The tech mindset is about explosive growth rather than polishing something to a sheen, which you definitely see. The quality of a lot of the work is exceptional in terms of lack of defects in the initial work, but it better be because it won't change until they replace it entirely.
"Worry not, mi amore, I shall stare at your tits and tell you how beautiful your eyes are."
(User was banned for this post)
(User was banned for this post)
Both parties are coming for your retirement every year because the federal debt is 130% of GDP and neither party is remotely interested in changing its trajectory.
No money left for old people, there's bankers to pay!
No money left for old people, there's bankers to pay!
I find its output is a bit middling, but I guess it would make sense for an aggregation of a bunch of professional writers acting as a genetic verisimilitude engine would be a bit middling since that's what would be generally aiming at.
That was a risky click, but I was not disappointed.
Told my buddy -- "You gotta go to anus.com right now. No, it isn't what you think."
Told my buddy -- "You gotta go to anus.com right now. No, it isn't what you think."
I think its missing a point going "just learn to be huuuuman guys!" -- it's something that sounds really good on paper, except its clear or should be clear that our society is having huge problems answering "and what does that mean?" -- and that sounds like a cop out, but an in reality we're seeing that a lot of people just don't know what to do in their lives and it's having a big effect on their lives -- more men staying virgins much later, not getting married perhaps ever, not having kids, never owning a home, and many women facing similar indicators showing people don't really know what to do. There's a pandemic of women reaching middle age asking "where are the good guys?" Because there's a whole skill set they don't have as people.
Our society is so broken that gen z is more not ok than ok, which isn't like previous generations at all.
https://www.cnn.com/2023/09/14/health/gen-z-mental-health-gallup-wellness-cec/index.html
If you can say something like that you're to be able to just know how to be human, one of a shrinking number, especially when what it is to be human is changing so much so quickly. I'm one of six kids in a family with stong and still useful traditions, so yeah I learned how to coexist with others and exist in the world, but there's generations coming of age who were part of small, atomized families and who never had a real world community, and so they don't know and that doesn't make them bad people, it makes them homo sapiens in the postmodern world.
Our society is so broken that gen z is more not ok than ok, which isn't like previous generations at all.
https://www.cnn.com/2023/09/14/health/gen-z-mental-health-gallup-wellness-cec/index.html
If you can say something like that you're to be able to just know how to be human, one of a shrinking number, especially when what it is to be human is changing so much so quickly. I'm one of six kids in a family with stong and still useful traditions, so yeah I learned how to coexist with others and exist in the world, but there's generations coming of age who were part of small, atomized families and who never had a real world community, and so they don't know and that doesn't make them bad people, it makes them homo sapiens in the postmodern world.
J6 was always a reichstag fire. If the idiots milling about didn't set it, it was always going to be set.
If they're just evil and want to control the world, they might be trying to switch tack since they smell blood in the water of the current things.
A lot of people thought that when we killed God it would end religion, but in fact religion is stronger than ever, just a new-age atheistic religion.
Whereas the innovation of Christianity was forgiveness and repentance, and protestantism was that your connection with God is personal, this new religion is more like the old fear based religions in that you must follow the religious dogma to the letter or the threat is that people will literally die.
Whereas the innovation of Christianity was forgiveness and repentance, and protestantism was that your connection with God is personal, this new religion is more like the old fear based religions in that you must follow the religious dogma to the letter or the threat is that people will literally die.
Yet replace it with "your mother or father" and suddenly it's delusional again.
Almost like different things are different.
Almost like different things are different.
I was surprised when you sent me that emailing talking about how great ethnic stereotypes are and listing out your favorite ethnic slurs, but I understand now. (jk)
lmfao, the 2 year olds she writes her speeches to connect with will all vote for her. Probably gonna age out by 10 though. Like, "What's wrong with this retarded lady? She just explained what guns are as 'a thing bad people use to make ouchies to good people'!"
You're suggesting that people from nuclear family-based societies are more violent and more likely to be violent than people in other societies and that's the reason why nuclear family societies outcompeted clan societies.
Such a stance appears to me to be counterfactual.
- Many of the bloodiest wars in history happened in Asia, including examples like the taiping rebellion which killed 20-30 million people and the anlushan rebellion which killed 10 million people. The Asia has a number of different types of society including chinese, indian, and southeast asian societies.
Another whatifalthist video on some of the bloodiest atrocities: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VyZ0Z1Bw2is
While there are some terrible things on that list done by societies that had nuclear families at the time (the indian famines being a particularly tragic example), it shows there's no monopoly on violence.
- The deadliest war in history would be World War 2, which was started by a civilization (Nazi Germany) with an authoritarian family structure, and the most brutal fighting in the war was with another country which had an authoritarian family structure, the soviet union (which tried to eliminate the family as a source of power like China did but had not succeeded and in fact by the 1930s made strong family a core part of their policy)
- The most violent places on earth right now would be places that don't have a nuclear family structure, such as certain parts of Africa (which can vary considerably in structure including practices like polygamy which I think can arguably be in the running for the ideology that promotes the most violence). Ethiopia is a nuclear family society and is notable as relatively peaceful and prosperous.
-The conflict everyone is paying attention to right now is in the middle east, which pits jewish culture which isn't a nuclear family society against arab muslim culture which isn't a nuclear family society (and neither are both russia and ukraine as I understand it).
-Meanwhile, almost every country on earth that has a nuclear family structure is at peace, with the notable exception of Guyana and Venezuela which look like they could come to blows over a stretch of ocean.
Instead, I think there is a good argument for polygamy being the family structure whose societies produce the most violent people since powerful men get all the women and most men get nothing, which would drive them to extreme desperation including throwing themselves at meaningless wars for status to try to get wives and access to sex. I think it's no mistake that the areas with more violence at the moment tend to have more polygamy.
In the case of monogamous nuclear families, I'd expect less violence because the men are more likely to get wives and children and so have a good reason not to get themselves killed in a war.
The Muslims who were able to roll over india in the 9th century presumably didn't defeat the Indians because they were more violent, but because they were more effective including using better strategies. They were outnumbered 100 to 1, much like the Khitan people north of China who took over northern China in the 9th century and formed the Lian dynasty, and with that level of overwhelming numberical disadvantage, there's something other than violence at work.
In the same way, I think it's arguable that the nuclear family societies won through superior economic might, superior military technology, and also some diplomatic acumen. The Assyrians and Nazi Germany were both supremely violent, but their raw violence and brutality convinced everyone to gang up against them because raw violence scares people. Those competitive advantages would have come from the young men working hard to become worthy of raising a family going out and making something of themselves.
Anyway, I need to stop, my brain is numb from looking through sources all evening. :P
Such a stance appears to me to be counterfactual.
- Many of the bloodiest wars in history happened in Asia, including examples like the taiping rebellion which killed 20-30 million people and the anlushan rebellion which killed 10 million people. The Asia has a number of different types of society including chinese, indian, and southeast asian societies.
Another whatifalthist video on some of the bloodiest atrocities: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VyZ0Z1Bw2is
While there are some terrible things on that list done by societies that had nuclear families at the time (the indian famines being a particularly tragic example), it shows there's no monopoly on violence.
- The deadliest war in history would be World War 2, which was started by a civilization (Nazi Germany) with an authoritarian family structure, and the most brutal fighting in the war was with another country which had an authoritarian family structure, the soviet union (which tried to eliminate the family as a source of power like China did but had not succeeded and in fact by the 1930s made strong family a core part of their policy)
- The most violent places on earth right now would be places that don't have a nuclear family structure, such as certain parts of Africa (which can vary considerably in structure including practices like polygamy which I think can arguably be in the running for the ideology that promotes the most violence). Ethiopia is a nuclear family society and is notable as relatively peaceful and prosperous.
-The conflict everyone is paying attention to right now is in the middle east, which pits jewish culture which isn't a nuclear family society against arab muslim culture which isn't a nuclear family society (and neither are both russia and ukraine as I understand it).
-Meanwhile, almost every country on earth that has a nuclear family structure is at peace, with the notable exception of Guyana and Venezuela which look like they could come to blows over a stretch of ocean.
Instead, I think there is a good argument for polygamy being the family structure whose societies produce the most violent people since powerful men get all the women and most men get nothing, which would drive them to extreme desperation including throwing themselves at meaningless wars for status to try to get wives and access to sex. I think it's no mistake that the areas with more violence at the moment tend to have more polygamy.
In the case of monogamous nuclear families, I'd expect less violence because the men are more likely to get wives and children and so have a good reason not to get themselves killed in a war.
The Muslims who were able to roll over india in the 9th century presumably didn't defeat the Indians because they were more violent, but because they were more effective including using better strategies. They were outnumbered 100 to 1, much like the Khitan people north of China who took over northern China in the 9th century and formed the Lian dynasty, and with that level of overwhelming numberical disadvantage, there's something other than violence at work.
In the same way, I think it's arguable that the nuclear family societies won through superior economic might, superior military technology, and also some diplomatic acumen. The Assyrians and Nazi Germany were both supremely violent, but their raw violence and brutality convinced everyone to gang up against them because raw violence scares people. Those competitive advantages would have come from the young men working hard to become worthy of raising a family going out and making something of themselves.
Anyway, I need to stop, my brain is numb from looking through sources all evening. :P
I just read somewhere: "Correlation does not imply causation".
Correlation does, in fact, imply causation. It doesn't, however, *prove* causation. If you find a correlation, then you start digging there to find out if there's a causal link.
If correlation did not imply causation, we wouldn't look for correlations since they wouldn't imply that there might be a causal link to look at.
Correlation does, in fact, imply causation. It doesn't, however, *prove* causation. If you find a correlation, then you start digging there to find out if there's a causal link.
If correlation did not imply causation, we wouldn't look for correlations since they wouldn't imply that there might be a causal link to look at.
There's a couple really interesting things about this I found. I have to apologize, these sources are clearly biased but they're still interesting.
This is an article talking about the nuclear family going back to the 1300s in England. This makes a lot of sense in some ways since England is an island nation that relied a lot on its navy. This actually jives with history that isn't particularly partisan today, that following the black death, lords were having to deal with people migrating from territory to territory since the value of an individual would have risen in that time. Part of the reason for the peasant revolts of the 1300s-1500s is that lords were trying to keep their peasants from migrating using tyrannical means and the peasants wanted to leave. This matches more with the nuclear family structure where individuals go where the opportunity is instead of a clan or extended family structure that would much more leave you tied to a certain geographical region unless you could convince your entire clan to pack up and leave.
https://ifstudies.org/blog/the-real-roots-of-the-nuclear-family/
Secondly, here's a video from whatifalthist that examines family structures as a driving force throughout history. The interesting thing is realizing how many family structures there are in the world today, and whether you agree with all his conclusions it's nonetheless thought provoking and some of the statements he says about family structures and the societies that form around those family structures are incontrovertable (of course there's that pesky causality problem again, not gonna pretend)
https://youtu.be/-RFFwhbVqeU
I'm a member of a nuclear family society, and I'm afraid that the first article has me dead to rights. My life's meaning and work is my son, and we did wait until I was 'worthy' of having a family to have kids, and I wrote a damn book for the little guy showing I care deeply about his education under the assumption that someday he will have to go off and do the same. The nuclear family is implicit in my suggestion that Grayson be prepared for his "walz", or his journey to learn his craft. The existential and individualistic tone of my book and telling him to find his own way is all part of that too. In one of the clan or extended family based societies, it's likely that I'd be readying him to conform to the family's expectations instead.
The other thing is "be careful what you wish for", since it really does seem that if you switch out family structures, you also switch out basic cultural assumptions, and that's going to lead to fundamentally different societies that you might not actually want. The Nuclear family society is the most open to strangers, the most free, and it isn't an accident that successful feminism came from nuclear family societies. It seems like many other forms of society are more likely to be less free, much less equal, less prosperous, less agile, and often deeply socially conservative. I think we need to be careful when assuming that the grass is greener on the other side of the fence.
Honestly, the more I think about it, the more I realize that the nuclear family structure inherently is likely to result in better outcomes for kids, because of the following narrative:
1. Fathers must be "worthy" of having a family and need to become someone a woman can fall in love with, you won't get married solely by virtue of your mother or father or aunt or uncle picking a spouse for you, and they need to individually achieve that worthiness, since they won't have the value of their clan behind them. Compare with many clan structures where your mate is chosen for you by the family.
2. The fathers who have more material resources because they have become worthy, are older and wiser, and selected for success. The women who fall in love with them select them in part because they have virtues that will help them survive as a unit, and women take more time choosing than if they were just forced into a marriage. In some clan based societies, women are married off before they've even hit puberty. Compare to a clan structure where the elders likely have the most control over resources.
3. Because both parents are older, there are fewer kids, and smaller families do mean that there are more resources to dedicate to each child compared to other family structures.
4. The kids are born, with both parents knowing that in 20 years the child will have to prove themselves worthy if they are a boy, or find and attract a worthy boy if they are a girl, and so the parents focus on raising a child who is as good as possible to help sustain the bloodline by producing meritorious heirs who will go out and find independent success. Contrast this with clan structures where fitting into the clan or extended family is likely to be the top concern.
It really becomes clear why nuclear family societies outcompeted clan societies in a short period of time, going from clan structures being the most dominant society type on earth to nuclear family societies covering much of the globe.
In spite of that, I think it's safe to say that the nuclear family is a two sided sword, on one side it's a highly meritocratic system that results in better outcomes and people competitively working to become virtuous enough to succeed. on the other hand, it's destabilizing, and it's contrary to fundamental human nature in many ways.
I don't think I can imagine a good society centered around single parenthood. The data from India and sub-saharan Africa both show that kids are more likely to face big problems including infant mortality when they are in a single parent family, and both india and sub saharan africa are not nuclear families. It's a "law of physics" problem where it's always going to be harder alone.
I was also just thinking that the whole concept of single parenthood is predicated on cultural assumptions that arise from the liberal societies arising in part from the nuclear family. In many societies, if your clan picks who your spouse is, that's your spouse. You don't get an option to be a single parent because the same group that will support you will also not allow you to leave that spouse. In some more clan based societies, you may be killed for indulging in sex outside of your arranged marriage (not all, admittedly, but it's quite common)
This is an article talking about the nuclear family going back to the 1300s in England. This makes a lot of sense in some ways since England is an island nation that relied a lot on its navy. This actually jives with history that isn't particularly partisan today, that following the black death, lords were having to deal with people migrating from territory to territory since the value of an individual would have risen in that time. Part of the reason for the peasant revolts of the 1300s-1500s is that lords were trying to keep their peasants from migrating using tyrannical means and the peasants wanted to leave. This matches more with the nuclear family structure where individuals go where the opportunity is instead of a clan or extended family structure that would much more leave you tied to a certain geographical region unless you could convince your entire clan to pack up and leave.
https://ifstudies.org/blog/the-real-roots-of-the-nuclear-family/
Secondly, here's a video from whatifalthist that examines family structures as a driving force throughout history. The interesting thing is realizing how many family structures there are in the world today, and whether you agree with all his conclusions it's nonetheless thought provoking and some of the statements he says about family structures and the societies that form around those family structures are incontrovertable (of course there's that pesky causality problem again, not gonna pretend)
https://youtu.be/-RFFwhbVqeU
I'm a member of a nuclear family society, and I'm afraid that the first article has me dead to rights. My life's meaning and work is my son, and we did wait until I was 'worthy' of having a family to have kids, and I wrote a damn book for the little guy showing I care deeply about his education under the assumption that someday he will have to go off and do the same. The nuclear family is implicit in my suggestion that Grayson be prepared for his "walz", or his journey to learn his craft. The existential and individualistic tone of my book and telling him to find his own way is all part of that too. In one of the clan or extended family based societies, it's likely that I'd be readying him to conform to the family's expectations instead.
The other thing is "be careful what you wish for", since it really does seem that if you switch out family structures, you also switch out basic cultural assumptions, and that's going to lead to fundamentally different societies that you might not actually want. The Nuclear family society is the most open to strangers, the most free, and it isn't an accident that successful feminism came from nuclear family societies. It seems like many other forms of society are more likely to be less free, much less equal, less prosperous, less agile, and often deeply socially conservative. I think we need to be careful when assuming that the grass is greener on the other side of the fence.
Honestly, the more I think about it, the more I realize that the nuclear family structure inherently is likely to result in better outcomes for kids, because of the following narrative:
1. Fathers must be "worthy" of having a family and need to become someone a woman can fall in love with, you won't get married solely by virtue of your mother or father or aunt or uncle picking a spouse for you, and they need to individually achieve that worthiness, since they won't have the value of their clan behind them. Compare with many clan structures where your mate is chosen for you by the family.
2. The fathers who have more material resources because they have become worthy, are older and wiser, and selected for success. The women who fall in love with them select them in part because they have virtues that will help them survive as a unit, and women take more time choosing than if they were just forced into a marriage. In some clan based societies, women are married off before they've even hit puberty. Compare to a clan structure where the elders likely have the most control over resources.
3. Because both parents are older, there are fewer kids, and smaller families do mean that there are more resources to dedicate to each child compared to other family structures.
4. The kids are born, with both parents knowing that in 20 years the child will have to prove themselves worthy if they are a boy, or find and attract a worthy boy if they are a girl, and so the parents focus on raising a child who is as good as possible to help sustain the bloodline by producing meritorious heirs who will go out and find independent success. Contrast this with clan structures where fitting into the clan or extended family is likely to be the top concern.
It really becomes clear why nuclear family societies outcompeted clan societies in a short period of time, going from clan structures being the most dominant society type on earth to nuclear family societies covering much of the globe.
In spite of that, I think it's safe to say that the nuclear family is a two sided sword, on one side it's a highly meritocratic system that results in better outcomes and people competitively working to become virtuous enough to succeed. on the other hand, it's destabilizing, and it's contrary to fundamental human nature in many ways.
I don't think I can imagine a good society centered around single parenthood. The data from India and sub-saharan Africa both show that kids are more likely to face big problems including infant mortality when they are in a single parent family, and both india and sub saharan africa are not nuclear families. It's a "law of physics" problem where it's always going to be harder alone.
I was also just thinking that the whole concept of single parenthood is predicated on cultural assumptions that arise from the liberal societies arising in part from the nuclear family. In many societies, if your clan picks who your spouse is, that's your spouse. You don't get an option to be a single parent because the same group that will support you will also not allow you to leave that spouse. In some more clan based societies, you may be killed for indulging in sex outside of your arranged marriage (not all, admittedly, but it's quite common)
One big reason why I want to really go full Asian dad -- basically making sure he's prepared for what's coming.