@netstack's banner p

netstack

Texas is freedom land

8 followers   follows 3 users  
joined 2022 September 05 17:27:40 UTC

				

User ID: 647

netstack

Texas is freedom land

8 followers   follows 3 users   joined 2022 September 05 17:27:40 UTC

					

No bio...


					

User ID: 647

I think you’re assuming the conclusion. The economic forces which make babysitters and dishwashers ubiquitous wouldn’t disappear if we’d never started critiquing imperialism.

I also think your view of the past is rose-tinted as hell. 1700s America wasn’t an endless quilt of Amish communities, waiting to be tempted out of Eden. It was a hungry, dirty, disease-ridden frontier just starting to climb the curve of industrialization. Communities weren’t solving each others’ problems “for free.” They were paying their dues on their own social contract.

I agree that climate change gets the lion’s share of messaging, especially in outward-facing, soundbite-oriented places like that website. It has won the coveted position of shorthand for its whole cluster of related policy.

I don’t actually think that indicates loss of support for the old policies. More that their low-hanging fruit has been picked. Or, I guess, that the bureaucracy to do so has already been put in place.

Pollution gets plenty of attention. See the op-eds about how Trump is going to personally shit in your drinking water.

Welcome back.

Also, don’t be a jerk.

Please make your points without the gratuitous insults.

Ah, that makes me think of vintage Day[9] Funday Mondays. A different time.

Please refrain from attacking others as insincere. The generalized rage isn’t particularly constructive, either.

McGregor is a public figure, and it’s reasonable for a news outlet to blast him while ignoring random scumbags like Pulka.

The problem comes from ignoring some random scumbags based on their ethnicities. Or, as was done here, criticizing Schrodinger’s Perp for his male privilege up until the waveform collapses and he is revealed to have immunity. That’s despicable, but it’s got nothing to do with how one treats McGregor.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russo-Georgian_War

See also the Chechnya, Nagorno-Karabakh, and God knows what other conflicts in the region.

I get the impression that sub has been exploited by various wannabe substackers. If so, it wouldn’t be surprising that said wannabes are jumping on the Current Thing.

After the massive collective trip, people started thinking a reality TV Star and real estate mogul was running for President…

Quadcopters: for that personal touch

I always thought matching the gun was about the mark of the firing pin, not the rifling. But it’s not mentioned in the article or the case. Does that still hold up? @NickRiviera, any idea?

Wait, are you arguing with yourself? Is this a joke about schizophrenia or something?

Also, Rogan is known for endorsing DMT. Surely some of his guests have reciprocated.

I don’t think I’ve noticed such. Maybe a relative increase due to the lull in American presidential politics? But no absolute flood.

This framework suffers from the same flaw as every theory about a professional-managerial class: it bends over backwards to get the outgroup in a particular spot. Usually, I see this from conservatives looking to complain about PMCs, but here, it’s the author trying to distance his own class from immoral Elites. Very 2012, but not a recipe for accuracy.

(Mind you, I looked at @lagrangian’s diagram first, which adds an editorial spin more familiar to the Motte. Where Church sorted the Gentry by access to institutions, it suggests they’re ranked by “detachment from reality.” Not the most charitable reading.)

I don’t think Church did a good job explaining why the Gentry and Elite ladders are distinct. Both access the most prestigious institutions, command moderate to high wealth, and network amongst the beautiful and clever. Moving between them is more about preferences than about ability. So why are they two separate ladders?

G1 doesn’t really exist. Church says it doesn’t include celebrities; that ought to rule out Jon Stewart, Malcolm Gladwell, Walter Cronkite, and Carl Sagan alike. It doesn’t include top politicians or policymakers, who either fall into G2 technocracy or low-E resource management.

No, the gap between gentry and elites is the same disdain which has been discussed since F. Scott Fitzgerald. The nouveau riche won’t clear that gap by cultural or capital accumulation. E4 and E3 and maybe E1 go on the upper rungs of the G ladder, and the traditional upper class stay in their Adirondack retreats. Welcome to America.

I don’t know at what point this went off the rails, but you both eventually end up sounding like assholes. @ControlsFreak, you’ve been specifically warned for arguing with this exact poster! One or both of you needs to make use of the block feature.

Leave off the personal callouts, please. Everything up to the last sentence was fine.

Who do you have in mind?

In America, we’ve got elites from elite families who do some service. See W or Ted Kennedy. They’re on the elite ladder regardless.

I don’t think they dominate the careerist military, like the CSA or CMC, because there are a lot more proles. Nobodies from random Southern or Midwestern families would probably be classed as low-level gentry even as they reach the peak of military careers.

But there’s definitely an intersection with people like McCain. For all I know JFK might have continued to rank up if not for the medical discharge. Regardless, these officers are elites.

Frankly, I think the whole “gentry” ladder is the weakest part of the model, and is mostly an excuse to loathe blue-tribe cultural figures. So I wouldn’t take that part too seriously. You’ve got elites who may or may not take their military careers to a peak. And you’ve got a lot more proles who fill out most of the technocratic slots at the top. The former can transition to civilian political power, while the latter cannot. That’s more important than the specific ladders.

Okay, that makes more sense.

Thin Larry pays for fat Pete just as fat Pete pays for him. Perhaps less, since premiums might have some correlation with health.

Slicing the categories arbitrarily fine just destroys what advantages insurance actually provides.

Mistake not Twitter outrage for consensus.

This particular incident is getting a level of coverage that I, too, find unsavory. The posts exist because people want to be edgy; they get signal-boosted because it’s a slow news week. Compare reports about mass shooters, who receive unwarranted fascination even when their manifestos are objectively stupid.

Wouldn’t having a large userbase be useful for smoothing out the statistics? As Norman mentions above.

In the United States, Liberty Mutual remains a mutual company in which policyholders holding contracts for insurance are considered shareholders in the company. However, Liberty Mutual Group's brand usually operates as a separate entity outside the United States, where a subsidiary is often created in countries where legally recognized mutual-company benefits cannot be enjoyed.

So it’s also possible brand awareness in America is intended to fuel operations outside of the mutual umbrella.

I don’t think this is a very coherent question. What does it mean to be “more prepared to hate?” I’m not sure I understand your usage of “manly man,” either; transitioning to female is pretty darn un-manly.

You’ve been warned five times for this lazy chan impression. Stop it.