Receiving @argumate posts like:
(The musical, of course, is based on the original script by Erika Moen.)
(Yeah that rent issue is almost a direct loss of value.) As for regulation, though, the simple axis of too much/not enough probably isn’t a good one. We would likely benefit from having the same amount of regulation, but better, or less regulation that’s more strongly and consistently enforced.
Well, I think there are ways to solve all of it, or most of it anyway, it’s just that most of the ways happen to involve stepping on a number of ideologies’ toes.
In a time when phrases like “Global savings glut“ are thrown around, I get confused as to why anyone thinks solutions like “The problem is that we don’t have enough available capital for investing“ make sense, apart from places that can engage in zero-sum competitions for investment. That doesn’t really seem like the limiting factor here.
Maybe there’s a reason that makes sense, but I’m not seeing it.
I do think there’s an If-Then there.
In that IF you fixed a bunch of your institutions to let you spend money in interesting ways, THEN you could spend a bunch of money doing useful things and not have said savings glut.
Because the skyline of every major city is filled with million-dollar holes that could be filled with half a million in materials.
And those holes aren’t filled for very bad reasons like zoning laws.
Ah, but my dear Poi, why are the zoning laws broken?
Because the only way to avoid crime and societal dysfunction under our current conditions is to price it out of the market! Also American cities suck at spending infrastructure money effectively, but that’s more widely acknowledged.
The political will for denser zoning will not exist until multiple other issues are rectified, including the creation of criminals, improper incentives that don’t sufficiently reward non-criminal relative to criminal activity, simultaneous over and under policing of areas, etc.
So I’ve been seeing this post go around our little sphere here, and….
look, everything in that post is correct, but the change is never going to happen.
the “Dork = Reactionary” narrative is a superweapon that SJ is never going to willingly surrender. it’s too goddamn useful.
not only does it allow them to righteously bash a helpless target (“THESE BARELY-FUNCTIONAL ASPIES ARE ALL SECRETLY NAZIS!!!”), but also allows them to use the threat of being tarred as a NEET to keep each other toeing the line.
It’s never going away.
Weird how “I prefer to date intelligent women” and “I prefer to date women with a high IQ” have totally different levels of social desirability.
The former conceals the fact that the latter may not apply to the woman reading it. That’s why one is Feminism but the other is Low-Status Male.
Today on tumblr I saw with my own eyes the word “h*m*sexual” written just like that, with asterisks in the place of the first two vowels. Amazing
Hemisexual? Hamusexual? Don’t keep us guessing!
Also was that person a woke politically correct activist blogperson or some kind of evangelical prude tradneet?
“Homusexual.” That’s why it’s so problematic that it had to be censored.
Rightists see threats where there are none.
Leftists don’t see threats where there are.
Rightist: accusing me of paranoia is undermining the security of our nation!
Leftist: I don’t see the problem with leftists remaining calm in the face of possible danger, better than giving in to fear.
Centrists fail to see important threats while fixating on nonexistent threats, yay.
C'est moi?
I’m identifying as somewhat of a social centrist these days, whatever that means. I watched as rightists wastefully burnt through dragon hoards’ worth of social capital fighting The Gays, and for years I thought that meant Leftists/Liberals were more broadly correct and Conservatives were just prudes.
Then I started to see that atomic individualism isn’t what humans are ‘made’ for, and looked on in horror as I realized the only group that might stand in the way of legalizing polygamy (with all its problems) no longer has the social capital to effectively do so. Also that random casual sex isn’t what most people find healthy/fulfilling, and so on and so forth.
Which lead me to post the OP.
I’ll be honest here, part of the reason housing isn’t keeping up is zoning laws, and the secret reason for zoning laws being so dysfunctional…
…is to maintain safety/security, environment, and school quality by pricing the dysfunctional out of the local housing market.
How will people react to high levels of low-skilled immigration and accompanying levels of crime and other social dysfunction? They’ll react by pushing this stratification harder. It’s the only way for them to protect themselves, slow cultural diffusion, and maintain the social environment they need to raise their children.
To get open borders with an actually-reasonable level of housing construction, you’re going to have to go FULL SINGAPORE, become less democratic, more Capitalist (in some senses but not others), and brutally crush crime so that the zoning laws can be loosened.
But how many people who want open borders are okay with bringing back public corporal punishment?
Rightists see threats where there are none.
Leftists don’t see threats where there are.
