MaiqTheTrue
Renrijra Krin
No bio...
User ID: 1783
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:
-
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.
-
Nationalistic fervor that resulted from the loss in WWI and the desire to reassert Germany as a major power in Europe.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
I think part of the problem is that modern technology and lifestyles have sort of enabled this. When you have entire generations of people who have only minimal contact with reality, they Don’t really believe in the necessity of teaching kids to survive in the world. When the default is “if he fails then there are all of these systems that mean he will do okay.” That could just be the assumption of the time when mom and dad were in school and there were enough “good enough” jobs for college graduates that a kid who flounders for a couple of years will be okay, so there’s no urgency in making sure that your kid is employable and can present himself well. For the lower class it’s much the same. Kids don’t need to worry about learning in school and learning a trade or going to college because welfare will feed them. And without hard edges, without having to worry about whether the children are being raised into sensible adults, they tend to go with the idea of letting kids do whatever they want.
I mean if you insist on the very narrow definition of chechov’s gun. On the other hand there are lots of TV shows or movies that would be ruined by forms of the gun. One huge one is the abilities of characters and technology in science fiction and fantasy. Once I establish that Spock can do the mind meld and read a guy’s mind, the audience tends to question why that isn’t happening when this would be the obvious solution to the need to find out something that the characters need to know and the bad guy does know.
I think the rule is better stated as “don’t bring up a potential solution to the problem and then ignore it.” I tend to like Sanderson framing of the issue which is that ideally, your characters should try everything that the audience would think would work and have it fail. The gun would ignore that rule, because you have characters fighting and the gun is right there so the audience is thinking “why not just shoot the guy with the gun that’s sitting right there”
The languages thing makes a lot of sense as most people if they have more than one language usually have at least one of them as English. Thus if there’s no official translation of UN content in your language, you’d default to English as the language of choice. Arabic and Chinese really don’t spread beyond their initial cultures and Spanish is largely confined to Spain and Latin America. Russian used to be bigger in Eastern Europe, but I don’t think it’s as popular there now.
I think a lot of the divide comes down to how we raise kids. The major difference between now and the past is that most parents are now so divorced from the idea that there should be any authority figures that they not only cannot raise their kids into adulthood properly, but often stand in the way of anyone who would demand a kid do anything they don’t want to. That often means that the child lacks the ability to act professionally or talk professionally. They don’t understand that going to a job interview is not the same as hanging out with the kid down the street.
Maybe it is George Takei.
I mean how common do these incidents need to be before anyone is allowed to point to the pattern? How blatant do the cops need to be before anybody is allowed to say “this isn’t just incompetent?” A man was arrested for being stabbed by a brown Sikh guy while the cops calmly chatted and searched his phone and then his father’s phone for “racism”. A man who, had he received prompt treatment, might well have survived.
- Prev
- Next

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.
More options
Context Copy link