@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 democracy is more about dodging responsibility than anything else.

Take a kingdom. King Arthur is king of the British. If he makes a decision, then it’s his decision and he and he alone is responsible for the outcomes. If he decides to invade France, he lives with the consequences positive or negative. And we know where to find him if he makes enough poor decisions. The buck stops in Camelot, and nowhere else. As such, and especially since he intends to pass down his kingdom to Arthur Jr., he has every reason to take these decisions seriously. And that would include dealing with corrupt officials.

Take a democracy. Everyone votes, and thus whatever decision comes from the people. Not the government they elect to make the decisions, the people. And thus the name of the game is to promise everything to get elected and then blame the people for the fallout. You voted for war with Iran, so if it’s going badly and wasting money and nobody can afford gas, that’s your fault, not the government. The government is only doing what you told it to. It’s not to blame that you’re stupid. And anyway, most of the people in the government will be retired before anything really bad comes from their incompetence.

I think the de Christianization of the west has made a lot of that stuff more acceptable to the general public. Although I don’t think I’d call our current zeitgeist repaganizing simply because I think our age at current is more nihilistic than pagan. Pagans while they were a bunch of vaguely indo European religious cults had some define beliefs about the world and definite notions of morality, anthropology, ecology, and metaphysics. Norse pagans had definite ideas about what being a good heathen meant. Romans had different, but equally strong ideas about the universe, the gods, morality, and so on. We have no ideas like that. We don’t have much of a conception about metaphysics, and the answers to most questions about morality tend to be “eh, believe whatever you want. The only universal evil is calling what someone wants to believe or do evil..”

Of course things like astrology would come back in those circumstances.

I think up to a certain point length is good. You simply cannot convey a cogent and interesting idea in a post under probably 2-3 paragraphs. It takes that long to develop an idea. Beyond that, less is usually more. Yarvin can be summarized in a couple of paragraphs. Making the point in 20 pages instead mostly ends up being wordy meandering that can be cut without much loss and in many cases removing the fluff improves the piece.

I mean other than all the times it’s happened (see acceptance of homosexuality, abortion, and wokeness) it doesn’t work that way. You can take almost any cultural form of degeneration and you can plot it out. In 1940, love songs featured the idea of marriage, in 1950, it was puppy love, and by 2026 “love” is jettisoned from the songs in favor of nearly pornographic descriptions of sex acts. Violence is also much more common and much more graphic and depraved than we would have seen in the mid century. If you dropped your 25 year old grandmother fresh from 1959 or 1949 she’d be shocked by how far we’d fallen culturally and morally.

Im not sure that FdB is right. There is no legal requirement to keep a healthy person in a mental hospital against their will. In fact, it’s kidnapping more or less. So if a person is NGBRI, then once the person is “recovered” he or she must be released. And so if Clancy is not insane or if she recovers then you cannot continue to hold her. Now if she’s actually seriously ill, that might never happen. If she wasn’t she’ll likely “recover” enough for release within a few years once the media stops paying attention.

I think I lay a lot of that mindset on the overemphasis on feelings, impulses, and desires. They certainly have a place, but it’s almost impossible to be a happy well adjusted person who lives an active social life and have feelings as the main focus on how a person lives. Feelings are not facts, they never were and cannot function as the driver of decisions. If you try, you’ll not only be living irrationally, but you’ll make yourself miserable in the process.

They don’t think the adults are weird, but they also have very little filter because of that and a prone to repeating things that adults would find weird and disturbing or inappropriate. If she’d said something like “you’re going home to Jesus on Tuesday” maybe the initial reaction would be an assumption about church, but after the kid dies on a Tuesday, the person would absolutely remember that kind of conversation.

Waxing and waiting is one thing. But she was capable of appearing perfectly fine in most situations and especially when waxing presentation would embarrass her, interfere in her plans, or cost her professional career. That seems a bigger ask. If she has a very obvious episode in the pick up line at kindergarten, then is fine an hour later, maybe. If she says something crazy in public or acts out in public at night and is okay the next morning, maybe. But AFAICT, she doesn’t have public episodes, outbursts, or odd behaviors. She is fine in public. She is fine on social media. She isn’t texting her contacts about the demon in the basement or something. She doesn’t even have episodes in the doctors offices. A person might be able to hold themselves together for a time, but it would be impossible to be consistent in hiding the illness that well from all of her social connections. Like she doesn’t even act out in the grocery store that im aware of. She’s either not ill, or she has the best control of her mental state of anyone out there.

I think there are a lot of problems in the field. Over diagnosis of disorders and over medication are perennial concerns in psychiatry and psychology. Psychology, upon which psychiatry is based has a replication problem meaning that most results are never subjected to scrutiny. Given these problems, I don’t think it reasonable to simply nod along to what psychiatry says without bothering to do something as crazy as read the evidence.

Because that’s not what psychosis is. It’s a break with reality. It’s believing untrue things, it’s not being in control of your actions and reactions. That’s how most mental illness works. You cannot turn it on and off. You can’t be rational on demand.

This case has done two things for me.

First it’s convinced me that insanity as a defense has become more about excuse making and dodging of responsibility than about getting people help. There’s a lot of her behavior that points to her trying to build a case for the defense more so than suffering an actual psychotic break. And for juries intent on not punishing a person who they like are often going along with the insanity defense even when the person doesn’t seem to be suffering from any real disorder.

To make my case rather briefly, she doesn’t really seem to have symptoms at any inconvenient or embarrassing situations. There weren’t any reported weird ass unhinged social media posts. She doesn’t seem to act weird in front of friends or family. Her five year old doesn’t seem to be reporting her telling him anything weird. Her husband thought she was okay — if he hadn’t believed that he would have either not run the errands or called a friend or family member to watch her while he was out. Even the doctors, while they’re definitely trying to treat her don’t seem to think she’s suffering a break. They don’t force her into a mental hospital, (she committed herself), and they didn’t seem to report it to any state agency. AFAICT she had her labor and delivery nurse liscence and job the entire time and CPS never visited the home. Moving on to the journal, the reports I’ve read about it sound like this is a cohesive clinical report of her trying to get a diagnosis. This seems pretty weird that a person supposedly suffering a psychosis can somehow interrogate their own thought process, the effects of various medications, and so on. There are no weird things in there, no voices or demons, no mental confusion, and no actual psychosis.

Making the insanity defense about sentencing and not guilt makes such things less likely. If you’re not guilty by reason of insanity, you can “recover” the day after the verdict and the court cannot touch you. You go home after a few rough weeks in a mental hospital. If you’re guilty but insane, then either you serve the whole sentence on recovery or if the sentence is that the mental hospital treatment runs concurrent to prison serve the remaining time in prison, it removes the incentive to use insanity as an attempt to allow people to essentially get away with it.

The more disturbing thing is the number of ordinary people who seem to be taking her side on this. They see her as the victim, and the justice system being broken because it’s attempting to prosecute a woman who’s claiming to be insane for killing a couple of kids. There’s no sympathy for the children who were strangled with exercise bands and more than likely watched at least one sibling killed before it was their turn. No sympathy for the father who was tricked into leaving her alone with the kids so she could slowly kill them. Nope, the killer was the victim. She was insane. And anyone who blames her for a killing she admits to doing is Red Pilled and wrong. I just can’t believe that this is the consensus opinion.

Knowing of modern media and even occasionally seeing it at a friend’s house is not the same as having it in their home given to them by their own parents. We do this all the time with other things. Teenagers have house parties and quite often alcohol will be served. Teens do know what alcohol is, and probably (especially for young men) they’ve had some before they are of legal age. That doesn’t mean you need to normalize it and it especially doesn’t mean that you need to supply them a fully stocked liquor cabinet and a personal Bartisian so they can wind down after grade school with a nice Manhattan.

And if you don’t normalize it, the chances of your child not really wanting it go up. They can see the negative consequences of bad behavior, or media and the like that are bad for them. They’ll notice just how crazy modern media can be. They’ll be repulsed by seeing just how much everyone is in lockstep over culture issues and just how weird it all is.

I think it depends. If you never see something you can’t want it. If all a kid gets is old music and occasionally a DVD movie, they’ll see it as normal.

I don’t think it’s about “no downer ending” so much as leaving the status quo so that there’s room for expansion of the series. A movie that kills off a major character (let alone several) dies or gets seriously injured has less room for sequels. Had the Marvel snap storyline stuck, the series would have to change — no Spider-Man for example, and Thor being fat and depressed. How do you make the next several Marvel movies when you’ve wrecked the franchise by killing off major popular characters?

I don’t really see the problem in saying both are true. The issue comes down to the structure of the civilization and its decision making. In an era when civilization was down at the level of maybe a large city, one great leap or terrible decision can kill off the entire civilization. There are 300 million Americans living in Trump’s America. That was the global population around the time of Christ. If one guy can make a big impact on America in 2026 then why couldn’t a similar man living in 100 BC have an impact just as big on any civilization that’s smaller? Less population would seem to create a situation where black swan events and guys with big egos can change the trajectory of a civilization simply because the impact on a bigger proportion of the population makes the events more important.

If you’re an Empire that’s basically the size of New Jersey with a big central city and a few small towns, a crop failure could well be catastrophic. In modern states, global trade and larger populations provide a hedge.

I think Americans are less “real” in part because of history. America was born in the newspaper age, came of age in the radio age, matured in the TV age, and now the internet age. If you compare that to places like Britain or Germany or India or China or Japan, the reason seems pretty clear. The idea of being a Brit or a German or Indian includes lots of history and culture and folkways that existed hundreds or even thousands of years before printing presses to say nothing of the internet. Brits go to pubs and get drunk because that’s just what they do, they have for centuries. Japanese have their culture going back thousands of years.

I don’t think Lumps are a new problem. It’s just that in the modern era most places to dump them no longer exist at sufficient scale to absorb the lumps. Most people, for most of human history didn’t need to go through decades of schooling to train for a skilled career. Up until the 1990s is was perfectly okay to not be motivated in school because most people were destined for one of several jobs with low expectations for the workers: farmers, skilled tradesmen, factory workers, maybe low level office drones.

I tend to see the problem from the other side. The problem isn’t the Lumps. They’ve always been around, and probably always will be. The problem is that average isn’t good enough anymore. It’s no longer even good enough to graduate college, you need to have good grades, internships, the right extracurricular activities, the right work experience. You can’t just slide. And so if you’re not elite human capital, whether because you are not motivated enough to scrum hard enough, or you don’t have the intellect or the ability to win, there’s no real place for you.

I mean gun to head I’d point to several things:

  1. Scientific hubris abroad in much of Western Europe at the time which assumed that humans in their infinite wisdom had the ability and thus the duty to reshape humanity and human genetics to create better humans.

  2. Nationalistic fervor that resulted from the loss in WWI and the desire to reassert Germany as a major power in Europe.

  3. Reparations demanded added to the global economic crisis of the Great Depression meant that the median population was experiencing hyperinflation and unemployment and so on. This lead to people being willing to look for anything and anyone who had some sort of plan to make things better before bread cost 2 wheelbarrows of marks instead of one.

  4. Jews were pretty easy pickings at the time. Many were immigrants who had fled Eastern Europe during the Russian revolution, they were isolated, they did weird things in their religion. They were already seen as enemies because of blood libels based on Christian beliefs from earlier centuries. They didn’t have a lot of political power. They were “those weirdos over there who dress funny and nod while they pray.” Getting people to not like them isn’t hard.

  5. Moral relativism that meant that people were no longer beholden to ideas of Good and Evil.

They were in my view, about half right. Enlightenment thinking does have flaws, especially in moral reasoning. It’s almost impossible to find any evil that one cannot find some justification for if given just the right set of circumstances. I can justify the murder of millions if my reason is “good enough”. The relativism and utilitarian principles given by the enlightenment put everything, up to and including genocide, on the table. Marxism doesn’t work any better as it is a product of the enlightenment. It’s not really an alternative source of moral inspiration, it’s just a different flavor. What is needed in my view is an outside, definitive and authoritative source of the ideal of Good, and a framework that imagines that the most important thing is to live by the ideals of The Good and thus you cannot change the ideals just because you have a good excuse.

The main reason I don’t want LLM based content is that I come to fora to read the thoughts of humans in their own words. I think having everything run through LLMs would degrade the original content that would otherwise be produced.

I don’t mind so long as the original texts are made available to the public once scanned. I agree that rotting books sitting unread are doing no good, however the loss of human creativity and wisdom is tragic to my mind. Those 6 lost poems are of some value even just for historical interest, and I count it a loss — even if it’s an accidental one — that they no longer exist. I don’t insist on scrolls, a pdf is just fine actually. The same of old buildings— we should preserve something of the past, even if only in pictures and videos. To lose those things means losing not only history, but potential other ideas and arts that we can draw from creatively. I find the world views of ancient cultures to be utterly fascinating because they provide other ways of seeing the world and thus potentially new ways of seeing and solving our own problems.

My feeling is anyone who would split with a church over a plain reading of the Bible isn’t really Christian enough to be worth catering to. In short, they place their own opinions above all else and would likely leave over some other issue anyway. So I’d say ignore them and teach what the bible says, and the traditions as they existed. If it makes people uncomfortable good, they needed to hear it.

Im not talking about politics, but culture, the way you think about the actual humans living near you — your family, your friends, your neighbors, etc. communists generally take a sort of dim view of communalism in the sense of people actually showing up in their life to help people who need it. A Christian community will give to charity quite often, they’ll run ministries to help people, they’ll show up to clean up after storms, and so on. In their personal lives, Christians tend to prioritize or at least consider how things that they want to do or want to avoid doing affects other people. A Christian woman will often choose to stay home with the kids. Not necessarily because her hedonistic desires really lean in the direction of “I an intelligent woman who can outwork a lot of men somehow pine after the life of changing diapers and cooking and keeping house”, I don’t think that’s true. They do so out of the sense that being a housewife is good, and good for the rest of the family and especially the kids.

Communists and the far left tend to believe that people need to be forced to do good things. I suspect they lack personal experience with communities that are more communal.

One thing I point out about religious people in general is that they’re much less into hyper-individualism and hedonism than modern secular society. They view themselves as part of a much larger whole. A religious Jew sees himself as part of a group a tribe and a nation. A religious Christian sees himself as part of the Body of Christ. A secular progressive especially as you get into the far left end of things is much more an individualistic person concerned mostly about their own interests and lifestyle.

Babies are actually a pretty big lifestyle change. You cannot doa lot of things that single people or DINKs do. No staying out late, no spontaneous trips, no getting drunk every weekend or partying. You have to prioritize the baby and its needs. You have to make sure you have a good enough job to provide. You can’t just quit because you want to because you are responsible for the baby. This isn’t something that would be appealing to a hedonist. It’s not as much fun as partying and traveling and drinking and so on.

It depends. Usually in the Christian form of charity, there was an expectation of the person joining and becoming a Christian, and often The priest would require that the recipient generally improve their behaviors if they are the cause of the problem. If they had no job they were expected to do at least some work. It wasn’t a modern free check where a person could demand gibs despite not being a member of the community or contributing in any way whatsoever.