|
Post by mainstreet on Apr 24, 2020 20:05:29 GMT
Doomsday Movement Exposed!
You know the type. Lots of guns, lots of canned goods, bomb shelter, proud of the fact that they're prepared for anything, that they'll be ready when the world goes to hell.
Welcome to coronavirus hell. And what are they doing? They're showing the exact opposite of this. They go out into the streets, protesting the lockdown, whining about their inability to get random service they just can't do without. Social distancing? What's that?
Now, obviously, this doesn't apply to everyone and is a bit of a generalization. But there's certainly large crossover in this movement. For those that this doesn't apply too, good, you're being sensible. Maybe my conclusion won't apply to you, either.
This attitude is callous and cruel. It expresses a willingness for other people to die just so you can get your shiny toy. But that's not the point here. (Or is it?)
What this really displays, is that, despite your supposed preparedness, you... aren't actually prepared for this. So this whole thing is a bit of a joke. (Or is it?)
Of course, there's another possibility here. What if it's not just about the idea of being prepared, but about something else... something that this doesn't apply to.
What if it's actually about being ready for, or wanting, things to go so bad that it gives outsize *power* to those that are prepared? If people say, can't get food, and you have food -- and ability to defend it from the masses, hence the guns -- you're in charge. The people have to obey you to get your food. Similar notation on water, safe shelter, etc.
Ironically, this is exactly what they whine about with regards to "government handouts". The difference is that a democratic government can be voted out if people don't like it. They'll just shoot people they don't like. It's a complete dictatorship... Oh. Right. They just want power, themselves. They don't like the idea of being beholden to a government because THEY want to be the ones in power, they want to make other people obey THEM.
So doomsday prepping appears to be exposed not as a sincere desire to be ready for emergencies, but a desire to take advantage of emergencies to gain power.
Fundamentally, these people then have no respect for our democratic institutions or our system of liberty and justice for all (imperfect as it is). But that's why they voted for the strongman in the first place, isn't it? And believe anything he says? The image he portrays is exactly who they think they are, or want to be. Deep down, everyone is aware they're all lying. But they believe whatever he says because the alternative is to admit the lie, to admit it's all a con for power. And that they're not the ones on top, as they've always assumed they would.
So it's all fake. But we probably knew this.
|
|
|
Post by mainstreet on Jul 11, 2020 18:42:45 GMT
The Stupidity of Magical Age Fields By Example
The following is a dramatization. It is, to the best of my knowledge, fictional, and indeed, some is written before the event is supposed to take place. However, it serves, I believe, to demonstrate a point. I also provide no solution to this issue; I simply want to acknowledge the sheer absurdity of the problem at hand. (I have thought about solutions, but they all carry with them other problems, and so I do not advocate for anything in particular at this time. I encourage discussion.)
Alice Johnson was born in Detroit, Michigan on November 3, 2002, at 11:58 PM. Her identical twin sister, Barbara Johnson, was born 5 minutes later, on November 4, 2002, at 12:03 AM.
The twins lived their lives as normally as twins might be expected to. They did just about everything together and were rarely easy to tell apart. Even though they technically have separate birthdays, their parents always celebrated them together, and they shared much. Perhaps some twins may have resented this, but Alice and Barbara did not.
And yet. As they prepare to enter their senior year of high school, a year that will be conducted largely online due to the COVID-19 pandemic, a massive difference is about to loom large on the twins.
Alice has registered to vote. She will be casting her first ballot on November 3, 2020, in an election that is so important it may determine the future of human civilization, and in a very critical state.
Barbara has not registered to vote. This is not a case of apathy, or disdain for both major candidates, or other lack of desire. No, it is simply that she will not be eligible to vote. She's will not yet be 18 on the day of the election. And she's the identical twin of one who is.
I have difficulty as a reasonable person concluding that this situation is anything other than absurd.
|
|
|
Post by mainstreet on Dec 18, 2020 3:21:16 GMT
On Geographic Monopoly and why Rural and Urban Communities have the political trending they do
To be clear, I will start by saying that this is of course a complex issue with numerous factors, and attempting to list all of them and declare it definitive is a fool's errand. I will mention some of the more obvious factors. These are not likely to be news to the average reader. But I will discuss something else as well, a theory that I have realized contributes to this in a way that is not obvious, and might provide food for thought. I do not attempt to offer a solution; indeed, it is questionable as to whether there is a way to possible even have a solution.
So, the obvious. Urban communities are more diverse as people flock to them from all over looking for jobs. This provides both exposure to the majority population of communities other than their own, as well as accounts for a purely demographic shift of a traditionally underserved population. Education is concentrated in the cities as well. Religion tends to be stronger in rural communities.
Let's now pull a few facts together and make some observations.
Fact: Business people, and especially business owners, trend conservative/libertarian. This is because they benefit from a lack of regulations and taxation personally. Additionally, these people are overwhelmingly individuals of substantial privilege and benefit from the continuation of existing structures of authority.
Fact: Businesses need to compete for business. Example: in a suburban area near me, there are as many as half a dozen auto repair shops within a 2 mile radius. They need to compete with each other to obtain business and survive. Observation: It would be a complete fool of any one of these six business owners to start yapping about politics -- people that disagree with them would quickly take their business elsewhere, and it is quite unlikely that there would be a substantial increase in popularity from those that agree with them. An owner would only engage in a political discussion if they were completely confident that they would gain at least as much business as they lose, which is extremely unlikely in this example.
Fact: In rural communities, geographic monopoly exists. Example: In a very low-density region, there is a single auto repair shop within a 30 mile radius. Observation: If you need your car repaired... you're going there. It doesn't matter how much you hate the person. It would take you far too much hassle to go anywhere else. So this person can talk whatever political thing they want and you just have to smile and bear it because you want your car fixed. Worse, they're likely well-respected in the community because of their essential role and so people will be more likely to agree with whatever they're saying. They reserve the right to refuse service, as well, so you might have to actually at least express tacit agreement just to get your car serviced. (Political opinions are not a protected class, and even if they were, impossible to prove -- which is probably why they aren't.) Observation: Based on the above notion that business owners trend conservative, we can see that rural communities are basically railroaded into following the whims of the local business owners, simply out of a lack of competition. Now competition might well pop up if someone is egregious enough, but one can get away with quite a lot here, it would seem.
So I conclude that geographic monopoly is a major contributor to the conservative trends of low-density communities.
|
|
|
Post by mainstreet on Feb 18, 2021 6:28:42 GMT
Personal Bonds: Types and Impacts
Every social interaction creates some sort of connection, almost by definition. In many cases, this is fleeting and is abandoned shortly after the interaction terminates. But it still existed. We are in some ways the sum of the bonds we have forged with other people. I see seven fundamental types of bonds -- connections you can form with other people, and I will discuss them in a moment. First, though, I will provide some things that bonds are not.
Bonds are not equal. Some are stronger than others, some are weaker. They are also relative: the more you have of one type, the harder it is to maintain the strength of many of them (though it is not impossible to have many strong bonds). To an extent, this principle can extend across types as well, though this is more a function of the fact that time in a day is finite and strengthening bonds requires effort, and therefore time.
Bonds are not symmetric. It is entirely possible for a bond to feel strong on one end and quite weak on the other. "Parasocial" relationships are an extreme case of this: where the bond on one side is so weak as to be completely unnoticed.
Bonds are not always by choice, nor are they always forced. There can be a mix of the two.
Bond types are not preferred over other types inherently. People make choices as to their priorities.
Bonds are not always positive. One's life is not necessarily better (or for that matter worse) for having a bond. It is merely an acknowledgment of connection.
A family bond is the bond created between family members. This includes birth families, adopted families, and created families through acts such as marriage. Unlike the other bonds, these are the bonds typically formed from birth. Even orphans likely have these bonds somewhere; they just are unknown and are quite weak.
A friendship bond is a desire for mutual happiness. Your friend wants you to be happy, and they want you to help make them happy. You often have compatibility that makes this so. This is the simplest and yet most interesting of all bonds.
A romantic bond is formed by actions designed to attempt to foster love. Note that love is not itself a bond type; rather, it is an emotion that can be created out of strong feelings of any of the three mentioned bond types. The distinction for the romantic bond is that unlike the others, this is the goal of strengthening this bond, though the others can also do so. One can distinguish between these bonds as creating different types of love; but it is not quite clear to me that these are necessarily distinct.
An experiential bond is forged by mutual experience that is both emotionally powerful and uncommon to the human experience. It does not need to be traumatic, though it often is, as a classic example of this is that of an army squadron or navy ship crew. But it can also be forged by a variety of adventures or events. The point is that you and the other person understand each other in a way that is difficult for those that have not had these experiences to truly grasp.
A sexual bond is exactly what it says on the tin. Whether sex happens between the deepest of lovers or as the most casual of hookups (or anything in between), a sexual bond is still formed. Of course, the emotions and willingness to repeat the experience definitely affect the strength of the bond. I understand that not everyone is of a like mind to me in that there is something unique about sex; but I stand by this. Sexual activity is an experience that isn't matched by anything else humanity has to offer -- and I state this without endorsement or condemnation.
An economic bond is for any financial ties that are ongoing. Bonds are generally to people, so faceless corporations generally do not count, but rather, your bonds are to the actual people you engage with. A businessperson has bonds with their customers; if they do lots of small transactions, these bonds are probably on the weak side. A boss and an employee have an economic bond; and it is almost certainly much stronger on the employee's end. Coworkers that are mutually dependent on each other for performance also have economic bonds, as do married couples that have joint finances.
An authority bond is where there is some sort of acknowledged authority you either grant to someone or are granted by someone. This comes in a wide variety and is often in practice quite week. Every American citizen has a bond with the (current) President; on the President's end this is barely noticeable on the individual level. Every worker at a company has this bond with not only their supervisor, but also the CEO. Many of us have individuals in the scientific and other academic communities who we look up to and respect the opinions of. This can also apply to celebrities. Authority bonds can be dangerous in part because they are often parasocial. But they are unavoidable, for no human is an island. One non-parasocial authority bond is that formed in a personal D/s relationship (whether restricted to an individual/occasional scene, or more permanent -- the latter is much stronger, of course).
I do not claim this list is comprehensive; rather it is a survey of the major types of bonds that I see.
Unlike many of my posts, this is thoroughly descriptive philosophy. I suggest no real course of action beyond perhaps a vague desire for people to be aware of the bonds they form and their impact on their life.
|
|
|
Post by mainstreet on Mar 23, 2021 22:29:11 GMT
The Social Expectation of Relationships and Why This is Terrible
Our society seems to expect people to fit a very specific mold, and tends not to react well when it's not adhered to. While the most obvious of these are such issues as homophobia and transphobia, let's talk about something that even applies in cis-het communities: the sheer expectation to *have* a relationship.
I am a cis-male who is close enough to heterosexual to pass and I will largely be writing from this perspective, as fundamentally a lot of what I am describing applies to us. It is quite possible to arbitrarily change gender references in this post, and it might still apply, and regardless, the implications of what I have to say affect us all.
Society expects people to be in relationships. Specifically, society places people in relationships as 'better' than single people. Men that are single are often seen as less than men who have relationships. While it's obvious that this causes problems, I don't believe that the full implications are obvious.
Many men enter relationships because it is expected of them, and stay in that relationship because they do not want the status loss that comes with being single again. Once this pattern starts, the implications are quite shocking. One does not have to love their partner, or even care for them or respect them. This makes abuse incredibly easy, because one's partner ceases to be a partner and instead becomes a pure status symbol. This includes coercion to stay in relationships, because "losing" your partner is seen as a loss of status, and humans are a bit hardwired to desire status: at minimum, to avoid inferiority.
Indeed, a man might not even want to actually have a girlfriend/wife if it did not come with the status benefits. Popular culture is filled with these relationships also inhibiting freedoms -- which in my mind means one is likely taking the wrong approach to the relationship in the first place. If being with someone is substantially restricting you in ways you don't want, why are you doing it? To be fair, relationships are about communication and compromise and you do have to work with your partner. But, ideally, compatibility should make these minimal and one should not have to completely change one's life to handle a relationship. So why do people do it? Again, for the status. Of course, by doing this, a man has literally objectified a woman -- their supposed partner -- into a representation of status, which is guaranteed to be toxic.
I suspect there is a large culture of men that, without the status, would be perfectly content without a female partner and family as such. The obvious being closet homosexuals and asexuals, but I suspect that without this status, even heterosexuals might not seek to place it as a particular priority in their life. Indeed, under capitalism starting families is not the greatest of financial decisions. This is well-known and yet people do it... because it's seen as a status-having thing.
So what do we do about it? Simple. As men, stop glorifying other men just for having a girlfriend/wife! Stop demeaning people that don't, or that had a breakup! Stop judging people based on relationships status, and treat men as individuals regardless of what their relationship is.
I'm not claiming this will solve all relationship problems by any means. But I think it would help.
|
|
|
Post by mainstreet on Jul 9, 2021 1:06:46 GMT
Not a Trevor Bauer Post
This is not a post about Trevor Bauer. Most things that could be said have been said. I’ve read a lot of articles, and watched a very excellent video from Foolish Bailey on the matter, and I don’t think my voice really adds much to the discussion.
This isn’t really a ‘response to’ or ‘rebuttal of’ Bailey’s video, either – as I said, I claim the video is quite excellent, and the intent here is definitely not to hate on him, and I really, really do not want the comments to attack him. I’m using his video as a source because something he said had a tone of calming and being against some of the harsher statements made, and it struck me. He said (5:38) “I know plenty of guys who act like Trevor Bauer and I don’t suspect that they all engage in sexual violence, you know, I think their biggest sin is just being insufferable.“
There’s been a lot of talk about ‘missing the signs’ about Bauer, and Bailey acknowledges this. And yet he still says this. So the implication is that while there were red flags in the specific case of Bauer, the general attitude of being an asshole in the vein of Bauer should not, itself, be taken as a red flag. Surely that many men can’t be perpetrators of such crimes, can they?
I’m going to have to disagree with this. The National Sexual Violence Resource Council says that 81% of women and 43% of men (in the United States) have reported sexual harassment or assault in their lifetime. The only way this can hold up is if it is not just an occasional ‘extreme’ person that gives off these warning signs, but it is systemic, insidious, and cultural.
Hearing from a handful of experts (usually through reading) on the culture of sexual assault leads me to conclude that fundamentally it comes from not respecting fellow humans. In some cases, this may be limited to gender, but it doesn’t have to be. Having contempt for others of your own gender equal to the opposite does not make you less likely to commit such acts. Contempt is contempt. A lack of respect for other people and their agency is the issue.
The difference between the Bauer-like asshole in your life and actually Trevor Bauer is probably that they don’t have the millions of dollars and fame to give them such opportunities and access. Bauer’s probably never going to see the inside of a jail cell – Bailey’s video details why this is likely to be the case – but that wouldn’t be *as* true for the asshole off the street. (Sadly, it *is* true even for many of those people, as our system has a host of issues that are well documented and outside the scope of this post.)
Yes, we need to teach people that being a jerk is not okay, and I absolutely do find such behavior to be a red flag – or at least a yellow one. If they’re willing to show such contempt in your presence, what are they willing to do behind closed doors, to someone they may have a serious social power imbalance with? What people do in public is what they are willing to show you.
In general, I think people are their best people in public. Now, some people come off as abrasive or blunt in public – I’m one of them, in many cases. The line, however, is at being respected as a human being. It is also at living in a reality-based world: having a baseline set of understanding about the world that is grounded in reality, rather than conspiracy, entitlement, and paranoia.
I have also seen commentary regarding people having written Bauer off as a libertarian “brotato” (to quote one YouTube comment), and… I don’t disagree with that assessment. But maybe we should do less writing off. My experience with libertarian culture is that… it’s actually, by and large, dismissive of the female experience. (I’m aware there are women who are libertarian, but libertarianism is overwhelmingly white and male for a reason.) Yes, libertarian and (for that matter) conservative political views *are a yellow flag, at minimum*. These philosophies break down to survival of the ‘fittest’ – people that agree with the speaker – and ignore everything our society has built – a mix of “I got mine” and “other people don’t matter”. No, it does not surprise me to find someone like this responsible for violence against women. Because libertarians are great at rationalizing bad situations as being something the victim was responsible for. It’s dangerous self-delusion.
Bauer remains on MLB’s Administrative Leave list at the time of his writing. Let’s not delude ourselves into thinking he is uniquely horrible. Horrible, yes, but there is nothing unique about him.
|
|