domain:abc.net.au?page=2
Youtube comments sections have gotten signifigantly further right over the last 3 years. That's basically social media.
You'd still get banned for saying "you cant be a woman and have a penis" so its still far left of the center.
I get printouts of most things because my work space cannot be limited to two screens.
you can, and maybe should, purchase more than two large monitors
The answer for me would be:
- Crime;
- Education;
- Immigration.
Most things that are expensive right now (and even pre-Covid) are not so because the are inherently so. Most cities and areas are not like SF/Silicon Valley. More are like Chicago and DC where a large part of the COL is caused by crime. Your groceries are more expensive because the store has 10% losses via theft and breakage, your commute is 100% longer because close to your work is a bunch of burned out homes from the 1940s occupied by squatters, your house itself is on more land that you need because property values need to be high to keep your kids safe, and because parks can't be kept safe.
Similarly education is expensive. We spend so much for so little, all you can possibly get is a good peer group by, again, paying for it with property values or tuition. And sometimes that doesn't even work (we are having trouble getting our son separated from a problem child despite all this). And that is just standard ed. Higher ed needs to be gutted. People are rightly feeling exploited. People dont understand the loans; or the degrees, and graduate feeling entitled to something they were sold but never actually deserved/earned. The people most affected want a handout, but that will only marginally help them and would make the problem worse. What we need is metaphorical arson.
And last is immigration. It causes problems with the first two, plus social cohesion. The cost of ESL in education and society is enormous. Immigrant populations routinely shelter criminals (very common crime being covered up is sexual exploitation of minors in my experience) and make policing generally more difficult by just committing so much low level crime it cant even be policed (think the 2001 New England Patriots defense, but as a whole community littering, setting garbage fires, having 100 free range cats, etc). There is then the signage, the court and other legal costs they add up.
For part 4) Id just end all transfer payments to people not injured on the job. Of course, that makes 1-3 (already impossible IMO) appear modest. The two biggest problems in the US are Medicaid and Welfare. Social Security and Medicare are a close 3/4. The only reason the feds should be cutting someone a check is if they got a limb blown off in Iraq or cut off while working in a factory. And ideally we restructure the factory portion of that so the factory is paying that shit.
records of courtiers in some European country.
These guys were probably fat. I can definitely buy a sedentary fat man eating five thousand calories a day.
Trench soldiers
It's pretty believable that trench warfare has higher caloric demands than athletic training. Athletes stop training once they are in danger of overexerting themselves, while the infantry has no such luxury.
That trench soldiers maintained weight on 4600 calories a day should make us extremely skeptical of sedentary, normal BMI people eating 5kcal day in, day out unless they have some kind of metabolic disease, let alone this happening often.
I remember Aella or other Rationalist-adjacent person on social media sharing a word doc that compiles various controversial opinions and survey questions, anyone remember this and have a link to it?
Re: 2, bear in mind that energy underlies everything we do and so energy costs propagate to everything in a way that others don’t. Ideally energy should be very cheap.
It's going to be hard for me to dig that up. It was on X and was based on records of courtiers in some European country.
Not the same, but here's the best I could do with 3 minutes of Perplexity: Trench soldiers eating 4600 kCals per day during WWI. Obviously, they were very active, but also must have weighed an average of like 140 pounds.
Even assuming extreme activity, this should only burn less than 3200 kCals per day: https://tdeecalculator.net/result.php?s=imperial&g=male&age=19&lbs=140&in=69&act=1.9&f=1
I've seen many other records of historical people eating large amounts of calories. Maybe they're dubious, I'm not sure.
People pay an order of magnitude less attention to you than you think. Live your life and don't worry about what other people think.
All but one were eaten by Henry VIII.
Are you talking about quantity or reach? Because the lowest quality grifter with the most reach in America is Ibrahim X. Kendi. Next you have the 1619 project, all BLM related orgs, etc. RW orgs with that much reach are people like Daily Wire and Vivek. You might not like their positions on everything, but those aren't grifters. One is a legitimate media business that has really innovated in the space, and the other is a serious politician and thinker, although odd.
There seem to be trade offs involved.
There is a "woo" explanation that goes something like this:
In all plants and animals, there is a thrive/survive dynamic. During times of plenty, the plant will blossom, the animal will expend energy and look to breed. During times of starvation, the plant will go dormant, the animal will hibernate.
But the candle that burns brighter (high metabolism) is extinguished sooner. High metabolism may lead to better health, more energy, and visible abs, but it will also age one more quickly.
This is a universal principle of all life forms.
It's maybe directionally accurate. It's certainly not very well-studied. Maybe I'm just hoping there's an upside to my vampire like pulse rate and body temperature.
Stay hydrated.
If you want an easy explanation of why they should be told, I know pro-trans activism likes to talk about elevated rates of suicide among people with gender dysphoria/trans people (even though suicide is a social contagion, and we elsewhere try to avoid doing that, but whatever). Do you not think that parents should know that their child is in a group with a vastly higher suicide rate?
When we look at historical records, we often see even relatively sedentary men ate 3000, 5000, or even more kCals per day.
Huh? Where are the historic sedentary men eating over 5000 calories on a daily basis?
The weird creepy ads about “people can look up your voting record and won’t date you if you don’t” also don’t help with this, especially when several of these ads didn’t clarify that while whether you voted is public, who you voted for is not. The social stigma of voting Trump is still high, as people get uninvited from Thanksgiving with their own families for leaning conservative.
The Republicans were unfortunately no better on this front, though their social pressure went straight to registered Republican voters and so was less visible than the Democrats’ efforts. Here’s one of several texts I received in the days leading up to the election (emojis and text formatting are original):
🗳️Voting records are public—your friends, neighbors, and family will know if you stood with Trump when it mattered most. 🇺🇸🔥
Hi Lewis, this is [X] with the [state] GOP. Tomorrow is Election Day—your 𝐥𝐚𝐬𝐭 𝐜𝐡𝐚𝐧𝐜𝐞 to make a difference. Whether or not you vote is public, and your community will see if you stood with Trump or stayed home. Don’t let your country down when our 𝐟𝐮𝐭𝐮𝐫𝐞 𝐢𝐬 𝐨𝐧 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐥𝐢𝐧𝐞.
I received a few more that included variants on the same veiled threat. I wasn’t and still am not very happy with that approach, but I imagine it probably is effective, given that both sides were trying it.
It's a recent move, and the Left's grift is still there, however, they've started to tone things down in the advent of the ascending accelerationists. Granted, sites like Salon and NewRepublic seem to exist to prove the strawmen visions of the Democrats correct to a degree that feels deranged, even if one were to find the American Russophiles and Sinophiles unpalatable.
Yeah that will definitely have a selection effect, not just because you aren't seeing as many leftists, but also because people of all political persuasions generally hide their craziest beliefs unless they know they are in good company. So you hang out with rightists and they get comfortable with you and tell you their metaphors that they secretly believe, but are so rarely in a space that is comfortable for leftists that you don't hear their metaphors that they secretly believe.
I think the "peak woke" line is cope on the center left and right for different reasons. The center-left keep writing these articles as a smokescreen to let their radicals reload, and the people on the right are just deluding themselves that the extremists will give up and/or that the center-left will ever side with them.
Interesting.
My husband tended to be 99 F when he was younger, and also attracted way more static electricity than I do. He eats things like an entire pound of bacon, then just paces a lot, or walks around barefoot in the snow or something. My daughter seems to have inherited his metabolism, and actually was sent home from pre-K a couple of times for "low grade fever," but then she got home and didn't have a fever.
My body temperature is a bit below average (I don't check it very often, because I almost never run a fever), and I'm lower energy, but also have fewer random health problems -- things like almost never getting headaches or nausea, even when we eat something a bit off, getting over colds and flus faster, stuff like that. This has been good for pregnancy, which went smoothly all three times.
There seem to be trade offs involved.
Because it means, almost definitionally, that he was using her for sex with full knowledge that that is what he is doing, and that she more than likely expected more out of it.
If he’d dated and married her it would certainly be odd, or if they’d dated seriously and it not worked out. But I don’t think it’s inherently skeevy unless he was a teacher at her school or something. The ‘using a teenager for sex’ thing is what’s wrong.
Maybe things are different in the UK but my experience, the preoccupation with "dignity" and titles over things like training, compensation, hours, etc... is generally a mark of lower intelligence.
The iq 130 nurse practioner who realised who figured they could get 90% of the power, prestige and pay for 30% of the effort, vs the iq 105 doctor who's motivation to finish med-school was in part to shut up thier parents, teachers, classmates, et al.
Yes, I have, and I've read a lot about the history of the region due to the prominence of the issue. As for accurately summarizing both positions... the Palestinian side would be easy but as for the Israeli side I honestly don't think so - there are real divisions in Israeli society on these topics, and coming up with an answer that could satisfy all of them is hard
I'm not asking you to summarize what all Israelis think. That would obviously be ridiculous. I'm asking you to summarize what the hard-liners who believe in a Jewish ethnostate believe, in terms they would agree with.
Even if your argument holds, the idea that they're disproportionately murdering women and children to amuse themselves says worse things about the IDF than any of the claims I've made so far.
That isn't what I meant by "stupid grunt shit," and I think you are being disingenuous in claiming that you think that's what I meant. I was thinking more of the videos of them making offensive jokes and raiding Palestinian women's underwear drawers.
I know that the Palestinians (and our resident Jew-haters) claim that Israelis are sniping Palestinian children for fun, but there's been no substantial evidence of this, and to believe that it's happening at scale requires, again, believing that Israelis are so psychologically different from most people, and so bloodthirsty, that "monsters" would be an appropriate description.
I have never in my life heard a football chant that was as offensive and cruel as the ones from Maccabi Tel Aviv.
I have definitely heard racist and bloodthirsy shit from Russians about Ukrainians, from Arabs about Jews, from Americans about Iraqis, and that's just in recent memory - surely we don't need to take a trip down memory lane to Viet Nam or Korea or WWII. I am not defending what the Maccabi fans said, it's obviously vile, but I am disputing your argument that this shows some uniquely evil and genodical spirit among Israelis. Drunken footballers have always done awful and offensive things, and drunken footballers from a country currently at war? I think the press coverage has been wildly uncritical (presenting it as an "attempted pogrom of Jews of Amsterdam"), but I think you are just using it as another story about how evil Israelis are.
I believe they're ethnonationalists who want to reclaim the territory that their god supposedly promised them in their religious scriptures. That's the explanation! It sounds unflattering to modern, non-Bronze age ears, but that's because the actions the Israelis have actually undertaken are unflattering. You don't get to run an apartheid state and then complain that people are saying you run an apartheid state because you'd call it something else that's not as bad for your reputation.
Using the "Aparthead state" rhetoric kind of gives the game away, but as far as the first statement, yes, Zionists believe they are entitled to Israel because it is their ancestral homeland. And you know what? I agree that that's bullshit. You don't have a natural rightful claim to land that your ancestors happened to live on 2000 years ago, or the entire world would be subject to pretty dramatic redrawing of borders. At the same time, it's a lot more complicated than your simple anti-Zionist narrative of "Jews showed up to commit genocide because God told them to take back their land." I mean, have you read any other books? I haven't read Righteous Victims but I've read some of the other stuff by Benny Morris and the New Historians, and even they don't tell it that way.
Me! I can blame them! Not once have I ever in my life said that I would like another ethnicity to just 'go away' because I don't like the political consequences of their continued existence. If you want to defend that impulse, go ahead - but you're forever giving up the ability to criticize antisemites, racists and white nationalists. After all, they would just like the jews to go away - who can blame them, after all this time?
I mean, no, I don't really blame Palestinian youths for hating Israelis. I'm sure I would too if I grew up as they did. That does not make their position objectively right. If you think that terrorism and unending warfare is a "political consequence of their continued existence," though, then you apparently share the most pessimistic Israeli view of Palestinians. I don't blame people constantly subjected to violence for hating the people responsible and wishing they'd just go away (and this goes for both sides). We can hope some leaders will rise above this, but we can also recognize that the motives are very understandable.
But at the same time, I'm willing to bet if you assembled all the white nationalists here on the motte and asked them if they were willing to go to the lengths Israel has gone to in order to rid their country of jews and non-whites, many of them would actually say that they would prefer less overtly violent and bloodthirsty methods.
Some of them might say that, and I might even believe a couple of them. On the other hand, we're back to how you characterize "the lengths Israel has gone to." You evidently believe the genocidal apartheid state version where Israelis (a critical mass of them, anyway) are just that evil and hate Palestinians and have not exterminated them only because it would be bad PR. The Israeli version would be quite different from that, and a lot closer to what the white nationalists would call reasonable measures to separate and suppress a violent population that is making war on them. (No, I would not agree with that characterization, any more than I agree with the more ungenerous Israeli characterizations of the Palestinians, but it's at least more coherent than "They're just evil genocidal religious fanatics.")
That's a complicated question, and I don't think I can actually provide an answer for Americans because I am not one. I can tell you what those policies would look like for the country where I live (Australia), and those policies would probably look something like this.
- Cost of living adjustments - dramatic reductions in property values, dramatic reduction in immigration intake, increases in the amount of money provided to jobseekers/welfare recipients, muscular antitrust enforcement against major supermarkets engaging in price-fixing and collusion, nationalisation of toll roads run by overseas firms. I'd have to do some research and planning, but ideally I'd like to burst the real estate bubble while confining as much of the pain to the obscenely wealthy rather than the battlers who managed to get onto the property ladder despite the shithouse conditions.
- Actual taxation of the wealthy - creation of a petroleum resources rent tax, removal of all fossil fuel subsidies from major corporations, crackdown on tax avoidance by multinational firms and a full audit of everything PWC has ever done with public money. The entire fossil fuel sector in Australia contributes substantially less to national finances than payroll taxes on nurses and I think this is morally wrong (and not just inefficient). I'd also implement a progressive taxation system on income generated by real estate, with every property after the first getting taxed at increasingly ruinous levels.
- Muscular and substantial anti-corruption proceedings. Empower an actual body to go after incidents of government corruption and malfeasance, without being connected to the existing major parties and deeply compromised like the current NACC. There are a lot of scandals and naked corruption in Australian government and there's not going to be any trust in the government until that gets dealt with, and a lack of trust in government means there are a lot of good policies you just can't implement or pursue because the people don't trust government to do them fairly.
Read Ymeskhout's if you haven't
He's my friend, I have a cameo in the article. His belief is that Republicans are going crazy, he respects my intelligence but thinks I have a reality distortion field that makes me irrational about Trump. Sure, he can think that -- and I think he's wrong! The theory is that we're wrong about everything, we're conspiracy theorists, we're cranks, we're crazy, we believe things without evidence, etc. etc. etc. Most of these guys don't actually know anything about the evidence: I sincerely doubt Hanania could give a steelman of RFK's position about vaccines, or Corona, or a steelman about anything, frankly. Yassine, at least, has been very patient in having these kinds of conversations, but I don't think he would really accept any of these arguments as legitimate: he isn't convinced, and he's not convinced anyone else should be convinced. So they're not just wrong arguments, they're crank arguments, conspiracy arguments, etc.
the fact that Republicans really have become the party of choice for conspiracy theorists that have very little grounding in reality
Democrats are the party of people who act as if there isn't a Replication Crisis. I see the worst nonsense taken credulously just because it was in a study somewhere. Corona came from wet markets? Puberty blockers are reversible? I can go on bluesky right now and find people arguing that Kamala won the election and has all the evidence and will coup Trump any day now. Please, please, I cannot stand to hear more about how I need to carefully consider the people who call me crazy because they didn't carefully consider me. The right does not have a monopoly on nonsense and that is so apparent that it's embarrassing to be told otherwise.
Society doesn't work in a way which supports human well-being. Advertisement for instance attempts to create a need that it then tries to fulfill. And it's possible that even if we managed to make all of a society enlightened, they would cease to exist in a single generation as they either renounced marriage, or became so uninterested in conflict that another country could easily conquer them. I also believe that Postmodernism has made society worse, even though it has correctly identified that some things are social constructs (and incorrectly made human nature out to be a construct). But yeah, Chesterton's fence applies here. Many bad things have good second-order effects, and maybe good things have bad second-order effects.
Teaching these things is difficult, but only because we're so corrupted by societies teachings. I believe that a child would grasp them more easily.
There's a small possibility that we all have weak reality-bending powers in that our subconsciousness can affect the universe, and there's a chance that one can make this power stronger. I once visualized that I got an A in a class that I had barely studies for, and I somehow did. How? My presentation was mediocre at best. The situation with my brother is also not understood by neither science nor old books (except those which cover mind-blowing things).
John Wheeler was an extremely intelligent scientist and won many awards, and he arrived at a "participatory universe theory". And the general ratio of highly intelligent people who believe in strange things is quite high. There's also some research by the CIA like the gateway process: https://www.vice.com/en/article/found-page-25-of-the-cias-gateway-report-on-astral-projection/
And it's possible that beliefs influences reality in a way such that reality is the superimposing of all beliefs, which means that the doubts of many can cancel out the beliefs of few (which may be why many cultures warn that one should not say their wishes out loud). Another theory of mine is that things cannot change state while they're observed (the Quantum Zeno effect?), which means that they need to be unobserved in order to be malleable. Lets again use Tarot cards as an example, but shuffling the cards while you're not observing them, you create unobserved states, and the cards become "undecided". Now, as you observe a card, it's decided, and your subconsciousness (or your past and future trajectory) somehow influences this choice. Some call the set of unobserved/undecided things "Chaos". For chaotic things, very small inputs can result in vastly different outputs, but this means that the energy of the human brain is enough (as the future trajectory can be altered by spending a few kalories worth of energy). Related: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kia_(magic)
But isn't it more fun to find these truths yourself? If you figure everything out, you will be bored (this seems a bit like your current problem actually) And if somebody discover a "mind-blowing" secret before us, and gets access to a higher power, we may be in trouble. Especially if some government gets their hand on said knowledge.
Your quote by Aristotle seems to be the same thing I wrote earlier about there being no true language and no true axiomatic system, but that "You must choose one". It's like when we talk - we have to choose a language in order to talk. Any language will do, but we cannot speak of anything which does not have a word in that language, trapping us.
There's a rule in effect, but it's difficult to construct a rule which explains all examples. I think that submission to a higher power vs making oneself out to be the higher power is the difference between white magic and black magic. There's many warnings that black magic can destroy you or make you go insane. It may just be that being humble has a lot of benefits for the psyche - after all, basically ever culture to ever exist has spoken positively about humility. It's possible that herd morality is to blame for this virtue of humility (an aspect of human nature in normies say "The nail which sticks out gets hammered down") but even non-conformists tend to come up with a saying similar to "Those who exalt themselves will be humbled, and those who humble themselves will be exalted." It's possible that "authorities" just have higher, well, authority over the programming of the mind. After all, most socities have leaders whose words are absolute. Just like humans crave external validation and overestimate the importance of others opinions, our brain may value the worldview of authorities very highly.
I know some of them. One is that contradiction works differently than you'd think. Trying to be positive, and trying not to be negative are not the same. You can be positive, but the more you try "not to be negative" the harder you will fail. This is related to "Do or do not, there is no try". Also sometimes communicated like this: "When you try to be happy, you reinforce the idea that you're not already happy, which makes you stuck in the unhappy stage". The Tao Te Ching also has a bunch of rules which are just the opposite of what one would expect.
I think I've seen something like that over at https://qualiacomputing.com While I don't think you can solve reality or human nature with mathematics, these are the guys who have come the closest to being able to do this so far.
Like the attempt to eliminate evil and the attempt to eliminate suffering, eliminating the dark night of the soul may be naive. The dark night could be an important step in reaching enlightenment, like how getting your pulse up is an important step in lowering your resting heart rate, and kind of like how nihilism can be a transitory state between belief in the external and belief in the self. You can eliminate bad dreams quite easily, but I believe that they're just reflections of your general situation in life, or even important messages from your subconsciousness. Anyway, if you want to eliminate bad dreams, you need to tell yourself that these dreams do you no good, and have conflicting parts of yourself agree with this. Hypnosis should work as well, as long as your subconsciousness perceive the person who hypnotizes you as an authority. But again, even so-called bad things exist for a reason. There's a duality principle here as well. Or perhaps this "bad" thing is a part of something bigger. We don't like having red lights in traffic, but eliminating red lights would be a terrible idea. We only know this because we know why traffic lights exist, but some things seem bad without us knowing why they exist, so getting rid of them is dangerous.
More options
Context Copy link