@VoxelVexillologist's banner p

VoxelVexillologist

๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ Multidimensional Radical Centrist

1 follower   follows 0 users  
joined 2022 September 04 18:24:54 UTC

				

User ID: 64

VoxelVexillologist

๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ Multidimensional Radical Centrist

1 follower   follows 0 users   joined 2022 September 04 18:24:54 UTC

					

No bio...


					

User ID: 64

Just shut up, eat the bug, and install solar panels and a heat pump.

Heat pumps are ubiquitous in new American construction in red states: most don't get cold enough to need a dedicated gas furnace, and already needed air conditioning. Residential solar isn't ubiquitous, but seems popular on all political sides where it's practical: reds like the off-grid resilience. Combustion-based fuels are powering only about 30% of the grid in Texas today, per ERCOT.

Bugs, though, are probably a bridge too far.

"I burned down your house! That'll teach you not to build with wood!"

Tangentially, "why do Americans build houses out of wood?" always seems like one of the perinneal Transatlantic questions.

IMO it doesn't make sense long term for other Gulf states to accept Iran unilaterally defecting and seizing control of Hormuz shipping. They are at least as capable of blocking traffic and there is no reason to let Iran's ships through unless theirs do too, unless they're accepting it for short-term reasons (international relations on oil prices, expecting long-term gains via regime change, maybe others).

Investments in alternate routes make sense, but even without them, defecting back (closing Hormuz and Iranian ports to the rest of the traffic) seems easy enough and a viable response. I'm sure US ROE won't allow naval mining in this conflict ("free navigation", you say), but it's less clear that this would bind KSA or UAE.

But maybe it does seem like the entire conflict was poorly-thought-out.

Trump specifically looks like an idiot from a European perspective

I'm old enough to remember very similar comments about the Bush administration. The Internet wasn't quite as culturally ubiquitous, but every phpBB forum, mailing list, or similar seemed to have a smug European or two (usually German, it seemed) that made everything about the Culture War: Iraq, per capita carbon emissions, then-current issues like stem cell research, state surveillance, or the war on drugs.

Bush was certainly not the best president, but the degree to which these folks prostrated themselves at the beginning of the Obama administration was almost laughable, especially given how little actually changed: from my seat in the US here, none of those changed drastically, but the smug commentary on it certainly did. Frankly, I wouldn't be surprised if an Internet forum like that turned out to be part of the JD Vance origin story.

"[T]here is no right to practice medicine which is not subordinate to the police power of the States."

I can only take it that Justice Jackson thinks firmly that Roe (which admittedly has not been relevant precedent in quite a while) was wrong on the notion of doctor-patient confidentiality overriding state lawmakers. Not that it was ever applied to literally any other case, but I'm surprised to see it so explicitly put down.

Poland's donation of military aid there has (presumably) also degraded Russian military effectiveness without casualties on their part. Which is better for Poland, ATGMs in warehouses, or destroyed Russian tanks (in Ukraine)? Certainly the latter is better than Russian and Ukrainian tanks attacking them like Czechoslovakian troops in 1939.

In a world where moral status (or, as you will soon see, we could call it moral stature) is defined by a person's height, what might we expect?

I think height is one of the factors in how we define status: generally taller people are seen as more physically attractive, and physical attractiveness is pretty strongly linked to "moral status". In a world in which height wasn't used to judge people, the entire David-vs-Goliath story is just two dudes deciding to fight and one of them winning: the story depends on the underlying assumption that of course the taller guy was going to win and the smaller guy was the literal underdog. Plenty of historically examples of tall (presumably attractive) guys ending up in leadership positions, although not exclusively so, exist.

That said, overall physical attractiveness is, like intelligence, rather multifaceted and hard to measure on a singular scale. But measuring physical attractiveness is pretty controversial too: "Hot or Not" was always a controversial site (and quite a long time ago now, launching in 2000), and making lists of "hottest" people is dรฉclasรฉ, especially lists of non-public-figures.

If you are poor, fat, and socially inept - as a man, you will be harshly judged and looked down on within our society. This is - arguably - one of the main appeals of the manosphere to begin with. If one really wants to see the manosphere go away - we need to start looking at these realities of life straight to the face. Only then can one begin to provide meaningfully positive alternatives.

Isn't this one of the ironies of the situation? The anti-manosphere folks generally also claim to oppose judging people for being any/all of "poor, fat, and socially inept". Maybe they even believe their own propaganda, but fail to actually deliver on their stated values: maybe things would be different if all these men easily found dates among "progressive healthy-at-any-size neurodivergence activist" women who consider each other high-status, but clearly they're not.

There isn't a shortage of people who claim to be "looking at these realities of light straight to the face", but I don't think that's "meaningfully provided positive alternatives", in part because they've largely gone in different directions with this. As a guy, I'm somewhat more sympathetic to "nose to the grindstone self-improvement" (although I won't endorse the chauvinism) over virtue signaling for ineffective change in society, but it's not hard to see that everyone is really just talking past each other. Not that I have a better proposal.

There is a half decent case that Rockefeller and Standard Oil were responsible for a huge drop in whale oil consumption, which was good (not perfect) for whales.

If you remember your black-body radiation, black is actually best in heat. Efficient radiation.

I'm not the right type of engineer for this, but isn't this statement wrong? It's not as simple as "black is higher emissivity", and it's a combination of solar absorption (black absorbs a lot) and emissivity. IIRC some of the best two options for space (radiation!) applications happen to be white or black.

ETA this reminds me that while the story is fantastic overall, chaos theory does not work that way.

Am I really the only one who sees an obvious link?

I think there are plausibly several links: I've heard a fair number of anecdotes that FTM is associated with or similar to eating disorders in girls, which are also linked with sexual abuse. Not always, I'm sure, but the mechanic of "I don't want to be womanly and attractive (to abusers)" and body dysmorphia makes sense in a horrible way, and modern times offer new ways to limit your secondary sexual characteristics.

It was more of an analogy to a common strategy deflection when accused of obvious examples of racism/anti-Semitism, claiming instead to be something adjacent and morally superior. "It's not anti-Semitism, it's anti-Zionism" follows both Wallace's logic "it's not racism, it's the natural order of things" or even Nazi anti-Semitism: "it's not Judenhass, it's about eugenics and Volk".

Fair, although Japanese militarism in the 20th century was a distinct consequence of ethnonationalist supremacist policies, so "few wars, except for that really big one quite a long time ago".

Before the Lebanese Civil War (1975), IIRC Lebanon had a reputation as one of the more relatable countries in the region: stable, multicultural, mostly Christian. Incidentally, that civil war was in part downstream of regional Palestinian migration and nationalism.

But when was the last time the UK dragged the US into a war?

1917? 1941? Grenada? Arguably some/all of the fallout of the post-WWII drama in the Middle East? The British were involved in putting the Shah in charge in Iran, for example.

ETA: and for your dual-citizens question, Murdoch is a popular target for such conspiracies, owning both US and UK media franchises that were involved in the Afghanistan and Iraq wars. There are people that are suspicious of him on both sides of the Atlantic, I suppose.

Itโ€™s similar to the case of the โ€˜Democrats are the real racistsโ€™ narrative, which does not work on Democrats one bit.

IIRC George Wallace in the 1960s claimed that he was not racist, just that segregation was the natural order of things.

The Korean War has never officially ended, so depending on how you define "conflict" that might qualify. To a lesser extent, the Soviets declared war with Japan in 1945 but never officially ended the conflict.

the highest status male in their local social system

I think one of the big changes since I was in the dating market (it's been a while) is that the size of local social system for both sexes is drastically larger than it used to be. Twenty years ago, I think the median dating pool was maybe in the low 3 figures: college undergraduates that cross paths, coworkers (even across departments), church members, bar and social group regulars. Somewhere around Dunbar's number, unless you went looking for speed-dating or something specifically. Dating apps, if nothing else, have made the "ocean" (seem) bigger, and I think some of the consequences we're seeing are reactions to that: "the highest status" is much higher than it used to be, and although rankings will vary person-to-person, everyone is now looking for something like the best 1-in-10000 where before they might have thought 1-in-100 was a great match.

And Iran was (supposedly) seizing tankers illegally within just the last few months (although so was the US near Venezuela, with at least paper legal authority on incorrectly-flagged vessels). Admittedly, those probably weren't US-flagged and if this were (hypothetical) a response to that it'd probably still be overzealous.

We did not assassinate the ruler of Algeria and his family while they were sleeping, or set the entire city ablaze.

No, but several European powers (the British and the Dutch) collectively bombarded Algiers in 1816 before the treaty ending the Second Barbary War was finalized. A bit later the French invaded, forcing the Dey to abdicate in 1830.

I think you're not wrong that different takes on foreign policy are informed differently by history, but I don't think that is necessarily a better take. If it were, Putin's "On the Historical Unity of Russians and Ukrainians" might have landed differently. How is citing the history of the Kievan Rus working out for him?

I do think it's important to consider the long-term impacts of normalizing certain types of uses of force, though.

Real patriots โ€” in the eyes of the Founding Fathers โ€” donโ€™t start unjust and unnecessary wars for a random foreign tribe 6000 miles away.

The Founding Fathers themselves (Jefferson! Madison!) lived long enough to send the nascent US Navy and Marine Corps to attack distant nations (also Muslim) a mere 4500 miles away. Twice.

Giving Iran anything after they close the Strait is tantamount to recognizing their sovereignty over it, de facto if not legally.

My suspicion is that the other Gulf states with interests in shipping through the Strait, which don't currently consider themselves part of the conflict, won't be satisfied with a long-term resolution that involves Iran setting up a toll booth controlling traffic. While they might not have the armed forces to directly threaten Iran on land, they can certainly block Iranian shipping at least as well as Iran can threaten theirs, in ways that the US Navy might choose not to for political reasons. Think "aerially mining all of Iran's ports" after the US has conveniently removed all anti-air assets.

But I also am pretty sure that any not-dumb parties involved already have considered these prospects.

It says something, and I'm not quite sure what, that there is very little "fiction" film on YouTube compared to informational content. Unless there are a bunch of telenovela channels the algorithm has never shown me.

To avoid Godwin, I might suggest "Hutu Power Radio" talk, but there are plenty of other tragic historical references you could make.

To say nothing of Mers-el-Kรฉbir!