I think Tim Pool's right, the civil war is already on. All of this is just the tactics.
Full on fighting in the streets civil wars are a young man's game, and the population is quickly aging. There is no mass of young men ready to die for their cause. Gen z can't even tell a girl that they like them without getting anxiety attacks.
Whatifalthist had a video on this recently, and pointing out that wokeness is a religion, and that we are coming to the end of a secular cycle that's going to result in a mass population collapse, we're not in the sort of situation where you end up with that kind of war. You end up in this sort of situation with little skirmishes, in this case legal ones, or situations like 150 days of rioting in the streets and burning apartment buildings and restaurants to the ground.
The new right is like the protestants, when the Catholics had all the institutional power (and the woke are Catholics). In my view, I would say expect the worst scenario. Another 4 years of Biden, Trump goes to jail, and if they're Republicans end up in power at any point in the next 16 years, expect a neutered uniparty candidate.
Now you can take this as a black pill, but I think that part of the problems with the new right is that they are a very new movement, and acting on a limited historical context. This situation didn't come about in 4 years, it isn't going to get reversed in 4 years. And no one man is going to be able to do a damn thing about it. The key has to be playing the long game, because from where I'm standing right now, the long-term victory is inevitable, just as in the 1900s the long-term victory of the left was inevitable. Most of the 1900s was a secular cycle that meant an unprecedented Golden age so there was plenty for everyone, and there was no moral or practical reason to exclude anyone. What's coming is an unprecedented dark age. That's not a good thing. It's going to be very hard and it's going to be terrible. Everyone should wish that such a thing wasn't going to come. But it is going to come, and the current rise of a new right is in direct response to this truth, which is why it's capturing a lot of young men who don't have the privilege of playing their violin as Rome burns.
Ultimately it was The barbarians who took over Europe in after the fall of the western Roman empire. They weren't living in the capital in the lap of luxury, they were dealing with the reality of the world around them. They couldn't rely on taxes from distant lands to supply them, they needed to be able to grow their own food, and manage their own people, and without the help of the people in the Capitol build something of their own.
Full on fighting in the streets civil wars are a young man's game, and the population is quickly aging. There is no mass of young men ready to die for their cause. Gen z can't even tell a girl that they like them without getting anxiety attacks.
Whatifalthist had a video on this recently, and pointing out that wokeness is a religion, and that we are coming to the end of a secular cycle that's going to result in a mass population collapse, we're not in the sort of situation where you end up with that kind of war. You end up in this sort of situation with little skirmishes, in this case legal ones, or situations like 150 days of rioting in the streets and burning apartment buildings and restaurants to the ground.
The new right is like the protestants, when the Catholics had all the institutional power (and the woke are Catholics). In my view, I would say expect the worst scenario. Another 4 years of Biden, Trump goes to jail, and if they're Republicans end up in power at any point in the next 16 years, expect a neutered uniparty candidate.
Now you can take this as a black pill, but I think that part of the problems with the new right is that they are a very new movement, and acting on a limited historical context. This situation didn't come about in 4 years, it isn't going to get reversed in 4 years. And no one man is going to be able to do a damn thing about it. The key has to be playing the long game, because from where I'm standing right now, the long-term victory is inevitable, just as in the 1900s the long-term victory of the left was inevitable. Most of the 1900s was a secular cycle that meant an unprecedented Golden age so there was plenty for everyone, and there was no moral or practical reason to exclude anyone. What's coming is an unprecedented dark age. That's not a good thing. It's going to be very hard and it's going to be terrible. Everyone should wish that such a thing wasn't going to come. But it is going to come, and the current rise of a new right is in direct response to this truth, which is why it's capturing a lot of young men who don't have the privilege of playing their violin as Rome burns.
Ultimately it was The barbarians who took over Europe in after the fall of the western Roman empire. They weren't living in the capital in the lap of luxury, they were dealing with the reality of the world around them. They couldn't rely on taxes from distant lands to supply them, they needed to be able to grow their own food, and manage their own people, and without the help of the people in the Capitol build something of their own.
Doesn't really matter for the purposes of what we're talking about if everyone is switching to natural gas or propane or diesel.
A friend of mine heated his house with electricity, electricity generated by hydroelectric. Eventually, his hydro bill was $700 a month. He ended up switching to fossil fuels to heat his home, and with the massively reduced power bills and the tiny fuel bills comparatively speaking, his entire setup paid for itself in the first year alone and then some.
There are a lot of people right now who are living in homes where a relatively reasonable power bill for heating turned into a mortgage payment. And as a result they are switching to Fossil fuels. You tell me if that's a big win for green energy. And even with the carbon taxes that are dragging everyone into the dirt, they're still coming out ahead. And they will continue to come out ahead unless fossil fuels become so expensive that we're all dead.
A friend of mine heated his house with electricity, electricity generated by hydroelectric. Eventually, his hydro bill was $700 a month. He ended up switching to fossil fuels to heat his home, and with the massively reduced power bills and the tiny fuel bills comparatively speaking, his entire setup paid for itself in the first year alone and then some.
There are a lot of people right now who are living in homes where a relatively reasonable power bill for heating turned into a mortgage payment. And as a result they are switching to Fossil fuels. You tell me if that's a big win for green energy. And even with the carbon taxes that are dragging everyone into the dirt, they're still coming out ahead. And they will continue to come out ahead unless fossil fuels become so expensive that we're all dead.
They're so used to websites wanting to specifically cater to them that they'll silence all opposing viewpoints with extreme prejudice that it seems strange to them when that doesn't happen.
I don't defederate from anyone, but I did add some woodchipper instances to the strip image MRF.
I don't defederate from anyone, but I did add some woodchipper instances to the strip image MRF.
I've been watching as many people in Ontario switch away from electricity to fossil fuels to heat their homes because the cost of electricity has skyrocketed, and a massive increase in in situ diesel generation so companies can switch off of carbon neutral sources of energy during peak times.
It does something....something bad. More fossil fuels are being burned because of the mass mismanagement than if they'd done nothing.
It does something....something bad. More fossil fuels are being burned because of the mass mismanagement than if they'd done nothing.
All we need to do in order to prevent forest fires is give all of our money to multinational corporations so they can spend it on useless bullshit that doesn't do anything besides increase electricity rates.
Sfo is good. Sometimes says dumb things but other times says incredibly smart things and on the balance I'm happy to watch his produced videos.
Something with the whole thing really doesn't smell right.
Does anyone else find it really weird going with lines of code as a metric? There's some pretty small activitypub enabled projects out there.
Does anyone else find it really weird going with lines of code as a metric? There's some pretty small activitypub enabled projects out there.
If you really want to get into the weeds, sometimes what is considered good is not sustainable, and what is considered evil is sustainable. Purely environmentally, slavery is more sustainable than using fossil fuels, but in our current age we'd consider fossil fuels morally slightly negative and slavery morally extremely negative.
I've experienced it that you can't use a standard like that as objective. You could treat two people exactly the same, and one would be so thankful they'd be loyal to you for life, and the other would spit on your name and resent you for life. People choose whether to be thankful to the universe or not for the good things that happen to them, or to be angry that a universe that has given them a good thing didn't give them a better thing.
If you're being a realist though, there are definitely basics that one can rely on as a basic scaffold from which to base your actions. That's one reason why one of the early chapters of The Graysonian Ethic is called Basics, and talks about some foundational principles that one should consider before they worry about the broader complexities of life.
I've experienced it that you can't use a standard like that as objective. You could treat two people exactly the same, and one would be so thankful they'd be loyal to you for life, and the other would spit on your name and resent you for life. People choose whether to be thankful to the universe or not for the good things that happen to them, or to be angry that a universe that has given them a good thing didn't give them a better thing.
If you're being a realist though, there are definitely basics that one can rely on as a basic scaffold from which to base your actions. That's one reason why one of the early chapters of The Graysonian Ethic is called Basics, and talks about some foundational principles that one should consider before they worry about the broader complexities of life.
Forever ago, I took an ethics course where they talked about deontological and teleological ethics. These forms of ethics look at the ethical implications of an action, and in one case they are looking at whether the action itself is moral or immoral, and in the other case it is looking at the consequences of the action as being moral or immoral (morals and ethics aren't really the same thing but I'm using the interchangeably here)
So in doing a thorough analysis of the graysonian ethic, one of the things that came out was that it isn't really either. It doesn't really talk about specifics of how to come to a certain decision about whether an action is good or evil, instead it talks about becoming the sort of person who is virtuous enough to make the decision for himself.
This actually makes a whole lot of sense. The world is complicated, and yesterday is not today and today is not tomorrow, the circumstances that we live under can change in a heartbeat. Any equation that you build trying to be able to determine if an action itself is good or evil will come up short. Is confluence of things that talk about what is ethical, there is one part biology and the fact that we are human, there is one part environment in the culture we live in and the world we live in, and there's one part choice and how we choose to live our lives and what we choose to value. Those three things are each infinitely complicated. Points of view that appeared to be correct can turn out to be incorrect, or they can turn out to have been correct at the time but then the world changed. Or your personal circumstances changed.
So in this sense, that's where virtue ethics seem to make more sense. Instead of trying to come up with an overreaching equation to find the answer to all life, you just focus on becoming a virtuous person and then follow your conscience. Then you can be confident that rather than being stuck in a dogmatic math equation that is wrong because the circumstances that the math equation was developed under changed, you can walk through life experiencing it and making value judgments on the fly based on your inherent virtue as a person who has cultivated that virtue.
So in doing a thorough analysis of the graysonian ethic, one of the things that came out was that it isn't really either. It doesn't really talk about specifics of how to come to a certain decision about whether an action is good or evil, instead it talks about becoming the sort of person who is virtuous enough to make the decision for himself.
This actually makes a whole lot of sense. The world is complicated, and yesterday is not today and today is not tomorrow, the circumstances that we live under can change in a heartbeat. Any equation that you build trying to be able to determine if an action itself is good or evil will come up short. Is confluence of things that talk about what is ethical, there is one part biology and the fact that we are human, there is one part environment in the culture we live in and the world we live in, and there's one part choice and how we choose to live our lives and what we choose to value. Those three things are each infinitely complicated. Points of view that appeared to be correct can turn out to be incorrect, or they can turn out to have been correct at the time but then the world changed. Or your personal circumstances changed.
So in this sense, that's where virtue ethics seem to make more sense. Instead of trying to come up with an overreaching equation to find the answer to all life, you just focus on becoming a virtuous person and then follow your conscience. Then you can be confident that rather than being stuck in a dogmatic math equation that is wrong because the circumstances that the math equation was developed under changed, you can walk through life experiencing it and making value judgments on the fly based on your inherent virtue as a person who has cultivated that virtue.
Looks like cope from people who had to go back to work.
I, for one, am glad to not have a bunch of work from home losers sitting there asking me to do their jobs that they can't do from their deck while drinking mai tais.
"Oh we're so productive!" No, I'm so productive. Get back to work, slacker.
I, for one, am glad to not have a bunch of work from home losers sitting there asking me to do their jobs that they can't do from their deck while drinking mai tais.
"Oh we're so productive!" No, I'm so productive. Get back to work, slacker.
Pretty funny all the talk of "our democracy" except when someone they don't like is about to get more votes.
I moved to paid hosting after an ad on my own website tried to install malware on my computer, a long long time ago.
OTOH, I require relationships with advertisers and salesmen because sometime they have stuff I want to buy and I need to know about it!
OTOH, I require relationships with advertisers and salesmen because sometime they have stuff I want to buy and I need to know about it!
Of the people still wearing masks (or of the people who were most gung-ho about masks at their peak), how many have:
1. a first aid kit and training?
2. emergency food and water reserves?
3. A generator with fuel put away?
4. A personal self-defense weapon and training?
5. A garden?
6. Emergency trade goods?
How many of them:
1. smoke, either tobacco or marijuana?
2. do hard drugs?
3. are overweight?
4. don't take a baby aspirin every day?
5. Drink alcohol to excess?
6. Indiscriminately consume sugar?
Maybe everyone still wearing masks has everything on the first list and nothing on the second. But I doubt it.
It's like the people who were getting all worked up about Islamic terrorism in the 2000s. Is there a risk? Sure. But there's a lot of risks. It doesn't seem very authentic when people are only afraid of the last thing the powers that be told them to be afraid of.
1. a first aid kit and training?
2. emergency food and water reserves?
3. A generator with fuel put away?
4. A personal self-defense weapon and training?
5. A garden?
6. Emergency trade goods?
How many of them:
1. smoke, either tobacco or marijuana?
2. do hard drugs?
3. are overweight?
4. don't take a baby aspirin every day?
5. Drink alcohol to excess?
6. Indiscriminately consume sugar?
Maybe everyone still wearing masks has everything on the first list and nothing on the second. But I doubt it.
It's like the people who were getting all worked up about Islamic terrorism in the 2000s. Is there a risk? Sure. But there's a lot of risks. It doesn't seem very authentic when people are only afraid of the last thing the powers that be told them to be afraid of.
True, and it's already partially here since many videos monetize with ad reads as well as youtube revenue.
If it gets too bad, it just means that just like people abandoned cable, they'll abandon youtube.
If it gets too bad, it just means that just like people abandoned cable, they'll abandon youtube.
I still occasionally see it, and I still see people advocating that we should all be wearing masks. The covid is not over hashtag is a recurring thing.
I've been on YouTube premium for several years now, I'm happy to say that my son has almost never seen an advertisement. So while it may not apply to every single website that you go to, you are correct that for a lot of the most important ones you can just toss them a couple bucks and get the rich person's experience LOL