Because there is not a paragraph in this book which could not be its own essay with citations, if not its own book, which precisely three other people could actually comprehend and none of whom would read it because I already know them and they already know what I think.
I'm writing for a more general audience. I'm taking a leap. I'm trying to show you what I'm seeing in front of me, because I think you're probably seeing it too and just don't know it yet; are in conflict with yourself about it, and no one else is going to speak the words you need to hear.
I value this community because it is the only place where I think I can make an honest fresh argument ... Put another way: The argument could be made rigorously, and long-form, only in theory. In practice, there's no other way to speak than elision. Else vital truths go unsaid.
I'm being as concise, accurate, and sober as I can here while still managing to say anything worth saying. I am not calculating for provocation or unrest. Those come naturally along with the truth..
Personally I am at pains to stay anonymous, if such a thing will even be possible five minutes from now. I don't want to divulge sources, or drop hints, or leave background information about myself. The most I can say is that I have an expertise in animal psychology and a great deal of practical experience, from which I'm drawing these insights.
Don't be coy and spare us the drivel. You know very well that the TheMotte is not the general audience, and that the norms of this community ask for clarity or specificity. Either cite your sources or be dismissed out of hand.
So your objection is on the basis of association? Changes in technology and entertainment are irrelevant, because those changes are associated with youth, and therefore inextricably linked with nostalgia and childhood escapism? That does not seem rigorous or rational. Your reasoning implies that there can be no innovation/changes in entertainment, as long as those changes are associated with childhood. Obviously new technologies/innovations are going to be mostly adopted by the young. So naturally, those parents/young adults who grew up playing video games, will want to also play videogames when they "mingle".
There is no logical, objective reason why videogames are meaningfully different from darts or pool; both are activities that can be enjoyed socially. Besides, it's not like parents in pre-21s century were austere and joyless; they engaged in song, dance and play. It is a fact that what is expected of parents today is much higher than what was expected of parents in the past. Implying that parenthood is all about sacrifice is one of the reasons why child-rearing and starting a family is unpopular right now. Parenthood and familial life should complete an individual, not shackle them.
If by Natural law you mean law derived from natural principles (i.e the Natural world), that does not necessarily imply abortion bans. Natural abortifacients exist, and animals kill their off-spring all the time. Many animals also engage in homosexual behavior. Why does Natural law then support your beliefs? Or is Natural law merely the name for your preferred moral sensibilities, in which case its arbitrary?
This dovetails into another topic that I, like you, don't have it in me to effortpost about right now, which is: how do you guarantee that your reforms don't change, and revert back to standard liberalism? Many of your proscriptions/desires/policies, resemble those of 1950s America, and we know for a fact that those changed to align with progressive mores. Does not the fact that we did have "Government policies that respect the natural law", and those policies were changed, evidence contradicting your claim that "Government policies that respect the natural law ... have the potential to create a literally virtuous cycle between law and custom"? That is empirical evidence that, no, conservative laws are not naturally resistant to progressive agitation, and in fact, seem very vulnerable to them; hell, conservative customs aren't very resistant to liberalization. So how can you be sure you won't just repeat the cycle all over again?
They have by no means conquered the UK, as evidenced by the healthy and explosive pushback that has occurred recently. Besides that, they have been "liberalized" in a way. They smoke, they drink, and they fuck before marriage. They steal, rob and rape. They present as ultra-conservatives, and then engage in the most degenerate shit. Effectively, they've been converted into the homogenous globalized underclass, which Liberalism creates. Their present dysfunction is proof of Liberalism's power.
Lebanon's Islamisation occurred due to an influx of Palestinian refugee's, sectarian infighting, and a much larger state sponsoring said Islamic paramilitary. And besides, Lebanon was by no means a secular Liberal Society. The Lebanese Christian, Suni, and Shia, themselves, not the Sunni Palestinians, engaged in all manner of war crimes; these groups did not believe in Liberalism as you understand it. In the Middle East, ethnic and religious conflict is usually solved by appeals to overriding authoritarian nationalism, not by principled Liberalism. When that authoritarian nationalism falls apart, as in Lebanon, Iraq and Syria, then sectarian conflict occurs.
Hezbollah was not a genuine Lebanese reaction towards Liberalism. It was a foreign paramilitary force, funded, armed and supported by Syria and Iran, that took advantage of the Lebanese state's weakness; it was never indigenous to Lebanon, or had a broad base of support. In fact, due to Israel's war, they've been neutered as an effective force in Lebanon, so ironically, they are an example of Liberalism (or whatever the fuck Israel is) triumphing over Islam.
He's asking you what time period was at the top of the slippery slope.
Exactly what is wrong with bars with videogames in them, as opposed to normal bars with no videogames in them? Are parents not allowed to go to bars? Or is the presence of video games too childish for your tastes?
Pool tables and darts are standard fare in bars, so why is the presence of "video"games verboten?
The Gulf's government (monarchy) is not conservative. It is an open secret that the Gulf monarchies drink alcohol, and fuck prostitutes. The reason that the Gulf populace is conservative, is because social conservatism is part of their founding national myth; khaleejis (gulf Arabs) literally define themselves as the originators of, protectors of, and most devout followers of Islam.
Islam is incredible intertwined with how Gulf Arabs see themselves, and is the reason for the population's continued conservative. Although, I do have to note that even that is changing. In 2022, Saudi Arabia formally cutoff its association with the Islamic clergy. The population is quickly becoming westernized.
Government policies that respect the natural law and seek to make obedience to it easier push back against this, and they have the potential to create a literally virtuous cycle between law and custom. They also facilitate human flourishing, which is no small thing.
What does this look like? Be specific, and where possible, please point towards historical examples of these policies.
True, but the GDP Abu Dhabi, which makes up more of the UAE's economy than Dubai, is still predominantly based on oil exports. Whether Dubai's wealth is sustainable or not without Abu Dhabi's economic engine is still in question.
Values-coherence is a prerequisite for the formation and maintenance of a functional society; the aim is to achieve values-coherence with others, band together for mutual benefit and defense, and prevent rule by those who hate you.
I have to ask, becuase this seems like a pretty important wrinkle in your thesis here. To what degree and type of values-coherence do you require? You are a Christian, so I presume you are against pre-marital sex. In your ideal society, would anybody who thinks pre-marital sex is fine be expelled? Would anybody committing it be imprisoned?
My question really is how much values-coherence is enough; that is, where is the line? And how can you even quantitatively/rigorously determine where the line is?
I am very curious to hear what you would say. Try to dilute the message so it's acceptable, as painful as that may be for you.
"Ibrahim" isn't a Muslim name. It's literally jusy the arabic version of Abraham; plenty of Arab Christians from Christian families have it.
Ali is distinctly not a popular name in non-islamic cultures, since it is very distinctly Muslim coded. Also, I don't know where you got that Ali is the short form of Alexander from. The short form for Alexander is Alex, not Ali.
In a roundabout way, yes. He signed a letter that was used to support policies that funneled money and grants away from non-progressives to progressives.
While it isn't well know, there is an immense profit motive for trans medicine. Jennifer Pritzker came out as trans as an adult man in 2013, well before the social movement spun up in its modern incarnation. The market cap for gender transitioning is $200 billion. While I wouldn't say that the profit motive is the main reason for the increase in trans identification, it's at least a contributing factor, just because of the immensely powerful players identifying as trans, as well as the immense size of the market. The state of trans research is a mess, and recommendations are made based on faulty evidence; it is plausible that such reduced standards are pushed (or at least encouraged/ignored) by pharmaceutical/insurance companies that just want to make a quick buck.
Can you please give some specific examples about how treating women like narcissists/children works? Like specific anecdotes and stories. I've always heard that the red pill implies this interpretation, but I've never read any stories that actually show this phenomenon.
And I'm saying that someone who is violent and drugged up is significantly more lethal with a gun than without one. Are you seriously suggesting that an armed insane person is not signficantly more dangerous than an unarmed insane person?
I'm sorry, but if being equiped with a gun doesn't increase your lethality, then what's the point? Is not the very purpose of a gun to increase the lethality of whoever weilds it?
It seems trivial to me that a person with a gun is several orders of magnitude more deadly than an unarmed person, no matter how violent or drugged up they are.
How are images of the facts on the ground curated propaganda? Is reality propaganda at this point?
Importing large amounts of people who have radically different beliefs and allegiances also foments civil war.
A simpler explanation; transwomen are often formerly (still?) autistic men, who have difficulties with regulating emotions, especially emotions that arise from what they feel as personal attacks. This would explain the overly violent comics and memes; it's emotional dysregulation.
This comment is gonna be an answer to all the comments you've posted, so apologies in advance if its a bit scattershot/accusatory.
I completely respect the desire to raise your kids in Toronto, while maintaining a quality of life approximately equal to your own. However, I'd urge you to reconsider how you view the challenges facing you. I've personally seen the apartment that my grandparents raised their kids in, and they raised 3 children in a small 2 bedroom apartment. Space challenges are almost always actually about the challenge of giving up space, and not about the physical impossibility of fitting in a child.
I'd also like to point out that your career trajectory lines up with your family planning; your (hypothetical) child won't need to have their own room until they're a couple of years old. That matches up with when you expect your salary increases enough to be able to comfortably sustain a 2-bedroom apartment - the best time to have a kid is now, because you'll be able to afford a bedroom for them, when they need it.
If born right now, my kid wouldn't have a backyard to play in. We live across the street from a park, but it's downtown so it sometimes has homeless tents in it.
.. I fucking loved growing up in Toronto. I want my kid to experience that. And Toronto is so much better now than when I was a kid.
These two statements are contradictory with respect to your desire to provide a better life for your children. If Toronto is so much better now than when you were a kid, how could it possibly be a downgrade in quality of life if you raise them up in Toronto now?
As for education, look into IB. Cheaper than Private school, more rigorous than Ontario High Schools.
The Toronto escape plan is probably Hamilton, which I actually think is super under-rated.
I agree, Hamilton is underrated, but have you considered the towns in the Greater Toronto Area, such as Burlington, or Oakville? Boring yes, but damn good places to raise a kid.
They can't write? Have you seen the quality of the average /r/WritingPrompts post?
I'm sorry but being a better writer than literal redditors on /r/WritingPrompts is not a high bar to pass.
It's a [transitioning] memetic something but I reject the term "hazard". I think it's a boon to human flourishing, and it needs to spread harder, so long as we can decouple it from dangerous medical procedures.
You are ignoring the fact that for many, many trans people, transitioning is inextricably coupled with "dangerous medical procedures". That is, its impossible to decouple the dangerous medical procedures, from the sense of purpose and fulfillment that a completed gender transition gives; that sense of purpose is fulfilled by those dangerous medical procedures.
I happen to think the world is considerably better for having trans people in it, and that most people are happier transitioning than they would have been in a counterfactual world where they didn't. (Not because it was written on their soul in golden ink from birth that they were the opposite gender; just because gender transition is a fun thing to do with your life and imbues the transitioner with a welcome sense of purpose and fulfillment, like any other arbitrary self-improvement project.)
And here is the crux of the issue. What if I believe that transitioning is not a good thing, and people who transition actually feel worse than they would be in the counterfactual world where they didn't transition? How do we resolve this tension? The only way is to actually analyze the relative happiness levels of transitioners, how and when they transition, and the relative psychological profiles of transitioners and trans people (those who don't transition) in general; in other words, medicalize the issue. And if we do this type of analysis, at best the benefits of transitioning, both for minors and adults, become unclear and murky. At worst, gender transitioning actually seems to make the quality of life for people to be worse; it appears that it actually causes harm in the transitioner - the evidence for which the commentators in this forum have showed to you at length.
Right. Because Egypt has so much leverage with Libya, Europe and other Muslim states. It is not realistic to expect Egypt to be able to pass along the Palestinians to other areas. Other Muslim areas wouldn't accept them, and Libya quiet literally doesn't have the ability to keep Palestinians inside it.
I reiterate that war with Israel in the event of a Palestinian expulsion becomes the only viable choice, regardless of its downsides. It does not matter how much Egypt loses out in terms of money from the US or from the Suez canal; money is infinitely cheaper than wholesale civil breakdown. Plus, in the event of Palestinian expulsion, in terms of international law, there is nothing stopping rich Gulf states from funding Egypt themselves; that war would be both legal and justified.
If Egypt completely overthrows the state of Israel and risks the nuclear issue, that would still be preferable to keeping them in Egypt. Nukes can only do so much damage; over-population could feasibly destroy the entire country.
- Prev
- Next
Hold on there buddy, I'm not the one making un-sourced claims. If any sources you could provide would dox yourself, then the implication is that the sources are penned by you, or by your associates. In that case, any source you would provide would be useless, since in the end, it'd just be more of your work without third-party verification. However, if there is third-party verification, then surely you would've come across those sources in your illustrious, multi-decade long career; if so, do this forum a favor and please share them.
More options
Context Copy link