QuinoaHawkDude
No bio...
User ID: 1789
QuinoaHawkDude
1yr ago
Wild animals in the jungle is a misleading analogy. A better analogy would be "I'm not persuaded of the automatic moral duty of bystanders to intervene when one human being robs another" (which in these days of "property crime isn't all that big of a deal, especially when it happens to rich white people" leftist thinking is perhaps not as extraordinary a position as I might prefer). Just as human beings who want their property to remain in their possession have a vested interest in making sure other humans' property is protected from theft, countries who want their sovereignty over their territory to remain intact have a vested interest in defeating any defector nations who decide that they should just take that other country's land because they can.
And yeah, sure, these same Western nations have their own history of military conquest for profit. That doesn't make them hypocrites for standing up to Russia in 2022, any more than if my grandfather happened to have been a professional thief, it would be hypocritical for me to become a police officer.
QuinoaHawkDude
1yr ago
So, Curtis Yarvin just dropped a long essay about why he doesn't like the West's support for Ukraine in its conflict with Russia: https://graymirror.substack.com/p/ukraine-the-tomb-of-liberal-nationalism
Or, at least, that's what I think his point is. As usual with his writings, it can be hard to tell.
FWIW, reading Unqualified Reservations was probably the single most important event in my journey to this weird part of the internet that we call the Ratsphere, even though Yarvin probably doesn't consider himself a rationalist (and I neither do I, really).
However, on this particular point (Ukraine), I find myself quite frustrated. All those words, and he never once (as far as I can tell - I admit that I only had time to skim the article) addressed what I would think would be the most obvious point if you're trying to convince a bog-standard Westerner why they shouldn't support Ukraine: Ukraine was invaded by Russia. Not a "regime change" type invasion, a la USA vs. Iraq '03, not a "peacekeeping" invasion. A "Russia wants some of the land currently controlled by Ukraine to be controlled by Russia instead" invasion. A good, old-fashioned war of conquest for resources. The kind of war that, since 1945, the industrialized West (or "first world") has tried very hard to make sure nobody is allowed to wage, especially not in Europe. And therefore, the West's support for Ukraine is entirely justified by the desire to make sure nobody is allowed to get away with just seizing territory because they want it.
Like I said, maybe he does try to convince the reader why this policy is wrong, but in true Moldbuggian fashion, he uses 10,000 words to say what would be better said with 100.
Or maybe he assumes that anybody paying attention knows why the standard narrative is wrong. Maybe I'm wrong about how and why Russia invaded Ukraine.
As a side note, I do think it's interesting that the both the most radically right-wing Substack author I follow (Yarvin) and the most radically left-wing Substack author I follow (Freddie DeBoer) both think the West's support for Ukraine is bad. Is this just horseshoe theory? They both hate the United States for different reasons and anything it does is wrong by default?
QuinoaHawkDude
1yr ago
The parallels between a woman on a dating site and a manager looking to hire a new employee are strong. Both are in a position of negotiating strength; both are going to have vastly more "applicants" than they have positions to fill. However, that doesn't necessarily make their job an easy one, because finding the one applicant that will actually work out for them long-term is quite difficult. I have no experience being a woman, but I do have experience being a hiring manager, and I can tell you a few things:
-
You're looking for reasons to quickly eliminate candidates from consideration (so you don't waste time interviewing/dating them). Auto-rejecting somebody because they have misspelled words on their resume (or wearing Crocs in their profile pic) might seem cruel, but anybody who is paying attention knows what the rules are, and you don't want to hire/date people who aren't paying attention.
-
Unless you're the sole owner of a private company, you will have people to answer to if you end up making a bad hiring decision, and so it's important that your choice be defensible according to your applicable social consensus. "I'm sorry so and so didn't work out, but they went to Harvard and their resume had all the right keywords" =~ "I can't possibly be blamed for Chad turning out to be an asshole, he went to Harvard and said he was a feminist and wanted a long-term relationship and kids". You're not really looking to take chances on people who have what most people consider red flags even if you personally don't think they're a big deal.
QuinoaHawkDude
1yr ago
The other thing is that news organizations typically are unable or unwilling to do any background research on stories; they depend on their network of "experts" willing to comment on stories. Particularly if you want the news to break and quickly become front-page material. Everybody's got a "school shooting expert" or "police violence expert" in their Rolodex; they probably don't have a "vinyl chloride train derailment" expert lined up and ready to go at a moment's notice.
QuinoaHawkDude
1yr ago
How do you square this theory with the fact that many European countries have gone further with their progressive reforms along all of these dimensions (at least, that is my general impression - I'm not willing to claim expertise in every single EU member state's social policies and what it's like to live there, but I am willing to claim that most Americans perceive that European countries are both more progressive and less disordered than the US).
So, do European countries not have no-fault divorce? Do they not have lax drug policies or housing projects? Are the cops in London going around cracking rough sleepers over the head with their billy clubs and shipping them off to institutions? (I mention London specifically because the UK is the only European (kind of?) country I have any experience traveling in, and it's generally amazing to me how few "street people" you see in the cities. Most people I've talked to about this cite the stronger social safety net as being the reason.
As much as I instinctively would like more aggressive policing of vagrancy, vandalism, and property crime in American cities, I'm not sure it will solve the fundamental problem of too many people without jobs or other economic support. Given what it costs to actually arrest, jail, bring to trial, convict, and imprison somebody, it's simply not worth prosecuting most low-level property crime, even if it makes living in cities hell. Low-crime times and places seem more correlated with "enough jobs and housing to go around" than with "enough cops, courts and jails".
QuinoaHawkDude
1yr ago
Michael Malice's assertion seems to be true, that answering "are some people better than others" is the most precise way to distinguish right-wing from left-wing.
This is ironic given that it is mostly progressives that I see unironically declaring that so-and-so is a "terrible person" for having right-wing opinions, or is a "certified Good Person" (no shit, I saw somebody use that exact phrase and capitalization on social media recently) because they support LGBTQ folks.
What's probably more at the heart of right-wing vs. left-wing is the extent to which you think somebody's status as a better or worse person can be changed with the right (re)education.
QuinoaHawkDude
1yr ago
"Whole-language" might be a bad technique for trying to teach illiterate kids to read in a classroom setting, but I think the insight that it's better for readers to parse written language as whole words as opposed to a stream of phonemes is correct. I remember sitting in elementary school reading classes, where kids would be randomly picked to read some passage out of a book, and it was painfully obvious which of my fellow students could only read by sounding out syllables based on the spelling of words; they had absolutely no idea what the semantic content of what they just read actually was.
I was privileged to have parents who made teaching me how to read a priority, by reading to me/with me as a toddler, and before I ever set foot in a public school classroom I was already reading books by myself. At this point it feels like they gave me a superpower. Maybe not every kid is capable of learning to read this way. I have no memory of how much or little my parents may have been teaching me about how the spelling of written words mapped to the phonemes that make up spoken words.
Anyway, I think learning to read is far too foundational a skill for any parent who cares about their child's success in life to leave up to schools, no matter how elite. I'm kind of baffled by some of the other comments in this thread about parents who spend the money to send their kids to private schools having the clout to demand that the schools adequately teach their kids to read; I would really assume that anybody who has that kind of money would understand that it's their job to teach their kid basic reading skills, just as it's their job to teach their kid how to speak, and other things like hygiene and how to dress themselves. Like, you wouldn't send your kid off to their first day at kindergarten without being potty trained; why are you sending them there without being able to read at least, like, Thomas the Tank Engine, if not Charlotte's Web? Oh, and if the parents really are too busy with their elite careers to read to their kids at night, hire an au pair/nanny/governess/tutor/whatever.
QuinoaHawkDude
1yr ago
I recently saw a comment on a video going over the latest scary "any amount of alcohol is bad for you" research that said "it's funny how alcohol is the only drug that people have to justify NOT using". Not that I think that's what you're trying to do here, as you said, you're just curious. At the end of the day, however, I'd just take the win and be happy that you don't enjoy something that's bad for you, no matter how many other people love it.
QuinoaHawkDude
1yr ago
Consider this analogy: laws mandating wearing of seatbelts in cars don't prevent 100% of automotive fatalities. Sometimes this is because people aren't wearing their seatbelts properly. Sometimes this is because people just ignore the law and don't wear them. Sometimes this is because the specific type of accident caused trauma that seatbelts can't mitigate.
Would you therefore conclude "seatbelt mandates don't work"? Would you think it reasonable for the highway department (or whomever) to stop encouraging the wearing of seatbelts because they're not 100% effective?
QuinoaHawkDude
1yr ago
Side note, but I really would love to run a study where you just showed headshots (all taken in the same light/background) of a bunch of randomly selected people to another bunch of randomly selected people and had the second bunch rate the headshots on a 1-10 scale of attractiveness, then tried to see what latent variables about the people in the headshots (age, BMI, wealth, education) correlated most strongly with the 1-10 ratings.
My hypothesis is that for straight men looking at pictures of women, the 1-10 ratings would correspond really closely to age and BMI. I would be really interested in seeing what the results would be for straight women looking at pictures of men.
QuinoaHawkDude
1yr ago
For what it's worth, I'm in my 40s and I'm just now becoming aware, sometimes, that the reason I think a woman is really pretty is because she's done a really good job with her makeup. Lot of obvious makeup is unattractive to me, but probably because I associate it with lower-class women. But no makeup is definitely less attractive than well-done subtle makeup. I think the same thing happens in reverse with more educated, higher-class women finding jacked guys in muscle shirts less attractive than a man who manages to signal strength/fitness and masculinity more subtly, but also don't find completely unfit, weak men attractive at all.
QuinoaHawkDude
1yr ago
Sorry to bump an old thread; got here from the Quality Contributions roundup.
There was a discussion in the comments on this ACX post a few months back: https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/why-is-the-central-valley-so-bad, or rather in the comments on the "Highlights from the comments on" followup post: https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/highlights-from-the-comments-on-the-3b1
The gist of the comment was that whenever you hear somebody talking about how they want to live in a city because of museums, or a symphony orchestra, or lots of rock concerts, etc., what they're really saying is "I want to live next to other smart, cultured, cool people like me". And what they hate about the suburbs isn't so much the lack of those cultural touchstones, as much as it is having to live next to people who are perfectly happy with just a house that has a yard and a garage and a grocery store and a few chain restaurants within an easy drive.
So, no, the "desirable amenities of cities" can't be had in small chunks, if the main desirable amenity you're looking for is to have neighbors you like, and if you're the kind of person who hates suburban normies.
By analogue: I (and my parents) overpaid for my college education, from a pure ROI perspective - I probably would be doing just as well in life if I went to a cheap state school instead of a fancy private college - but after the hell that was K-12 public education, I was desperate and determined to go to a college where I would be surrounded by other nerds, and willing to pay the freight. It wouldn't have been the same if I'd gone to a public university in the same city and occasionally took a bus over to the campus of the fancy private college to attend some free lectures.
So, I can be sympathetic to people who love living in cities (even if I don't understand them at all) but can't afford to. To a point. Prices are still the most efficient way we have of distributing scarce goods, and there is more demand to live in cities right now that there is available housing in those cities. If you can figure out a way to afford it, move to NYC or SFO and have fun. If you can't...well, I really want a Porsche Taycan, but I can't afford one, so....
QuinoaHawkDude
1yr ago
I doubt any of those things were built to benefit the native populations of colonies. They were built to make it easier for the colonists to do whatever business they were there to do.
QuinoaHawkDude
1yr ago
Re: iconic buildings in India built built by the British: the fact that all the buildings you provided as examples were built in a British/Western architectural style, and the Cathedral being specifically a house of worship for the West's dominant religion rather than that of the natives, kind of diminishes the claim that these are investments in "India".
Let's say that the United States becomes a Chinese colony, and the Chinese build several large buildings in America that look like this. Would you consider that an investment in America, its people and its culture? Or would you consider it a massive "fuck you, we own this place now"?
QuinoaHawkDude
1yr ago
The obvious difference between colonialism and immigration (as these two concepts are generally understood by average modern Westerners) is that colonists tend to primarily be interested in exploiting and expropriating a nation's resources (natural and human) for the benefit of the colonist's home country (even if they do temporarily move to the colony in question to run a business, they aren't intending to make it their home, nor do they expect their children to be natives of the colony). Immigrants, even if they do end up changing the culture of the nation they move to, are invested in the success of their new home country, and the value they create stays in that country, modulo a few small cash transfers back to their relatives in their native country.
I expect, however, if you were to bring up any counterfactuals to this way of thinking to your bog-standard progressive, they would fall back on "Who, whom?" (or, as you put it, intersectionality). The mass migration of British people to its colonies (e.g. Australia and the USA before 1776), replacing the native culture with their own? Bad, because it was bad for non-whites. Mass migration of natives of former and current British colonies (e.g. India and Jamaica) to the UK, changing the culture of the UK? Good, because it's good for non-whites. (Also, curry and kebabs are better than steak-and-kidney pie.)
Even without considering the racial aspect of things, a simple rule might be "If a person moves from country A to country B and is immediately wealthier and more powerful than natives of country B, that's colonialism and that's bad. If a person moves from country B to country A and is immediately a member of the poor working classes, that's immigration and that's good."
As a sidebar, one of the things that fans of immigration might need to come to grips with is that the modern world of cheap air travel, global telecommunications and electronic banking makes it much, much easier for immigrants to avoid assimilating into their new country and put down roots there. They can still talk to their friends and family back home every day, travel back home once a year at least, and send them whatever is left of their income after covering their living expenses, invalidating my claim in the first paragraph about immigrants being invested in and benefiting their new country of residence. This is radically different from the immigration of the 1800s that American history textbooks look back upon so favorably.
QuinoaHawkDude
2yr ago
If Twitter dies, it will simply leave a Twitter-shaped hole in the world, which will be quickly filled in by something else.
It's not like getting rid of Twitter will get rid of progressives that want to proselytize their values on the rest of the world, any more than getting rid of 4Chan or KiwiFarms magically causes edgy right-wingers to evaporate.
QuinoaHawkDude
2yr ago
Companies, brands and individuals can face substantial PR backlash when they charge a true market price for something in exceptionally high demand. For example, in your airline-and-hotel-prices-around-the-holidays example, it's possible that the airlines could charge even more of a premium for that Wednesday-before-Thanksgiving ticket than they do, but they figure the extra profit for one day isn't worth the negative publicity.
In Taylor Swift's case, I'm assuming that it's easier to let her fans be pissed off at scalpers than at her, if she was the one charging $20k or whatever for a ticket to one of her shows. She's already rich as Croesus and will make plenty of bank of this tour as it is. She probably craves public adoration more than money at this point.
As far as "why does much of the public feel strongly entitled to below-market pricing for certain luxury goods and services" goes, another commenter already pointed out that it's as simple as "I want this thing I can't afford so badly that I've convinced myself it's somehow an injustice that I'm not getting it". It's the same vibe you get from certain self-described incels when they're in "bailey" mode ("oh, why won't that beautiful girl who works out every day and spends an hour a night on her skin care routine date me even though I don't put any effort into my own physical appearance because that's for losers").
QuinoaHawkDude
2yr ago
I think it's possible that this post is the answer, or at least part of the answer, to a question that's been kicking around in my brain for a while, which can be poorly summarized as "if Christians are opposed to abortion because they believe it is a sin, and therefore are motivated to exercise their voting rights to vote for politicians who promise to make it illegal (or appoint SC judges who would overturn Roe, clearing the way for making it illegal), surely they should also be voting for politicians who promise to make other things that they believe are sins illegal, including not being Christian."
I kind of assume that the reason (American) Christians aren't lobbying to make not being a Christian illegal is because it's just so completely outside of the (American) Overton window. But maybe there's another reason.
I might, perhaps, be incorrect in the assumption that the primary reason many/most Christians are anti-abortion is "because it makes God mad". After all, I've read plenty of well-written posts on this site and its predecessors putting forth philosophical arguments for why abortion is wrong that don't have any reference to theology or the supernatural. I've spent the past approximately five years arguing fairly passionately with anybody I think will listen that pro-lifers don't hate women, or want to make America a theocracy, they just believe a fetus is a living human with the same right to state protection from murder as any other living human, etc., on the basis of these posts.
However, more recently I've noticed that everybody making these well-written philosophical arguments also just so happens to be either a Christian, or somebody super concerned about falling Western birth rates, or somebody who just thinks that kids are the best and everybody should have more than they currently do...or some combination of all three. (If I'm wrong, please correct me, any anti-Western child-hating atheist pro-lifers out there.) So I'm no longer trying to convince anybody in my circle that they should listen more to what pro-life people are saying, any more than I would try to convince hardcore 2nd-amendment believers to listen to what the people lobbying for universal background checks and high-capacity magazine bans are saying, because I know that they (gun enthusiasts) know that they (anti-gun activists) ultimately want private firearms ownership either completely banned or made incredibly rare and highly socially stigmatized.
QuinoaHawkDude
2yr ago
Before I moved to a state with universal vote-by-mail, I pretty much only ever voted in Presidential and (maybe) midterm elections. Since moving, I've voted in every single election I get a ballot for. Being able to vote by mail, without having to ask for the privilege, removes a lot of friction from the voting process. You might say it's not that big of a deal to go vote in person, but where I was living, even if I did early voting it was going to mean about an hour standing in line (either because I got there way before the polling location opened to be first in line, or because I didn't do that and had to queue behind everybody else who did).
For those concerned about fraud, it's perhaps worth noting that I was kind of casual about my signature on a recent ballot, and my ballot got challenged because the signature didn't match my driver's license signature, and I had to go re-sign in person.
QuinoaHawkDude
2yr ago
Not all (American) Christians are pro-life, but nearly all (American) pro-lifers are Christian. And if you're pro-choice, this gives you a reason to dislike Christianity. So while we can agree that Rationalism != EA, if EA starts getting bad press because of the FTX implosion, it will start giving non-Rationalists a reason to distrust Rationalism.
QuinoaHawkDude
2yr ago
Yes, it is useful to challenge your basic assumptions about our reality. For example, did you know that Earth has a four corner simultaneous 4-day time cube?
QuinoaHawkDude
2yr ago
I'm not sure why you think Gates and Bezos get a pass. I've seen plenty of hate for both. I've seen very serious articles written about how the Gates' charitable foundations are actually evil because no single person should be in charge of how much money is donated to good causes, it should be THE PEOPLE in charge.
They just don't stick their heads out of their foxholes quite as often as good ol' Musky does. If there only one thing to admire about Musk, it's that he genuinely seems to not give a shit what the chattering classes think about him.
QuinoaHawkDude
2yr ago
But now I'm puzzled, because A) I feel like I have a moral obligation not to racially discriminate in friendship, but B) I don't feel like I have an obligation not to choose not to befriend a tennis player just because I don't have the necessary desires, even though tennis players don't deserve friendship any less than black people.
This seems like "Deontology Gone Wrong 101". The idea "I have a moral obligation not to racially discriminate in friendship" sounds like a great idea...hard to argue against, in the current Western zeitgeist. But most people, hearing that phrase, are thinking "right, it would be totally wrong and stupid to reject friendship from somebody who is otherwise completely suitable to be my friend (i.e. lives close, shares a lot of the same interests, knows a lot of the same people, similar age/education/SES) solely because they are of a different race". They're not thinking "I have a moral obligation to make sure that my group of friends has similar racial demographics to the population of the country I live in" or "I have a moral obligation to actively prioritize friendship with people of other races". They're certainly not thinking "a person of X race whose friends are all or mostly other people of X race is an evil person".
QuinoaHawkDude
2yr ago
I've heard an alternative take, which is: "Democracy is how we get different groups of people with widely-varying value systems to live in the same place without violent conflict." It's like, every N years, we have a mini civil war, except instead of actually shooting/stabbing/punching each other, we just line up everybody's troops on opposite sides of the battlefield, and whoever brings the biggest army wins, and we all agree to go home without bloodshed until the next regularly-scheduled civil war.
One can argue that there's no point in including people who are indifferent to politics in this process, because they're not the ones likely to start an actual war over anything.
On the other hand, one can argue that if we did make everybody show up, the issues being discussed would be more mainstream and less fringe. Wedge issues like trans rights, gun control, and abortion might be much less salient.
This seems completely opposed to Yarvin's pleas for "formalism" where he says we should stop trying to figure out which people ought to be in charge of what land ("It is very hard to come up with a rule that explains why the Palestinians should get Haifa back, and doesn’t explain why the Welsh should get London back"), simply accept current borders as correct and stop fighting over them: https://www.unqualified-reservations.org/2007/04/formalist-manifesto-originally-posted/
I mean, he did write that back in 2007, so maybe he's changed his mind in the subsequent 15+ years.
More options
Context Copy link