Just because someone is a degenerate weirdo in silicon valley doesn't mean that dating norms, or the stated (but entirely ignored) norms set out by HR departments and oversocialized libs are valid either. Nor is being a silicon valley degenerate weirdo particularly a big deal. People don't have a right to social comfort beyond the option of just getting up to leave. This is a case of hysterics in the face of someone who is maybe slightly out of line.
And the point was that the threshold for discomfort can be lower. Again, a person doesn't have a right to total social comfort. The moral question of polygamy is a whole other thing which really isn't done justice by any leftist lenses.
magnax1
1yr ago
I'm not a turbo autist, and to prove it, I won't brag about my sexual exploits on an internet forum.
I think if anything, only a turbo autist would think the line is clear, because they wouldn't have the experience to realize otherwise. You can often guess how a woman will react to a certain kind of advance, but you often can't as well. Also a non autist will also realize that making a women a little uncomfortable is also not the end of the world if you're otherwise passably social.
Of course, there are also just people who are too afraid to make explicit advances, but I don't think that's """autism""", but something else entirely.
magnax1
1yr ago
If their fear was that NATO would prevent them from invading their neighbors, they were quite right to be afraid. That just means that the fear is more projection than rational opposition.
magnax1
1yr ago
However I sometimes feel like the metoo movement and some parts of feminist groups want a completely asexual workplace
Their actions seem to align more with a group looking for a sexual dynamic that is totally dominated by the female sex than an asexual workplace. For example, it seems that their opposition here lies in the man benefiting from his status, not the sex in itself.
I think you could argue that this set of beliefs or values is espoused because men are more likely to benefit from workplace hierarchies and status in terms of sexual benefits. I also think to effectively argue that you would need to build up a very blank slate view of gender dynamics and values thereof that doesn't hold up to scrutiny because status games are an intrinsic part of male attractiveness (although I won't go into detail there simply because it would take a lot of time) This seems more and more like a deconstruction of that dynamic under nebulous claims of misogyny than any principled criticism of workplace dating dynamics.
magnax1
1yr ago
The line is far less distinct then you're letting on. What one person sees as too pushy is often times completely effective and other times will make a woman quite uncomfortable or even angry. It's difficult to know which is which until you try, and the threshold is actually far below the aforementioned case of trying to get some women to join what amounts to a harem.
magnax1
1yr ago
Public opinion has to have a direct effect
on voting to sway politicians. The American public will never vote for one guy over another because he wants to send 1/1000th less of the yearly budget to Ukraine.
magnax1
1yr ago
He was successful precisely because he's a new money/guido type not a blue blood type like Romney. He also was willing to say whatever benefited him most, contradicting his previous stated beliefs quite regularly.
magnax1
1yr ago
It's like work is not fun and workers are in a precarious position and must be on their toes.
I'm not speaking on this particular incident because I don't know enough details, but a lot of these people who get shoved out ceremoniously are in a precarious position for a reason totally unrelated to the incident--workplace feuds, poor performance, being a weirdo in a general undefined sense, etc. Then management or HR will take some arbitrary unsubstantiated claim and kick them out. This is pretty common in the mid and higher ranges of bureaucracies and probably makes up a lot of woke firings IMO.
Obviously the parent is still alive, the question is if they are contributing to child care in any meaningful way. Just splitting the time between households is probably not meaningfully different than having 1 parent. The benefit of nuclear family is probably mostly in having more child rearing labor at any time. You actually see the same effect in Japan, except with traditional multi generational families having better outcomes vs nuclear families.
Parents don't live together probably because one, or maybe both parents are assholes. These traits are passed to children.
This may have some effect, but given that even significantly heritable factors like height and intelligence aren't that inheritable (I think IQ is roughly 30%?), it really doesn't fit.
Remember, pre Civil-rights era such horrible share of single parent household didn't exist and the crime gap was about the same.
Pre ~1950 data isn't that good in the first place, (EDIT: actually even now I don't think the data is excellent) but there is a pretty huge uptick in crime that fits very well with the adolescence of the first generation of single parent children.
The only explanation I can make of this is that Paul Pelosi has dementia, or was so drunk that he couldn't make out what was happening. His 911 call sounds a lot like someone who has dementia. The male prostitute theory makes absolutely no sense--why would a prostitute break in?
magnax1
1yr ago
Black people have a much higher propensity to crime at every income level, but single motherhood alone makes up almost all that difference. The problem is much clearer than people often let on.
magnax1
1yr ago
White and black Americans have comparable drug use rates, but the black ones are caught more.
This data is self reported, so is very questionable. Even then the self reported rates are pretty significantly different IIRC. Something like 20-30% higher for black people.
The difference in jail time/convictions for drug use is mostly down to a difference in dealing anyways. IE black people aren't actually caught for personal use that much more, but are a disproportionate amount of dealers (or at minimum, dealers who are caught)
magnax1
1yr ago
Intent to distribute/felony possession is different from state to state, but many are in the pounds and few (maybe none) are as low as half an ounce. Federal numbers have been absurdly large for a while since they're mostly interested in international trafficking.
Its common for people with extensive previous records or who are involved in violent crime. I don't think that's what people are thinking about when they hear someone went to jail for Marijuana for years.
magnax1
1yr ago
Very few to none. Almost all significant jail time for marijuana is for intent to distribute. Most states which haven't made it legal decriminalized it in small quantities or don't actively prosecute cases as of decades ago.
magnax1
1yr ago
The serbs shot down one stealth jet (that is an order of magnitude less stealthy than an F35 or F22) out of dozens of bombing runs in the exact same flight path. Not exactly a good track record.
magnax1
1yr ago
You massively over estimate the uniformity of American beliefs. If you travel from NYC, to Salt Lake, to Phoenix, the rural Midwest, the values indeed differ massively and always have. The only reason it might seem otherwise is because people self segregate. Most people succeed in seeking out their ingroup where ever they go. If they can't succeed (Like culturally black people in Salt Lake) they generally avoid those spaces.
There is an underpinning of enlightenment (far more than "post enlightenment") values among most of the non hyper urban settings, but I don't think that is built all that much by the schools, but by basic American tradition. Myths are powerful, and the American myth is an exceptionally powerful myth, up there with the Christian and Muslim myths. The American mythos leaves a lot of space for disagreement though.
You seem to believe institutions like schools are far more effective than I do. They're very effective for a certain type of person--mainly the quiet kids who get good grades and follow orders. Those kids are basically selected for by their predecessors in government backed institution. After they are selected they have an outsized voice, but probably not an outsized functional impact. If they had an outsized impact the leftist institutions would likely not have to rely on immigrant votes to eek out a 50% win rate in elections.
magnax1
1yr ago
I don't see an economic reason why cutting edge gene modding would be exclusively catered to the rich. If you want a return on investment you want the broadest market possible. High cost products are usually products that have high cost of physical resources like cars, or high labor costs. Gene modification is essentially selling data. It's market would be more similar to a market for music, books, movies, etc than cars. Therefore its largest problem would be creating excludability and financializing the asset.
The only way this might not be the case is through significant regulatory capture, which considering the total non-functionality of the FDA is possible. The only problem is the FDA's incentives are not aligned with the wealthy, but with self preservation. This presents itself mostly through absurd overcautiouness and regulatory violence against uncooperative corporations.
magnax1
1yr ago
Indeed, Britain's involvement is what really set it off as a "World War", whereas if they had stayed out it would've probably been a larger repeat of something like the Franco Prussian war. I've felt for a while that their decision to join the war was ultimately the most disastrous foreign policy decision the UK ever made.
Material conditions of Americans require them to outsource most of the parenting to the State.
Considering how little effect what school you go to has on you and how big of an effect the makeup of your family has on you (how your parents interact with you, divorce, single motherhood, etc) I think this statement is a probably just outright wrong. In terms of time commitment it might be true that the state/schools are a bigger factor (although considering school holidays I'm not sure its actually true) but in terms of effect I don't think the evidence suggests anything like that.
Also, I suspect much less individual care from parents was given to children on average in the past. I actually remember a study that suggested this (IIRC mothers spend about as much time on a child as they did in the past but fathers spend far more) Of course, I didnt save the link.
Really, I don't think there's any evidence for most of your claims. If it is true that children are mainly raised (in terms of effect) by the state, its probably mainly true in cases where social institutions fail (again, mainly divorce and single motherhood)
Edit:also, the claim that mothers work stressful jobs, relative to the past, seems almost entirely the opposite of reality. Almost all women through history worked on small farms toiling at housework day to night. Hunger gatherers societies were ultra violent and incredibly unstable. The current era is by far the lowest stress for anyone, mothers included, excluding the sort of kazcynskian over socialized sense of stress.
magnax1
1yr ago
Why would gene selection technology be limited to the .01%? I can see a case it would be limited to developed countries, or be limited to the very wealthy in those countries for a short period, bit fundamentally technologies like crispr do not require significant resources to use other than the initial investment required to learn how to use them.
magnax1
1yr ago
but then its solution is the platitude of "parental responsibility"
I'm not sure how its really a platitude. Culture is a far more effective weapon against many civilizational threats than state policy making. The state forcing policy from the top has significant costs and limited effectiveness. (See covid) People deciding on their own that something is taboo and shunning it is effective in a way the state just isn't. If you're saying organizing bottom up cultural changes is hard, that's true, but that's kind of why they work. They're not "organized" in any real sense. They just happen so long as the state gets out of the way. Not always, and not necessarily in ideal ways, but that's true of any other method as well.
Edit:And just as a note, calling tiktok a civilizational threat is pretty absurd anyways.
magnax1
1yr ago
Concept is useful but there is no reason not to add solid writing to a concept. It's very hard to care about "crushing historical trends" when you just don't care about any individuals. That's just how people work. Even history is much more interesting through the lense of a Hannibal, Thutmoses III, or Joan of Arc.
I think we just have fundamentally different moral values. I don't think it's that big of a deal for some woman to have to turn down a weirdo multiple times. To me, that just seems like part of life. I don't think its nice for some weirdo to keep asking, but there's a huge gap between not nice and meaningfully wrong. There is no damage caused here, at least on the individual level. If we want to talk on a societal level, that's a lot more foggy, especially because currently there is no presiding sexual morality to speak.
More options
Context Copy link