I live in Australia. The entire country burns, floods, or is in drought pretty much constantly. We do government disaster response very well. There are also significant cultural factors that aid in dealing with disasters.
I’m not against prepping, but I think it is less about disasters and more about dealing with day to day events. If you do enough to not be caught short then you’re probably going to be fine.
I’ll be knocking on the neighbour’s door to drink out of their swimming pool. I can’t speak for anywhere else, but there’s more than enough water for more than 2 weeks.
I have some food, but I could go without food for two weeks. Most people could, even if they were unhappy about it. The bigger problem with food is that if power goes out then so does refrigeration, so you’re going to be stuck cooking and/or eating a lot of food quickly. People aren’t used to how quickly food spoils because they’re used to refrigeration and other modern preservation techniques.
I have no such qualms, so I’ll do it.
Single mothers are a disaster area. They make their children’s lives objectively worse on every single metric we can measure.
We overwhelmingly give custody of children to the statistically worse parent *in spite* of the child’s well being because society cares more about women than it does children (or anyone or anything else, for that matter).
Finding someone to criticise fathers and absent fathers is easy, finding anyone to call out single mothers and their deleterious influence is impossible. We hear non-stop about toxic masculinity, the patriarchy, and generally how men are the worst of the worst, but nothing is said about the single mothers at home, and the majority female teaching environment, raising children and creating the dismal outcomes they do.
When your performance in a task is directly correlated to the presence or absence of another, what does that say about your value in that task?
Cars are unsafe. They maim and kill a non-trivial number of people every single year. Is that sufficient reason to avoid cars?
Safety and utility are always a trade off. The problem when it comes to vaccines is that people are so coddled by a life without disease and death that they don’t understand the utility they’re gaining from vaccination. To them, nothing is happening (which isn’t untrue, as vaccination is preventing the abnormal state that is disease) and thus vaccination feels correlated with other unrelated events (like autism diagnosis). Human minds are tuned to find meaning (arguably all minds are, if Skinner boxes are any indication) and will substitute bullshit and superstition if none is found.
If there is to be any remedy for your relative’s position, I’d imagine it would be found in talking to people with direct experience of preventable diseases. Life without vaccination and antibiotics is within living memory and you need only go to a nursing home to get it. Direct experience of polio can be had in the general population. If you want to know what life was like when people just got sick and either just promptly died, or spent a lifetime with disability as a result, then just ask the people that saw it, or it happened to.
Nothing is perfectly safe, vaccines included. However, the alternatives to vaccines are well known and infinitely worse than anything that vaccines can do. Even if a few people die or get side effects that still a better deal than everyone having to have 5-6 children per family just to make up for increased infant mortality from epidemics.
If this is a post about strategy then strategy can be discussed. It’s not a vanity post from my perspective, but even if it is I’m not married to authorial intent.
As for any group being too small to infiltrate for gain, that hasn’t been my experience. It only takes 3 members for entryism to occur, as only one needs to defect from the established order. You see this in cases of adultery within a social group all the time. Lots of people lose their partner and their ‘best friend’ at the same time.
As you point out, whether something is entryism or politicking isn’t particularly clear. I look at what OP has written—that they had a popular vote go against them, that they refuse to accept that, that they want to increase their level of authority by bad faith action, that they’re coordinating an agenda with allied individuals, etc. - as indicators that OP is new to the group. This is conduct that is essentially antisocial within a group, and the antisocial get weeded out over time.As to OP’s agenda being relevant to the group, the no vote and OP’s reaction to it suggests otherwise. I also seriously doubt that OP just one day decided to be an identity politics activist out of the blue. This ideology is basically a non-theistic religion and is pushed with all the zeal you’d expect from any bible thumper. That being said, people have a right to their beliefs, and if those around OP choose to associate with OP whilst OP acts on those beliefs then there (probably) isn’t a problem here. Quibbling about bathrooms and wording at a dance isn’t really that big of a deal in the scheme of things.All that being said, I don’t know OP, I don’t know the situation, and it’s none of my business.
Entryism is ethically bankrupt.
If you wouldn’t want entryism done to the groups you care about then don’t do it to the groups of others.
You must adapt to the world, not the other way around. Expecting others to fix your problems, especially at their cost, is both unreasonable and irresponsible.If you want the aid and respect of others then you have to earn that. You fit in, you put in the work, you become respectable in the community. Then you don’t have to worry about “us and them” because you become part of the “us”.Tangible harms are to be dealt with by law that applies to all. Intangible harms are not a problem for society to deal with. Your own thoughts and emotions are your responsibility to deal with.People tend not to like bigots. It’s one thing to build a ramp for someone with mobility issues, it’s quite another to have racial hiring quotas. The former is a disability, the latter is not. The former increases fairness, the latter does not.It doesn’t matter if your apartheid is for or against a particular class, it is unjust either way. Also, it’s only a matter of time before it gets used on you. That’s how weapons work.
A society is a group of people. Much as with any group, the more that people care and are on the same page, the more you get done.
When you don’t give a damn at all, or when your tribe is fighting the other tribes, you have less time and interest in progressing. For you to labour effectively your labour must matter and it must be constructive.
The CDC data has figures on numbers of relationships, including marriages, by age and gender in the tables at the end of the document. The data and conclusions about STDs is irrelevant to me in that, I am interested in what happens to people’s pair bonding abilities as their number of sexual partners increases.
Promiscuity appears to have effect there, which would imply that it is at the very least a correlate with relationship failure (and therefore relevant to the topic of pair bonding). Is it causal, are there other factors at work? I can’ t answer that question, I can only do the best with what I have. Unsurprisingly, research into possible negative effects of promiscuity on mental health, life outcomes, self reported metrics on happiness, etc. isn’t exactly well funded. This is an area of research that is made radioactive for social reasons.
I will say the same thing to you that I did to pjeby: I made a mistake in trying to cover too much ground. For me to address every little point pjeby makes (because from my perspective a giant portion of what pjeby writes are claims that have nothing to do with anything I’ve written, or are misinterpretations, etc. For example, he makes a false equivalency between his experience as a member of the class and the entirety of the class) it turns into an essay, which then feeds straight back into the whole *death by a thousand cuts* game. I’ve cut that right off with pjeby because I’m not interested in that kind of a back and forth and I don’t think it’s productive.
On the other hand, you’ve asked a single question, and I’ve given you a single answer. That’s manageable. You can just go ahead and tell me I’m full of shit and it ends right here, no diversions or *whaddabout-isms* or *not alls*.
Disinclination and proscription aren’t the same.
The Tragedy of the Commons is the problem here. If everyone (or enough) chooses themselves over the common good then the common good will suffer as a consequence. Everyone wants the utility of the next generation, nobody wants to actually give birth to them.
It’s very clear that sexually dimorphic behaviours work. They’re present in thousands of species. What isn’t present in thousands of species is human society. Biology just happens but society must be created and maintained, some of which is contrary to our biological imperatives. If we want the advantages of the kind of society we live in then we’re going to have to make a lot of compromises on our biological imperatives. Everyone, not just women. In many domains. Either we give up on the utility we gain from society or we start ensuring that utility is maintained.
All expectations on the citizenry from the state come with the threat of violence for non-compliance. If we can draft men to extract utility from them at their risk, then unless there’s special pleading going on we can do exactly the same to women. I don’t think that’s the answer, but it’s a possibility and is congruent with other areas of custom and law.Violence is unnecessary here, all that is required is for the state to pick up the responsibility that women don’t want. I don’t want to remove women’s agency, I want to remove society’s dependence on their gestation. If women don’t want to have babies that’s fine by me, but society needs babies so it’s going to have to source them from somewhere else. This is a supply and demand problem.Fortunately, procuring gestational services is a solved problem. Depending on what options you select, a child that is the product of in-vitro fertilisation, artificial insemination, and surrogacy can be had for about 40K USD. That’s completely within the realms of state spending given the return on investment. If Western women don’t want to have children there are tons of rural Indian women with no such qualms. Outsourcing tasks that Westerners won’t do is something the West has been doing for longer than I’ve been alive.The ultimate solution to this problem is artificial gestation but we aren’t there yet.
My response is an attempt to provide answers to a complex subject, where the tendency of participants is to act as if their own catastrophising of ALL WOMEN or NO WOMEN scenarios are something that has actually been voiced and supported by me. This easily turns a discussion into a death by a thousand cuts where every tiny little statement is attacked (potentially disingenuously) from every single angle possible.
Let me give you an example:
> Men do not favour a minority of women
Then you say:
> What? Of course they do. I’m a man, I would think I would know if I favored the majority of women. I don’t. Similarly, you state that “men” require reproductive opportunity. I don’t. I don’t want children. So I’m a trivial counterargument on both counts.
Straight up you make a false conflation between the individual and the class (I don’t as a part of the class, therefore nobody/not enough in the class do to matter).
I cite the OKCupid data that specifically supports my statement here. I am saying men, as a class, do not favour a minority of women.
I do not state that men require reproductive opportunity *anywhere*.
I can’t respond to a false conflation other than to point it out, I can only give you the citations I cannot force you to read them, and I absolutely cannot be expected to defend statements I didn’t make and don’t believe.
I am more than happy to respond to any point you wish clarified, and/or to discuss any matter in relation to this topic, but it’s pretty clear that if we can’t make it six sentences without two showstopper errors my usual *word vomit* format isn’t going to work here.
If you still want to talk, pick the single most important element and be as reductive as possible. You are going to object to *everything* I have to say, so keeping a very narrow focus is the only way this is going to work.
Where are we to get our people from, if not from our own citizenry?
Currently, no Western nation (outside of Israel, thanks to their large Ultra Orthodox community) has a sufficient replacement birth rate. If we cannot make more people to replace those that die then our societies die. If we strip mine the third world for people (unethical and unsustainable) then we face two problems: either we successfully incorporate those migrants into our culture and effectively destroy their fertility as we have our own, or we don’t successfully integrate them into our culture in which case our culture dies and is replaced with a colony of their culture. Either scenario results in our death.
We know the recipe for killing population growth, and we’ve deployed it successfully in Africa (and by accident, here too): education for girls followed by employment (and you don’t even need birth control to see the dramatic effects). This recipe has no effect in certain cultural groups, namely strict patriarchies like Islam, the Amish, Jewish Orthodox, etc. Educational and employment opportunities for women are strictly controlled in those societies (fun fact: in researching for this thread I found out that Boko Haram *literally* means *Western education is forbidden*).
I know things that are true, and that I don’t particularly like. It doesn’t make those things less true. I didn’t make the problem, and I don’t have the solution for the problem (I’m not even sure there is one, or if there is even time left to implement it). The one thing I won’t do is pretend there isn’t a problem that is there for all to see.
As for men doing the bulk of the work, we’ve had reliable birth control for less than a century, labour has been gender segregated for the entirety of human history up to this point, and men and women have significant biological differences. The circumstances for women to be equal players have barely been around and things take time to change. That being said, I invite you to consider who built your house, who makes sure the power and water come to it, that the sewerage and garbage leaves it, who comes to put it out if it catches on fire, and who would come and help you if you were in trouble and called the police.
Assuming gender parity in labour is even possible it won’t happen until you and I are both long dead. Give it a century at least. History moves slow, even the weird history we find ourselves in right now.
As for the scoffing at men’s protection, I think the best (and most tragic) examples of what men with guns do for a country is seeing what happens to xenophilic baizuo that decide to prove how *safe* Islamic countries are. Raped, murdered, beheaded. Multiple cases. The universe isn’t a nice safe place, and coddled Westerners are free to walk outside of the borders that protect them and find that out any time they like. Privilege is invisible to those that have it.
Honestly, I think some people walk around with a reality distortion field protecting them from inconvenient information. That building I live in designed, built, and serviced by men? I guess that house just built itself and looks after itself, no men to be seen! These safe streets I walk, I don’t see men with guns on the kerb, I guess the street is just naturally safe! All these things around me just, poof, into existence! Where *does* stuff come from?!
Nobody’s asking you to give men a medal, or to even thank them in any way at all. It would just be nice if you saw them as *people* rather than utilities.
If women choose to mate with the winners, then male sexual agency is men doing whatever is required to look like a winner. Is now a good time to mention that codpieces were a thing?
When you understand that this is just a modern puritan non-theistic religion playing out then all the denunciation makes perfect sense. You don’t need to denounce someone that’s demonstrably wrong, you just point out how they’re wrong. Heresy on the other hand, well, there’s no arguing with that, is there? You argue with bad ideas, but you *burn* sinners lest their corruption infect you.
What exactly do people think is the endgame of denunciation? If denouncing me is enough then by all means, do that and forget about me. I would argue that if people feel that strongly about it then they need to do a lot better than that. You don’t debate intractable idiots in the public forum for the benefit of the idiot, you do so for the forum. The majority say nothing, they just listen.
Since I’m playing the role of the Devil already:
I specifically said I offered no solution in that post. I had hoped that people would be more rational and less pissed off, but you win some you lose some. It’s as good a place as any to raise my solution to the problem.
The fundamental problem is biological. Women have an exclusive gatekeeping role on reproduction. We aren’t that far away from artificial gestation. The solution isn’t to take away women’s choices, it’s to take away their reproductive monopoly and give it to everyone. Women and men can get their babies from the factory. The government can simply order a bunch if there’s a projected population shortfall. The evolutionary need for sexual dimorphism will disappear, evolution will take care of the rest. This is the path to *true* gender equality.
We’re going to become a post biological species sooner or later, we may as well speed up the timetable to deal with the birth rate crisis into the bargain.
A stable society is one where violence is low and engagement is high, and where the replacement rate is both positive and high enough to account for natural attrition at least. I believe the former is impossible to sustain without the latter.
Progress is having all the supportive apparatus of society in order and functioning to the degree that the people who create disproportionate improvements in science that feed back into the society are supported and promoted. If I want the benefit of a Stephen Hawking then I need to have a smelter for the metal in his chair, a chip foundry for his computer, a school for his doctors and nurses, a pharmaceutical factory for his medicine, etc. Basically, cognitive work has the biggest and most complicated supply chain problem possible. Without a stable society progress will diminish and eventually fail.
Some of these statements are ridiculously obvious, but given the reductive assumptions counter argument has already popped up I’m just going to try to cover it all: * What’s good for an individual and what’s good for society are not the same thing. Social contract is restrictive and onerous and that’s the entire point of it. * Women decide whether sex occurs or not. Circumstances shape everyone’s willingness to pursue the choices open to them. * Female mate selection isn’t an average distribution (http://archive.fo/https://theblog.okcupid.com/your-looks-and-your-inbox-8715c0f1561e). Men do not favour a minority of women. If you have an even number of men and women, then given the above virtually all women that want sex are getting it, many men that want sex are not getting it. * Sex is a pacifying agent. It is the strongest incentive we have. Society understands and exploits that. All societies do. * Monogamy and marriage are artificial social constructs designed specifically to place limits on our biological imperatives. Humans are primates, and primates are not monogamous. * If sex was the only thing that mattered in relationships, and was neutral on social status in society, then men paying for prostitutes would be a non-issue. Unsurprisingly, men that have to pay a woman just to touch them tend to have different attitudes to both women and society thanks to being cut out of the social contract. * The payment of the social contract (for men) is sex *and* reproduction, the requirement is utility. Without payment, men have no incentive (beyond self interest) to provide their utility to anyone but themselves. Good luck trying to wring 60 solid years of slavish labour from a man that has checked out of the race and just wants to play xbox. We don’t have robots for everything yet, so labour still matters. Even today, post suffrage, post Pill, post radical feminism, with women increasingly chained to the millstone as men have been, the social contract for men and women is not even remotely equivalent. Up until the present the labour of one sex was the payment for the other. That equation has shifted, and it is still moving. Perhaps my concerns regarding antisocial effects are premature given that these things play out on historical time scales and we’re right in the middle of it and lack the perspective. I can’t answer that question. I don’t think it’s unreasonable to have the discussion we are, either way. * The day that a team of women come to fix a burst sewer main at 3am is the day that I value their non-natal contributions equally to men’s. Women aren’t useless but let’s not pretend they have equivalent utility to men. They don’t, and women’s lifetime negative tax contributions are evidence of that. * The CDC has data on promiscuity and pair bonding (https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nhsr/nhsr036.pdf). I can find no data that indicates neutral or positive effects for promiscuity. * I’ve yet to meet a single woman that is happy with *settling* for a meal ticket she thinks she’s better than. I know an increasing number of men that aren’t interested in shacking up with a woman with 300 notches on her bedpost. Nobody wants to be stuck with something that’s beneath their expectations (realistic or otherwise). * As for apex men having a limited ability to mate, simply search for pictures of Leonardo DiCaprio on beaches with models. He’s coming up on 30 years of dozens of models a week (although he does share them with his friends, so that’s nice of him). * Depending on the jurisdiction, paternity testing can be illegal or ignored by the courts. However, it isn’t ignored by biology, as amply demonstrated by the Cinderella effect. Also, good luck trying to sue a woman for paternity fraud—that’s never going to happen. * Swinging is a fringe adaptation to the death of marriage and monogamy. It’s an attempt to bring stability and certainty to an environment without fidelity. As far as I’ve seen it takes all the drama of ordinary relationships and makes it even worse. I’m sure that someone has made it work, I’ve just never met them. Sex and reproduction aren’t synonyms, not in general and not in swinging. Unless things have changed radically it’s still a faux pas to knock someone else’s wife up, swinger or not. * Harem behaviour is voluntary in the West. The harem is like a pie, and just as with any pie, a smaller slice of a giant world class pie is better than the whole pie from the dollar store. It’s a logical choice, but it has consequences like any choice does. Historically, harem behaviour is complicated. Sexually dimorphic behaviour is paired. Harem behaviours from women wouldn’t work if men weren’t receptive to them. Historically, harem behaviour increases male disposability and violence. Either the surplus males attack the society (which is arguably what’s going on in the West, greatly nullified by our bread and circuses) or they attack other societies to kill their men and gain access to the women (ISIS, Boko Haram, etc.). The lack of economic opportunity for women and their offspring is always nothing compared to what happens to men in the same environments. Even in the worst of situations, women can fuck their way to survival. Men just get butchered. Wombs are valuable, semen not so much. * Polygamy in strict religious contexts breeds many of the issues I’m talking about (there’s a good reason these societies are primitive). Islamic polygamy is dependent on male attrition by violence. Amish polygamy is dependent on expelling adolescent males from the community. What these examples don’t suffer from is the birth rate crash of the West. Women are in a role where they are expected to stay in the home and reproduce, and they do. Israel is the only Western country on the planet with a positive replacement rate thanks to their large Ultra Orthodox community. If you curtail women’s choices, they will marry and reproduce without objection (as evidenced by plenty of these communities being in the middle of Western countries. Any woman can walk straight out the door, onto welfare, and into a life of promiscuity and freedoms whenever she likes). Female centric polygamy is just a subset of Western polygamy which is itself a subset of promiscuity. There’s little of value there when it comes to creating a prosocial structure to replace monogamy and marriage. Even if it did help, I seriously doubt that would map to enough of society to be workable. Polygamy is a crappy answer in a society with an equal number of men and women. Our evolutionary heritage and biological imperatives will never match what is required by our society. Nature’s long standing solution to this problem is to kill lots of men. I think that’s not a great solution, but I can’t argue with the efficacy of it. * My argument relies on a tipping point at which aggregated consequences of decisions made by individuals have synergistic negative effects on the entirety of society. That’s true of many choices by many groups, when lots of people do the same thing then the consequences pile up. * Given I *specifically* cautioned against people raising their own ‘solutions’ as objections and specifically state against any course of action, I’m wondering how to go about disentangling what I actually want to discuss from people disgorging their psyches in front of me. There’s a ton of super interesting stuff that comes up every time and countless tangents, but unless I want to write an essay in reply to every comment I’m going to have to figure out how to pull back hard. I’m not sure how to go about that.
This turned out to be every bit as disordered as I feared.
What I mean is that people will happily object, but they won’t say what they object to, or how, or offer any alternative or contrary hypothesis.
People make choices and those choices have consequences. That’s rarely contested *until* that person is specifically a woman and specifically making choices *exclusive* to the domain of women. The acceptance of the premise I’m talking about is in the objection not to what I’ve said, but to *who* I said it about. We don’t get to a real discussion because people are already burning me for heresy.
If I’m incorrect, that’s fine. If I’m incorrect because of *who* I’m questioning, that’s not fine. When you look at responses from my perspective it becomes very difficult to sort whether a reply is coming from the former or the latter (especially when all I get is one sentence to work with).
People become enraged by this, so I think it qualifies:Women’s agency, especially their sexual agency, is contrary to a society’s progress and stability.Men do the bulk of the work when it comes to creating, maintaining, and defending everything in society. They are paid for their labours with access to sex and reproduction. Women’s agency causes there to be nothing to pay men with, because if women are given a choice they favour a minority of males, harem behaviour, promiscuity, childlessness, etc. When women have agency, they choose to undermine the social contract on multiple vectors.This premise seems to be almost unconsciously accepted by everyone I raise it with. The part that people become enraged by is their own solutions to the problem. I merely state the premise, not any course of action to be taken.