I think that is simultaneously the hardest and yet the most subtle insult I have ever seen.
What was that one post on Argumate’s blog?
I’ve never been catcalled and it kind of bothers me. Like: why not? Am I just not dressing in the right way? Am I not going to the right places? What do I need to do to have this experience? I already walk home from school every day!
God but I kind of want to be catcalled, if I’m going to be mistaken for a woman at least I want to be a /desirable/ woman.
[insert standard disclaimer about catcalling not being fun]
Might I propose that cat-calling frequency varies a lot by location and local population/culture?
I will admit, when I realized that each generation must raise the next, and I mean really realized it, not just in passing, I became more right-wing.
@silver-and-ivory why did you
If some subset of society just does whatever they want, as long as it’s not too big, then it doesn’t risk imploding society.
However, for society to continue and be good to live in,
Thus, the family is, in fact, one of the primary core units of society, and of great importance. How people live, in the aggregate, matters a lot. The education and raising of children matter a lot. There is a maximum number ratio of wine-drenched spinsters and perpetual bachelors, beyond which, long-term, any nation will crumble.
How people live determines the wealth of society, the general pleasantness of society, and so on.
The nice thing is that no matter what, the next generation will (on average) be of average virtue! (Although disappointingly, some percentage of them will stubbornly remain below average.)
I think there are some places in our country where the process has been sufficiently fucked up that we’re looking at below-average.
I will admit, when I realized that each generation must raise the next, and I mean really realized it, not just in passing, I became more right-wing.
@silver-and-ivory why did you
If some subset of society just does whatever they want, as long as it’s not too big, then it doesn’t risk imploding society.
However, for society to continue and be good to live in,
Thus, the family is, in fact, one of the primary core units of society, and of great importance. How people live, in the aggregate, matters a lot. The education and raising of children matter a lot. There is a maximum number ratio of wine-drenched spinsters and perpetual bachelors, beyond which, long-term, any nation will crumble.
How people live determines the wealth of society, the general pleasantness of society, and so on.
The traditional family is likely not the only way children can be raised in a fashion that doesn’t lead to everyone’s doom. It seems like if one worries about the risk of the changing family model imploding society, one should worry about various other similar risks brought by changing lifestyles. Have you similarly become more anti-technology?
No, on the grounds that increasing technological efficiency is a vital necessity to avoid resource exhaustion collapsing society. If we operate with 50′s or 90′s or 2010′s tech indefinitely, we will run out of metals, oil, etc.
If we had far more resources and double the lifespan, I’d say to take each technological change about half as quickly as we do, but we don’t. Instead, we’re in a race against catastrophe.
Edit: I mean yeah, I’m worried about the effects of all this screen-time on toddlers, and I believe that giving smartphones to anyone under about 14 should be socially discouraged, but many of the reasons I want other policies are also reasons I want tech.
I will admit, when I realized that each generation must raise the next, and I mean really realized it, not just in passing, I became more right-wing.
@silver-and-ivory why did you
If some subset of society just does whatever they want, as long as it’s not too big, then it doesn’t risk imploding society.
However, for society to continue and be good to live in,
Thus, the family is, in fact, one of the primary core units of society, and of great importance. How people live, in the aggregate, matters a lot. The education and raising of children matter a lot. There is a maximum number ratio of wine-drenched spinsters and perpetual bachelors, beyond which, long-term, any nation will crumble.
How people live determines the wealth of society, the general pleasantness of society, and so on.
I feel like this is wrong but I have no idea why I feel like that, so have a reblog.
False equivalence. The right doesn’t raise their children to be more virtuous than the left. They have different vices and virtues.
Sure, in some ways. Some patterns work even when done by people who don’t believe in having others follow them.
Also, there is more than one way to be right-wing.
What’s right and left can vary, too. Polygmy is bad for children. However, while in the middle east, polygamy would be Trad, in the United States, it would be the Idpol Left that would legalize it, in the name of “religious tolerance” and a bunch of other things.
And thus, within the context of America, my opposition to it is “right-wing”.
Without getting into a long argument about which left wing virtues are actually virtues, could we agree that the right wing virtues are often those which contribute most directly to intergenerational transmission?
(“Right wing” covers a lot of different groups so to be clear I’m taking about social traditionalists mostly.)
It’s the right, not the left, which treats childbearing itself as a virtue. The right has economic productivity as a virtue. These are two things we need in order to keep having the kind of society we currently have, and ideologies which argue against them are arguing for their own extinction.
Memetic virulence is not moral correctness
“It’s the right, not the left, which treats [the divine right of kings] as a virtue. The right has [mercantilism] as a virtue. These are two things we need to keep having the kind of society we currently have, and ideologies which argue against them are arguing for their own extinction.”
~ conservatives in 1650, probably
Why the hell is humanity so important compared to other species, anyway? I’m pretty sure that dolphins could do a better job than we did with civilization once they develop writing and speech and whatnot.
I honestly don’t care if humanity dies out at this point. At the current time we are responsible for the next generation, but basically we have a 99% chance of fucking the next generation up because of our own failings and the failings of the generations who have come before us. People basically have kids for selfish reasons or because they have basically given up on their own lives and that’s about it.
Signed, a perpetual bachelor whose parents really, really shouldn’t have had kids
Dolphins aren’t going to do anything of the sort. The evolutionary gap is too large, and if they managed to cross it (including migrating back to land), they wouldn’t be dolphins anymore.
Chimps are the better candidate to actually happen, and chimps are fkin’ brutal.
I’m not saying that you, in particular, need to have kids, though.
I can maybe see the case for “create close-knit communities that meet together once a week to listen to some guy preach about not doing obviously stupid things,”
@wirehead-wannabe, makin’ the rationale for Rationalism-Adjacent Church
I will admit, when I realized that each generation must raise the next, and I mean really realized it, not just in passing, I became more right-wing.
@silver-and-ivory why did you
If some subset of society just does whatever they want, as long as it’s not too big, then it doesn’t risk imploding society.
However, for society to continue and be good to live in,
Thus, the family is, in fact, one of the primary core units of society, and of great importance. How people live, in the aggregate, matters a lot. The education and raising of children matter a lot. There is a maximum number ratio of wine-drenched spinsters and perpetual bachelors, beyond which, long-term, any nation will crumble.
How people live determines the wealth of society, the general pleasantness of society, and so on.
I feel like this is wrong but I have no idea why I feel like that, so have a reblog.
False equivalence. The right doesn’t raise their children to be more virtuous than the left. They have different vices and virtues.
Sure, in some ways. Some patterns work even when done by people who don’t believe in having others follow them.
Also, there is more than one way to be right-wing.
What’s right and left can vary, too. Polygmy is bad for children. However, while in the middle east, polygamy would be Trad, in the United States, it would be the Idpol Left that would legalize it, in the name of “religious tolerance” and a bunch of other things.
And thus, within the context of America, my opposition to it is “right-wing”.
“Hell, we can’t even get the working class to agree Healthcare is a right and not a privilege.”
Found in the wild. Here, again, the language of “rights” obscures, rather than reveals. After all, if it’s a “right” then that tends to be fairly absolute and imply unlimited healthcare spending, unless deliberately qualified. It also implies that it would have been “a right” even back before healthcare in any modern sense even existed.
So this is part of why I think they’ll fuck it up.
“Healthcare is not a right. You don’t have the right to force a human being to provide you their service with a gun to their head.”
Follows in response, which is similarly clueless for other reasons.
Honestly if the Indian government buying the bullet train off of the Japanese in the hopes it repeats its zero-accident track record in Delhi isn’t the most ingenious experiment in human biodiversity theory, please find me a better one.
Wait until Dinesh decides the bolts don’t really need to be screwed on as tight as Takashi told him and we’ll see if they match that record.
Bro, m8, buddy, pal,
We don’t have a non-corrupt India with which to separate out biological factors, including environmental ones (such as poor nutrition), so “does India fuck up the bullet train” does not work as an experiment for your hypothesis.
