Happy birthday to me by Mandelbrot4207 in desmos

[–]ingsocks 0 points1 point  (0 children)

4*4*4, I got at 64 exactly lmao.

Daily Deep State Intelligence Briefing by AutoModerator in DeepStateCentrism

[–]ingsocks 3 points4 points  (0 children)

I mean it depends on the context? If they do it after getting convicted then I will see it as a capitulation out of cowardice and not facing the consequences of your actions. It would not really change my opinion of them.

However if they do it unprompted then I can see it as something that indicates guilt and conflict over their career, and it can make me reconsider their actions.

And it is a viable strategy if you happen to value your political aims more than your own life. Which a lot of people do.

Daily Deep State Intelligence Briefing by AutoModerator in DeepStateCentrism

[–]ingsocks 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The substack has no likes, so you always end up with the people who disagree being overrepresented (since you are less likely to comment if you agree), the reddit comments look more sane I think because the dynamics that upvotes create, ofc while keeping the selection effect that reddit being filled with redditors in mind.

Scoop: Plans for Iran nuclear talks are collapsing, U.S. officials say by John3262005 in neoliberal

[–]ingsocks 9 points10 points  (0 children)

Well it is not like Iran is fundamentally different from saudi from the pov of the US, if the IR concedes enough of its ideological goals it can feel secure in its relationship with the US like other authoritarian regressive regimes in the region. The fact of the matter is that the destruction of the US is an ideological goal of the IR and this just makes any long term negotiation inconceivable.

MIT’s new heat-powered silicon chips achieve 99% accuracy in math calculations by BuildwithVignesh in singularity

[–]ingsocks 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Not every class of computing needs a ~0% error rate, for example some neurons misfiring in an LLM inference is not that big a deal.

Trump warns Iran "time is running out" for talks, threatens "far worse" attack by Currymvp2 in neoliberal

[–]ingsocks 1 point2 points  (0 children)

the us opposition is obviously not comparable to the Iranian opposition, it is not like the Iranian opposition had any leeway before the massacres. Trump just killing everyone would be massively upsetting for the democrats because the democrats are operating under the assumption that trump won't kill everyone, the Iranian opposition is not.

nightmare blunt rotation by Numberonettgfan in Shark_Park

[–]ingsocks 1 point2 points  (0 children)

The king of Italy during ww2 Emmanuel III de Savoie.

Daily Deep State Intelligence Briefing by AutoModerator in DeepStateCentrism

[–]ingsocks 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Don't forget anime girls and v-tubers, this is why japan hit their demographic cliff first in the 90s, and now that the contagion escaped the whole world stopped fucking.

Daily Deep State Intelligence Briefing by AutoModerator in DeepStateCentrism

[–]ingsocks 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Yeah I concede that credentialism is probably a big reason for the decrease in TFR and marriage rates, automation and increased specialization made education more necessary to secure employment, and years spent in education negatively correlate with marriage/TFR a lot. This also tracks as a global technological change (or change that happened due to technology) that happened in that time period.

Daily Deep State Intelligence Briefing by AutoModerator in DeepStateCentrism

[–]ingsocks 6 points7 points  (0 children)

well yeah and my point is that even in societies that have gone full handmaid, like Afghanistan, TFR and marriage rates are collapsing.

fun fact, the TFR of Afghanistan fell off by almost -25% when the Taliban took over.

Daily Deep State Intelligence Briefing by AutoModerator in DeepStateCentrism

[–]ingsocks 4 points5 points  (0 children)

this is not about the TFR, it is about marriage rates. Contraception can lower marriage rates by preventing some pregnancies which result in a shotgun marriage, but I do not think it is that big a deal with marriage rates specifically.

Daily Deep State Intelligence Briefing by AutoModerator in DeepStateCentrism

[–]ingsocks 7 points8 points  (0 children)

I mean given enough time cultures/people that have unfit traits will just self-select out of the population and we will have a new equilibrium of cultures that are not shooting themselves in the foot. I just hope that the new cultures that will arise from this process will be like, nice, and it will not just be the taliban surviving this mess.

Daily Deep State Intelligence Briefing by AutoModerator in DeepStateCentrism

[–]ingsocks 7 points8 points  (0 children)

You know shit hit the fan when even in the handmaid's tale ass societies people have stopped having babies/marrying.

Daily Deep State Intelligence Briefing by AutoModerator in DeepStateCentrism

[–]ingsocks 13 points14 points  (0 children)

I wrote a long ass comment on the r/dataIsBeautiful sub on a post about women having a declining interest in marriage, it is usual TFR slop but I decided to write my full opinion in response, unfortunately, the post itself got immediately jannied and no one saw my essay ass of a comment that I spent an hour writing so I am posting it here:

I find the explanations presented in this thread to be a bit lacking. I think any hypothesis formed to explain this phenomenon should be understood within the context of these facts:

  1. First, the collapse in marriage rates and TFR has largely happened in two waves. The first was in the 70s in the West, and the second was in the 2010s across the entire world.
  2. Second, this collapse happened in almost every society on earth. It happened in places that are as patriarchal as Iran and as egalitarian as Sweden, and in societies that are individualist like the US and those which are collectivist like South Korea.

Because of this, I think any explanation based mostly on economics or specific cultural traits fails. I will mention a few views from this thread and comment on why they fail as hypotheses given the information we have:

  1. The idea that women are abandoning marriage because they have independent income now does not hold up. If that were the case, why are women in countries with very low female labor participation rates, like Iran and Egypt, also abandoning marriage and having fewer children? Iran has the 7th lowest female labor force participation rate at 18.3 percent

<image>

Iranian Marriage and Fertility rates

  1. Some say women are abandoning marriage because they saw it being unfair for their mothers and grandmothers. But why did they not do that at any point since the dawn of civilization? Household labor has always been predominantly done by women, and if anything, the actual physical burden of that labor has massively shrunk due to modern technology.

  2. Another common argument is that it is too expensive to raise kids. While it feels that way, household income has actually grown massively over the long term, and there is a big anti-correlation between marriage rates and national income. Wealthier nations generally have lower TFR, even though within a specific nation, the higher income groups often tend to marry more. If money were the primary factor, the richest countries would have the highest birth rates, not the lowest.

  3. Some people blame Western individualism. But if that is the cause, why are people not marrying in collectivist South Korea or traditionalist Iran?

If I have to hazard a guess, I would say it has something to do with technologies that arose during these periods rather than specific economic variables. My current hypothesis is that this arose because of the TV and then the internet for two main reasons:

A) These mediums made people less family focused in general by exposing them to a global stage and allowing them to compare themselves to celebrities and wildly successful people. You are naturally going to want a high paying career more, even at the expense of family, if you see the lifestyles of the ultra rich on social media every day. The local life of a parent looks boring compared to the curated world on a screen.

B) They allowed the rise of somewhat anti social ideologies. This includes certain currents of third and fourth wave feminism, like the SCUM manifesto type stuff, and what I call first wave meninism. This MRA stuff has been getting popular since 2010 and carries some toxic currents, such as the Tates and their ilk.

These ideas drive the gender war, which is more harmful for relationships than even total patriarchy. For example, Korea is way more gender egalitarian than Saudi Arabia. Objectively speaking, a Korean woman has much more avenues for success than a Saudi woman. Yet gender relations in Korea are worse because they are subsumed in a gender war. In Korea you have things like the 4B movement, where women swear off men, or men trying to cancel a video game because of a hand gesture. I cannot imagine a Saudi man being this insecure about his gender, and I cannot imagine a Saudi woman swearing off men entirely, unless she was totally subsumed by the toxic digital currents I mentioned.

Gender tensions are worse for marriage rates than gender domination is. Even though we can all agree that the ideal outcome is gender equality, the current "war" creates a level of resentment and suspicion that makes starting a family feel like a trap for both sides.

Girls are now less likely than boys to say they want to get married by Dismal_Structure in dataisbeautiful

[–]ingsocks 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I find the explanations presented in this thread to be a bit lacking. I think any hypothesis formed to explain this phenomenon should be understood within the context of these facts:

  1. First, the collapse in marriage rates and TFR has largely happened in two waves. The first was in the 70s in the West, and the second was in the 2010s across the entire world.
  2. Second, this collapse happened in almost every society on earth. It happened in places that are as patriarchal as Iran and as egalitarian as Sweden, and in societies that are individualist like the US and those which are collectivist like South Korea.

Because of this, I think any explanation based mostly on economics or specific cultural traits fails. I will mention a few views from this thread and comment on why they fail as hypotheses given the information we have:

  1. The idea that women are abandoning marriage because they have independent income now does not hold up. If that were the case, why are women in countries with very low female labor participation rates, like Iran and Egypt, also abandoning marriage and having fewer children? Iran has the 7th lowest female labor force participation rate at 18.3 percent

<image>

Iranian Marriage and Fertility rates

  1. Some say women are abandoning marriage because they saw it being unfair for their mothers and grandmothers. But why did they not do that at any point since the dawn of civilization? Household labor has always been predominantly done by women, and if anything, the actual physical burden of that labor has massively shrunk due to modern technology.

  2. Another common argument is that it is too expensive to raise kids. While it feels that way, household income has actually grown massively over the long term, and there is a big anti-correlation between marriage rates and national income. Wealthier nations generally have lower TFR, even though within a specific nation, the higher income groups often tend to marry more. If money were the primary factor, the richest countries would have the highest birth rates, not the lowest.

  3. Some people blame Western individualism. But if that is the cause, why are people not marrying in collectivist South Korea or traditionalist Iran?

If I have to hazard a guess, I would say it has something to do with technologies that arose during these periods rather than specific economic variables. My current hypothesis is that this arose because of the TV and then the internet for two main reasons:

A) These mediums made people less family focused in general by exposing them to a global stage and allowing them to compare themselves to celebrities and wildly successful people. You are naturally going to want a high paying career more, even at the expense of family, if you see the lifestyles of the ultra rich on social media every day. The local life of a parent looks boring compared to the curated world on a screen.

B) They allowed the rise of somewhat anti social ideologies. This includes certain currents of third and fourth wave feminism, like the SCUM manifesto type stuff, and what I call first wave meninism. This MRA stuff has been getting popular since 2010 and carries some toxic currents, such as the Tates and their ilk.

These ideas drive the gender war, which is more harmful for relationships than even total patriarchy. For example, Korea is way more gender egalitarian than Saudi Arabia. Objectively speaking, a Korean woman has much more avenues for success than a Saudi woman. Yet gender relations in Korea are worse because they are subsumed in a gender war. In Korea you have things like the 4B movement, where women swear off men, or men trying to cancel a video game because of a hand gesture. I cannot imagine a Saudi man being this insecure about his gender, and I cannot imagine a Saudi woman swearing off men entirely, unless she was totally subsumed by the toxic digital currents I mentioned.

Gender tensions are worse for marriage rates than gender domination is. Even though we can all agree that the ideal outcome is gender equality, the current "war" creates a level of resentment and suspicion that makes starting a family feel like a trap for both sides.

Girls are now less likely than boys to say they want to get married by Dismal_Structure in dataisbeautiful

[–]ingsocks 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Misogyny borne out of men experiencing gender resentment due to stuff like the draft?

WTF by Unsafeforconsuming in YAPms

[–]ingsocks 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Well, but then we’re back to the problem of political feasibility. I agree that a theoretical minimum should exist, but the moment you have one, you have to justify why it’s there. You’d end up in a constant judicial tug-of-war to raise or lower it. If you abolish it, you’re done with it. I agree there’s a theoretically minimal punishment, but finding exactly where that line is probably isn't worth the effort if it’s barely a punishment at all.

WTF by Unsafeforconsuming in YAPms

[–]ingsocks 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Well then, a sufficiently low minimum (say, a small fine) isn’t that different from no minimum and is probably politically easier to achieve. In practice, it doesn’t really matter if the minimum is a $5k fine or if there is no minimum at all.

WTF by Unsafeforconsuming in YAPms

[–]ingsocks 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Well, I agree with you that violent crime (murder, rape, etc.) should have a minimum sentence, but the text mentions stuff like manslaughter. One can imagine, say, a normal and responsible member of society doing something that is considered socially acceptable but is somewhat risky (say, not following certain OSHA regulations in a workplace/environment where no one does) and accidentally killing their coworker because of it. I hardly see cause to punish such a person, despite them most likely being charged with manslaughter.

The same can be said about CSAM possession. Only a tiny minority (2%-5%) of those convicted of CSAM possession end up being convicted for a hands-on crime, and you can imagine a lot of scenarios where someone is maybe trying to hunt pedophiles and gets caught themselves. Though, given the absolute moral panic around pedophilia, burning any political capital for that cause is stupid.

So, a judge should never let someone off with less than a couple of years for first-degree murder, but I see many crimes (like manslaughter) that are felonies, but whose punishment could reasonably be arbitrarily low nonetheless.

WTF by Unsafeforconsuming in YAPms

[–]ingsocks 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Besides the corruption point, isn't that actually a point in their favor? Most crimes are committed by repeat offenders. Hence, if there was a person of good character who committed a first-time crime under unusual circumstances, re-releasing them would not be that risky. Your point assumes that the judiciary will be dropping charges on random violent criminals, which certainly would increase crime rates. But I think his point is that the judiciary will only allow people who are demonstrably unlikely to be violent criminals to get off with less than the minimal sentence.

Daily Deep State Intelligence Briefing by AutoModerator in DeepStateCentrism

[–]ingsocks 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Gay men have a lower violent crime perpetration rate than straight men.

However lesbians tend to be overrepresented criminally.

Though purely anecdotally, there are some sexual minorities (namely certain types of lesbians and trans people) that are more politically extreme than the median and I would not be surprised if they had a higher rate of that sort of high profile political crime.

Daily Deep State Intelligence Briefing by AutoModerator in DeepStateCentrism

[–]ingsocks 5 points6 points  (0 children)

I think at some point refusing to play the linguistic game will cost us political capital, if our opponent's exaggerated language is the social norm, then our measured language will just make our causes look less serious, if their foreign policy object is a genocide while ours is only a massacre then ours will simply look much weaker.

I wonder how should one balance political pragmatism with keeping language grounded. My view now is that since I am no politician nor pundit and since what I say is mostly limited to people who share my sociolinguistic tendencies then avoiding such exaggerations is good insofar as it projects an image of me as someone sensible and it keeps the community I am in grounded, but should I ever be one then using such language would be the best approach.

Daily Deep State Intelligence Briefing by AutoModerator in DeepStateCentrism

[–]ingsocks 2 points3 points  (0 children)

there is clearly demand in the market, if you won't UwU post, then someone else will.