TheFooder
16d ago
So...a traditional perspective like, "Rooster rule the yard and hens rule the roost." would dial this back? I suppose I could see it.
TheFooder
16d ago
This makes sense. Most of these types of offices have a culture, often driven by one or two people, and that makes the overall consistency seem...inconsistent. Thanks for talking me off the gender-critical ledge.
TheFooder
16d ago
Go find you a nice girl that doesn't like yelling at babies or killing squirrels.
My wife and 2nd daughter were aghast that this happened.
I don't think I'm particularly sympathetic to a gender-critical view. I know a lot of women. I don't view women as out-group, that's maybe, sort of the problem? Because it seems the evidence is mounting that there may actually be an out-group, largely composed of some type of woman that can't be identified or encircled; something like Vance's cat-ladies but not quite. I think it's closer to something revealed as an epistemic preference to always automatically believe the worst, caused by the flattening of society vis-a-vis the Internet. Similar to how you can't tell if a terrible opinion is a naive adolescent or stoned octogenarian.
You guys talk about a decrease in state capacity. How's'a'bout the capacity to investigate and euthanize wild pets in an orderly and timely fashion? Didn't think of that one, did ya?
Since we obliterated Posse Comatitus even the forestry guys have flash-bang grenades, heavy machine guns and tanks. The state capacity can be summarized as: We can ignore it or atomize it, which do you want?
Where did you learn it was a lady from Texas sent a complaint?
Example link. All alleged. Apparently she deleted her Interweb accounts so who knows. It would be very interesting to have the state-run agency that acted on the anonymous tip not leave us in the dark, but privacy for some if not for others, I guess. I would absolutely agree that a state receiving an anonymous tip from outside the state would ignore it, that is my prior. At the same time, who would know? That's kind of the point of anonymous tips. What leads people to think it was the woman in Texas is hearsay that she was bragging about it on Facebook. That doesn't really change the situation tough: a government department acted on an anonymous tip from...wherever...and took someone's unlicensed an unregistered pet (the pet was allegedly in the process of being registered). One can easily see how this is raw meat for Libertarian types, but Leftists would also be historically appalled by this + it's cute animals!!
Here's an interesting update regarding the alleged reporter of the mis-housed animal.
It would be interesting to know who the people are hounding this unaffiliated innocent, but I'd suspect the boy's club you mention are mostly happy to let their wives do the chiding.
And maybe that's all it is. Men know they can leave the small stuff to the ladies to clean up and the Internet simply opened the door to every level-one nudnik to run rampant.
TheFooder
17d ago
Then why the raccoon? There was also a case where something similar happened to lady with alpacas (https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/geronimo-post-mortem-results-alpaca-b1916386.html granted in the UK...but basically the same mindset). I also think that there are many cases where officers are bitten by dogs and cats where the animals are not euthanized. The problem is that the policy of euthanasia is running cover for the deliberate mishandling of the animals. It looks and smells like Molochian malice to this homo.
Edit: I suppose you may choose not to euthanize a registered pet who's up-to-date on their shots. So maybe the law is enforced judiciously.
TheFooder
17d ago
I'm going to add a second comment that's different and much more spicy.
For a while now, I've had this growing knot in my guts whenever these types of things happen and the bad guys end up being women. I hate the knot because my brain says it's stupid to think women are somehow to blame for the increased pressure to root out anyone who's doing something wrong somewhere. But the knot keeps growing. I can't resolve the conundrum.
With Peanut, a lady in Texas presumably sent the complaint to a lady in New York who sent the city services to take the squirrel out back and shoot it. Clearly that's just a coincidence...right? Or is there something darker in here. Like....is the Karen meme deserved and legitimate? Why did that lady at the Harris rally scream about Palestine at a baby? What's with all the, "I'm speaking," moments? Do the ladies have more power and authority than they can handle?
I don't consider myself a woman-hater. Hell, once upon a time I considered myself a feminist. Is it just my imagination or has something in our national psyche gone and unleashed the worst aspects of womanhood upon the land? The puritanical hunt for all that is good and fun in life can't just be a female thing. Can it? Or is it that safety-ism causes men to operate in a different, more narrow theater (ex. geopolitics) leaving women to police the margins (ex. protesting pussy-grabbin' presidents and yelling at babies)? I really don't want to become a Trad Chad who wants to put the ladies back into some parochial 17th century box. But if one of the issues is giving too much power to people who can't properly wield it--and it has a gender bias--what on earth do we do?
TheFooder
17d ago
The whole thing ws wild to me because I used to run a Twitter blog for an anthropomorphic squirrel character for a board game IP I was developing. Crazy squirrel memes were my bread and butter, but not enough bread or butter to see the game to market.
Anyway all these memes popped up on my substack feed and I felt like I had truly missed my moment.
A conservative Substacker (John Carter Warlord of Mars) who I take with much salt, pointed out that aside from the real tragedy of euthanizing peoples' pets (this has happened before) is that this type of government action reveals the depths to which safety-ism will take us while simultaneously whistling past the graveyard of Big Problems. The border is a mess, but there's always time to activate half of a town's civil resources, kick down their door, harass their wife and kill their pets because...something, something rabies. (Squirrels don't get rabies and if they do they don't pass them to humans--research from the game dev, 'natch).
It's unfortunate this happened and even more unfortunate it happened now because it's a case egregious enough that most should note it as over-reach. Instead it's, "just those crazy conservative screwballs taking things too far again." RIP Peanut. #NeverForget
TheFooder
18d ago
I don’t think it’s innumeracy…I get how numbers work. If I suffer from narcissism, it’s the narcissism of a cockroach.
My antipathy toward voting has more to do with my historical perspective: No vote will stop America’s terminal decline and ultimate turn toward authoritarianism. In fact every vote accelerates this eventuality. Authoritarianism is unavoidable and the only possible choice is left-wing 1984 surveillance state or some kind of strongman tyranny. The tyranny seems so implausible in the current context of 5th gen warfare, I marginally prefer it because i think it’s less capable of harm.
My disinterest in voting has little to do with whether or not my vote counts, but what precisely it’s counting towards. What is the point of voting when there are no choices? You get death by poison, death by venom or death by yeeting yourself off a cliff in protest.
TheFooder
19d ago
Hlynka banned? Wasn't he one of the main mods? I missed a lot of lore apparently.
TheFooder
19d ago
I was wondering about that. I bailed on Reddit years ago and just chalked up 'The Motte' (the only sub I really participated in) as a sad victim to my need to keep the ol' media filters clean. I was glad to re-join when I found the site, but I couldn't tell if there was still some component that touched Reddit. Very interesting!
TheFooder
20d ago
I've seen the claim a few times on notes on Substack and shared posts from Twitter. Along with things like, "If Trump is elected we will literally be killed!"
TheFooder
20d ago
He failed to achieve most of his policy goals
This is the best reason to vote for him. I'm being completely serious.
TheFooder
21d ago
"...I am confused" about rationalists who choose to actively endorse voting at all as a means of affecting positive changes, given the candidates we have on offer.
This has always been difficult for me to wrap my head around too. I've been cynical about American elections so long that I almost forget why and when someone intelligent that I respect says to me that voting is actually important I will stop and listen. But I have yet to be convinced that my participation has any impact on anything. It seems irrational to view my vote as meaningful, hence I always throw it away. I only vote for outsiders and always as a protest--but I do vote. Why? Habit I suppose, certainly not because I can justify it.
I suppose the problem is that I wouldn't recognize when my vote might matter. I kind of look at it all like a sweepstakes where I like 1:1000 odds but don't bother with 1:3,000,000 odds. So, I focus on school board races, state representatives, city council and the like. Presidential elections stir no feelings or emotions in me because they only exist as mid-wit theater.
TheFooder
21d ago
I never understood this either. There's an argument that I've heard that the media is biased precicely because they don't go after Trump hard enough. I can't compute it. As a reasonably disinterested American, all I've seen for 15 years is the media constantly going after him, but in the last few months, basically since he was shot at, the media kinda, sorta treats him like he's a presidential candidate--while also reminding us how terrible he is at the same time. The idea that "Trump has been normalized " is so far beyond my perception of reality I don't even know how to engage with it.
TheFooder
24d ago
Here's what no one is saying: Madison Square Garden was the home to the original WWE (WWF). Trump also appeared on WWE. Trump loves Kayfabe. Therefore Trump is a professional wrestler.
TheFooder
29d ago
Is violence a hard line? Or can some violence be tolerated? Violence has a wide range.
TheFooder
29d ago
If it wasn't clear, this group contains the 0.00001% of amazing and delightful political takes.
TheFooder
29d ago
I've traveled far and wide. No one will remember (or care) but I've been here since the old SSC days and the number one thing I learned from this group is that 99.99999% of people have stupid takes on politics. Just the same empty balderdash over and over.
I vibe with you 1000%
TheFooder
29d ago
Tons of hype. Maybe 99% hype.
Ok, maybe that's not fair...the big deal is that there's always a chance something different could happen. I'm just inured to a political class of the lowest common denominator and the resulting chaos.
TheFooder
30d ago
I'm not sure I can steelman it but my sister is a fairly high-level employee there (GS 13 or 14--I should probably know). She works specifically with the adult education department (which is never mentioned nor considered when people complain about DoE, IMO) and doesn't have a ton to say about K-12. Everything that follows is my understanding of what she's told me, not heavily researched data.
She points out that most of what the DoE does, I think she said 1/3-1/2 of the budget(?) is managing FAFSA. Most of the K-12 stuff is state level with recommendations from DoE with few hard requirements. Another major part of what they do is fund research programs that either focus on specific groups and methodologies, or collect data for analysis. She's pretty adamant that what people think they hate about the DoE is not really what the DoE does. She also claims that were the DoE disbanded, half of the people would go to the Dept. of Labor (where DoE originated from) and others would go to places like Dept. of Health and Human Services. That removing the DoE wouldn't really do anything except push bureaucrats around.
I mused out loud that maybe it wouldn't be the end of the world if it were disbanded and it nearly destroyed our relationship. She complains bitterly about being passed over for promotions and the ineptitude of her co-workers. She seems bitter and resentful, so as her brother I wonder if there isn't a better job out there for her to be doing. Her position is that it's an easy job she almost literally phones in (she's on the phone constantly with researchers and other DoE people) and it allows her to donate half her money to charities (not much of an exaggeration) and time for volunteering. She's deeply motivated to help the less-fortunate, but also seems like the exact type of bureaucratic cat lady people are complaining about.
To me, it seems to me that Dept's of Ed belong to state level bureaucracies. It makes sense to keep it federated and the states in light competition with each other. However, I also see some value in the FAFSA. The government providing some funds and low interest loans to students who may want to go to universities anywhere in the US seems fine to me. It's at least using taxes to put some money back into some peoples' hands. But that's fairly weak support as I'm not certain university degrees aren't overvalued in the first place nor can I attest to any fraud waste or abuse inherent in the system. (There are DoE programs for jobs programs and The adult education angle is interesting to me because we really do have a problem with under-educated adults in the US, either those who failed out of crummy schools, the chronically unmotivated or those who arrived here without the ability to read or speak English, etc. But I'm still not sure why this shouldn't be a state or even municipal level organization.)
It's a strange superposition: I'm not inclined to save it but I also doubt that it's the pernicious institution others are convinced of. It definitely looks like a make-work program when I hear about the morons my sister has to deal with on the daily, but it also doesn't seem like it's nearly as powerful as the people who hate it claim. I'm mostly indifferent and probably bend a little toward keeping it for my own peace of mind and QoL.
TheFooder
30d ago
I'm pretty sure every revision is available for every WP article...unless and admin deletes it. I'm not sure how much powers the admins have, but I think it's a lot.
TheFooder
1mo ago
Seems like a reasonable concern. My estimation would be something over $1.5 billion. Something like, "here's the original money, plus another contract." I'd be ok with that. Much over $2 billion--specifically for Star Link--might seem unreasonable without some caveats, like, say, increased deliverables.
I was sent this link via Signal, with a question about which position would be best for the semi-notable internet celebrity we coalesced around.
https://www.mahanow.org/nominees-for-the-people
I'm not sure what to do with this.
First, it's almost impossible for me to take it seriously. "4k appointments, please make your suggestions for our consideration!" The nominees I saw are either totally unknown to me or the most obvious MAGA-ish nominees (ex. RFK2 for something, Musk for something, etc.)
My prior is that this is a gimmick, but my confidence is low enough, that maybe RFK will submit these names to Trump, who, not wanting to be bothered with 4k piddly decisions will pass it along to the appropriate parties.
I mentioned to my group that nominating our celeb pal for something related to the pharmaceutical industry would be political poison. It is precisely the thing that most people dislike about his public persona and that he'd be far better in the department of Ed, education being where most of his career was spent. My thinking is thus: This gimmick is intended as a balm and therapeutic for an antagonized polity. The statement behind the statement is, "let's put Trump to the side for a bit and see if we can get ethical, based people into positions where we need based people in order to serve all of us." It's a nice sentiment, but you sabotage it up by immediately nominating people that cause half of the polity to blow their tops.
At first I thought it would be fun to see if this group could come up with decent nominations beyond my ability to think of any. (I sort of thought Eric Weinstein might be cool for some sciencey department--though not enough for me to nominate him straight off). Then I thought it has a culture war aspect because I'm certain no Democrat knows about this or would take it seriously (at least none I can know) and that regardless of the intention it's going to be a roll-call of all the conservatives liberals hate. Then I thought it's just too kooky to even take seriously and maybe I'm hopeful someone will convince me I'm right.
Anyway, has anyone else seen this? Is it legit? Could it work? Is it worth doing even if it can't work? Is it merely a last minute gimmick to get the undecideds to cast for Trump?
If nothing else, I thought you all might find it droll.
More options
Context Copy link