapy. I just don’t see people with long-standing issues get better because they had therapy. In fact, some people have therapy for multiple years without ever getting to the point of not needing therapy anymore.
I’m very much of the Stoic/CBT/Jordan Peterson school of therapy. Over focus on feelings and overthinking problems not only does not work, but quite often makes your original issues much worse. The key to getting better (barring something organically wrong with your brain — and that’s fairly rare) is to get out of your own head and get into taking productive actions to make your life better. Feeling bad about yourself is much better treated by becoming a better person than by sitting around trying to convince yourself that just because you haven’t ever done anything useful doesn’t mean that you’re useless. Get out there and start building, fixing or cleaning things. You’ll get over feeling worthless because you’ll know you did something useful.
I’m every bit in favor of a sane policy on immigration. We’d probably have a better handle on illegal migration if it were plausible to get into the country legally with a reasonable record and work history and no criminal record. Our current process is long and drawn out and doesn’t allow people to immigrate quickly. If the choice is a 5-10 year wait or hop the fence, I don’t think you can act shocked when a lot of people jump the fence. At the same time, I don’t think it’s sustainable to have millions of people come in, then throw up your hands and act shocked when people whose town population doubled in the last year with people who don’t speak English want them rounded up. Our system is the dumbest most convoluted thing I can think of, topped with zero effort at enforcement. If you’re here illegally, you can basically do whatever you want with no worries. And eventually you get amnesty and thus you get to apply for citizenship and all that comes with it. Insane.
Does regular therapy actually do more than that? Most of the value (unless you’re literally diagnosed with a real mental disorder) is in hearing yourself talk about the problem. It’s probably no better or worse than talking to a friend or clergy or a parent. Even journaling generally helps to get things off your chest and often just putting down on paper the stuff that happened or that’s in your head can give you insight.
People generally don’t understand drugs or how dangerous or addictive they can be. Allowing the public to take addictive forms of morphine or opioids for every ache and pain without supervision just makes a population of addicts who cannot hold down jobs and are thus dependent on the state. Other drugs are easy to overdose on and do pretty serious damage to the body.
The problem being trying to find out if you’re a real victim of exploitation or if you’re just unsatisfied with where you ended up. Most people will absolutely believe that they deserve more.
I think it works as an appeal to victimization and greed. The belief that you’re being exploited is something that comes up anytime you end up with any sort of hierarchy. It’s something that humans are just unwilling to accept unless it’s them at or near the top of the dominance hierarchy. So rather than accept that there’s a reason that they’re not at the top of that hierarchy. Incels certainly have theories about what kinds of external factors make them unfuckable. The kid cut from the football team will likely believe in some sort of favoritism hold him back. In the workplace we have a hard time accepting that we actually don’t deserve to be the boss.
The other appeal is greed. If those at the top are unfairly exploiting them, it’s “only fair” to ask that some of those ill-gotten gains go to them. So they stand to gain if they can leverage the power of the state to basically steal from their betters.
I think honestly the future is personal website blogs and discussions on places like this. Substack is still okay, but it has limitations especially since as you’re hosting on someone else’s site you have to abide their rules. The other option is self publishing books which might be a decent way to get long form content.
That seems a broad question. There are CEOs who are merely occupying a chair and collecting the salary. It happens in just about any position. There are also people who work their butts off innovating and improving life for the whole country who are taking risks to do so. I wouldn’t begrudge the second set a thing, and furthermore I think being keen to confiscate wealth on the theory that the first type is more common than the second ends up doing great harm as it prevents the second group from working effectively.
I don’t think it’s a valley, I think it’s a sort of truism of political life. Complaints and protests tend to happen in places where said problem is least apparent. Environmental protests happen where the environment is well cared for, marital protests happen where women are safe, screams of authoritarian regimes happen where arbitrary arrests don’t.
I kinda doubt that. People have lived in much worse conditions than the Gen Z PMC people deciding not to have kids. Go look at video of any third world slum — people have kids when things like electricity and running water aren’t available. They have babies in war zones. I can’t see that and then look at Gen Z refusing to have kids and see financial issues being the real reason.
I have a few hypotheses.
First, I think American children are much slower to mature emotionally and mentally. 25 year olds in the USA still act like teenagers and are still into drunken partying, staying out late to go clubbing. They aren’t really ready to settle into parenthood even if they had the means because they aren’t ready for the responsibility of a baby.
Second, Americans are pretty hedonistic. A baby isn’t about you, and worse requires sacrificing your lifestyle in major ways. You need to get serious about a career and making money because the baby needs food and diapers. You might hate what you are doing, but you don’t have the same choices that you have as a child-free couple. Likewise every other choice you make now has to include planning for the baby. You want to go out to dinner, you either find a sitter or the baby comes along. And I think the lifestyle most young adults like living just doesn’t have the room for a baby.
The other thing is that the targets of this are very likely fellow democrats. The mating hasn’t been assorted in any real sense because most conservatives live in the Midwest/South/Western Plains where the women LARPing Bad Handmaiden don’t live or even visit. They’re not really going to stick it to Trump voters, they aren’t dating them anyway. They’re refusing sex with Dudes for Harris.
The first question is how trustworthy it ever was. I’m not convinced it’s worse now than it was, in fact the sheer diversity of sources available does a pretty good job of keeping the press honest because if the majority of the news slants left, it’s now trivially easy to start one that corrects the bias. And once you add in press from other countries to the mix, we probably have news at least as accurate as any other point in history.
But second, the point is to consume less news, and perhaps be more choosy about it. Because at the end of the day, outside of very prominent elites, our actual influence over events is minimal and more than likely counterproductive. It’s not necessary to follow news to the point of insanity (there have already been two murders attributed to the victory of Donald Trump and his effect on liberals’ minds) if the best you can hope for is to maybe sometimes getting a jolt of dopamine because some conservative stuck it to a liberal (or vice versa). The juice isn’t worth the squeeze, especially as it gets harder and harder to tell the difference between outright propaganda designed to make you hate an out group and news that just so happens to make the ourgroup look bad. Why is it necessary to be reading hours of news? Does it help you live better? From r my money, I just scan the headlines of Google News, and while I’m sure I’m not super informed, I’m not missing anything much. I’m also in a much more sane headspace than the people drinking from the information firehouse and placing more importance on a given news story than it actually deserves.
I’ll make exceptions if the issue n question affects me, someone I actually care about, or is a cause I’m involved in. But 99% of the news isn’t that at all. It’s international news that doesn’t affect me and that I can’t do anything about. It’s court intrigues that are entertaining but not important. Or sometimes it’s important stuff. The important stuff you’ll definitely hear about one way or another. People will talk about it,
I think it’s possible to curtail must social media, unless you are in some way using it for business. And I’m not really saying “get rid of it, don’t use it” about any news outlet or social media platform. I’m suggesting as far as any media goes, try to keep it between the parameters of what would have been possible before the era of phones in the pocket. Which would have been something like a half hour to an hour of news a day (or one daily newspaper). And for social media, unless you’re self employed and using social media for business (and in that case, then stick to talking about business) then, again, an hour or two a day is plenty to know enough of what’s happening in that sphere to keep you mostly caught up. Beyond that, there’s really no need.
Neutral news is impossible. Every news source has at least some bias. On the other hand, if you stick to a source or two you know well. It should be a known bias that you can adjust for. USA Today leans liberal. We know this. So you can adjust for it. Daily Wire is conservative, and again, you can adjust to it. But the alternative of connecting directly to a firehouse for information is just going to take the news and blow it out of proportion to its actual importance. Trump is picking a cabinet right now. It’s not that important to most people. Spending four hours a day reading about it obsessively even though the6 might not even get confirmed is not helping anyone.
Have you considered that having only the negative aspects displayed in media is pretty biased? I get that at least some families have negative aspects to them. Some families are neglectful or overly critical or strict or even abusive. But when looking at the mainstream media shows, I’m finding that you have to look pretty darn far to find a show that has a positive view of family life — present, active, competent parents who love and care for their children and know how to help them navigate through life. Likewise, it’s rare to find shows in which the parents are happily married and aren’t constantly spitting out one-line put-downs of their spouse and who actually seem to like being together. I would personally guess that less than a quarter of families are actually negative forces in each other’s lives. Maybe less than 10% are neglectful or abusive, maybe a bit more common to see people struggling a bit, though generally doing okay. Yet, to watch mainstream media, you have the opposite viewpoint. They show, at best, a Simpson’s style family that features a pair of idiot parents (especially a clueless dad) who don’t seem to like each other much and who are generally unaware of anything going on in their children’s lives or how to handle those issues.
I don’t think that you actually can get away from social media entirely. But more to the point, I think beyond a certain level, interactions with media in general is probably not good for you simply because you’re interacting with news and opinions of other people all the time and thus imbibing the thoughts and opinions and agendas of other people all the time.
For most purposes, I think getting your news once a day in less than half an hour is really the maximum I’d recommend. And as far as social media, again, doing less is better. The thing is, that back in the dinosaur ages before 24 hour news cycles and social media, people didn’t obsess about politics. Sure if you wanted you could listen to Rush Limbaugh in your car for an hour a day. And because of that politics wasn’t seen as a major part of anyone’s life and thus it didn’t “trigger” people. There was no wailing and gnashing of teeth when Reagan won in 1980. Hell, I don’t think most people cared all that much about Nixon. Watergate was seen as a bad thing, but people hadn’t yet turned politics into a lifestyle so Nixon was important, sure, but people were more interested in watching MASH or sports or playing with the kids or whatever else was going on.
I personally think even politics themselves would vastly improve if people weren’t interested in it. Compromise and doing the job aren’t sexy parts of politics, but they’re why things actually get done. It can’t happen when everyone is watching all the time and commenting and so on. The best way for almost any government to run is in semi darkness where backroom dealing and horse trading can happen, and where people can make decisions for the good of the country without the proles interfering. Name any issue and I guarantee that it’s possible to come to a solution that would work, but that the general public would see as betrayal.
I think that the propaganda machine is to blame as well. Look at just about anything on television or any movie, music, etc. The resounding themes are family is a drag, parents are idiots or don’t care, and that the point of life is hedonistic pleasure which things like family and religion are drags on. I’ve challenged people with this, and it’s hard to do it. Find four mainstream television shows that show intact, loving, and competent families. Find four such shows where religion and particularly Christianity is portrayed as good wholesome, and not full of hypocrisy and repression. When the entire culture tells you over and over that families and traditions and religion are a drag on your individual hedonistic pleasure seeking, and that the highest good of life is hedonistic pleasures, it’s not shocking to me that families are dying.
- Prev
- Next
A huge difference is that being wrong about a nuclear red line quite simply means a pretty serious blow to civilization period. And this makes every “crossing of the Rubicon” an all-in bet that Putin will not use nuclear weapons over whatever this new thing is. And I think honestly it’s pretty obvious that the man has a Rubicon and if we continue to cross false Rubicons we eventually cross the real one, especially if the Rubicon crossed would create a serious threat to Russia as a world power or Putin as leader.
I personally have little confidence in the leadership of NATO to handle this kind of thing. I just find nothing that makes me think that they have thought strategically about anything in the war. The arguments for continuing seem to be nothing more than moral preening. Saying Russia is bad and thus we will fight them and they will lose because bad guys always lose is not the kind of hard nosed strategic thinking I’m looking for in the leadership of NATO. Further, they’ve already been wrong about the state of Russia. It was supposed to collapse in the first months because we disconnected them from the central banks. It turns out they were not economic paper tigers and were more or less fine. They thought once Ukraine got this or that weapon system, that Russian military units would fail and the invasion would end. Turns out the best we can do is hold them in place. If the leaders of NATO can be wrong about the state of Russian and Ukrainian forces, and the Russian economy, I just don’t think they can be able to gage which Red Line is one Red Line too far.
More options
Context Copy link