SophisticatedHillbilly
No bio...
User ID: 1964
SophisticatedHillbilly
1yr ago
In my experience of living in multiple Red areas that were (or are) undergoing development booms, it's that Red Tribe people generally are effectively YIMBY, or at least YIEBYBINMJTTYWTDWYL (Yes in everyone's back yard because it's not my job to tell you what to do with your land.)
As a very strong example, I once lived in a rural area gradually on the edge of becoming suburban. The state and county has long had a policy of "fence me out" in regards to animals. That is, if I have animals, and you don't want them to wander into your property, then fence me out. You can't make me build a fence, it's my land after all. There was a lot of conflict over this with the newcomers, and eventually transplants pushed to change the law. Locals never tried to block the new development, but they did try to block any changes that made things more restrictive or added rules. Eventually they were outnumbered, and now it's pretty typical city government with your standard NIMBY rules, and the culture I love continues to vanish.
It's one of the many reasons people say "don't bring California with you" when people move from more populous areas.
SophisticatedHillbilly
1yr ago
I can second the recommendation. It's my favorite book on the topic.
SophisticatedHillbilly
1yr ago
Fair. I guess my impression is that state governments are nearly just as broken, or at least we'll on the way. Plus, the things that do require federal approval are rather important.
I mean there's: nearly all large scale farming and mining, most (all?) energy production, pharmaceuticals (both new production of old drugs and new drugs,) and many imports, just off the top of my head.
It's not like all that will stop with a broken government, but the anarchotyrranic effects will only get stronger.
SophisticatedHillbilly
1yr ago
Don't underestimate the ability of a broken government to get in the way though. The government offices being empty doesn't mean buildings get built without approval, it merely means that nothing can be approved at all, so nothing will be built. The enforcement wing is sadly usually the last to break, so it can continue preventing action long after it has lost the capability to allow it.
SophisticatedHillbilly
1yr ago
That's fair. Entirely possible it just varies based on the social circle. I can only go based on what I've seen and heard.
SophisticatedHillbilly
1yr ago
I think you're short on what I would call Tier 2 social events, and heavy on Tier 1 events.
Tier 1 events are things like the Meetups where people would have to make a conscious effort to seek them out, or have minimal opportunity for extended social or physical interaction. Women don't usually attend these (relative to men at least) unless they're extremely female-oriented activities, or are an opportunity to show off (think dancing/clubs/bars)
Tier 2 social events are things like house-parties where you have to be invited by either the host or someone else who was invited. As you can expect, single women tend to get invited to things more than single men, so it creates a good ratio. The purpose of Tier 1 events is to make friends to invite you to Tier 2 events. Parties, formal events etc. This is where the "make female friends" advice comes in, but really just "make friends that are either female or sexually/romantically/socially successful is probably more accurate.
Typically, all social networks are comprised of interconnected social Hub People, each of who is a center of a social circle comprised of Spoke People who are connected to the rest of the group (other than 1 or 2 people) through the Hub. If you've ever met one of those guys who just seems to know everybody everywhere, that's a Hub. If you aren't a Hub, then you have to find one.
P.s. (I suppose there's probably a distinct Tier 3 sort of event, like a sex party or orgy, where you more or less know you're going to be sexually involved, but I've never participated in such things.)
SophisticatedHillbilly
1yr ago
The problem for Russia is that they have not finished paying costs.
True, but I guess I'm not just expecting their costs to mount much higher without a proportionally larger gain. The front has largely stagnated. Any operations large enough to move the meter would also be liable to shred what's left of Ukraine's fighting population and end with much larger land gains.
Russia is not really having shortage of land, this is not a Singapore.
It's not about square footage, it's about production capability. Major steel manufacturing industries, a very significant chunk of farmland, some of the world's larger lithium deposits and (if they can push into Kharkiv province,) significant natural gas deposits. For western countries that are living on their inheritance, things like that aren't too important. For everyone else, resource extraction is vital. Even what they've taken now is a win. In the case of unconditional surrender? It becomes the biggest material win any country has had since World War II.
When thinking about the land gains through conquest, it's worth looking at through a lens of "How much would you have to pay to acquire that area and everything in it minus the people?" There is no way anyone could acquire it cheaper than the price Russia will pay for the war.
Now of course, all of this is predicated on "If they can keep it," but with the combination of nuclear MAD and the unwillingness of any other major powers to step into a full-scale hot war, that seems likely.
SophisticatedHillbilly
1yr ago
Well yes, that's the point of the boil-the-frog style gradual centralization. I don't expect them to achieve it anytime soon. More like 100 years from now.
SophisticatedHillbilly
1yr ago
Russia will not get more powerful as result of that adventure
No, but they will acquire 62,000 sq mi of land that is better than most of the land that they currently possess. And the cost is what? Weapons that would have expired anyway? Some consumer goods shortages for things that no population actually needs to begin with? 180,000 men? That's only 3 men per square mile, a hell of a deal! And that of course is leaving out the possibility of Russia winning anything more than it has already gotten.
Maybe there are some more extreme long-term costs that I'm not seeing, but I really don't think so. What move could possibly have better contributed to Russia's long-term overall position.
SophisticatedHillbilly
1yr ago
I mean, it's still a long ways off from being centralized enough. It doesn't even have a single unified military structure. The change a few years ago to be able to take on debt at the federal level was a big move in the right(?) direction though.
SophisticatedHillbilly
1yr ago
Simple:
- The longer this world goes on, the more of the sinners who can be saved.
- While the actual end result is a total victory, the time just before that is expected to be horrific beyond anything that humanity has ever experienced. Most people don't want to go through that sooner than necessary.
SophisticatedHillbilly
1yr ago
An increasingly centralized EU could be a world power if it takes the direction that the US did early on and gradually become a single state. Barring that, no single EU state is powerful enough to qualify, and too restrained by the rest of the EU to flex the requiref muscles.
Russia will likely be more of a regional power than a world power, I agree. However, do not underestimate the psychological impact that backing the losing horse has on international opinion. Ukraine will likely lose the war, which means Team USA lost the war.
Doesn't matter how costly it was to Russia, it demonstrates that even very heavy US backing doesn't protect you against even a dysfunctional regional power, which means many smaller states will look elsewhere, such as forming their own regional blocks.
SophisticatedHillbilly
1yr ago
Do they need "boots on the ground" in that sort of conflict though? Couldn't they just bomb and shell every square foot until there's effectively no one and nothing left? Of course, it isn't that sort of conflict (yet).
SophisticatedHillbilly
1yr ago
Yes, far too many rightists try to ascribe to "Jewish control" what is actually just firm ideological control. The media isn't controlled by shadowy forces as much as it is just staffed top-to-bottom with die-hard true believers in American Progressivism.
SophisticatedHillbilly
1yr ago
When you face something ‘systemic’, you need the strong and long reach of the arm of government to be able implement solutions that are 1) unprofitable to do, 2) can’t rely on community consensus to generate the will and 3) need nation state backing - all of which are unworkable on a local level.
Which issues does the US currently face that require a government to have the level of power that the US currently wields that could not be better solved by simply allowing people to act freely?
SophisticatedHillbilly
1yr ago
I believe this applies to me. I have gone from: highly introverted (and I mean never spoke unless spoken to, never attended a single social event, etc) to extremely extroverted (arranging the social events, and being a hub of my social circle instead of a spoke.) The shift was part gradual, part lurching, and quite difficult. The largest shifts were when I joined an improv troupe, acted in a play, and began going dancing at clubs. No drugs, no alcohol, nothing of the sort was involved.
Basically I think the crux of it was forcing myself to do things that were completely contrary to my nature for an extended period of time (constantly for months). Eventually the nature gave out and adapted to the situations it was forced into. Any extended period where I went without social contact resulted in me getting reset very quickly. It has to be maintained for years to stick.
After a couple years with basically 0 days without extended social contact, something flipped in me and I actually enjoy it now.
Why did I do this? I deeply believe that wide social connection would cure effectively every social ailment of the postmodern era, and was determined to make my own little piece of the world a bit better. It has largely worked, though the work never stops. Such is the nature of good things.
SophisticatedHillbilly
1yr ago
Their plan for prosperity is: 1. Get rid of Israel. 2. Things magically get better
I think this may be demonstrating a major disconnect in mindset. Simply put: material prosperity is not a terminal value for most groups of people, and for some may barely be a value at all.
It's like mentioning how the Amish could be more prosperous if only they used modern technology. Of course they could! The explicitly think that's a bad thing, in a way that many valueless post-modernists seem to fail to understand. Have you considered that maybe Palestinians just genuinely feel that being free, impoverished, and Islamic is actually better than less free, wealthy, and progressive? Having actual values beyond "have money" doesn't make them Satanic.
I'm not even pro-Palestine (far, far from it actually,) but this read of them is just so far from any traditional Islamist I've ever met that I had to say something. If you're one of those people with no values beyond "win," don't forget that other people actually have other values, and say hi to Moloch for me.
SophisticatedHillbilly
1yr ago
to support Taiwan, similar to how it went with the Ukraine
I agree with your overall point entirely, but this gets me thinking: would the western public have supported Ukraine if the US military/intelligence community didn't make sure that happened?
Most people's position on the war doesn't seem to be rooted in serious principles, and I have no doubt that if the regime pulled a Eurasia/Eastasia flip tomorrow, most of the public would follow.
SophisticatedHillbilly
1yr ago
I do feel like the place has lost a lot of fire in the last year or so, and especially on leaving reddit. I don't mind so much, but only because in my contrarian nature this has made me more fiery, and I think it has otherwise made it somewhat worse.
I almost feel that there are fewer conventionally successful people around nowadays, but that could just be a case of fewer people mentioning personal details. I'm certainly not helping that figure, however.
Focus has definitely gotten tighter onto whatever issue is popular on X, which saddens me. My favorite posts have always been those from the public defender guy about law, or foreigners about their local issues, or other topics I would never have discovered.
Overall though I'm impressed how things have kept on chugging along. I was worried about total death on moving.
SophisticatedHillbilly
1yr ago
If you just keep shelling, we'll find out if Iran can figure a way to sink a carrier group.
And if I remember correctly, wargame scenarios from the early 2000's (when the Navy was arguably in better shape) showed this exact scenario going very very badly for the US. So much so that they had to redo the wargame from scratch with heavy restrictions of the Red Team general to save face.
That's what it was, the "Millennium Challenge." On further review, the range limitations in the exercise were definitely a factor, but it's still not inspiring.
SophisticatedHillbilly
1yr ago
It seems like everyone always leaves out the possibility that China just... takes Taiwan. Like if the US does get spread pretty thin and China takes the opportunity, that doesn't automatically mean WWIII happens. Frankly, the thinner the US gets spread, the lower the odds of Taiwan being sufficient to trigger the war.
If the US is totally dominant, then China will wait and so no war occurs. If the US is severely weakened, then China will simply take Taiwan with minimal US intervention, and no world war occurs. It's only in some weird middle ground, where China perceives the US as spread too thin but the US still commits to defending Taiwan, that there's any risk of something major.
Of course, I've never been the worrying sort, and I'm not as opposed to war as the average person, so maybe I'm just underestimating the odds.
SophisticatedHillbilly
1yr ago
True, and I think conservatives are generally outclassed. On this we agree entirely.
SophisticatedHillbilly
1yr ago
The idea that there are literally 0 remaining possibilities to counteract them is such an absurd way of thinking that frankly it took me a bit off guard. The idea that the current state of affairs, the institutions around us, are not only perfectly stable in a practical sense but even theoretically invincible is such an extreme claim it would require mountains of evidence. I reject the premise, and frankly I don't even expect the current system to resist takeover for another 100 years, let alone 2000.
SophisticatedHillbilly
1yr ago
I don't entirely disagree with this, though I would say it occurred largely because conservatives didn't care enough about their own values to maintain them. They could have done what progressives are doing now, but failed to do so, and instead let sinful behavior take control of the most powerful state to ever exist.
The solution now is to find new tricks, new takeover methods, that the opponent doesn't see coming. It is a war after all. You can't just reuse the old methods identically, but there are consistently functional principles that are timeless.
Yeah the only way housing is coming down is if building housing becomes immensely faster/easier/cheaper (which will never happen because homeowners won't allow it) or if the population goes into decline (which will never happen because the powers that be will never allow our Ponzi scheme of an economy to collapse.)
More options
Context Copy link