DS9 is a paradox. It is some of the best storytelling in Trek, but it also fundamentally broke Trek. What it did was fundamentally break Trek by proving Roddenberry wrong; it turned out there is no utopia in the future, it just looked that way until an enemy came along that forced Starfleet to fight back for real. Shortly after DS9, that happened to the western neoliberal world order.
Nothing else has ever come out since then that's really the same as what came before. Kirk and Picard, even early Janeway, they were no longer possible in Trek and that's one reason it's never truly recovered since.
Nothing else has ever come out since then that's really the same as what came before. Kirk and Picard, even early Janeway, they were no longer possible in Trek and that's one reason it's never truly recovered since.
In the western tradition it must be violent overthrow to install the current leaders second cousin.
They can trick idiots who live in Toronto because they've never been on a reserve in their lives.
Protip: that's because they moved all the people from the prime real estate out to the sticks, that was the point of reserves.
Protip: that's because they moved all the people from the prime real estate out to the sticks, that was the point of reserves.
I really hoped the trump administration would invoke the insurrection act because it would be really funny.
The idea that the state not intentionally buying books for elementary schoolers is censorship just doesn't track.
I mean if the government wants to buy a million copies of future sepsis and have every elementary schooler read it I'm game, but I strongly suspect that the sort of kids who grew up reading a book like that might not have much use for the state by the time they grow up. That mean that it's censorship the fact that I don't have a million dollars in high school sales yet?
I mean if the government wants to buy a million copies of future sepsis and have every elementary schooler read it I'm game, but I strongly suspect that the sort of kids who grew up reading a book like that might not have much use for the state by the time they grow up. That mean that it's censorship the fact that I don't have a million dollars in high school sales yet?
I saw Jeff Cliff on here this morning.
Hard to believe he's still going on about COVID in late 2025.
Especially after we're years in and many of the predictions made about the lockdowns turned out to be entirely true. A generation of young kids have had their reading severely crippled. Another generation of young adults have had their social foundations severely crippled. The Wall Street economy exploded but the Main Street economy was crippled and never really returned to normal. Homeless encampments that started during COVID never truly went away. Normal people are still visiting food banks at unprecedented levels, and a lot of food banks are having to turn away people because their use rates are so much higher than ever before and the cost of food has skyrocketed.
One thing I do tend to want to correct people about is they blame COVID for things like the lower literacy in classrooms, but it is in fact the lockdowns that caused that, not COVID itself. In fact, for a good chunk of the lockdowns, most places didn't have COVID (by design -- that was the purpose of the lockdowns), and the harm of lockdowns was occurring independently of any harm from COVID.
In medicine, often we need to modulate the immune response in a person because the immune response is what kills us, not the illness itself. We take Tylenol and Aspirin to reduce fevers because the fever is worse for us. We also take Tylenol and Aspirin to reduce inflammation responses because inflammation is often more damaging to the local tissue than the infection itself, and we can let the more sophisticated parts of our immune system deal with infections instead. Through this metaphor, we can see the fever and inflammation response of lockdowns, masking, and presenting our papers like every restaurant is a soviet checkpoint may have been more harmful than the infection we were trying to resolve. Chronic fever can cause brain damage and organ damage that can take far longer to recover from than the infection itself, and arguably that's exactly what we're seeing from our civilizational fever.
Yet he's still talking as if there's only one truth and that truth is that COVID is the worst thing ever and we never should have ended anti-COVID measures. I recall him also arguing that the downsides I discuss above would never come to pass, and perhaps today would argue they didn't come to pass.
It almost looks like a modernist idea of COVIDism. That isn't to say it's a cult of COVID, but rather a totalizing worldview where one and only one thing matters at the top of the grand narrative hierarchy, and that's COVID.
Part of the risk of the original COVID-19 is that it was a novel coronavirus -- something our immune systems had no defense against. One major argument for the lockdowns is that people didn't have any chance of not getting COVID, so if everyone got sick at once there'd be big implications to that. The problem is, it's been 5 years, and most people have had COVID. In fact, it's a sick joke regarding the vaccines -- where I work, definitionally 100% of the people working there were vaccinated, yet tons of people got COVID anyway.
Honestly, at first I wasn't against the lockdowns, since the argument seemed sound -- we didn't know how lethal it was, there were videos out of China of people dropping dead in the streets (almost certainly fake we now understand), and there was a risk of virtually everyone getting really sick with a bad illness right away. Later we learned that many of the fatalities we saw were a result of bad treatment options such as intubation rather than the inherent lethality of covid. The thing is, by the end of 2020 we already had achieved the goals of the initial lockdowns, but then to totalizing narrative hold to "defeat COVID" had taken hold. People felt like it was possible to totally eliminate a virus that had travelled across the entire world, and wouldn't accept anything but total eradictation. This meant that 14 days became a month became 6 months became 2 years before things finally started to go back to normal.
Ironically, although the vaccine didn't prevent covid, it seems that natural immunity did ultimately do its job. I don't see people getting routinely sick with COVID anymore. A few unusual people got it multiple times, but most people seem to have gotten it once and after that been OK.
I don't know what Jeff's story is. Maybe he lost some important family members early on and never really psychologically recovered. If that's the case, I can sympathize with him, but empirically we can say it's time to let go -- Continuing to fight this fight isn't going to bring your loved ones back, but if you ever got what you wanted a lot more people would suffer because of it.
Maybe he's just keeping up a joke. If it's a joke on his part, he needs to find a new joke because it really isn't funny anymore.
Unrelated to Jeff, some people think 2020 was an exercise in societal compliance. They wanted to see if they could push people to do act insane and they succeeded. That may be the case, but I'd argue because human relationships aren't digital, it's a measurement that changes when you take it -- A lot of society changed as a direct result of 2020, and I know a lot of people are quite sensitive to any similar event occurring again. To enact what they did took massive capital: social capital, political capital, and monetary capital. The scale of what it took to enact the lockdowns was similar to how in order to measure an electron you have to bounce another electron off of it, changing the state of that electron you're measuring -- it doesn't matter what result you get back, the system is fundamentally changed afterwards. You only proved it could be done back then, not that it could be done again.
Hard to believe he's still going on about COVID in late 2025.
Especially after we're years in and many of the predictions made about the lockdowns turned out to be entirely true. A generation of young kids have had their reading severely crippled. Another generation of young adults have had their social foundations severely crippled. The Wall Street economy exploded but the Main Street economy was crippled and never really returned to normal. Homeless encampments that started during COVID never truly went away. Normal people are still visiting food banks at unprecedented levels, and a lot of food banks are having to turn away people because their use rates are so much higher than ever before and the cost of food has skyrocketed.
One thing I do tend to want to correct people about is they blame COVID for things like the lower literacy in classrooms, but it is in fact the lockdowns that caused that, not COVID itself. In fact, for a good chunk of the lockdowns, most places didn't have COVID (by design -- that was the purpose of the lockdowns), and the harm of lockdowns was occurring independently of any harm from COVID.
In medicine, often we need to modulate the immune response in a person because the immune response is what kills us, not the illness itself. We take Tylenol and Aspirin to reduce fevers because the fever is worse for us. We also take Tylenol and Aspirin to reduce inflammation responses because inflammation is often more damaging to the local tissue than the infection itself, and we can let the more sophisticated parts of our immune system deal with infections instead. Through this metaphor, we can see the fever and inflammation response of lockdowns, masking, and presenting our papers like every restaurant is a soviet checkpoint may have been more harmful than the infection we were trying to resolve. Chronic fever can cause brain damage and organ damage that can take far longer to recover from than the infection itself, and arguably that's exactly what we're seeing from our civilizational fever.
Yet he's still talking as if there's only one truth and that truth is that COVID is the worst thing ever and we never should have ended anti-COVID measures. I recall him also arguing that the downsides I discuss above would never come to pass, and perhaps today would argue they didn't come to pass.
It almost looks like a modernist idea of COVIDism. That isn't to say it's a cult of COVID, but rather a totalizing worldview where one and only one thing matters at the top of the grand narrative hierarchy, and that's COVID.
Part of the risk of the original COVID-19 is that it was a novel coronavirus -- something our immune systems had no defense against. One major argument for the lockdowns is that people didn't have any chance of not getting COVID, so if everyone got sick at once there'd be big implications to that. The problem is, it's been 5 years, and most people have had COVID. In fact, it's a sick joke regarding the vaccines -- where I work, definitionally 100% of the people working there were vaccinated, yet tons of people got COVID anyway.
Honestly, at first I wasn't against the lockdowns, since the argument seemed sound -- we didn't know how lethal it was, there were videos out of China of people dropping dead in the streets (almost certainly fake we now understand), and there was a risk of virtually everyone getting really sick with a bad illness right away. Later we learned that many of the fatalities we saw were a result of bad treatment options such as intubation rather than the inherent lethality of covid. The thing is, by the end of 2020 we already had achieved the goals of the initial lockdowns, but then to totalizing narrative hold to "defeat COVID" had taken hold. People felt like it was possible to totally eliminate a virus that had travelled across the entire world, and wouldn't accept anything but total eradictation. This meant that 14 days became a month became 6 months became 2 years before things finally started to go back to normal.
Ironically, although the vaccine didn't prevent covid, it seems that natural immunity did ultimately do its job. I don't see people getting routinely sick with COVID anymore. A few unusual people got it multiple times, but most people seem to have gotten it once and after that been OK.
I don't know what Jeff's story is. Maybe he lost some important family members early on and never really psychologically recovered. If that's the case, I can sympathize with him, but empirically we can say it's time to let go -- Continuing to fight this fight isn't going to bring your loved ones back, but if you ever got what you wanted a lot more people would suffer because of it.
Maybe he's just keeping up a joke. If it's a joke on his part, he needs to find a new joke because it really isn't funny anymore.
Unrelated to Jeff, some people think 2020 was an exercise in societal compliance. They wanted to see if they could push people to do act insane and they succeeded. That may be the case, but I'd argue because human relationships aren't digital, it's a measurement that changes when you take it -- A lot of society changed as a direct result of 2020, and I know a lot of people are quite sensitive to any similar event occurring again. To enact what they did took massive capital: social capital, political capital, and monetary capital. The scale of what it took to enact the lockdowns was similar to how in order to measure an electron you have to bounce another electron off of it, changing the state of that electron you're measuring -- it doesn't matter what result you get back, the system is fundamentally changed afterwards. You only proved it could be done back then, not that it could be done again.
Postmodernists don't believe in objective truth, which is why they claim that it's no better being skinny than fat. But if there's no objective truth, then how can it be true that it's untrue?
I've been both skinny and fat, and I'm willing to certify that it's objectively better to be skinny unless you're in the middle of a famine and need the energy reserves.
I've been both skinny and fat, and I'm willing to certify that it's objectively better to be skinny unless you're in the middle of a famine and need the energy reserves.
Sure is a good thing Canada is in great shape and there's nothing troublesome going on at all so they can focus on erasing people from the internet secretly.
"look we drew people we pretend to like really cool and the people we don't like as looking silly."
Europe was once the center of culture on planet Earth...
Europe was once the center of culture on planet Earth...
They spent 10 years talking about how they wanted to punish people for misinformation and disinformation. Someone gets punished for misinformation and disinformation and they lose their fuckin minds.
I don't understand what the post has to things you don't need. That's clearly just something every household should have.
>Then again, I doubt a "true" capitalist economy ever exists, because culture is such a huge force.
I have something very much like this is a core piece of something that I'm writing for my next book.
The idea that culture is a mediating force between both the state and capital. The so-called culture war is that you're seeing in my opinion are better characterized as forces outside of culture itself trying to sublimate the power of culture which doesn't need money or a centralized bureaucracy into either the state or markets. It doesn't really matter which side is doing the pulling because it's like two predators fighting over a fresh carcass. Once you realize that culture is the more important and much larger element, I totally changes every question about the world today.
I have something very much like this is a core piece of something that I'm writing for my next book.
The idea that culture is a mediating force between both the state and capital. The so-called culture war is that you're seeing in my opinion are better characterized as forces outside of culture itself trying to sublimate the power of culture which doesn't need money or a centralized bureaucracy into either the state or markets. It doesn't really matter which side is doing the pulling because it's like two predators fighting over a fresh carcass. Once you realize that culture is the more important and much larger element, I totally changes every question about the world today.
In countries where the government makes up 60% of GDP (Italy for example), can you really even consider it capitalism of any kind anymore? That 40% that isn't government isn't just the companies and rich folks, it's also the entire labor market put together -- so every single individual working for a wage. Which is nuts when you think about how insanely huge and powerful government is. (The US is about 30-40% if you include all 3 levels so less but still historically at totalitarian dictatorship levels historically speaking)
We can never forget that there was no income tax for most people on Earth in 1900. Today, a blue collar guy can be paying 50% tax on the last dollar he earns, and that's before the many other forms of taxation that didn't exist previously. Include all those taxes and that same blue collar guy might be paying 50% tax on every dollar he earns.
We can never forget that there was no income tax for most people on Earth in 1900. Today, a blue collar guy can be paying 50% tax on the last dollar he earns, and that's before the many other forms of taxation that didn't exist previously. Include all those taxes and that same blue collar guy might be paying 50% tax on every dollar he earns.
There's a difference between vacuum inside and vacuum outside.
Think of a soda can. Using your lungs, you can suck the air out of it and cause it to be crushed, but you cannot blow air into it so much it explodes.
The difference between tension and compression is important for most materials. Something like concrete is extremely strong in compression, but extremely weak in tension. Metals are the opposite, extremely strong in tension but relatively weak in compression. Moreover, in tension the force of the vacuum is distributed evenly along all the surfaces, whereas in compression it can buckle which introduces weak points and stress points. Once you blow on the can, it's the same as it ever was, but once you suck on it, the can has folds introduced into it that will never fully go away.
Think of a soda can. Using your lungs, you can suck the air out of it and cause it to be crushed, but you cannot blow air into it so much it explodes.
The difference between tension and compression is important for most materials. Something like concrete is extremely strong in compression, but extremely weak in tension. Metals are the opposite, extremely strong in tension but relatively weak in compression. Moreover, in tension the force of the vacuum is distributed evenly along all the surfaces, whereas in compression it can buckle which introduces weak points and stress points. Once you blow on the can, it's the same as it ever was, but once you suck on it, the can has folds introduced into it that will never fully go away.
Unless you're requesting asylum from Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Germany, The Netherlands, Belgium, France, or Spain, I don't see why you'd have a claim to asylum in the UK.
Now, I can understand why you'd request asylum from France, but for the most part people from those countries are happy to sleep in the beds they've made.
Now, I can understand why you'd request asylum from France, but for the most part people from those countries are happy to sleep in the beds they've made.
Fundamentally redesigning the education system was one of the things I did in Future Sepsis for exactly these reasons.
Educated people used to be more educated. We've lost a lot as a society.
Educated people used to be more educated. We've lost a lot as a society.
Up north a lot of people have heaters in their vehicles wired alongside the block heater.