@RenOS's banner p

RenOS

Technology giveth, Sociology taketh

1 follower   follows 0 users  
joined 2023 January 06 09:29:25 UTC

				

User ID: 2051

RenOS

Technology giveth, Sociology taketh

1 follower   follows 0 users   joined 2023 January 06 09:29:25 UTC

					

No bio...


					

User ID: 2051

I'll just copy part of a very recent post which mostly encapsulates my view of polyamory (contrasting it with other alternatives to monogamy):

Ironically, this is also why polyamory is imo by far the worst for a functioning society; It's basically expanding the dating period of many young people's life to the entirety, with all the anxieties, drama and labor it entails. If you have work & kids, you just don't have time for that. Since work is usually necessary for all but the richest, that means you skip the kids. Communes often have similar problems but to a lesser degree, and as long as they're not too large and have clear boundaries to everything else, can be made to work. I don't like the intrinsic inequality stemming from Harems, but from a practical PoV they work just as well as traditional couples since the boundaries and expectations are simple and clear.

Listening to some of the stories, that may even be to charitable to polyamory; Even the regular dating period for most young people had clearer expectations and less drama.

Sorry, I should have mentioned: Currently I'm only listening to audiobooks, since it allows me to do household chores, cycle, etc. simultaneously. With small kids + full time work I don't really have time to properly read. The limited spare time I have I unfortunately already waste on substack/theMotte. But it sounds interesting enough that it will go on the list of things to read later.

Still trying to separate the chaff from the wheat in LitRPG and adjacent, I finished Mother of Learning and started The Wandering Inn. Mother of Learning was great, not quite high literature but among the best, most consistent world-building I have ever seen in fantasy so far. I was mildly annoyed by some parts of the story and it's kind of obvious that the author struggles to write anything but aspergers with different preferences, but that's something I just accept as a given at this point for good fantasy/SF.

The Wandering Inn, on the other hand, is trash, at least to my preferences. It's defenders are correct that there is nothing quite like it, so if you like that kind of thing it is probably unreplaceable. But it is best described as "juvenile progressive Soap Opera in Medieval Fantasy", which doesn't really appeal to me much. The world and the characters don't really seem to follow consistent rules except for whatever random thing the author wants to contrive to happen next for the purpose of drama or to make some point.

And one specific thing was especially grating and repeated itself over and over: First, I notice that the MC behaves stupidly. This is fine, if lampshaded properly. Even other characters in-story explicitly mention that yes, this is stupid. Then I go look up online discussions of the event in question and even the defenders of the MC basically just say yeah, this is stupid, what did you expect of a teenage girl teleported into medieval fantasy? So I read further, and ... the MC turns out basically right. And again, and again. It's frustrating.

kids are the ultimate karma - no matter what pissed off others about you, you will get to experience it all day, everyday, in a mini-mirror.

As usual, it depends on your goals and the details of what is done. In our region, my parents' generation got the local language & culture beaten out of them by the greater german system, which resulted in me and my generation not being able to speak it (despite my parents still talking it among each other; I can understand it, though) and internalizing a more general "cosmopolitan" german culture instead, even if it still has some local flavors to it.

Now some of my old classmates are reviving the old language through "traditional theater" and similar events, but as far as I can see, they don't reject their actual internalized culture at all. I can't help but view it as pointless LARPing, even if they clearly are mostly sincere about wanting to reconnect with their heritage. Then again, I'm not really a traditionalist myself, so you could call my criticism dishonest itself.

I think this is very related to an observation that has been pointed out for some time now: In most modern places, especially cities, the liberal or even progressive worldview is nowadays the de-facto conservative option in the intuitive sense of the word. What would you call the worldview of your own parents, of the entrenched powers, of the commonly accepted older moral guardians? The default opinion of the church lady archetype around me (to some lesser degree even where I grew up, and certainly where I live now) is some mix of environmentalism (which in itself is intrinsically conservative to some degree) and anti-fascism that many of them have by now been holding since the 70s or so. "Too far left" is to them equivalent to "too pious"; Maybe foolish or impractical, but never really bad or evil. Even if they may technically be part of a religion, they clearly hold their leftie creds in higher regard, often explicitly assuring everyone that no, they actually don't care about the teaching of their actual official religion in particular, they are more on the generally spiritual side and just wanted to be active in some religion in some form. Hell, the literal evangelische Kirchentage (church days organized by mainline protestants) have some great workshops (translated, obviously): "Queer animals on the ark", "brave and strong. Empowerment for BiPoC-kids" or "name blessing for trans*, inter or non-binary people".

This necessarily means that any rival ideology claiming to be conservative is actually at best regressive or at worst wholly unrelated to conservatism, since the de-facto conservatives hate being called conservative. In that sense, the LARP-criticism is correct, since one of the selling points of conservatism is the proof-by-demonstration intrinsic to the ideology that has been dominant for the last decades or longer. It's obviously a general problem also often observed on the left on different topics, but right-wing projects like to have it both ways: On one hand, they recognize they're the rebels organizing a new system, and on the other, they want to leech off the prestige of some old conservative tradition that they were never part of, insufficiently understand, imperfectly copy and which thus may or may not actually work the way it used to. People notice that.

I don't completely disagree with you, however. In my view, most of these right-wing projects need to be more honest they are not really conservative anymore, and lean more into the rebel frame. Nevertheless, as you point out, to some degree unapologetic LARPing is always part of how you create a new system. But it also includes more flexibility and adaption based on what works and what doesn't than many of them want to really practice. Creating something new is hard work.

For me it's rather simple: It should be in a place no pedestrian would walk, independent of whether a pedestrian is currently present. Whether a pedestrian can see you from a distance doesn't matter, I wouldn't care.

At least to me, polyamory is defined by treating sex & romance as just another part of a friendship where you can have different degrees and kinds of sexual relationships with many different people, which can also change quite fast. A fixed group of say 4 guys and 5 girls living together, having kids together, etc. would imo be more aptly described as a commune. And, as you say, 1 man/x woman is 99% just a harem in practice.

Ironically, this is also why polyamory is imo by far the worst for a functioning society; It's basically expanding the dating period of many young people's life to the entirety, with all the anxieties, drama and labor it entails. If you have work & kids, you just don't have time for that. Since work is usually necessary for all but the richest, that means you skip the kids. Communes often have similar problems but to a lesser degree, and as long as they're not too large and have clear boundaries to everything else, can be made to work. I don't like the intrinsic inequality stemming from Harems, but from a practical PoV they work just as well as traditional couples since the boundaries and expectations are simple and clear.

If @hydroacetylene is to be believed, these are homeschooled christian conservative kids, or at least something close to it. I'm not sure how wise it is to project their problems from modern liberal dysfunctions, as much as I may dislike them.

If I compare what he's describing to my own upbringing - german conservative catholic mainline christian, not exactly the same but somewhat related - it's unclear how this can even happen. At 14-15 everyone, and I mean everyone, even the atheists and heretics protestants would start dancing school here. They would teach a pre-defined list of dancing styles popular in the entire region (primarily disco fox, secondarily wiener & regular waltzer, as well as the basic steps for some completely different styles such as latin). If you didn't, people would laugh about you. It's pathetic to not go, and even if you wouldn't formally be excluded from much, you'd be de-facto excluded from a large number of social gatherings. And at the ones you can go, partner dancing would still be present and you'd be very much negatively noticed.

This culminates in a big ball at 16, similar to a prom. At that point for us, everyone would already have a fixed primary dancing partner which we would bring to the ball, would be familiar with dancing with other girls, and would be capable of dancing to almost any music that is played. Your partner would be extremely pissed about you in particular if you then just wouldn't dance with her. You'd be eager to show off proficiency in some of the lesser-known styles, or just generally. Even shy & socially awkward guys like me didn't struggle particularly with the expected basics. At most, you'd only dance with your primary partner instead of asking out other girls, which is slightly looked down upon but generally accepted.

The only way how something like what he is describing could happen would be a complete breakdown of the supporting infrastructure. So it's hard for me to blame the guys here. One of the advantages of conservative societies is that you can do this: You can blatantly push people into certain behaviour on little more than "this is how we do things, and you'll make an ass of yourself if you don't". But you need to actually do it. Evidently, the parents and other guardians didn't. Imo this is a general problem with some neo-conservative groups, that they basically try to cargo cult traditions without understanding which parts make them work. Especially the parts that require effort, or require enough pressure to seem mean.

Then he points at some medieval support wall, and tells me that he prefers the medieval support structure to the elegance of the palace. Uncharitably, this is the sort of opinion you adopt when you are looking for points for intellect. I preferred the French guy.

Sorry, couldn't resist. I guess I emphasize with your guy from Dresden.

To your general point, imo people are generally sold a certain image of their own future already over the span of their childhood and early adulthood, and how happy they are later as an adult depends on how well reality compares to this deep-seated expectation. This can be the life situation of their own parents, but can be influenced heavily by other people or media as well. The general unhappiness in the west right now is due society selling an extremely unrealistic expectation of self-actualization, especially for the academically inclined. I have a few friends who have unimpressive parents, but got so convinced as students they are contenders for professorship, artists and similarly prestigious occupations that they are deeply unhappy adults now that it becomes clear they are not.

FWIW, I also vote +1 for Cremieux being TPO. Not 100%, but he is at the very least extremely reminiscent of him. The combination of being not only interested but strongly pro-HBD AND regularly using the concept of measurement invariance in particular to argue certain points. TPO also did that all the time. I should have noticed earlier, the connection just didn't come to mind.

It's a much bigger problem than this: Most laws favor the entrenched & powerful by default unless very carefully designed not to. This is one reason why large companies often are neutral or even actively lobby for extra regulation. THEY can afford a large legal department for compliance. Smaller competitors, not so much. This is completely independent of whether a law is also deliberately designed to boost specific actors.

And it gets worse once you consider politically entrenched powers. A new law to limit political donations to specific parties in the vein you are considering? Well, WE are only unaffiliated NGOs defending democracy, YOU are obviously a thinly veiled campaign contribution, so all money spent on you needs to be added to the fund of our the other side!

Turns out, helping the genuinely weak compete is pretty hard. Usually you just end up helping a different faction of elite. And even if you design a law that helps bring down a powerful actor, the same law can often be used to bring down anyone, which means it destabilises the entire system.

I know it's most people experience but don't generalize. Neither of our kids was anything like this. Months 1-3 are so sleepless that we didn't even want to meet people even if we could. Month 4 they would already be mobile enough to not tolerate the stroller.

That would be a good analogy if people were lecturing you on CICO while you're bleeding out. You can't fix a broken engine with more gas, you can't fix a broken body with CICO.

But pretty much every case of being overweight can absolutely be solved with CICO. Calorie restriction always works if you actually do it. It's just that 90%+ of people prefer to dump a bottle of sauce on every salad they eat but still count it as 100 calories. Which is very understandable - I also struggle with plenty of things that are 100% willpower issues - but pretending that CICO doesn't apply or even claiming it is wrong is just silly. Even Ozempic is nothing but CICO at its core.

As I said last time - a large part of the AfDs policy plans are sufficiently unappealing for many people so that it's easy to rather grit your teeth and give the CDU a last chance. But the CDU has been rapidly exceeding even the most cynical expectations.

The penal colonies are imo quite clearly presented as bad, and Glokta likewise as a cynical anti-hero literally broken by life.

Also, this reminds me of another thing that gave it such a modern western feeling: West hangs out a lot with the Prisoners because he gets along with them well, while the prince he is supposed to be with is a complete idiot asshole. This is mirrored in the cast of PoV characters; By far the most insufferable person, and deliberately so, is Jezal, the nobleman, who only redeems himself through the adventure the story is about. The king, meanwhile, is a fat, drooling senile. The first law consistently portrays the aristocracy as vain idiots with few exceptions, and even those exceptions make up their intelligence with malice. On the other hand it idealizes the wretched.

In history however, meritocracy didn't succeed because commoners are better than nobleman, but because the best of the commoners are better than nobleman. However, the average nobleman had always been better than the average commoner in most ways you could care about. Nobleman often suffered higher casualties than commoners during wars due to their bravery, even common-born upstarts would prefer spending time with the noble-born due to their sociability and commoners in general often engaged in the kind of dysfunctional self-hurting behaviour that contemporary lower classes still exhibit much more than contemporary middle and especially upper classes. And this is and was true even more so once you compare criminals with the nobility.

As cannabis legalisation around the globe shows, even trivial inconveniences add up. Before legalisation, I thought legalizing was good but kind of pointless - it wasn't particularly hard to get nor did I expect to get into significant trouble even when caught (at least with the small amounts I had as a customer).

Now after legalisation, I actually lean towards it having been a mistake, bc consumption increased so much, especially in frequency, that it's both gotten really annoying to go over campus due to the smell and evidence is adding up that while occasional usage isn't problematic, daily usage is. At the very least, even assuming no long-term effects, a decent chunk of students is blasted out of their mind perpetually.

I don't really mind it too much in itself. It's a question of frequency and presentation; It's annoying and stupid that it has become the default, especially so if it's not justified through fantastic elements. But it seemed relevant to the OP.

Thanks, Trump! Now we only have to figure out how to get all the Bürgergeldempfänger to work at these businesses...

I think the only way to get persistent trade surpluses is when one country is saving in the other's currency (earning or buying their currency, and then just sitting on it).

From what I understand, Import/Export is specifically goods and services exchanged for money, so it does not include many financial instruments, such as direct investment into a foreign country or leaving your money at a foreign bank. So a country can run a long-term trade deficit indefinitely as long as it can re-capture the difference this way. Which is especially easy if you just-so happen to be the financial headquarter of the world. But yes, many countries saving in US currency is also an option.

I agree that, if anything, this implies a trade deficit is good for you.

I also considered the first law, but despite the morally grey main characters, it had a modern western feeling to it. The main party includes a woman, who is also a strong, physical fighter. The opponents engage in slavery and dark magic, while the main characters, for all their faults, have clear red lines on that front. Modern-style romance and gender relations in general are quite clearly implied to be the morally correct option. It has been quite some time since I read it so I may be misremembering/forgetting some parts, though.

As far as I understand Trump, he considers the trade imbalance itself a problem and thus if a country doesn't buy enough american goods - even if it isn't the result of tariffs - that needs to be fixed. Negotiations can then still be done by the governments of the respective countries by deliberately buying american for large-scale infrastructure projects and pressuring their own larger companies to invest/buy more american. Taiwan, for example, has had no tariffs, but has declared their intention to invest more into american companies to start negotiations.

But yes, I agree overall. Achieving a perfect equal trade balance with all countries is the same kind of nonsense as the desire on the left for the perfect equality of all people - neither desirable nor realistic. I'd greatly prefer genuine reciprocal tariffs.

Sequestration was a response to an entirely artificial crisis (it was part of a deal to increase the debt ceiling)

The ceiling may have been a somewhat arbitrary value, but the crisis wasn't artificial. The debt increased in a major jump, reaching the ceiling in 2011, which was a direct result of the 2008 financial crisis and demanded some action, one way or another.

Some of the current developments are increasingly pointing towards 2.

But we will have to see. If he really intended primarily for 2., his move was very ballsy. I'd have been much more careful, first negotiating and only considering targeted tariffs in case a country shows no willingness to change. In a one-on-one, America is always economically larger, so they can strong-arm almost anyone; By picking a fight with everyone simultaneously, they risk them banding together instead. But I'm also quite strongly generally opposed to tariffs, while Trump at the very least does not mind introducing them if he feels treated unfair (and he does so quite easily).

Human babies are basically dysfunctional compared to other mammals for the first year or so, probably just so that they can have such an unusually large brain, and by extension skull, for their body size. I wouldn't over-interpret any particular behaviour they exhibit.

And yes, crying before sleeping is very common for babies. It gets (much!) better with age, but most kids get increasingly cranky in the late afternoon and evening.