The Unz Review • An Alternative Media Selection$
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 TeasersiSteve Blog
Predictions from 1900
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • B
Show CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
AgreeDisagreeThanksLOLTroll
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Thanks, LOL, or Troll with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used three times during any eight hour period.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

From the December, 1900 issue of Ladies Home Journal:

What May Happen in the Next 100 Years

by John Elfreth Watkins, Jr.

Watkins was a technologist as well as the experts he talked to, so he tended to get quite a few things right, such as:

… Hot and Cold Air from Spigots.

Hot or cold air will be turned on from spigots to regulate the temperature of a house as we now turn on hot or cold water from spigots to regulate the temperature of the bath. Central plants will supply this cool air and heat to the city house in the same way as now our gas or electricity is furnished. Rising early to build the furnace fire will be a task of the olden times. Homes will have no chimneys, because no smoke will be created within their walls.

In other words, central heating and air conditioning, which, indeed, was common by 2000. On the other hand, the assumption of centralized production of hot and cold air was off. But who knows what 2100 will see: The first “district cooling plant” in Chicago’s Loop opened in 1995 and now provides air conditioning to 100 high-rises. The Gulf states are now big into centralized air conditioning via cold water.

In general, it’s hard to get the details right about the future.

Ready-cooked Meals will be Bought from establishments similar to our bakeries of to-day.

E.g., McDonald’s, Pizza Hut.

They will purchase materials in tremendous wholesale quantities and sell the cooked foods at a price much lower than the cost of individual cooking.

Not exactly much lower.

Food will be served hot or cold to private houses in pneumatic tubes or automobile wagons.

Paris had pneumatic mail delivery tubes from 1866-2004.

The meal being over, the dishes used will be packed and return to the cooking establishments where they will be washed.

Neither disposable paper plates nor hamburgers seemed to occur to the sages. John Lee Hancock’s 2016 movie about rise of McDonald’s, The Founder, has some brilliant scenes explaining the manifold elements of their system, such as putting the hamburgers in paper bags, which sounds obvious today but was brilliant in the 1940s.

But if you could fully figure out the supply chain of the future the way the McDonald Brothers did, you’d be making your fortune off it, not sharing it with some Ladies Home Journal writer.

Such wholesale cookery will be one in the electric laboratories rather than in kitchens. These laboratories will be equipped with electric stoves and all sorts of electric devices, such as coffee-grinders, meat-saws, potato-mashers, lemons squeezers, dish-washers, dish-dryers and the like.

Fast-food kitchens would seem like electric laboratories rather than kitchens in 1900. On the other hand, much of the food prep has been pushed upstream to factories, leaving the cooking to be done on-site simplistic in nature.

All such utensils will be washed in chemicals fatal to disease microbes, Having one’s own cook and purchasing one’s own food will be an extravagance.

Pneumatic tubes are the great lost steampunk technology:

Store Purchases by Tube. Pneumatic tubes, instead of stores wagons, will deliver packages and bundles. These tubes will collect, deliver and transport mail over certain distance, perhaps for hundreds of miles. They will at first connect with the private houses of the wealthy; then with all homes. Great business establishments will extend them to stations, similar to our branch post-offices of to-day, whence fast automobile vehicles will distribute purchases from house to house.

This has more or less happened, but nobody predicted that giant strawberries would lose their flavor:

Strawberries large as Apples will be eaten by our great-great-grandchildren for the Christmas dinners a hundred years hence.

This would be an outstanding prediction if it hadn’t already happened:

The living body will to all medical purposes be transparent. Not only will it be possible for a physician to actually see a living, throbbing heart inside the chest, but he will be able to magnify and photography any part of it. This work will be done with rays of invisible light.

Roentgen had invented the x-ray machine back in 1895 for which in 1901 he won the first Nobel Prize in physics. My grandfather was Roentgen’s delivery boy, bringing the great man what he ordered from the lens factory. Years later, my grandfather became an x-ray machine salesman, traveling to Asia and South America to sell hospitals their first x-ray machines. From demonstrating his machine by showing doctors the bones of his hand, he developed a long-lasting ulcer on the back of his hand. Oddly enough, this ominous radiation burn didn’t kill him: he lived to be 89.

How Children Will be Taught. A university education will be free to every man and woman. Several great national university will have been established.

Oddly enough, we more or less stopped establishing new great national universities as the 20th Century progressed.

Children will study a simple English grammar adapted to simplified English, and not copied after the Latin.

English language reform seemed like a sure thing in 1900, with the only question whether it would be Mr. Carnegie’s plan, Mr. Shaw’s scheme, or some other innovator’s.

Time will be saved by grouping like studies.

Tracking, I believe, which is probably headed toward being abolished in the name of equity.

Poor students will be given free board, free clothing and free books if ambitious and actually unable to meet their school and college expenses.

It took a couple of world wars for the GI Bill.

Medical inspectors regularly visiting the public schools will furnish poor children free eyeglasses, free dentistry and free medical attention of every kind. The very poor will, when necessary, get free rides to and from school and free lunches between sessions. In vacation time poor children will be taken on trips to various parts of the worlds. Etiquette and housekeeping will be important studies in the public schools.

The last sentence, no.

Some things that were common in much of the world never happened in the USA:

Trains one Hundred and Fifty miles an Hour. Trains will run two miles a minute, normally; express trains one hundred and fifty miles an hour.

Language reform seemed like a sure thing in 1900:

There will be No C, X, or Q in our every-day alphabet. They will be abandoned because unnecessary. Spelling by sound will have been adopted, first by the newspapers. English will be a language of condensed words expressing condensed ideas and will be more extensively spoken than any other. Russian will rank second.

English is more extensively spoken or at least understood than any other second language, with a billion second language speakers, well over three times that of second language competitors like Standard Arabic, Hindi, French, and Mandarin.

The notion that Russian would be the world’s second language led to the meeting of President Obama’s parents in a University of Hawaii Russian class in 1960, but seems to have faded since then.

And yet, simplified spelling and grammar for English never caught on. As a child, I complained a lot about English’s irregular verbs and spellings. I can recall winning a speech contest around 1972 with a long series of jokes about how illogical the English language was. But when I was a kid, I read a lot of old books, so the idea of rationalizing the English language to make it easier for children and foreigners came naturally to me. As it turned out, nothing wound up being done to make English simpler, but it still triumphed.

I want to thank everybody who has contributed to this Christmas 2021 iSteve fundraiser to allow me to get cataract surgery on my eyes in 2022.

For those who haven’t yet, here are nine ways for you to contribute to the December fundraiser:

First: Most banks now allow fee-free money transfers via Zelle.

Zelle is really a good system: easy to use and the fees are nonexistent.

If you have a Wells Fargo bank account, you can transfer money to me (with no fees) via Wells Fargo SurePay/Zelle. Just tell WF SurePay/Zelle to send the money to my ancient AOL email address steveslrAT aol.com — replace the AT with the usual @). (Non-tax deductible.) Please note, there is no 2.9% fee like with Paypal or Google Wallet, so this is good for large contributions.

Zelle contributions are not tax deductible.

Second: if you have a Chase bank account (or even other bank accounts), you can transfer money to me (with no fees) via Chase QuickPay/Zelle (FAQ). Just tell Chase QuickPay/Zelle to send the money to my ancient AOL email address (steveslrATaol.com — replace the AT with the usual @). If Chase asks for the name on my account, it’s StevenSailer with an n at the end of Steven. (Non-tax deductible.) There is no 2.9% fee like with Paypal or Google Wallet, so this is also good for large contributions.

Third, Zelle might work with other banks too. Here’s a Zelle link for CitiBank. And Bank of America.

Fourth: You can use Paypal (non-tax deductible) by going to the page on my old blog here. Paypal accepts most credit cards. Contributions can be either one-time only, monthly, or annual. (Monthly is nice.)

Fifth: You can mail a non-tax deductible donation to:

Steve Sailer
P.O Box 4142
Valley Village, CA 91617

Sixth: You can make a tax deductible contribution via VDARE by clicking here.

Please don’t forget to click my name at the VDARE site so the money goes to me: first, click on “Earmark your donation,” then click on “Steve Sailer:”

This is not to say that you shouldn’t click on John’s fund too, but, please, make sure there’s a blue dot next to my name.

VDARE has been kiboshed from use of Paypal for being, I dunno, EVIL. But you can give via credit cards, Bitcoin, Ethereum and Litecoin, check, money order, or stock.

Note: the VDARE site goes up and down on its own schedule, so if this link stops working, please let me know.

Seventh: send money via the Paypal-like Google Wallet to my Gmail address (that’s isteveslrATgmail .com — replace the AT with a @). (Non-tax deductible.)

Eight: You can send me Bitcoin. Bitcoin payments are not tax deductible.

Here’s my Bitcoin address:

1EkuvRNR86uJzpopquxdnmF23iA3vzdDuc

Here’s the OCR

Please let me know if this works, ideally by sending me Bitcoin. Or let me know what else you’d like to send me.

If you’re sending to a crypto address that belongs to another Coinbase user who has opted into Instant sends in their privacy settings, you can send your funds instantly to them with no transaction fees. This transaction will not be sent on chain, and is similar to sending to an email address.

Learn more about sending and receiving crypto.

Send off-chain funds

Mobile

  1. Tap at the bottom
  2. Tap Send
  3. Tap your selected asset and enter the amount of crypto you’d like to send
  4. Enter the Receiver’s crypto address or scan their crypto QR code to see if the address belongs to a Coinbase user

Computer

  1. Sign into Coinbase.com

  2. Click Send at the top right

  3. Click your selected asset and enter the amount of crypto you’d like to send

  4. Enter the Receiver’s crypto address or scan their crypto QR code to see if the address belongs to a Coinbase user

Obsolete: Below are links to two Coinbase pages of mine. But these don’t work anymore. I will try to fix them. This first is if you want to enter a U.S. dollar-denominated amount to pay me.

Pay With Bitcoin (denominated in U.S. Dollars)

This second is if you want to enter a Bitcoin-denominated amount. (Remember one Bitcoin is currently worth many U.S. dollars.)

Pay With Bitcoin (denominated in Bitcoins)

Ninth: I added Square [which is now Block] as a fundraising medium, although I’m vague on how it works. If you want to use Square, send me an email telling me how much to send you an invoice for. Or, if you know an easier way for us to use Square, please let me know.

Merry Christmas.

 
Hide 304 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
  1. And the very poor will be given, free of charge (with the exception of having to fight for a spot), luxurious accommodation in space-age fiber tents underneath bridges and abutments, in urban copses and parks, and all along Kensington Avenue, so that they can enjoy a healthy, bracing, outdoor, Teddy-Roosevelt-esque, rugged, strenuous mode of living.

    And people like you will think such accommodations well-deserved. Because of poor people’s lack of bootstraps to pull themselves up by.

  2. Sometimes you think you know something, and then you discover to your dismay that you don’t actually know it.

    I grew up playing piano in bars, and I thought I was a half-way decent bar-room pianist, and then I heard this……

    And I suddenly realized I had no actual idea what I was talking about.

    Just goes to show.

    • Replies: @Alan Mercer
    @The Germ Theory of Disease

    Yes, Tori is heavenly. She's a prodigy, and on top of this benefited from a serious classical music education from a young age. So don't get too down on yourself.

    Replies: @The Germ Theory of Disease

    , @Reg Cæsar
    @The Germ Theory of Disease

    Okay, she's quick with the fingers. But is there a song in there somewhere? And are cornflake and raisin racial references, or just geographic?

    Replies: @The Germ Theory of Disease

    , @kpkinsunnyphiladelphia
    @The Germ Theory of Disease

    Have never seen Tori Amos live but she has toured relentlessly over the years and has the rep of a performer who give it the all every single time out.

    While she is a classically trained musician, her sexuality in performance has seemed to be pretty blatant, what with the spread legged side saddle facing the audience posture as she pounds the keyboard. The body shape is no accident.

    Now pushing 60, maybe she's presenting somewhat more modest poses.

    There's no denying her substantial singing and playing talent, but the over the top virtuosity is not my particular cup of tea. But she is gifted, unquestionably.

    Replies: @Jack D

  3. One thing impeding China’s rise as a superpower is its writing system which is orders of magnitude more difficult than English’s. Granted, there is the Pinyin system (developed in large part by Zhou Youguang, who, upon his death at age 111, was the oldest person in history who had become famous for a reason other than being really, really old). But can the pride of the Chinese tolerate throwing out their ancient writing system in order to accommodate foreigners? Or will foreigners really learn the Chinese writing system en masse? Or can a sort of two-tiered system exist? All of this presumes that China will continue its meteoric geopolitical and economic rise.

    is used to some extent

    • Replies: @Achmed E. Newman
    @AndrewR

    Andrew, I have told Chinese people directly that learning 3 or 4 thousand characters of 3 to 20 squiggly lines eash just to be able to read and right is downright ridiculous. However, there is more to the written language than the spoken language. Pinyin is just used to represent the way the characters sound, but it can't relay the other information that the characters convey.

    That's the problem, I guess. John Derbyshire could expound further on this matter.

    Replies: @Goddard

  4. Take the opportunity to donate an extra \$10 or \$50 to fund Steve’s eye fix.

    And with that, a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year to “y’all”.

  5. You might also want to read:

    Nassim Nicholas Taleb: The future will not be cool

    https://www.salon.com/2012/12/01/nassim_nicholas_taleb_the_future_will_not_be_cool/

    I like to troll the female cryonicists I know by arguing that a technologically competent society in “the future” which could revive them will probably have become traditional and patriarchal again, just through differential fertility: Natural selection will favor the genes of the descendants of the women who marry and start families. It could very well look like a cross between The Expanse and The Handmaid’s Tale, with some Dune thrown in to spice things up.

    I’d also like to have the opportunity to tell the cryonicist Martin Rothblatt to his face that this same society in “the future” probably won’t tolerate men with transgender fetishes, again through the same forces of evolutionary and social selection.

    • Replies: @Rosie
    @advancedatheist


    Natural selection will favor the genes of the descendants of the women who marry and start families.
     
    Of course, it will also favor the genes of those men who are willing to marry women who have rights rather than MGTOW who take their ball and go home, so I wouldn't be so sure about that patriarchal future you're hankering for,

    Replies: @Thomm

  6. That was a very interesting post, Steve. Money will come at end-‘o-my-fiscal-year, as usual.

    Merry Christmas from the Newman family to yours!

    • Thanks: SafeNow
    • Replies: @Mike Tre
    @Achmed E. Newman

    https://i.ebayimg.com/images/g/WLkAAOSwI~dfqtHD/s-l400.jpg

  7. Trends in science and technology were easy to predict, relatively speaking. Trains would get faster (in some countries, anyway). Cooking and serving food would be done on the macro scale, and so on. Many of these developments follow naturally from scientific progress and advances in management techniques pioneered by people such as Frederick Winslow Taylor. What’s impossible to forecast is social trends. Imagine picking up a book written a hundred years ago that predicted all the LGBTQ stuff of the last decade.

    • Replies: @Thea
    @Rob McX

    Huxley understood to some degree sexual licensciousness would be widespread.


    William F. Ogburn said that social trends are downstream of technology. So women working more was downstream of easier housekeeping with dishwashers and such. LGBT++ is down stream of expanded access to psychological services, particularly outpatient and accompanying destygmatizing of mental illness.


    Marketers now look to social media to predict social trends. It will probably get sharper as advertisers fine tune it.

    , @Justvisiting
    @Rob McX

    Who knew that Orwell's "1984" would become a training manual for leaders of the "democracies"?

    Replies: @Intelligent Dasein, @Inquiring Mind

    , @Rosie
    @Rob McX


    Cooking and serving food would be done on the macro scale, and so on.
     
    Eating out is still surprisingly expensive. The economies of scale really don't work out, and cooking from home is still very economical by comparison. There are some things I buy prepared, though, because the ingredients are so expensive, that it's cheaper to buy in a jar, e.g. pesto.

    Replies: @JMcG, @AnotherDad, @Anonymous Jew

    , @FKI
    @Rob McX

    Good point about the LBGXYZ stuff. But you know subversive tactics to disrupt and destroy countries were all ways being schemed. They probably didn't think of that perverse idea yet!

    Funny thing is - for the life of me, I cannot find the lone "boogie man" that was behind this methodology of society destruction. Some say it was the communists. Others have different "bad guys."

    I wonder sometimes how big the operation really is.

    Replies: @PhysicistDave

  8. The predictions about a “freebees” aren’t that impressive; similar things had happened before in history.

    The predictions about transportation are disappointing as well. Fast trains? (The fascination/obsession people and governments have with rail travel is bizarre. It’s the least efficient and most authoritarian method of transportation available, no wonder governments prefer it.) Nothing presumably about flight or the automobile mentioned.

    There’s also no prediction about the societal shifts we are seeing. But then again, anybody at that time who might have predicted what is now happening would have probably been thrown down a well or into an institution.

  9. Etiquette and housekeeping will be important studies in the public schools.

    What if we taught etiquette of not resisting when getting arrested?. So many lives saved.and riots prevented.

  10. @Rob McX
    Trends in science and technology were easy to predict, relatively speaking. Trains would get faster (in some countries, anyway). Cooking and serving food would be done on the macro scale, and so on. Many of these developments follow naturally from scientific progress and advances in management techniques pioneered by people such as Frederick Winslow Taylor. What's impossible to forecast is social trends. Imagine picking up a book written a hundred years ago that predicted all the LGBTQ stuff of the last decade.

    Replies: @Thea, @Justvisiting, @Rosie, @FKI

    Huxley understood to some degree sexual licensciousness would be widespread.

    William F. Ogburn said that social trends are downstream of technology. So women working more was downstream of easier housekeeping with dishwashers and such. LGBT++ is down stream of expanded access to psychological services, particularly outpatient and accompanying destygmatizing of mental illness.

    Marketers now look to social media to predict social trends. It will probably get sharper as advertisers fine tune it.

  11. Anyone in 1900 who wrote an accurate description of today’s civilised world would have been thought an insane pornographic satirist.

    • Agree: Kylie
    • Thanks: Coemgen
  12. Merry Christmas.

    English became the lingua franca because America is a global empire and it’s important to understand what the emperor is saying. It’s also your best bet for being heard in return. Spelling, grammar, etc, are all beside the point, as long as the emperor keeps being an anglophone. Likewise, Spanish and French are in fact varieties of Latin.

    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar
    @Alrenous


    Spelling, grammar, etc, are all beside the point, as long as the emperor keeps being an anglophone.
     
    Proper nouns and (other proper words) such as Anglophone should be capitalized, as they were in the past, lest we allow ourselves to be Gallicized. Intercourse Oxford!
  13. Not surprisingly, Watkins missed the “whites will cower in fear at being called a racist.”

    Thank God our ancestors can’t see us now. I feel incredibly shame just thinking about how they’d look at me.

    • Replies: @Corvinus
    @Citizen of a Silly Country

    “Thank God our ancestors can’t see us now. I feel incredibly shame just thinking about how they’d look at me.”

    They do, from heaven. And if they were Irish or Italian or Slavic or Polish, they weren’t viewed as being “one of them” by nativists.

  14. Ray-diation. You hear the most outrageous lies about it. Half-baked goggle-box do-gooders telling everybody it’s bad for you.

  15. The meal being over, the dishes used will be packed and return to the cooking establishments where they will be washed.

    That didn’t happen here. But, as I am sure you know, restaurants in the US don’t do their own linens in most cases – they send them out to a service. Well in China, a lot of restaurants don’t wash their own dishes either. The dishwashing service delivers clean place settings (often wrapped in plastic to indicate that they are clean) and picks up the dirty dishes.

    https://www.intheblack.com/articles/2015/05/01/hong-kong-startup-diwash-has-a-lot-on-its-plate

    Acela trains are actually capable of 150 mph but the track is not in condition to support it for much of the route and the average speeds are only in the 80s.

  16. “On the other hand, the assumption of centralized production of hot and cold air was off.”

    Not true for the USSR, and even in post-Soviet times, for “hot air”:

    In Russia, central heating means something different than in the West: Here, homes, stores and offices do not have their own furnaces. Instead, Moscow’s 10 million people are warmed by immense government heating plants that pump steam to radiators in every apartment, workplace and school. Individual thermostats are virtually nonexistent. The government turns on the heat at the end of October and keeps it on until early May.

    https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1997-03-23-mn-41400-story.html

  17. Merry Christmas, Steve. And to all the commentariat; once again, I’ve learned a great deal from all of you. Steve, I joined up on the monthly plan earlier in the year- thanks for all your work. God Bless.

    • Replies: @cityview
    @JMcG

    From this commenter, thank you and best wishes for the new year.

  18. Failed predictions are fascinating. Cars are a toy, and horses are here to stay. Airplanes will make wars obsolete. It’s stupid to convert Babe Ruth to a hitter. A funny one: Cartoonists from the fifties depicting a futuristic world would dress the women in cone bras. Another, sadly: “For better or for worse, for richer or for poorer, I do.”

  19. “Feral Negroes armed with semi-automatic pistols will roam the streets, demanding that people turn over to them their Japanese made automobiles.”

    Didn’t see that one coming.

    A local TV station talked to the father and step mother of Josiah Brown, the 19-year-old man who’s now facing federal charges in connection with carjacking the liberal congresswoman’s car.

    https://philadelphia.cbslocal.com/2021/12/24/josiah-brown-congressmember-mary-gay-scanlon-carjacking-fdr-park/

    It turns out that (surprise, surprise) Josiah dindu nuffin in his parents’ opinion. When asked where he was on the day of the carjacking, they said that they believed that he was taking care of his two sons. Besides, carjacking was not his usual MO.

    Josiah, meanwhile, has written a letter of apology to the Congresswoman. He says that the guy wasn’t even loaded. I’m sure they are going to forget all about those Federal charges now. Maybe they can bring in a social worker to teach Josiah not to do carjackings and stick to just breaking into cars as usual.

    • Replies: @Buffalo Joe
    @Jack D

    Ach, San Fran is going to train HS students to be psychologists through an intern program, not enough real professionals, but California's licensing process discourages many who have actually obtained a degree in psychology. Stay safe.

    , @Rob McX
    @Jack D

    But a 19-year-old black with two sons, has no car but wants one, you don't have to be Nostradamus to foresee that kind of thing.

    Replies: @Possumman

    , @Buffalo Joe
    @Jack D

    Jack, I read your link and Congresswoman Scanlon turns the carjacking into ...'if we had better gun laws, blah,blah,blah.' Without the gun maybe a knife or a punch to the face, but the crime still goes down.

    Replies: @Jack D

    , @Mike Tre
    @Jack D

    I just posted this yesterday - Illinois State senator who supports defunding police was carjacked and her husband apparently exchanged gunfire with the perp:

    https://cwbchicago.com/2021/12/senator-who-championed-illinois-criminal-justice-overhaul-is-carjacked-at-gunpoint-offenders-fired-shots-at-her-husband.html

    , @Inquiring Mind
    @Jack D

    Is it just me, or is anyone else around here simply amazed on how the police solved this case that quickly?

    Replies: @Jack D, @Jim Don Bob

    , @Reg Cæsar
    @Jack D


    He says that the guy wasn’t even loaded.
     
    Typo, or pun? If the former, for gun, the first thing you learn in firearms class is that every gun is always loaded.

    the father and step mother of Josiah Brown, the 19-year-old man who’s now facing federal charges in connection with carjacking

     

    If, once the jacker is in the driver's seat, you pull out your concealed carry and remove his medullary tissue, can you take he parents to small claims court to pay to clean up your vehicle?
  20. Spanish has reformed spelling, “f” instead of “ph”, for instance, and once in a while you’ll find a book in English from the 1930s or so that spells “enough” as “enuf”. But I’m glad reformed spelling didn’t catch on in English, not just because I like antiques and because they carry historical and etymological information, but because reformed spelling is helpful primarily to children learning the language, and, I’d even say, mainly for slow learners. Children who rapidly learn to sight-read don’t have to deal with the dreaded “phonics” to help them “sound words out”. Finally, or maybe not finally, seemingly irrational differences between homophones — “cast” and “caste”, for instance — actually help differentiate their meanings. If English had even more words with multiple definitions — the word “run”, which currently has around six hundred and fifty definitions, is currently the most infamous example — writing and reading English at an advanced level would be even harder for most people than it is now.

    • Agree: Rosie
    • Replies: @Cortes
    @Wendy K. Kroy

    For those who underestimate their own language skills, some encouragement from a Dutch Master:

    https://ncf.idallen.com/english.html

  21. @Rob McX
    Trends in science and technology were easy to predict, relatively speaking. Trains would get faster (in some countries, anyway). Cooking and serving food would be done on the macro scale, and so on. Many of these developments follow naturally from scientific progress and advances in management techniques pioneered by people such as Frederick Winslow Taylor. What's impossible to forecast is social trends. Imagine picking up a book written a hundred years ago that predicted all the LGBTQ stuff of the last decade.

    Replies: @Thea, @Justvisiting, @Rosie, @FKI

    Who knew that Orwell’s “1984” would become a training manual for leaders of the “democracies”?

    • Replies: @Intelligent Dasein
    @Justvisiting


    Who knew that Orwell’s “1984” would become a training manual for leaders of the “democracies”?
     
    Well, George Orwell, for one.

    I don't know why the default position on Orwell is always that he was some sort of liberty-loving visionary who wrote warnings and cautionary tales. Nobody writes something like Nineteen Eighty-Four unless he feels the same tyrannical impulses moving inside of him. The easiest way for any writer to make a buck is to spill his own brutality, lasciviousness, and pathologies out onto the page, change a few names and verb tenses, and call it "fiction."

    George Orwell was an atheist, a socialist, and an all-around hypocrite. Nineteen Eighty-Four is wish fulfillment.

    Replies: @SaneClownPosse

    , @Inquiring Mind
    @Justvisiting

    Training manual?

    This recalls David Hackworth's account of his efforts to distribute a pamphlet he wrote regarding the tactics of the Viet Cong. Colonel Hackworth was frustrated in his effort to disseminate this to our soldiers out in the field fighting the war in Vietnam. His superiors quickly put it under a high level of security classification.

    Hackworth fumed that the enemy knew what their own tactics were. It was our guys who were in the dark about what the enemy was up to.

    You bet 1984 was a training manual, and the whole point of the novel was to get the rest of us to see what the people carrying out those tactics already knew.

  22. My mother, who was born in 1917, said that at the holidays they would take their lamb or turkey to the bakery and use their oven to roast their meal. I remember all too well our coal fired furnce, no heat spigots though. Merry Christmas to all of you!

    • Replies: @JMcG
    @Buffalo Joe

    Merry Christmas, Joe!

    Replies: @Buffalo Joe

    , @The Anti-Gnostic
    @Buffalo Joe

    Merry Christmas Joe!

    Replies: @Buffalo Joe

  23. @Jack D
    "Feral Negroes armed with semi-automatic pistols will roam the streets, demanding that people turn over to them their Japanese made automobiles."

    Didn't see that one coming.

    A local TV station talked to the father and step mother of Josiah Brown, the 19-year-old man who’s now facing federal charges in connection with carjacking the liberal congresswoman's car.

    https://philadelphia.cbslocal.com/2021/12/24/josiah-brown-congressmember-mary-gay-scanlon-carjacking-fdr-park/

    It turns out that (surprise, surprise) Josiah dindu nuffin in his parents' opinion. When asked where he was on the day of the carjacking, they said that they believed that he was taking care of his two sons. Besides, carjacking was not his usual MO.

    Josiah, meanwhile, has written a letter of apology to the Congresswoman. He says that the guy wasn't even loaded. I'm sure they are going to forget all about those Federal charges now. Maybe they can bring in a social worker to teach Josiah not to do carjackings and stick to just breaking into cars as usual.

    Replies: @Buffalo Joe, @Rob McX, @Buffalo Joe, @Mike Tre, @Inquiring Mind, @Reg Cæsar

    Ach, San Fran is going to train HS students to be psychologists through an intern program, not enough real professionals, but California’s licensing process discourages many who have actually obtained a degree in psychology. Stay safe.

  24. Can’t really get behind some of the various attempts to simplify English. But then again, I’m kind of a snob sometimes.

    https://www.bbc.com/pidgin

  25. A university education will be free to every man and woman.

    The prognosticator was a big government guy. Where did he think the money to pay for that entitlement would come from? No doubt he later supported Woodrow Wilson, #16, etc.

    In fact, the flagship State U’s, as they were established (only a few decades before), were intended to charge little or no tuition; voters can’t resist a free lunch. However, as was understood, that offer was only available to in-state, applied science students. (The conventional thinking was that graduates would stay close to home and help modernize the local economy.) The public lands granted to the schools (and then monetized) were estimated to be comfortably sufficient to forevermore cover the cost of paying for such students (themselves a rarified group.)

    This modern day phenomenon of gigantic State U’s, with their:

    • \$300K profsters who don’t teach (sorry, supervising the research of a handpicked group of grad students doesn’t count),

    • \$750K administrators (aside from maybe leading a one semester baloney course, e.g. Philosophy of Boating, per year popular with pre-laws looking to score impactful letters of recommendation, please remind me what they teach),

    • \$4M head football coaches (they actually teach!)

    • Applied science students paying some of the highest tuition rates in the college, and (often out-of-state) jocks getting free rides,

    • Colleges of liberal (left wing) arts, enrolling thousands of five year, full-time partiers,

    is a big load of crap.

  26. Pneumatic tubes are the great lost steampunk technology

    This sentence hit me really hard. Because it’s true.

    • Replies: @Inquiring Mind
    @JimDandy

    Don't the drive-through banking lanes use pneumatic tubes?

    Replies: @JimDandy

    , @Slim
    @JimDandy

    The bank I use has four lanes of drive-thru pneumatic tube banking. It isn't a relic of a bygone age, this branch bank was constructed about ten years ago. It's way more fun than an ATM.

  27. China has built a huge network of high-speed rail in the last two decades even as passenger rail in the US has stagnated.

  28. @Jack D
    "Feral Negroes armed with semi-automatic pistols will roam the streets, demanding that people turn over to them their Japanese made automobiles."

    Didn't see that one coming.

    A local TV station talked to the father and step mother of Josiah Brown, the 19-year-old man who’s now facing federal charges in connection with carjacking the liberal congresswoman's car.

    https://philadelphia.cbslocal.com/2021/12/24/josiah-brown-congressmember-mary-gay-scanlon-carjacking-fdr-park/

    It turns out that (surprise, surprise) Josiah dindu nuffin in his parents' opinion. When asked where he was on the day of the carjacking, they said that they believed that he was taking care of his two sons. Besides, carjacking was not his usual MO.

    Josiah, meanwhile, has written a letter of apology to the Congresswoman. He says that the guy wasn't even loaded. I'm sure they are going to forget all about those Federal charges now. Maybe they can bring in a social worker to teach Josiah not to do carjackings and stick to just breaking into cars as usual.

    Replies: @Buffalo Joe, @Rob McX, @Buffalo Joe, @Mike Tre, @Inquiring Mind, @Reg Cæsar

    But a 19-year-old black with two sons, has no car but wants one, you don’t have to be Nostradamus to foresee that kind of thing.

    • Replies: @Possumman
    @Rob McX

    If he has 2 sons chances are they have 2 different mommas--so how was he in 2 places at once---powers of bi-location?

  29. Pneumatic tubes are the great lost steampunk technology

    Pneumatic tubes were essentially a form of public transport, and as such, suffered the same fate as all public goods in Diversity regimes.

    Several great national university will have been established.

    Oddly enough, we more or less stopped establishing new great national universities as the 20th Century progressed.

    Another public good. Same fate.

    Time will be saved by grouping like studies.

    Tracking, I believe, which is probably headed toward being abolished in the name of equity.

    Yeah…

    Etiquette and housekeeping will be important studies in the public schools.

    The last sentence, no.

    Because it would be Systemic Racism, of course…

    Some things that were common in much of the world never happened in the USA:

    Trains one Hundred and Fifty miles an Hour. Trains will run two miles a minute, normally; express trains one hundred and fifty miles an hour.

    USA leads in Diversity, therefore also leads in sacrifices to the Diversity god.

    A thread (not golden) runs through these failed futures.

    The Future: undone by Diversity.

    Or in other words,

    Progress or Diversity, choose One.

    China has chosen.

    Russia is choosing.

    The West must choose too, and soon.

    • Agree: Rob McX
    • Replies: @Rob McX
    @Almost Missouri

    The greatest genius who ever lived couldn't have foreseen the current Diversity worship. It's relatively easy to chart the path of future progress. It's human stupidity and irrationality that defy all efforts at prediction or prognostication.

    Replies: @J.Ross, @res, @kaganovitch

    , @Muggles
    @Almost Missouri

    The large very nice downtown department store in the town I grew up in had a big plastic pneumatic tube system. (That's now gone of course.)

    When you purchased something (pre credit card, etc.) they put in a set of invoices and your folding money/coins. That was zipped off to someplace upstairs (so it seemed) and later, in a minute or two, your change would be returned via tube along with a stamped "paid" receipt.

    It was a lot of fun to see these things work. So 'sales associates' didn't have cash registers or even keep your money.

    There is a bank I use that uses pneumatic tubes to take in deposits, dispense money for their car teller lines. They have TV screens and microphones. So pneumatics are still being used.

    Not quite the Wave of the Future though.

    It is fun to look at old back issues of publications (now websites if available) to read their breathless and confident predictions of the future. Good for a laugh.

    Who knew that Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged would be the most accurate depiction of future America only 65 years hence? Just try to avoid those dropping Boeing aircraft...

    Replies: @Buffalo Joe, @Jack D, @mc23, @ScarletNumber, @cityview

  30. When I graduated from college in the early 80’s I could not have predicted transgender military officers, SAT scores being dropped by Harvard, whites decreasing to below half the population, whites being fired from their jobs for saying men can’t have babies, or Somalian congresswomen.
    I could have predicted high black crime rates and black rioting destroying major cities.

  31. ‘Food will be served hot or cold to private houses in pneumatic tubes or automobile wagons.’

    Around here, (a) people can be ridiculously helpful, and (b) there are a lot of old people who just will not move out of their houses even though they really should.

    The result is your ‘automobile wagons.’ ‘Meals on Wheels’ delivers meals to such shut-ins.

  32. What’s the best source of futuristic predictions these days? Where would one look if they wanted an idea of the future predicted by people who actually know what they’re talking about?

    • Replies: @Clyde
    @anon


    What’s the best source of futuristic predictions these days? Where would one look if they wanted an idea of the future predicted by people who actually know what they’re talking about?
     
    Clif High (aka Clif_High) made some very good predictions by analyzing internet chatter 10-20 years ago. He predicted and bought into bitcoin and made other good predictions. Today he has videos on -- https://www.bitchute.com/channel/HBBwqdoMy7Gz/
    His twitter -- https://twitter.com/clif_high

    I am guessing the internet is too big these days and too censored, suppressed by the left/tech monopolists PTB to analyze chatter correctly
  33. @Jack D
    "Feral Negroes armed with semi-automatic pistols will roam the streets, demanding that people turn over to them their Japanese made automobiles."

    Didn't see that one coming.

    A local TV station talked to the father and step mother of Josiah Brown, the 19-year-old man who’s now facing federal charges in connection with carjacking the liberal congresswoman's car.

    https://philadelphia.cbslocal.com/2021/12/24/josiah-brown-congressmember-mary-gay-scanlon-carjacking-fdr-park/

    It turns out that (surprise, surprise) Josiah dindu nuffin in his parents' opinion. When asked where he was on the day of the carjacking, they said that they believed that he was taking care of his two sons. Besides, carjacking was not his usual MO.

    Josiah, meanwhile, has written a letter of apology to the Congresswoman. He says that the guy wasn't even loaded. I'm sure they are going to forget all about those Federal charges now. Maybe they can bring in a social worker to teach Josiah not to do carjackings and stick to just breaking into cars as usual.

    Replies: @Buffalo Joe, @Rob McX, @Buffalo Joe, @Mike Tre, @Inquiring Mind, @Reg Cæsar

    Jack, I read your link and Congresswoman Scanlon turns the carjacking into …’if we had better gun laws, blah,blah,blah.’ Without the gun maybe a knife or a punch to the face, but the crime still goes down.

    • Replies: @Jack D
    @Buffalo Joe

    What are the chances that Josiah legally purchased his weapon or would obey any future gun laws that Mary Gay would like to impose? What are the chances that some US Attorney would use the new gun laws to tangle up some otherwise law abiding Kyle Rittenhouse type guys in order to show that they don't only prosecute black people?

    The only thing that is going to stop Josiah is that he has now drawn the attention of the Feds. The Federal penalty for carjacking is somewhere in the range of 7-15 years plus a few more years of supervised release. They will tack on another couple of years for firearms charges, etc. And he was already facing state charges for other offenses. Liberal DAs would have given him a slap on the wrist for those but now that he has drawn media attention they are going to be "tough on crime" with him. Josiah really picked the wrong white lady this time. By the time Josiah gets out of prison his prime carjacking days should be over. But maybe by then his sons will have already gone into the family business.

  34. One interesting misstep I notice almost routinely in science fiction literature from the fifties is that computers will be really, really powerful…and therefore, really, really big. In fact, they’ll be so big and powerful that one computer will fill an entire warehouse!

    The opposite definitely happened there. I use a 12.9″ iPad for everything — and it’s only that big to accommodate the screen.

    Another missed trend is blacks running amok. That really was visibly starting to happen by the mid-Sixties, and yet to my knowledge, few have ever seriously speculated as to where it might be going. Many of us see where it is — but beyond denial and/or lunatic genocidal prescriptions, no one suggests where it might be going.

    It’s intriguing. They obviously lack the chops to be a new master race — but we’re determined to treat them as such. What happens next?

    • Replies: @Adept
    @Colin Wright

    In fairness, large computers and computer networks have become extremely common. Amazon, Microsoft, Google, and Facebook are all -- to quite a large extent -- server farm specialists, and this is something that is vital and indispensable to their business interests. The internet indeed runs on giant server farms, which are often warehouse-sized.

    Supercomputers are also very huge these days. Whereas an old Cray might be the size of a large cabinet, a modern supercomputer is a massive installation. (Mostly used for computationally-demanding modeling tasks in engineering, chemistry, pharmacology, and physics.)

    https://img.kyodonews.net/english/public/images/posts/e457d15a8208d485bcb05078832d2e25/photo_l.jpg

    So I wouldn't say that the SF authors of the Golden Age got it entirely wrong.

    , @Don Unf
    @Colin Wright


    In fact, they’ll be so big and powerful that one computer will fill an entire warehouse!
     
    One of my parents' college stories was how huge the computers were, taking up entire rooms, kept chilled. I think that was some time in the 1970s. Even then it surely seemed that the trajectory towards warehouse-sized computers might have been realistic.

    Another missed trend is blacks running amok.
     
    That harkens back to another of my family's stories from that same time period. They were renting out houses to the fresh new black population, and those magnificent, classy houses were ruined in record time. They used to tell how they'd use the sides of those houses and their neighbors' houses for target practice. They'd smash all the wood banisters and railings, and the rest of the fancy circa 1900 woodwork, just to smash it. They were astonished and could not understand why anyone would do such things.

    And then today's retards try to claim that blacks were beset by evil racists at all times! It was the lack of racism that ruined those areas. More racial discrimination was the only thing that could have saved them. If only blacks didn't behave like blacks no one would have cared...

    Now, 50 years later, there is not much left in that area but overgrown vacant lots, interspersed with bombed-out-looking houses -- that and free-range pitbull posses, drive-by shootings, liquor stores, nailwig salons, and barbecue restaurants.
    , @anonymous coward
    @Colin Wright


    In fact, they’ll be so big and powerful that one computer will fill an entire warehouse!
     
    Google and Amazon fill many warehouses with computing power. (They're called "data centers" now.)
    , @res
    @Colin Wright


    One interesting misstep I notice almost routinely in science fiction literature from the fifties is that computers will be really, really powerful…and therefore, really, really big. In fact, they’ll be so big and powerful that one computer will fill an entire warehouse!
     
    That was understandable in the fifties when computers were generally made with tubes (first solid state computer 1956). But with transistors and then ICs (Moore's law in 1965 covered size, Dennard scaling in 1974 covered power) things changed.

    Replies: @Jim Don Bob

    , @Peter Akuleyev
    @Colin Wright


    Another missed trend is blacks running amok. That really was visibly starting to happen by the mid-Sixties, and yet to my knowledge, few have ever seriously speculated as to where it might be going. Many of us see where it is — but beyond denial and/or lunatic genocidal prescriptions, no one suggests where it might be going.
     
    They made a whole movie about it in 1968 - it was called "Planet of the Apes." A metaphor of course, but fairly transparent at the time. True, in that 1960s way the overt message was that the "Apes" were in many ways more moral than the "maniac" whites who blew up the planet, but the subtext was still fairly clear.
    , @Known Fact
    @Colin Wright


    One interesting misstep I notice almost routinely in science fiction literature from the fifties is that computers will be really, really powerful…and therefore, really, really big.
     
    My holiday gift to myself is reviewing the artistically triumphant season 2 of The Man From UNCLE - including The Ultimate Computer Affair, in which the good guys and bad guys (the great Roger C Carmel!) battle over a four-foot-by six-foot console (complete with flashing lights and plastic bubble) that supposedly and hilariously will give THRUSH the decision-making power to rule the world!

    Other technological predictions from The Man From UNCLE (1965 = 1968)
    Earthquake machine
    Tsunami generator
    Mind-reading machine
    Killer bees (way ahead of their time there!)
    Ray gun that can hit European capitals from the Swiss Alps
    Obedience gas (crazed general Leslie Nielsen planning to take over the world)

    Replies: @Joe Stalin

  35. @Almost Missouri

    Pneumatic tubes are the great lost steampunk technology
     
    Pneumatic tubes were essentially a form of public transport, and as such, suffered the same fate as all public goods in Diversity regimes.


    Several great national university will have been established.
     
    Oddly enough, we more or less stopped establishing new great national universities as the 20th Century progressed.
     
    Another public good. Same fate.


    Time will be saved by grouping like studies.
     
    Tracking, I believe, which is probably headed toward being abolished in the name of equity.
     
    Yeah...


    Etiquette and housekeeping will be important studies in the public schools.
     
    The last sentence, no.
     
    Because it would be Systemic Racism, of course...

    Some things that were common in much of the world never happened in the USA:

    Trains one Hundred and Fifty miles an Hour. Trains will run two miles a minute, normally; express trains one hundred and fifty miles an hour.
     

     
    USA leads in Diversity, therefore also leads in sacrifices to the Diversity god.

    A thread (not golden) runs through these failed futures.

    The Future: undone by Diversity.

    Or in other words,

    Progress or Diversity, choose One.

    China has chosen.

    Russia is choosing.

    The West must choose too, and soon.

    Replies: @Rob McX, @Muggles

    The greatest genius who ever lived couldn’t have foreseen the current Diversity worship. It’s relatively easy to chart the path of future progress. It’s human stupidity and irrationality that defy all efforts at prediction or prognostication.

    • Agree: Buffalo Joe, HammerJack
    • Replies: @J.Ross
    @Rob McX

    Y'ALL UNSHAVEN PERSIAN SLAVES NEED ARISTOTLE.
    What did Aristotle say was the final misguided virtue of a dying civilization?

    , @res
    @Rob McX


    It’s human stupidity and irrationality that defy all efforts at prediction or prognostication.
     
    Except to note that there will be plenty of it. What form it takes--who knows.
    , @kaganovitch
    @Rob McX

    It’s relatively easy to chart the path of future progress. It’s human stupidity and irrationality that defy all efforts at prediction or prognostication.

    As Schiller has it "Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens.” ="With stupidity, Gods themselves contend in vain."

  36. In general, it’s hard to get the details right about the future.

    Too true!

    When projecting the future, one detail they often don’t even bother trying to get right is hair and clothing styles. Typically they’ll just present what is the height of fashion at the particular time the projection is made, such as the short hair and mini-skirts of pre-hippiedom 1964 when the original (though not broadcast initially) Star Trek series pilot (‘The Menagerie’ in a later bastardized form) starring Jeffrey Hunter was filmed.

    • Replies: @Rob McX
    @S

    Judging by SF fashions, it seems they all thought the days of shirt collars were numbered.

    , @Jack D
    @S

    Not only don't they get future hairstyles right, they don't get PAST ones right. In the MASH TV series, Alan Alda had 1970s style long hair:

    https://outsider.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/mash-how-alan-alda-was-cast-as-hawkeye-585x390.jpg

    And for Cleopatra, it looks like they stuck some Egyptian style imagery on an off the shelf 1960s dress.

    https://anotherimg-dazedgroup.netdna-ssl.com/439/azure/another-prod/360/8/368861.jpg

    Strip off the snake embroidery and she could have gone out to dinner in that dress.

    Replies: @S, @Steve Sailer, @Reg Cæsar

  37. @Achmed E. Newman
    That was a very interesting post, Steve. Money will come at end-'o-my-fiscal-year, as usual.

    Merry Christmas from the Newman family to yours!

    Replies: @Mike Tre

    • LOL: Old Prude
  38. @Buffalo Joe
    My mother, who was born in 1917, said that at the holidays they would take their lamb or turkey to the bakery and use their oven to roast their meal. I remember all too well our coal fired furnce, no heat spigots though. Merry Christmas to all of you!

    Replies: @JMcG, @The Anti-Gnostic

    Merry Christmas, Joe!

    • Replies: @Buffalo Joe
    @JMcG

    J, thank you and the best to you and yours. Stay safe.

  39. @Jack D
    "Feral Negroes armed with semi-automatic pistols will roam the streets, demanding that people turn over to them their Japanese made automobiles."

    Didn't see that one coming.

    A local TV station talked to the father and step mother of Josiah Brown, the 19-year-old man who’s now facing federal charges in connection with carjacking the liberal congresswoman's car.

    https://philadelphia.cbslocal.com/2021/12/24/josiah-brown-congressmember-mary-gay-scanlon-carjacking-fdr-park/

    It turns out that (surprise, surprise) Josiah dindu nuffin in his parents' opinion. When asked where he was on the day of the carjacking, they said that they believed that he was taking care of his two sons. Besides, carjacking was not his usual MO.

    Josiah, meanwhile, has written a letter of apology to the Congresswoman. He says that the guy wasn't even loaded. I'm sure they are going to forget all about those Federal charges now. Maybe they can bring in a social worker to teach Josiah not to do carjackings and stick to just breaking into cars as usual.

    Replies: @Buffalo Joe, @Rob McX, @Buffalo Joe, @Mike Tre, @Inquiring Mind, @Reg Cæsar

    I just posted this yesterday – Illinois State senator who supports defunding police was carjacked and her husband apparently exchanged gunfire with the perp:

    https://cwbchicago.com/2021/12/senator-who-championed-illinois-criminal-justice-overhaul-is-carjacked-at-gunpoint-offenders-fired-shots-at-her-husband.html

  40. @Buffalo Joe
    My mother, who was born in 1917, said that at the holidays they would take their lamb or turkey to the bakery and use their oven to roast their meal. I remember all too well our coal fired furnce, no heat spigots though. Merry Christmas to all of you!

    Replies: @JMcG, @The Anti-Gnostic

    Merry Christmas Joe!

    • Replies: @Buffalo Joe
    @The Anti-Gnostic

    Anti, thank you, same to you and yours. And to all here, there is nothing, absolutely nothing better than to know you are loved and blessed.

  41. This has more or less happened, but nobody predicted that giant strawberries would lose their flavor

    Seems kind of obvious. A teaspoon of braunschweiger paté will be more impressive on a Triscuit than spread across a pizza crust. Don’t small breasts have the same number of nerves as large ones?

    These tubes will collect, deliver and transport mail over certain distance, perhaps for hundreds of miles…

    A university education will be free to every man and woman.

    We call this the ‘Internet”. And YouTube.

    Tracking, I believe, which is probably headed toward being abolished in the name of equity.

    Tracking is taken for granted in the South. Where children actually are close to equal, even equally above-average, as in numerous IRL Lakes Wobegon, it is taken as a pernicious Prussian import– by suburban right-wingers.

    Food will be served hot or cold to private houses in pneumatic tubes or automobile wagons.

    • Replies: @Buffalo Joe
    @Reg Cæsar

    Reg, thank you for another year of you being you. And yes, braunschweiger on a Triscuit with a dab of horseradish mustard. And a rolling Rock split. Stay safe.

  42. @Jack D
    "Feral Negroes armed with semi-automatic pistols will roam the streets, demanding that people turn over to them their Japanese made automobiles."

    Didn't see that one coming.

    A local TV station talked to the father and step mother of Josiah Brown, the 19-year-old man who’s now facing federal charges in connection with carjacking the liberal congresswoman's car.

    https://philadelphia.cbslocal.com/2021/12/24/josiah-brown-congressmember-mary-gay-scanlon-carjacking-fdr-park/

    It turns out that (surprise, surprise) Josiah dindu nuffin in his parents' opinion. When asked where he was on the day of the carjacking, they said that they believed that he was taking care of his two sons. Besides, carjacking was not his usual MO.

    Josiah, meanwhile, has written a letter of apology to the Congresswoman. He says that the guy wasn't even loaded. I'm sure they are going to forget all about those Federal charges now. Maybe they can bring in a social worker to teach Josiah not to do carjackings and stick to just breaking into cars as usual.

    Replies: @Buffalo Joe, @Rob McX, @Buffalo Joe, @Mike Tre, @Inquiring Mind, @Reg Cæsar

    Is it just me, or is anyone else around here simply amazed on how the police solved this case that quickly?

    • Replies: @Jack D
    @Inquiring Mind

    Apparently, they were able to track the car using GPS (either from the Congresscritter's iPhone or else from the car itself). Josiah had driven to Wilmington and picked up a bunch of his teenage friends and gone to a nearby suburban mall (to go shopping with Congresscritter's credit cards?) and they found the car there and staked it out until the gang returned to the car. At that point they scattered like rats but there were a lot of cops waiting so they caught them all (the teenagers were catch and release).

    But yes, I have the feeling that if it was me who had been carjacked, the cops (especially the Federales) would have been a LOT less interested. The Philly cops would have taken a report and that would have been it. Carjacking is now the most common form of car theft because you don't have to deal with all the anti-theft technology - they must have thousands of open cases.

    If they found the car later because it was illegally parked (they are really good at parking enforcement because it's a big money maker), they'd tow it to an impound lot with the windows left open and let me know in about 3 months, by which time there would be huge storage charges plus lots of weather damage.

    , @Jim Don Bob
    @Inquiring Mind

    The stupid libtard said it would not have happened if we had "common sense" gun control. Even reality will not change the libtard mind.

    PS Ron: comments seem to be displaying oldest first again.

  43. @Jack D
    "Feral Negroes armed with semi-automatic pistols will roam the streets, demanding that people turn over to them their Japanese made automobiles."

    Didn't see that one coming.

    A local TV station talked to the father and step mother of Josiah Brown, the 19-year-old man who’s now facing federal charges in connection with carjacking the liberal congresswoman's car.

    https://philadelphia.cbslocal.com/2021/12/24/josiah-brown-congressmember-mary-gay-scanlon-carjacking-fdr-park/

    It turns out that (surprise, surprise) Josiah dindu nuffin in his parents' opinion. When asked where he was on the day of the carjacking, they said that they believed that he was taking care of his two sons. Besides, carjacking was not his usual MO.

    Josiah, meanwhile, has written a letter of apology to the Congresswoman. He says that the guy wasn't even loaded. I'm sure they are going to forget all about those Federal charges now. Maybe they can bring in a social worker to teach Josiah not to do carjackings and stick to just breaking into cars as usual.

    Replies: @Buffalo Joe, @Rob McX, @Buffalo Joe, @Mike Tre, @Inquiring Mind, @Reg Cæsar

    He says that the guy wasn’t even loaded.

    Typo, or pun? If the former, for gun, the first thing you learn in firearms class is that every gun is always loaded.

    the father and step mother of Josiah Brown, the 19-year-old man who’s now facing federal charges in connection with carjacking

    If, once the jacker is in the driver’s seat, you pull out your concealed carry and remove his medullary tissue, can you take he parents to small claims court to pay to clean up your vehicle?

  44. They never guessed that men could become women, and vice versa, by means of a mere speech act.

    • Replies: @J.Ross
    @International Jew

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fmum3glL1DA

  45. @Rob McX
    @Almost Missouri

    The greatest genius who ever lived couldn't have foreseen the current Diversity worship. It's relatively easy to chart the path of future progress. It's human stupidity and irrationality that defy all efforts at prediction or prognostication.

    Replies: @J.Ross, @res, @kaganovitch

    Y’ALL UNSHAVEN PERSIAN SLAVES NEED ARISTOTLE.
    What did Aristotle say was the final misguided virtue of a dying civilization?

  46. He didn’t predict the obesity epidemic. Did anyone?

    • Replies: @J.Ross
    @Paperback Writer

    There's a brief episode in the Trevalyan novel The Main where a man who is introduced as crazy but harmless does.

    Replies: @Paperback Writer

    , @Jack D
    @Paperback Writer

    I don't think anyone saw the obesity epidemic coming until after WWII.

    BMI was flat until around 1900 when the above was written. It has been going up ever since but the rate of increase at first was modest and probably considered beneficial - no more scraggly looking poor people. Then the Great Depression and war rationing hit and the rate of increase slows down considerably.

    But then after WWII is over, it really takes off. People move to the suburbs and no longer have to walk as much. Convenience foods become available. Incomes are higher and the poor get free food. The rate of increase just keeps going up and up. The lines are the deciles - note that it's much worse for the highest deciles - just as the rich get richer, the fat get fatter:

    https://voxeu.org/sites/default/files/image/FromAug2010/KomlosFig3.gif

    Replies: @AnotherDad, @Paperback Writer, @Known Fact, @James N. Kennett

  47. @International Jew
    They never guessed that men could become women, and vice versa, by means of a mere speech act.

    Replies: @J.Ross

  48. @Paperback Writer
    He didn't predict the obesity epidemic. Did anyone?

    Replies: @J.Ross, @Jack D

    There’s a brief episode in the Trevalyan novel The Main where a man who is introduced as crazy but harmless does.

    • Replies: @Paperback Writer
    @J.Ross

    You say Trevalyan as if everyone knows who yr referring to, LOL. Is this the one?

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G._E._Trevelyan

    They don't mention a novel of that name.

    Replies: @J.Ross, @Charlotte

  49. “They will purchase materials in tremendous wholesale quantities and sell the cooked foods at a price much lower than the cost of individual cooking.”

    This is not only true of cooking (not so much at fast food outlets, but at the deli section of grocery stores), it’s also true of furniture items like shelves, tables, bed frames etc. When I learned enough basic carpentry skills to build simple furniture in the 1960’s, the wood was much cheaper than the finished items.

  50. Children will study a simple English grammar adapted to simplified English, and not copied after the Latin.

    There was a push in the late 19th century to differentiate American English from the ‘Queen’s English’. One word that comes to mind is ‘centre’ becoming ‘center’.

    This was about America developing its own independent identity.

    Even so, throughout WWI, and well into WWII, US troops were still wearing British headgear, such as the GI’s below in 1942 when the transition to the ‘tin pot’ was made.

  51. Not in the original, but 1900 was probably just barely after peak Darwin. It was assumed that quality was bred through superior genetics as well as training, and some peoples were just better at parts of life than others. But that was fading: You can see in the essay a belief that the well off could beneficially change the environments of the poor, and the assumption that those poor would be on an upward intellectual trajectory.

    Then anthropology managed to kill off its physical branch and minimize biology, in no small part due to Boasian Jewish project (and no I’m not peddling antiSemitism—well regarded mainstream historian Carl Degler covered this back around 1990). While anthro is a minor field in the academy, the doctrine that we are all the same except for environment has become the driver of much human assumptions. At least in the public sphere you can’t say otherwise.

    • Replies: @Jack D
    @John Milton’s Ghost

    1. Boas, although Jewish by blood, grew up in a completely assimilated and secular German home.

    2. 1900 would have been too early for Boas to have influenced the author.

    3. The Darwinan view in 1900, that the poor, especially of other racial groups were "less evolved" than rich white people, was just wrong. Black are not less evolved than whites - everyone has the same number of ancestors going back to day 1. Rather, they are DIFFERENTLY evolved for the conditions that their ancestors lived under. And their problems are not JUST biological - they are perhaps 1/2 cultural. American Blacks got the double whammy.

    4. If you are talking about the "huddled masses" type poor of European stock, the author was not wrong - you could take the children of shtetl Jews or Southern Italian peasants and clean them up a bit and teach them table manners and then they would be as good as WASPs. Lido Iococca could become "Lee" and sit at Henry Ford's desk. Walker of MIT who said that the huddled masses would never amount to anything was the one who was wrong. (This doesn't mean that it's wrong to say the same thing about Congolese today).

    Replies: @John Milton’s Ghost

  52. OT: reporting Daunte Wright

    Many US newspapers, including the NYT, have presented a sanitised account of the life of Daunte Wright. This is their right. However, the BBC has done exactly the same, although its charter requires it

    To provide impartial news and information to help people understand and engage with the world around them: the BBC should provide duly accurate and impartial news, current affairs and factual programming to build people’s understanding of all parts of the United Kingdom and of the wider world.

    The BBC’s hagiography of Wright is titled “One of those kids everybody looked up to”, and does not disclose his criminal past except to say that the police tried to arrest him on an outstanding warrant.

    The Daily Mail tells it like it is, in a story with the headline “EXCLUSIVE: ‘He was either going to be imprisoned, kill someone, or be killed.’ How Daunte Wright led a life of crime and violence before his death and shot his own friend in the head, broke into a neighbor’s home, and robbed a woman at gunpoint”.

    In unrelated news, large numbers of British people despise the Daily Mail as a racist, fascist rag produced from beyond the grave by Julius Streicher and Joseph Goebbels.

    • Replies: @Rob McX
    @James N. Kennett

    I was looking at these reports of Officer Potter being convicted. The only consolation is that a violent and dangerous thug is dead, something that can't be reversed no matter how vindictive the sentence that's handed down.

    Replies: @Anonymous

    , @AnotherDad
    @James N. Kennett


    The Daily Mail tells it like it is, in a story with the headline “EXCLUSIVE: ‘He was either going to be imprisoned, kill someone, or be killed.’ How Daunte Wright led a life of crime and violence before his death and shot his own friend in the head, broke into a neighbor’s home, and robbed a woman at gunpoint”.
     
    Kim Potter would have been a legit candidate to succeed Kyle Rittenhouse and be awarded the 2021 "Sanitation Worker of the Year" award... except incompetently stumblebumming into it is ... uh ... decidely unimpressive. Sanitation workers have their standards and take rightful pride in competently executing their important job.
  53. @Buffalo Joe
    @Jack D

    Jack, I read your link and Congresswoman Scanlon turns the carjacking into ...'if we had better gun laws, blah,blah,blah.' Without the gun maybe a knife or a punch to the face, but the crime still goes down.

    Replies: @Jack D

    What are the chances that Josiah legally purchased his weapon or would obey any future gun laws that Mary Gay would like to impose? What are the chances that some US Attorney would use the new gun laws to tangle up some otherwise law abiding Kyle Rittenhouse type guys in order to show that they don’t only prosecute black people?

    The only thing that is going to stop Josiah is that he has now drawn the attention of the Feds. The Federal penalty for carjacking is somewhere in the range of 7-15 years plus a few more years of supervised release. They will tack on another couple of years for firearms charges, etc. And he was already facing state charges for other offenses. Liberal DAs would have given him a slap on the wrist for those but now that he has drawn media attention they are going to be “tough on crime” with him. Josiah really picked the wrong white lady this time. By the time Josiah gets out of prison his prime carjacking days should be over. But maybe by then his sons will have already gone into the family business.

    • Thanks: Buffalo Joe
  54. @John Milton’s Ghost
    Not in the original, but 1900 was probably just barely after peak Darwin. It was assumed that quality was bred through superior genetics as well as training, and some peoples were just better at parts of life than others. But that was fading: You can see in the essay a belief that the well off could beneficially change the environments of the poor, and the assumption that those poor would be on an upward intellectual trajectory.

    Then anthropology managed to kill off its physical branch and minimize biology, in no small part due to Boasian Jewish project (and no I’m not peddling antiSemitism—well regarded mainstream historian Carl Degler covered this back around 1990). While anthro is a minor field in the academy, the doctrine that we are all the same except for environment has become the driver of much human assumptions. At least in the public sphere you can’t say otherwise.

    Replies: @Jack D

    1. Boas, although Jewish by blood, grew up in a completely assimilated and secular German home.

    2. 1900 would have been too early for Boas to have influenced the author.

    3. The Darwinan view in 1900, that the poor, especially of other racial groups were “less evolved” than rich white people, was just wrong. Black are not less evolved than whites – everyone has the same number of ancestors going back to day 1. Rather, they are DIFFERENTLY evolved for the conditions that their ancestors lived under. And their problems are not JUST biological – they are perhaps 1/2 cultural. American Blacks got the double whammy.

    4. If you are talking about the “huddled masses” type poor of European stock, the author was not wrong – you could take the children of shtetl Jews or Southern Italian peasants and clean them up a bit and teach them table manners and then they would be as good as WASPs. Lido Iococca could become “Lee” and sit at Henry Ford’s desk. Walker of MIT who said that the huddled masses would never amount to anything was the one who was wrong. (This doesn’t mean that it’s wrong to say the same thing about Congolese today).

    • Replies: @John Milton’s Ghost
    @Jack D

    First, Jack, I enjoy your posts and realize you probably get grief on Unz just because that’s how some assholes roll. That wasn’t my intent to be one of those.

    1. Boas advocated an anti-genetic position with a lot of other Jewish intellectuals specifically opposed to the WASP elite who had run the academies. Antisemites are nasty in that no ethnic Jew can ever be other in their minds, but at the same time the initial driving force for pure environmentalism was almost exclusively Jewish, at first. The fact that Boas worked with mostly Jewish colleagues and students (with a gentile lesbian or two) is significant.

    2. My point was Darwin was already in decline by 1900. Boas’s triumph accelerated it later. But a decade before Theodore Roosevelt could suggest the winning of the west was due to Anglo Saxon stock and even by 1900 that had shifted to Frederick Jackson Turner’s idea of a transforming frontier.

    3. Sure popular Darwinians would get this wrong and suggest lesser and greater peoples. The science is more subtle and suggests adaptation that is maladaptation for other environments. Looking at Native American struggles in the WEIRD world is especially striking.

    4. I didn’t say the author was wrong. But it’s clear the academy at first and now the political and cultural world we live in adamantly refuses to consider the biological aspects of it. Part of the success of those peoples you mentioned was due to 1. The Continental genetic differences between northwest Europeans with eastern and southern groups is in hindsight minuscule and 2. The curtailing of immigration in the 1920s really helped those groups considerably as such removed the ability to remain truly peoples apart.

  55. Merry Xmas, everyone!

    • LOL: Almost Missouri
    • Replies: @Joe S.Walker
    @Anonymous

    Interesting that the BBC's website report of this story speaks primly of "a profane insult" and "an obscenity directed at Mr Biden." The words "Fuck Joe Biden" can't be set down even with asterisks, apparently.

    Replies: @zoos

  56. @Almost Missouri

    Pneumatic tubes are the great lost steampunk technology
     
    Pneumatic tubes were essentially a form of public transport, and as such, suffered the same fate as all public goods in Diversity regimes.


    Several great national university will have been established.
     
    Oddly enough, we more or less stopped establishing new great national universities as the 20th Century progressed.
     
    Another public good. Same fate.


    Time will be saved by grouping like studies.
     
    Tracking, I believe, which is probably headed toward being abolished in the name of equity.
     
    Yeah...


    Etiquette and housekeeping will be important studies in the public schools.
     
    The last sentence, no.
     
    Because it would be Systemic Racism, of course...

    Some things that were common in much of the world never happened in the USA:

    Trains one Hundred and Fifty miles an Hour. Trains will run two miles a minute, normally; express trains one hundred and fifty miles an hour.
     

     
    USA leads in Diversity, therefore also leads in sacrifices to the Diversity god.

    A thread (not golden) runs through these failed futures.

    The Future: undone by Diversity.

    Or in other words,

    Progress or Diversity, choose One.

    China has chosen.

    Russia is choosing.

    The West must choose too, and soon.

    Replies: @Rob McX, @Muggles

    The large very nice downtown department store in the town I grew up in had a big plastic pneumatic tube system. (That’s now gone of course.)

    When you purchased something (pre credit card, etc.) they put in a set of invoices and your folding money/coins. That was zipped off to someplace upstairs (so it seemed) and later, in a minute or two, your change would be returned via tube along with a stamped “paid” receipt.

    It was a lot of fun to see these things work. So ‘sales associates’ didn’t have cash registers or even keep your money.

    There is a bank I use that uses pneumatic tubes to take in deposits, dispense money for their car teller lines. They have TV screens and microphones. So pneumatics are still being used.

    Not quite the Wave of the Future though.

    It is fun to look at old back issues of publications (now websites if available) to read their breathless and confident predictions of the future. Good for a laugh.

    Who knew that Ayn Rand’s Atlas Shrugged would be the most accurate depiction of future America only 65 years hence? Just try to avoid those dropping Boeing aircraft…

    • Replies: @Buffalo Joe
    @Muggles

    Muggs, at the nearby flea market is a vendor who sells old 'Life' magazines. the ads are the best, especially the ads for cars at less than a grand and doctors endorsing cigarettes. And, a local bank had the preumatic drive through system, cool, until the tube ices up and your paycheck is somewhere between your car and the teller. Happened to me. Stay safe.

    Replies: @Achmed E. Newman, @ScarletNumber

    , @Jack D
    @Muggles

    Costco's had pneumatic tubes going to the cashiers at least until recently. In their modern iteration they used white PVC pipe for the tubes, I assume the same stuff as drain pipe. There were special long radius pieces for the bends.

    Paper checks and cash are an ALMOST obselete technology but not quite yet, at least not in the US.

    , @mc23
    @Muggles

    I know some hospitals still use pnuematic tubes, mostly for lab samples now that physical paper work is going away.

    , @ScarletNumber
    @Muggles


    There is a bank I use that uses pneumatic tubes to take in deposits, dispense money for their car teller lines.
     
    I think this is more common than not. Every Chase stand-alone branch here in New Jersey uses them.
    , @cityview
    @Muggles

    Oh, yes, the big vertical downtown department stores had them--now, that's something I hadn't thought about recently. I don't remember them in use for every transaction as you described, though; maybe every store was a little different. I do remember the clinking, chiming sound that you could hear all through the store at times when they were in use. I'll use as my example Woodward and Lothrop in downtown Washington DC, which went bankrupt in 1992, but honestly, I was in department stores from the District to New York City and back that no longer exist.

    If bank drive-through windows still use them, I'm glad; I used to see these in use from inside the bank on foot.

  57. anon[307] • Disclaimer says:

    jesus will return with a moustache speaking german.

    and he will be reviled for 75 years.

    For if their purpose or endeavor is of human origin, it will fail. But if it is from God, you will not be able to stop them. You may even find yourselves fighting against God.

    and so it goes and has gone.

  58. @The Anti-Gnostic
    @Buffalo Joe

    Merry Christmas Joe!

    Replies: @Buffalo Joe

    Anti, thank you, same to you and yours. And to all here, there is nothing, absolutely nothing better than to know you are loved and blessed.

  59. @Reg Cæsar

    This has more or less happened, but nobody predicted that giant strawberries would lose their flavor
     
    Seems kind of obvious. A teaspoon of braunschweiger paté will be more impressive on a Triscuit than spread across a pizza crust. Don't small breasts have the same number of nerves as large ones?


    These tubes will collect, deliver and transport mail over certain distance, perhaps for hundreds of miles...

    A university education will be free to every man and woman.
     
    We call this the 'Internet". And YouTube.

    Tracking, I believe, which is probably headed toward being abolished in the name of equity.
     
    Tracking is taken for granted in the South. Where children actually are close to equal, even equally above-average, as in numerous IRL Lakes Wobegon, it is taken as a pernicious Prussian import-- by suburban right-wingers.

    Food will be served hot or cold to private houses in pneumatic tubes or automobile wagons.
     
    https://ogden_images.s3.amazonaws.com/www.marshallindependent.com/images/2020/03/29212457/Schwans-stock-2-copyweb-1100x733.jpg

    Replies: @Buffalo Joe

    Reg, thank you for another year of you being you. And yes, braunschweiger on a Triscuit with a dab of horseradish mustard. And a rolling Rock split. Stay safe.

  60. If you ever feel sad picture Hunter Biden in the middle of explaining to a Chinese bureaucrat why so much money must be paid and then suddenly learning that Joe Biden has finally died.

    • Thanks: AnotherDad
    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar
    @J.Ross


    If you ever feel sad picture Hunter Biden in the middle of explaining to a Chinese bureaucrat why so much money must be paid and then suddenly learning that Joe Biden has finally died.

     

    Yuck. I just pictured Hunter between Eric Swalwell and Fang Fang. What Ted, Chris, and Joe might have called a waitress wonton.

    Replies: @Cortes

  61. @Muggles
    @Almost Missouri

    The large very nice downtown department store in the town I grew up in had a big plastic pneumatic tube system. (That's now gone of course.)

    When you purchased something (pre credit card, etc.) they put in a set of invoices and your folding money/coins. That was zipped off to someplace upstairs (so it seemed) and later, in a minute or two, your change would be returned via tube along with a stamped "paid" receipt.

    It was a lot of fun to see these things work. So 'sales associates' didn't have cash registers or even keep your money.

    There is a bank I use that uses pneumatic tubes to take in deposits, dispense money for their car teller lines. They have TV screens and microphones. So pneumatics are still being used.

    Not quite the Wave of the Future though.

    It is fun to look at old back issues of publications (now websites if available) to read their breathless and confident predictions of the future. Good for a laugh.

    Who knew that Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged would be the most accurate depiction of future America only 65 years hence? Just try to avoid those dropping Boeing aircraft...

    Replies: @Buffalo Joe, @Jack D, @mc23, @ScarletNumber, @cityview

    Muggs, at the nearby flea market is a vendor who sells old ‘Life’ magazines. the ads are the best, especially the ads for cars at less than a grand and doctors endorsing cigarettes. And, a local bank had the preumatic drive through system, cool, until the tube ices up and your paycheck is somewhere between your car and the teller. Happened to me. Stay safe.

    • Replies: @Achmed E. Newman
    @Buffalo Joe

    Hey, Joe, for you and Muggles, believe it or not, but pneumatic tube systems at banks are NEW to me! See, my family was never into drive-through anything (hey, was that predicted by anyone? Fly-though, maybe...). I understand the benefits for some (Moms with small kids in the car) but still consider it laziness.

    Last year, during the COVID PanicFest, our bank had all the branches closed, so we had to use the drive-through lanes. I and the boy liked to watch the capsules go off and come back. The way the new vehicles are, I've got to get out of the car to use it though. The whole thing was kind of silly ... back to normal now, though they never brought the nice wooden stand-alone counter back, to write out your transaction slips one... still in the de-contamination booth, I suppose ...

    Merry Christmas, Joe and Muggles.

    , @ScarletNumber
    @Buffalo Joe


    until the tube ices up and your paycheck is somewhere between your car and the teller
     
    I once had to park my car and go inside to retrieve my deposit. Why? Because the teller charged with manning the tube was deaf in one ear and couldn't hear the pod arrive.
  62. @Muggles
    @Almost Missouri

    The large very nice downtown department store in the town I grew up in had a big plastic pneumatic tube system. (That's now gone of course.)

    When you purchased something (pre credit card, etc.) they put in a set of invoices and your folding money/coins. That was zipped off to someplace upstairs (so it seemed) and later, in a minute or two, your change would be returned via tube along with a stamped "paid" receipt.

    It was a lot of fun to see these things work. So 'sales associates' didn't have cash registers or even keep your money.

    There is a bank I use that uses pneumatic tubes to take in deposits, dispense money for their car teller lines. They have TV screens and microphones. So pneumatics are still being used.

    Not quite the Wave of the Future though.

    It is fun to look at old back issues of publications (now websites if available) to read their breathless and confident predictions of the future. Good for a laugh.

    Who knew that Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged would be the most accurate depiction of future America only 65 years hence? Just try to avoid those dropping Boeing aircraft...

    Replies: @Buffalo Joe, @Jack D, @mc23, @ScarletNumber, @cityview

    Costco’s had pneumatic tubes going to the cashiers at least until recently. In their modern iteration they used white PVC pipe for the tubes, I assume the same stuff as drain pipe. There were special long radius pieces for the bends.

    Paper checks and cash are an ALMOST obselete technology but not quite yet, at least not in the US.

  63. Old man ambling by … i’ll pick some of the low hanging fruit:

    1) Robotics/Automation
    Driverless cars/trucks, food prep, cleaners … huge disruption in employment.

    Issues of welfare–and the associated social issues (drugs etc.); and the associated fiscal issues–will loom large. In just a couple decades anyone honest–not part of the “state party” apparat–will wonder “what the hell were they thinking” when the West allowed millions of low IQ immigrants. Issues of “eugenics” however phrased, back on the table.

    Regardless of whether this is effectively managed well–it’s the land of milk and honey across the earth–or poorly, the result will be increased nationalism. Being able to live around people like yourself–people who aren’t annoying–is the ultimate “luxury good”.

    2) Life extension.
    It’s become obvious that “wear and tear” is not really the aging story. It’s more hormonal and programmatic. Old rats can be made younger being hooked up to the blood of younger rats. (Not sure why Bill Gates isn’t funding this in secret laboratories.)

    Little doubt people in 2100 will be living much longer.

    If therapies are straightforward and results substantial … huge, huge, huge … disruption. Will reverse the population decline issues. Brings population control back to the fore–along with eugenics, nationalism.

    3) Genetic manipulation.
    The question is will this just be a medical “one off”–fix this defective gene–or designer babies. I could see people having basically their own babies with a bunch of “fixes” or “enhancements”. Less clear is whether they would have designer babies? Is the baby then really “yours”?

    Pretty easy to guess Chinese will charge ahead with this while–as Jack pointed out–we have discussions about “equity” and the “racism” of people not wanting black phenotypes.

    The meaning of family, of life, of a whole lot of stuff up for grabs with this. But i’m significantly less clear on where we’ll be this 2100.

    This i know: 2100 is going to a wildly different world than today. Don’t know how smooth or wild and violent the ride may be.

    • Replies: @Jack D
    @AnotherDad

    1. Self driving cars - despite the skepticism, they are getting really close. Waymo has a fleet of driverless taxis in Arizona. No "safety driver" - you get in the cab and the car drives itself. Not perfect yet - it doesn't like left turns and will often make 3 rights to save 1 left. Not 100% accident free but neither are human drivers.

    This, combined with electric cars, is really going to change how people own cars, especially in cities.

    2. Life extension doesn't seem to change the ages at which females are fertile or how many children they want to have. You are going to have lots and lots of people who are old but not yet dead. Some of them will need care. A lot of them will no longer be capable of (or interested) in working. Life extension doesn't solve the population problem or the problem of how you support all those old people without a growing population of younger working people. Smart places (Japan) will solve this problem with robots, not Africans.

    3. The "guaranteed income" people are not crazy. On the one end, you are going to have massive elimination of the kind of low skilled jobs now done by blacks (I don't mean carjacking, I mean like Amazon delivery driver). OTOH, the Tyquans of the world still keep churning out babies, esp. relative to whites and Asians where female fertility is below replacement. As it is now, there's hardly anything that these folks are qualfied to do. Once McDonalds is automated and the DMV is online and there are no more delivery drivers, there is going to be literally nothing left for a significant portion of these folks to do but we are not going to be able to just let them starve. Eventually this will extend beyond blacks to the point where even many white people jobs are automated.

    Replies: @Colin Wright

    , @Mr. Anon
    @AnotherDad


    This i know: 2100 is going to a wildly different world than today. Don’t know how smooth or wild and violent the ride may be.
     
    Your predictions, as well as those of Jack D, sound quite plausible.

    There is of course another possibility - that civilization breaks down and large swathes of the Earth seem more like 1700 than 2000. i.e., if the World slides backward into a new dark age. Of course, not all high technology would disappear; it never does. Nor would it completely stagnate. But the rate of progress would, and a lot of resources would become exhausted. We discount the possibility because we live in an age of great material progress, but Dark Ages do happen.

    As Jack D mentioned, the End of Work will be a huge dislocation in society. It is already prompting a lot of people to seriously contemplate UBI on a large scale (we've seen a foretaste of this during the pandemic). What effect will that have on people who have been rendered economically redundant, including a large fraction of the White populace? Maybe the Indian Reservations will provide a clue.
    , @Justvisiting
    @AnotherDad

    The current science fiction take on the future is that nanotechnology will be "the thing".

    If all goes well that means each home will have an "everything machine" that will be able to take waste products, break them down to the molecular level, then reconstitute them as anything and everything desired (directed by software to make it happen).

    That would be the alchemist's dream of actually being able to turn lead into gold, or excrement into caviar or a golden retriever, in your own home.

    The downside of nanotechnology was portrayed in Greg Bear's SF classic "Blood Music":

    https://www.amazon.com/Blood-Music-Greg-Bear/dp/1497637023

  64. @Paperback Writer
    He didn't predict the obesity epidemic. Did anyone?

    Replies: @J.Ross, @Jack D

    I don’t think anyone saw the obesity epidemic coming until after WWII.

    BMI was flat until around 1900 when the above was written. It has been going up ever since but the rate of increase at first was modest and probably considered beneficial – no more scraggly looking poor people. Then the Great Depression and war rationing hit and the rate of increase slows down considerably.

    But then after WWII is over, it really takes off. People move to the suburbs and no longer have to walk as much. Convenience foods become available. Incomes are higher and the poor get free food. The rate of increase just keeps going up and up. The lines are the deciles – note that it’s much worse for the highest deciles – just as the rich get richer, the fat get fatter:

    • Replies: @AnotherDad
    @Jack D


    just as the rich get richer, the fat get fatter:
     
    Good quip. I was thinking exactly that expression, when i started reading your comment.

    If you live around mostly normal looking people it is shocking to see "the public". Since AnotherMom had us retire to the beach, i'm much more in touch with "my fellow Americans" ... we are not a pretty sight. ("Fats and tats")

    Ok, time to go to Costco.

    Replies: @Mr. Anon

    , @Paperback Writer
    @Jack D

    Do you have a link for the graph?

    Replies: @Jack D

    , @Known Fact
    @Jack D

    People were thin in the 1970s, on into the 80s -- watch an old ballgame or rock concert. You'd have one obese person in a class or office and they really stood out. Maybe it was the cigarettes and cocaine, or the pre-fructose food. Certainly not due to abstemious behavior

    Replies: @Paperback Writer

    , @James N. Kennett
    @Jack D

    Amazing that the population was so homogeneous in the late 19th Century. Perhaps most white males then did manual labor in agriculture or factories. Can the broadening of the distribution from 1900 onwards be attributed to the rise of office jobs?

  65. Among the first things the Soviets did after gaining power in the early 20th century was reform the Russian language. Several archaic and soundless letters that had been around since the time of Old Church Slavonic were dropped and the spelling of many words was changed to be more phonetic and logical. They were trying to cultivate modernism and scientism and after all and it was consistent with their brand.

    Even today, Russian is much easier to read and pronounce relative to English, at least once you know the alphabet. There are a few exceptions to the phonics of certain letter combinations and stresses but they are consistently applied every time they appear instead of varying from word to word as in English. If you can say it in Russian, you can probably easily spell it.

    All that being said, I think the Russian class story says more about Obama’s parents’ politics in the 1960’s than it does about Russian being thought of as a language of the future. Maybe among their circle it was. They were both radicals and Russian was the language of the guys financially supporting the radicalism.

    • Replies: @Jack D
    @JR Ewing


    Russian being thought of as a language of the future.
     
    The only people who thought of Russian as being the language of the future were Communists. The Coen brothers make fun of this in Hail, Ceasar! where the Communist screenwriters call their secret cabal "The Future".

    No non-Leftist ordinary Americans thought that way. (In A Clockwork Orange, the violent teens speak a sort of Russian slang but this takes place in a dystopian world). If non-Communists were interested in a futuristic language they would study Esperanto.

    Despite the Communist spelling reforms (the Chinese Communists simplified the writing of Chinese characters), Russian is quite alien to English speakers and is usually ranked among the hardest common languages for English speakers to learn along with Mandarin and Arabic (and not just because of the alphabet but because of the alien grammar and vocabulary - Polish is up there too). You can see from all of the difficulties that Russian speakers have in learning to speak English how far apart the two languages are. (That Nabokov was fluent enough to write great literature in both languages shows what a genius he was).

    Replies: @Achmed E. Newman, @JR Ewing, @Ralph L, @Peter Akuleyev

  66. Bet they didn’t see this one coming in 1900.
    https://thefederalist.com/2021/12/23/swedes-are-implanting-microchip-vaccine-passports-it-wont-stop-there/

    Fortunately, a workaround is (pardon the expression) at hand.

  67. @Jack D
    @Paperback Writer

    I don't think anyone saw the obesity epidemic coming until after WWII.

    BMI was flat until around 1900 when the above was written. It has been going up ever since but the rate of increase at first was modest and probably considered beneficial - no more scraggly looking poor people. Then the Great Depression and war rationing hit and the rate of increase slows down considerably.

    But then after WWII is over, it really takes off. People move to the suburbs and no longer have to walk as much. Convenience foods become available. Incomes are higher and the poor get free food. The rate of increase just keeps going up and up. The lines are the deciles - note that it's much worse for the highest deciles - just as the rich get richer, the fat get fatter:

    https://voxeu.org/sites/default/files/image/FromAug2010/KomlosFig3.gif

    Replies: @AnotherDad, @Paperback Writer, @Known Fact, @James N. Kennett

    just as the rich get richer, the fat get fatter:

    Good quip. I was thinking exactly that expression, when i started reading your comment.

    If you live around mostly normal looking people it is shocking to see “the public”. Since AnotherMom had us retire to the beach, i’m much more in touch with “my fellow Americans” … we are not a pretty sight. (“Fats and tats”)

    Ok, time to go to Costco.

    • Replies: @Mr. Anon
    @AnotherDad


    If you live around mostly normal looking people it is shocking to see “the public”. Since AnotherMom had us retire to the beach, i’m much more in touch with “my fellow Americans” … we are not a pretty sight. (“Fats and tats”)
     
    The popularity of tattoos are certainly another thing unforeseen by 1900 Man. The fact that a large fraction of the Western World's population would go around in public tatted up like prison inmates or South Seas cannibals would have been a shock to the Ladies who read The Ladies Home Journal, and the men who wrote it. It's still a shock to me. It is, I think, one of the worst trends in our modern era. So many people now have chosen to uglify themselves and in so doing uglify the World around them. It's disgusting. The people who promoted this trend should be flogged to death.

    Replies: @Cortes, @Reg Cæsar, @Known Fact

  68. Who could have forseen this new California trend………..Liquor Mining:

    https://citizenfreepress.com/breaking/woman-with-giant-pickaxe-casually-steals-liquor-from-rite-aid/

    • Replies: @Rob McX
    @Mr. Anon

    A new awakening - the spirit of 1848.

  69. @J.Ross
    @Paperback Writer

    There's a brief episode in the Trevalyan novel The Main where a man who is introduced as crazy but harmless does.

    Replies: @Paperback Writer

    You say Trevalyan as if everyone knows who yr referring to, LOL. Is this the one?

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G._E._Trevelyan

    They don’t mention a novel of that name.

    • Replies: @J.Ross
    @Paperback Writer

    >he doesn't know about Shibumi

    You hear laughter. You are likely to be eaten by a grue, laughing, which is the most smug sort of grue.
    Do you want to know more or do you want to believe?

    Replies: @Paperback Writer, @Reg Cæsar

    , @Charlotte
    @Paperback Writer

    I believe he’s referring to Trevanian https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trevanian

  70. @AnotherDad
    Old man ambling by ... i'll pick some of the low hanging fruit:

    1) Robotics/Automation
    Driverless cars/trucks, food prep, cleaners ... huge disruption in employment.

    Issues of welfare--and the associated social issues (drugs etc.); and the associated fiscal issues--will loom large. In just a couple decades anyone honest--not part of the "state party" apparat--will wonder "what the hell were they thinking" when the West allowed millions of low IQ immigrants. Issues of "eugenics" however phrased, back on the table.

    Regardless of whether this is effectively managed well--it's the land of milk and honey across the earth--or poorly, the result will be increased nationalism. Being able to live around people like yourself--people who aren't annoying--is the ultimate "luxury good".


    2) Life extension.
    It's become obvious that "wear and tear" is not really the aging story. It's more hormonal and programmatic. Old rats can be made younger being hooked up to the blood of younger rats. (Not sure why Bill Gates isn't funding this in secret laboratories.)

    Little doubt people in 2100 will be living much longer.

    If therapies are straightforward and results substantial ... huge, huge, huge ... disruption. Will reverse the population decline issues. Brings population control back to the fore--along with eugenics, nationalism.


    3) Genetic manipulation.
    The question is will this just be a medical "one off"--fix this defective gene--or designer babies. I could see people having basically their own babies with a bunch of "fixes" or "enhancements". Less clear is whether they would have designer babies? Is the baby then really "yours"?

    Pretty easy to guess Chinese will charge ahead with this while--as Jack pointed out--we have discussions about "equity" and the "racism" of people not wanting black phenotypes.

    The meaning of family, of life, of a whole lot of stuff up for grabs with this. But i'm significantly less clear on where we'll be this 2100.


    This i know: 2100 is going to a wildly different world than today. Don't know how smooth or wild and violent the ride may be.

    Replies: @Jack D, @Mr. Anon, @Justvisiting

    1. Self driving cars – despite the skepticism, they are getting really close. Waymo has a fleet of driverless taxis in Arizona. No “safety driver” – you get in the cab and the car drives itself. Not perfect yet – it doesn’t like left turns and will often make 3 rights to save 1 left. Not 100% accident free but neither are human drivers.

    This, combined with electric cars, is really going to change how people own cars, especially in cities.

    2. Life extension doesn’t seem to change the ages at which females are fertile or how many children they want to have. You are going to have lots and lots of people who are old but not yet dead. Some of them will need care. A lot of them will no longer be capable of (or interested) in working. Life extension doesn’t solve the population problem or the problem of how you support all those old people without a growing population of younger working people. Smart places (Japan) will solve this problem with robots, not Africans.

    3. The “guaranteed income” people are not crazy. On the one end, you are going to have massive elimination of the kind of low skilled jobs now done by blacks (I don’t mean carjacking, I mean like Amazon delivery driver). OTOH, the Tyquans of the world still keep churning out babies, esp. relative to whites and Asians where female fertility is below replacement. As it is now, there’s hardly anything that these folks are qualfied to do. Once McDonalds is automated and the DMV is online and there are no more delivery drivers, there is going to be literally nothing left for a significant portion of these folks to do but we are not going to be able to just let them starve. Eventually this will extend beyond blacks to the point where even many white people jobs are automated.

    • Replies: @Colin Wright
    @Jack D

    '...As it is now, there’s hardly anything that these folks are qualfied to do. Once McDonalds is automated and the DMV is online and there are no more delivery drivers, there is going to be literally nothing left for a significant portion of these folks to do but we are not going to be able to just let them starve. Eventually this will extend beyond blacks to the point where even many white people jobs are automated.'

    The difficulty is not that they will starve, but that they will have nothing to do.

    The devil makes work for idle hands. I have seen this demonstrated in multiple contexts.

  71. @Jack D
    @Paperback Writer

    I don't think anyone saw the obesity epidemic coming until after WWII.

    BMI was flat until around 1900 when the above was written. It has been going up ever since but the rate of increase at first was modest and probably considered beneficial - no more scraggly looking poor people. Then the Great Depression and war rationing hit and the rate of increase slows down considerably.

    But then after WWII is over, it really takes off. People move to the suburbs and no longer have to walk as much. Convenience foods become available. Incomes are higher and the poor get free food. The rate of increase just keeps going up and up. The lines are the deciles - note that it's much worse for the highest deciles - just as the rich get richer, the fat get fatter:

    https://voxeu.org/sites/default/files/image/FromAug2010/KomlosFig3.gif

    Replies: @AnotherDad, @Paperback Writer, @Known Fact, @James N. Kennett

    Do you have a link for the graph?

    • Replies: @Jack D
    @Paperback Writer

    https://voxeu.org/article/100-years-us-obesity

    Replies: @res

  72. @S

    In general, it’s hard to get the details right about the future.
     
    Too true!

    When projecting the future, one detail they often don't even bother trying to get right is hair and clothing styles. Typically they'll just present what is the height of fashion at the particular time the projection is made, such as the short hair and mini-skirts of pre-hippiedom 1964 when the original (though not broadcast initially) Star Trek series pilot ('The Menagerie' in a later bastardized form) starring Jeffrey Hunter was filmed.


    https://tos.trekcore.com/hd/albums/1x00hd/thecagehd0077.jpg

    Replies: @Rob McX, @Jack D

    Judging by SF fashions, it seems they all thought the days of shirt collars were numbered.

    • Agree: S
  73. @James N. Kennett
    OT: reporting Daunte Wright

    Many US newspapers, including the NYT, have presented a sanitised account of the life of Daunte Wright. This is their right. However, the BBC has done exactly the same, although its charter requires it


    To provide impartial news and information to help people understand and engage with the world around them: the BBC should provide duly accurate and impartial news, current affairs and factual programming to build people’s understanding of all parts of the United Kingdom and of the wider world.
     
    The BBC's hagiography of Wright is titled "One of those kids everybody looked up to", and does not disclose his criminal past except to say that the police tried to arrest him on an outstanding warrant.

    The Daily Mail tells it like it is, in a story with the headline "EXCLUSIVE: 'He was either going to be imprisoned, kill someone, or be killed.' How Daunte Wright led a life of crime and violence before his death and shot his own friend in the head, broke into a neighbor's home, and robbed a woman at gunpoint".

    In unrelated news, large numbers of British people despise the Daily Mail as a racist, fascist rag produced from beyond the grave by Julius Streicher and Joseph Goebbels.

    Replies: @Rob McX, @AnotherDad

    I was looking at these reports of Officer Potter being convicted. The only consolation is that a violent and dangerous thug is dead, something that can’t be reversed no matter how vindictive the sentence that’s handed down.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    @Rob McX


    I was looking at these reports of Officer Potter being convicted. The only consolation is that a violent and dangerous thug is dead, something that can’t be reversed no matter how vindictive the sentence that’s handed down
     
    Agreed. Thank god that black psychopath is dead. Highly likely that her actions saved some innocent lives.

    Regarding the officer, intent matters in this case. Her stated intent was to taser. She accidentally shot him instead. Involuntary manslaughter must be the verdict. No more, or less. Such is the destiny of excitable little fat chicks, way in over their heads. I’m guessing she’ll do better on appeal. Black people aren’t so good with the perception of time. By the time the case gets retried, most of the thugs family will be on to other things. Much less negro hoopla.

    This incompetence problem for the local police could certainly be mitigated on a vetting process based on solely on intellectual, emotional, and physical merit, but that would mean America’s "Jabari's" would be inadvertently spared. The little piece of shit is off the face of the planet forever. That’s a very good thing.

    I’ll take the underqualified diversity hires. Saves court time, taxes, and lives.

    Sitting her fat little ass in jail for a year or so is a small price to pay for the good of modern civilization.

    Replies: @Rob McX

  74. Oddly enough, we more or less stopped establishing new great national universities as the 20th Century progressed.

    No time for that.

    We are too busy deconstructing the ones we have.

  75. The newspaper I worked at in the 70s had a pneumatic tube system between the newsroom and composing. I still have one of those heavy black tubes on my desk as a keepsake — with my pica pole, photo wheel and Pantone book

    Enjoyed this story, brings to mind Mark Steyn’s observation that technological progress has slowed — at least compared to the decades that brought us electricity, cars, flight, indoor plumbing, tv, radio and the A-bomb.

  76. @Rob McX
    @Jack D

    But a 19-year-old black with two sons, has no car but wants one, you don't have to be Nostradamus to foresee that kind of thing.

    Replies: @Possumman

    If he has 2 sons chances are they have 2 different mommas–so how was he in 2 places at once—powers of bi-location?

  77. @JR Ewing
    Among the first things the Soviets did after gaining power in the early 20th century was reform the Russian language. Several archaic and soundless letters that had been around since the time of Old Church Slavonic were dropped and the spelling of many words was changed to be more phonetic and logical. They were trying to cultivate modernism and scientism and after all and it was consistent with their brand.

    Even today, Russian is much easier to read and pronounce relative to English, at least once you know the alphabet. There are a few exceptions to the phonics of certain letter combinations and stresses but they are consistently applied every time they appear instead of varying from word to word as in English. If you can say it in Russian, you can probably easily spell it.

    All that being said, I think the Russian class story says more about Obama’s parents’ politics in the 1960’s than it does about Russian being thought of as a language of the future. Maybe among their circle it was. They were both radicals and Russian was the language of the guys financially supporting the radicalism.

    Replies: @Jack D

    Russian being thought of as a language of the future.

    The only people who thought of Russian as being the language of the future were Communists. The Coen brothers make fun of this in Hail, Ceasar! where the Communist screenwriters call their secret cabal “The Future”.

    No non-Leftist ordinary Americans thought that way. (In A Clockwork Orange, the violent teens speak a sort of Russian slang but this takes place in a dystopian world). If non-Communists were interested in a futuristic language they would study Esperanto.

    Despite the Communist spelling reforms (the Chinese Communists simplified the writing of Chinese characters), Russian is quite alien to English speakers and is usually ranked among the hardest common languages for English speakers to learn along with Mandarin and Arabic (and not just because of the alphabet but because of the alien grammar and vocabulary – Polish is up there too). You can see from all of the difficulties that Russian speakers have in learning to speak English how far apart the two languages are. (That Nabokov was fluent enough to write great literature in both languages shows what a genius he was).

    • Replies: @Achmed E. Newman
    @Jack D


    If non-Communists were interested in a futuristic language they would study Esperanto.
     
    I've been reading through this "guide"* to the Georgia Guidestones, called Common Sense Renewed by "J.C. Christian" (an alias) who was responsible for setting up the "American Stonehenge" in Elberton, Georgia.

    In it he has a small section about this new universal language he thinks should be created:


    Designing a universal human language for future generations will require discovery of the most efficient combinations and sequences of phonemes to most clearly express our thoughts with all their subtleties and nuances. Our esthetic sense will require its symbolic forms in sound and in letters to be pleasing to the ear and to the eye.

    Phonemes will be arrayed in patterns which reflect variations in function. Each sound will correspond precisely with a single visual symbol. Inflections, pauses, rhythms, and other modifi- cations of intonation will be indicated by accent symbols.

    The visual characters will permit ease of writing by hand in the same form used in type so that both can be "recognized" by the seeing eyes of machines. In this way it will be possible for words to be spoken in the presence of an appropriate electromechanical device and to be transcribed in printed form by that device. Conversely, the machine will be able to "read" the printed version and "vocalize" it as clearly intelligible speech.

    Development of the alphabet-syllabary of approximately 200 symbols will facilitate constructing a totally new language de novo, unlike the many previous efforts which have attempted to build upon existing language patterns (Esperanto, Interlingua, and others). The new language will reflect consideration for the sound patterns in the most general—and presumably most efficient—use within the languages which exist today.
     

    It sounds like a job for a computer program to handle. Any bright linguist on here want to comment on exactly how full of it this guy was.

    BTW, that on-line book (.pdf) is pretty interesting as a sample from 1986 - 35 years back - of how a fairly bright guy though things were going and how to solve the world's problems. (His concentration was on America, and good on him for that.)

    .

    * Thank you very much, Adam Smith!

    Replies: @Justvisiting, @Adam Smith

    , @JR Ewing
    @Jack D

    Yes, the communist thing was exactly what I was pointing out about Obama’s parents.

    My high school offered Russian for some reason reason and I didn’t want to take Spanish or German, and then I took four more years in college, so now I have this neat parlor truck that it mostly useless today. Just a red neck white boy from west Texas who speaks fluent Russian.

    Agree that the language itself (but not the alphabet) is hard to learn for Americans because English grammar is dumbed down already and Americans are lazy. Russian grammar is very precise and learning it opened a whole new understanding of English grammar for me, which is one of the reasons foreign languages are required in many schools.

    , @Ralph L
    @Jack D

    Nabokov and the later Romanovs had English nannies, so it wasn't a second language.

    Replies: @Paperback Writer

    , @Peter Akuleyev
    @Jack D

    I have met hundreds of Russians who speak impeccable English. Russians (and Poles) are generally better at English than Italians or French speakers, in my experience.

    Russian is an Indo-European language. It is not really all that foreign to anyone who has studied Greek, Latin or even German. Of course, these days that describes a vanishingly small pool of native English speakers.

    Polish is even easier because of the Latin alphabet and significant vocabulary borrowed from Latin due to Catholic cultural influence. It is really a question of motivation, and most English speakers aren't motivated to learn languages that don't offer career advancement and are spoken in cold climates and unattractive industrial cities (that is the perception even if not true). The fact that educated Russians and Poles often speak excellent English just makes the situation even worse.

    Replies: @Paperback Writer, @Jack D

  78. @Paperback Writer
    @Jack D

    Do you have a link for the graph?

    Replies: @Jack D

    • Replies: @res
    @Jack D

    Thanks, Jack. That is an interesting graph for a long time series which I had not seen.

    For those who did not click through it is important to realize.
    1. The years are birth cohorts. So the 1986 point is people who were 25 years old when the paper was published in 2010.
    2. That graph shows the rate of change of BMI not BMI itself.

    The graphs for white females and black males/females are rather different. For example, in the shape across the post 1965 birth cohorts.

    There is another version of the paper which includes BMI graphs for all four groups. I think those are easier to understand for conveying the status of a point in time.
    https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1570677X11000414
    https://www.econstor.eu/bitstream/10419/38885/1/633112313.pdf

    Table 1 gives an alternative way of looking at the progression of obesity in each group. Hopefully the formatting is adequate for understanding.

    Table 1. Dates by which given centile reached a BMI value of 30
    (Birth Cohort)
    White Black
    Centile Males Females Males Females
    9th 1911 1912 1907 1897
    8th 1926 1931 1924 1905
    7th 1942 1946 1950 1917
    6th 1967 1964 1962 1927
    5th na 1980 1982 1942
    4th na na na 1959
    Note: Among white men and women, and black men, the 5th, 4th and 3rd centiles have not
    reached the BMI value of 30 during the observation period

    I found that confusing until I realized their terminology is funky. They aren't talking about centiles here. They are talking about deciles. The lines in their plots are 10-90 centiles, but if you are going to refer to the top line as 9th etc. then you should really call it deciles. And in the page Jack linked, they do use "deciles" in the text (but not captions, since those figures are just copies of the paper versions).

    So 60% of black females born in 1959 are obese. Wow.

    Here is another version of that work with some different figures.
    https://www.nber.org/papers/w15862
    https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w15862/w15862.pdf

    Figure 1 shows average BMIs for each group. Black women are an outlier with an average BMI for the 1986 birth cohort of 39 compared to 32 for the other three groups. Figure 2 shows the rate of change for each group. Which captures the interesting differences I mentioned above. Figure 3 shows BMI by age curves for each group. Figures 6 and 7 show Iso-BMI lines for given age birth cohort combinations for white and black women.

    While we're on the obesity topic (this paper showed up in my image search), this paper provides a very interesting look at how both risk and BMI vary with height and weight. In particular, it shows how poor a proxy BMI is for health across different heights.
    https://www.hindawi.com/journals/jobe/2016/6734043/

    https://static-01.hindawi.com/articles/jobe/volume-2016/6734043/figures/6734043.fig.003.svgz
    Unfortunately, I don't think the svgz file will embed here, but please take a look at Figure 3.

    That figure is conceptually dense. Three of the (sets of) curves are described well in the legend, but may need thought to assimilate. The fourth curve (dashed line with dated dots) is described in the text just above.

    For example, at a height of 175 cm the minimum mortality risk of 0.8 occurs at 75 kg which is a BMI of 25.

    One thing I found interesting is how the mortality risk at optimum weight decreases significantly from 1.3 to less than 0.7 as you go from 155 cm to 190 cm tall.

    Replies: @Paperback Writer, @Paperback Writer, @Reg Cæsar

  79. @Jack D
    @Paperback Writer

    I don't think anyone saw the obesity epidemic coming until after WWII.

    BMI was flat until around 1900 when the above was written. It has been going up ever since but the rate of increase at first was modest and probably considered beneficial - no more scraggly looking poor people. Then the Great Depression and war rationing hit and the rate of increase slows down considerably.

    But then after WWII is over, it really takes off. People move to the suburbs and no longer have to walk as much. Convenience foods become available. Incomes are higher and the poor get free food. The rate of increase just keeps going up and up. The lines are the deciles - note that it's much worse for the highest deciles - just as the rich get richer, the fat get fatter:

    https://voxeu.org/sites/default/files/image/FromAug2010/KomlosFig3.gif

    Replies: @AnotherDad, @Paperback Writer, @Known Fact, @James N. Kennett

    People were thin in the 1970s, on into the 80s — watch an old ballgame or rock concert. You’d have one obese person in a class or office and they really stood out. Maybe it was the cigarettes and cocaine, or the pre-fructose food. Certainly not due to abstemious behavior

    • Replies: @Paperback Writer
    @Known Fact

    Read the entire linked article.

    https://voxeu.org/article/100-years-us-obesity

    It doesn't say people were fat in the 1970s, just that BMIs were going up for a long time. Before the 70s they were scrawny. The 70s were a sweet spot: adequate nutrition, enough exercise, etc.

    There's a straightforward graph in that article which shows this better than the one Jack copied, which only show rate of increase for white men.

    Replies: @Known Fact

  80. @Paperback Writer
    @J.Ross

    You say Trevalyan as if everyone knows who yr referring to, LOL. Is this the one?

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G._E._Trevelyan

    They don't mention a novel of that name.

    Replies: @J.Ross, @Charlotte

    >he doesn’t know about Shibumi

    You hear laughter. You are likely to be eaten by a grue, laughing, which is the most smug sort of grue.
    Do you want to know more or do you want to believe?

    • Replies: @Paperback Writer
    @J.Ross

    Are you responding to someone else? I didn't write what you quoted.

    Replies: @J.Ross

    , @Reg Cæsar
    @J.Ross


    You are likely to be eaten by a grue
     
    That would be gruesome.

    he doesn’t know about Shibumi
     
    Is that like sashimi and surimi? I can never keep those straight.
  81. @Colin Wright
    One interesting misstep I notice almost routinely in science fiction literature from the fifties is that computers will be really, really powerful...and therefore, really, really big. In fact, they'll be so big and powerful that one computer will fill an entire warehouse!

    The opposite definitely happened there. I use a 12.9" iPad for everything -- and it's only that big to accommodate the screen.

    Another missed trend is blacks running amok. That really was visibly starting to happen by the mid-Sixties, and yet to my knowledge, few have ever seriously speculated as to where it might be going. Many of us see where it is -- but beyond denial and/or lunatic genocidal prescriptions, no one suggests where it might be going.

    It's intriguing. They obviously lack the chops to be a new master race -- but we're determined to treat them as such. What happens next?

    Replies: @Adept, @Don Unf, @anonymous coward, @res, @Peter Akuleyev, @Known Fact

    In fairness, large computers and computer networks have become extremely common. Amazon, Microsoft, Google, and Facebook are all — to quite a large extent — server farm specialists, and this is something that is vital and indispensable to their business interests. The internet indeed runs on giant server farms, which are often warehouse-sized.

    Supercomputers are also very huge these days. Whereas an old Cray might be the size of a large cabinet, a modern supercomputer is a massive installation. (Mostly used for computationally-demanding modeling tasks in engineering, chemistry, pharmacology, and physics.)

    So I wouldn’t say that the SF authors of the Golden Age got it entirely wrong.

    • Agree: Colin Wright
  82. I’ll bet they did not foresee a pop culture based on the tastes of 14-to-24 year-olds rather than adults

  83. Off topic (again);

    In case you were wondering, the two shot (but no kill) in a west Chicago suburb of Oak Brook at a large fairly upscale mall were both shooting. Both black of course.

    That black fact (Black!) wasn’t mentioned of course but the story link below shows one of the wanted perps in a big blue puffy jacket, obviously black. He appeared to be shooting at someone he knew.

    So the ChiTown gang wars are spreading out to the suburbs.

    This is a separate city so Mayor Groot isn’t to blame. Just guilty for protecting her gang buddies in the big city. None of the white women interviewed said anything about black gangsters now in their quiet community. Or if they did, it wasn’t aired.

    https://abc7chicago.com/oakbrook-mall-shooting-oak-brook-center-news-shooter/11380094/

    • Replies: @Abolish_public_education
    @Muggles

    Finally some news about the shooting at a Durham mall, on Black Friday. Nothing recent about the shooting at that mall in Tacoma.

    @#91

    Grow basil.

    , @Mike Tre
    @Muggles

    "This is a separate city so Mayor Groot isn’t to blame."

    I haven't followed Groot to the extent of former Chicago Mayors but Daley and Emanuel (with the help of Obama) actively worked to displace inner city negroes to the surrounding suburbs. They brought their dysfunction with them of course. If either of these shooters in Oakbrook were recently released from jail for a separate violent offense committed in Chicago, we can lay some blame at Groot's as well as Notta Fox's feet more directly.

    , @Hibernian
    @Muggles


    This is a separate city so Mayor Groot isn’t to blame.
     
    Chicago serves as a sanctuary for criminals who operate in the suburbs. In Capone's day it was the other way around.
  84. @S

    In general, it’s hard to get the details right about the future.
     
    Too true!

    When projecting the future, one detail they often don't even bother trying to get right is hair and clothing styles. Typically they'll just present what is the height of fashion at the particular time the projection is made, such as the short hair and mini-skirts of pre-hippiedom 1964 when the original (though not broadcast initially) Star Trek series pilot ('The Menagerie' in a later bastardized form) starring Jeffrey Hunter was filmed.


    https://tos.trekcore.com/hd/albums/1x00hd/thecagehd0077.jpg

    Replies: @Rob McX, @Jack D

    Not only don’t they get future hairstyles right, they don’t get PAST ones right. In the MASH TV series, Alan Alda had 1970s style long hair:

    And for Cleopatra, it looks like they stuck some Egyptian style imagery on an off the shelf 1960s dress.

    Strip off the snake embroidery and she could have gone out to dinner in that dress.

    • Replies: @S
    @Jack D


    Not only don’t they get future hairstyles right, they don’t get PAST ones right.
     
    That can be particularly nauseating. It's a combination of laziness and cheapness, while they simultaneously insult the viewer's intelligence. At least in the case of projecting the future styles they've got some excuse, as it's indeed difficult to tell, but the past is already known.

    The 2005 HBO Rome series, relatively speaking, seemed to have done a pretty good job on clothing and hair style accuracy for those times.
    , @Steve Sailer
    @Jack D

    In 1962, cowboys out on the range in Western TV shows got their hair cut every two weeks.

    In 1972, cowboys out on the range in Western TV shows got their hair cut once a year.

    In "Once Upon a Time in Hollywood," part of Rick Dalton's moral growth is when he decides in 1969 to ditch the pompadour and grow his hair long in the style of the times. (The moral of Tarantino's novel version of his movie is that star actors like Leonardo DiCaprio's character have the best job in the world, so they should stop complaining about their careers and make small sacrifices to please their fans.)

    , @Reg Cæsar
    @Jack D


    Strip off the snake embroidery and she could have gone out to dinner in that dress.
     
    Or, with an F2M chest binder and a fake 5 o'clock shadow, said Mass in Ordinary Time.


    https://www.togetheratonealtar.catholic.edu.au/media/4hicu02g/207_objects.jpg


    https://uscatholic.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/green-in-ordinary-time_wikimedia-commons.jpg

  85. @Wendy K. Kroy
    Spanish has reformed spelling, "f" instead of "ph", for instance, and once in a while you'll find a book in English from the 1930s or so that spells "enough" as "enuf". But I'm glad reformed spelling didn't catch on in English, not just because I like antiques and because they carry historical and etymological information, but because reformed spelling is helpful primarily to children learning the language, and, I'd even say, mainly for slow learners. Children who rapidly learn to sight-read don't have to deal with the dreaded "phonics" to help them "sound words out". Finally, or maybe not finally, seemingly irrational differences between homophones -- "cast" and "caste", for instance -- actually help differentiate their meanings. If English had even more words with multiple definitions -- the word "run", which currently has around six hundred and fifty definitions, is currently the most infamous example -- writing and reading English at an advanced level would be even harder for most people than it is now.

    Replies: @Cortes

    For those who underestimate their own language skills, some encouragement from a Dutch Master:

    https://ncf.idallen.com/english.html

    • Agree: Wendy K. Kroy
  86. @AnotherDad
    Old man ambling by ... i'll pick some of the low hanging fruit:

    1) Robotics/Automation
    Driverless cars/trucks, food prep, cleaners ... huge disruption in employment.

    Issues of welfare--and the associated social issues (drugs etc.); and the associated fiscal issues--will loom large. In just a couple decades anyone honest--not part of the "state party" apparat--will wonder "what the hell were they thinking" when the West allowed millions of low IQ immigrants. Issues of "eugenics" however phrased, back on the table.

    Regardless of whether this is effectively managed well--it's the land of milk and honey across the earth--or poorly, the result will be increased nationalism. Being able to live around people like yourself--people who aren't annoying--is the ultimate "luxury good".


    2) Life extension.
    It's become obvious that "wear and tear" is not really the aging story. It's more hormonal and programmatic. Old rats can be made younger being hooked up to the blood of younger rats. (Not sure why Bill Gates isn't funding this in secret laboratories.)

    Little doubt people in 2100 will be living much longer.

    If therapies are straightforward and results substantial ... huge, huge, huge ... disruption. Will reverse the population decline issues. Brings population control back to the fore--along with eugenics, nationalism.


    3) Genetic manipulation.
    The question is will this just be a medical "one off"--fix this defective gene--or designer babies. I could see people having basically their own babies with a bunch of "fixes" or "enhancements". Less clear is whether they would have designer babies? Is the baby then really "yours"?

    Pretty easy to guess Chinese will charge ahead with this while--as Jack pointed out--we have discussions about "equity" and the "racism" of people not wanting black phenotypes.

    The meaning of family, of life, of a whole lot of stuff up for grabs with this. But i'm significantly less clear on where we'll be this 2100.


    This i know: 2100 is going to a wildly different world than today. Don't know how smooth or wild and violent the ride may be.

    Replies: @Jack D, @Mr. Anon, @Justvisiting

    This i know: 2100 is going to a wildly different world than today. Don’t know how smooth or wild and violent the ride may be.

    Your predictions, as well as those of Jack D, sound quite plausible.

    There is of course another possibility – that civilization breaks down and large swathes of the Earth seem more like 1700 than 2000. i.e., if the World slides backward into a new dark age. Of course, not all high technology would disappear; it never does. Nor would it completely stagnate. But the rate of progress would, and a lot of resources would become exhausted. We discount the possibility because we live in an age of great material progress, but Dark Ages do happen.

    As Jack D mentioned, the End of Work will be a huge dislocation in society. It is already prompting a lot of people to seriously contemplate UBI on a large scale (we’ve seen a foretaste of this during the pandemic). What effect will that have on people who have been rendered economically redundant, including a large fraction of the White populace? Maybe the Indian Reservations will provide a clue.

  87. @advancedatheist
    You might also want to read:

    Nassim Nicholas Taleb: The future will not be cool

    https://www.salon.com/2012/12/01/nassim_nicholas_taleb_the_future_will_not_be_cool/

    I like to troll the female cryonicists I know by arguing that a technologically competent society in "the future" which could revive them will probably have become traditional and patriarchal again, just through differential fertility: Natural selection will favor the genes of the descendants of the women who marry and start families. It could very well look like a cross between The Expanse and The Handmaid's Tale, with some Dune thrown in to spice things up.

    I'd also like to have the opportunity to tell the cryonicist Martin Rothblatt to his face that this same society in "the future" probably won't tolerate men with transgender fetishes, again through the same forces of evolutionary and social selection.

    Replies: @Rosie

    Natural selection will favor the genes of the descendants of the women who marry and start families.

    Of course, it will also favor the genes of those men who are willing to marry women who have rights rather than MGTOW who take their ball and go home, so I wouldn’t be so sure about that patriarchal future you’re hankering for,

    • Replies: @Thomm
    @Rosie


    Of course, it will also favor the genes of those men who are willing to marry women who have rights rather than MGTOW who take their ball and go home, so I wouldn’t be so sure about that patriarchal future you’re hankering for,
     
    By that logic, a PUA or thug who impregnates multiple women outranks even the hypothetical 'family man' you speak of. You should be strongly in support of such men.

    This is one of the many problems with 'feminism'. Everything they say is hypothetical, knee-jerk, poorly thought through, innumerate, and presumes that men exist only to be useful to women.

    Lastly, the presumption that MGTOW somehow takes away women's rights is ignorant. Those are just men who decide to spend their time elsewhere, rather than be ATM machines in return for having no rights. Remember, men have vastly fewer rights in family court than women do. That is why the two-parent family is all but gone.

    Replies: @Reg Cæsar, @Rosie

  88. @Jack D
    @S

    Not only don't they get future hairstyles right, they don't get PAST ones right. In the MASH TV series, Alan Alda had 1970s style long hair:

    https://outsider.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/mash-how-alan-alda-was-cast-as-hawkeye-585x390.jpg

    And for Cleopatra, it looks like they stuck some Egyptian style imagery on an off the shelf 1960s dress.

    https://anotherimg-dazedgroup.netdna-ssl.com/439/azure/another-prod/360/8/368861.jpg

    Strip off the snake embroidery and she could have gone out to dinner in that dress.

    Replies: @S, @Steve Sailer, @Reg Cæsar

    Not only don’t they get future hairstyles right, they don’t get PAST ones right.

    That can be particularly nauseating. It’s a combination of laziness and cheapness, while they simultaneously insult the viewer’s intelligence. At least in the case of projecting the future styles they’ve got some excuse, as it’s indeed difficult to tell, but the past is already known.

    The 2005 HBO Rome series, relatively speaking, seemed to have done a pretty good job on clothing and hair style accuracy for those times.

  89. Anonymous[423] • Disclaimer says:
    @Rob McX
    @James N. Kennett

    I was looking at these reports of Officer Potter being convicted. The only consolation is that a violent and dangerous thug is dead, something that can't be reversed no matter how vindictive the sentence that's handed down.

    Replies: @Anonymous

    I was looking at these reports of Officer Potter being convicted. The only consolation is that a violent and dangerous thug is dead, something that can’t be reversed no matter how vindictive the sentence that’s handed down

    Agreed. Thank god that black psychopath is dead. Highly likely that her actions saved some innocent lives.

    Regarding the officer, intent matters in this case. Her stated intent was to taser. She accidentally shot him instead. Involuntary manslaughter must be the verdict. No more, or less. Such is the destiny of excitable little fat chicks, way in over their heads. I’m guessing she’ll do better on appeal. Black people aren’t so good with the perception of time. By the time the case gets retried, most of the thugs family will be on to other things. Much less negro hoopla.

    This incompetence problem for the local police could certainly be mitigated on a vetting process based on solely on intellectual, emotional, and physical merit, but that would mean America’s “Jabari’s” would be inadvertently spared. The little piece of shit is off the face of the planet forever. That’s a very good thing.

    I’ll take the underqualified diversity hires. Saves court time, taxes, and lives.

    Sitting her fat little ass in jail for a year or so is a small price to pay for the good of modern civilization.

    • Replies: @Rob McX
    @Anonymous


    By the time the case gets retried, most of the thugs family will be on to other things. Much less negro hoopla.
     
    Yes, by that time they'll have got their hands on the compensation millions, so they're unlikely to be distracted by judicial matters.
  90. @AnotherDad
    @Jack D


    just as the rich get richer, the fat get fatter:
     
    Good quip. I was thinking exactly that expression, when i started reading your comment.

    If you live around mostly normal looking people it is shocking to see "the public". Since AnotherMom had us retire to the beach, i'm much more in touch with "my fellow Americans" ... we are not a pretty sight. ("Fats and tats")

    Ok, time to go to Costco.

    Replies: @Mr. Anon

    If you live around mostly normal looking people it is shocking to see “the public”. Since AnotherMom had us retire to the beach, i’m much more in touch with “my fellow Americans” … we are not a pretty sight. (“Fats and tats”)

    The popularity of tattoos are certainly another thing unforeseen by 1900 Man. The fact that a large fraction of the Western World’s population would go around in public tatted up like prison inmates or South Seas cannibals would have been a shock to the Ladies who read The Ladies Home Journal, and the men who wrote it. It’s still a shock to me. It is, I think, one of the worst trends in our modern era. So many people now have chosen to uglify themselves and in so doing uglify the World around them. It’s disgusting. The people who promoted this trend should be flogged to death.

    • Replies: @Cortes
    @Mr. Anon

    The fad for ear-plugs is just as revolting. The next step must be those shells in the lower lips sported by the dusky Amazonian ladies in National Geographic lo these many years ago.

    On a positive note, with the earlobe unplugged, you’d always have somewhere to keep your keys.

    Replies: @Mr. Anon

    , @Reg Cæsar
    @Mr. Anon


    The people who promoted this trend should be flogged to death.
     
    You just lost half the younger readers here. Dermatostiksiophobia is nothing but "boomer" bigotry.


    https://bodyartguru.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/Colin-Unknown-Tattoo.jpg

    Replies: @Mr. Anon, @Chrisnonymous

    , @Known Fact
    @Mr. Anon

    Tats and piercings. Futuristic and atavistic all at once

  91. @Rob McX
    Trends in science and technology were easy to predict, relatively speaking. Trains would get faster (in some countries, anyway). Cooking and serving food would be done on the macro scale, and so on. Many of these developments follow naturally from scientific progress and advances in management techniques pioneered by people such as Frederick Winslow Taylor. What's impossible to forecast is social trends. Imagine picking up a book written a hundred years ago that predicted all the LGBTQ stuff of the last decade.

    Replies: @Thea, @Justvisiting, @Rosie, @FKI

    Cooking and serving food would be done on the macro scale, and so on.

    Eating out is still surprisingly expensive. The economies of scale really don’t work out, and cooking from home is still very economical by comparison. There are some things I buy prepared, though, because the ingredients are so expensive, that it’s cheaper to buy in a jar, e.g. pesto.

    • Agree: AnotherDad
    • Replies: @JMcG
    @Rosie

    Merry Christmas, Rosie.

    , @AnotherDad
    @Rosie


    Eating out is still surprisingly expensive. The economies of scale really don’t work out, and cooking from home is still very economical by comparison.
     
    Agree. (And i always find it odd how much people blow "eating out" when the best experience is a dinner at home--less noisy, more comfortable, more time--with family and friends.)

    But ... i really do expect the food prep equation is going to change with robotics. Take the labor cost--mostly--out of the equation and somewhat standardized (ex. "fast food") prepared food is going to drop in price to the point many people will barely bother cooking.

    Replies: @Rosie, @Kylie, @Jack D

    , @Anonymous Jew
    @Rosie

    Only if you’re retired. If you’re a yuppie making the equivalent of $50-100/hour it makes a lot of sense to spend an extra $10 on takeout ($15 - $5 that you would spend on ingredients at home). Time is money.

  92. @Colin Wright
    One interesting misstep I notice almost routinely in science fiction literature from the fifties is that computers will be really, really powerful...and therefore, really, really big. In fact, they'll be so big and powerful that one computer will fill an entire warehouse!

    The opposite definitely happened there. I use a 12.9" iPad for everything -- and it's only that big to accommodate the screen.

    Another missed trend is blacks running amok. That really was visibly starting to happen by the mid-Sixties, and yet to my knowledge, few have ever seriously speculated as to where it might be going. Many of us see where it is -- but beyond denial and/or lunatic genocidal prescriptions, no one suggests where it might be going.

    It's intriguing. They obviously lack the chops to be a new master race -- but we're determined to treat them as such. What happens next?

    Replies: @Adept, @Don Unf, @anonymous coward, @res, @Peter Akuleyev, @Known Fact

    In fact, they’ll be so big and powerful that one computer will fill an entire warehouse!

    One of my parents’ college stories was how huge the computers were, taking up entire rooms, kept chilled. I think that was some time in the 1970s. Even then it surely seemed that the trajectory towards warehouse-sized computers might have been realistic.

    Another missed trend is blacks running amok.

    That harkens back to another of my family’s stories from that same time period. They were renting out houses to the fresh new black population, and those magnificent, classy houses were ruined in record time. They used to tell how they’d use the sides of those houses and their neighbors’ houses for target practice. They’d smash all the wood banisters and railings, and the rest of the fancy circa 1900 woodwork, just to smash it. They were astonished and could not understand why anyone would do such things.

    And then today’s retards try to claim that blacks were beset by evil racists at all times! It was the lack of racism that ruined those areas. More racial discrimination was the only thing that could have saved them. If only blacks didn’t behave like blacks no one would have cared…

    Now, 50 years later, there is not much left in that area but overgrown vacant lots, interspersed with bombed-out-looking houses — that and free-range pitbull posses, drive-by shootings, liquor stores, nailwig salons, and barbecue restaurants.

    • Agree: Colin Wright
  93. “The meal being over, the dishes used will be packed and return to the cooking establishments where they will be washed.”

    In Korea, some of the dishes are made of hard plastic, which are returned to be washed.

  94. @Rob McX
    Trends in science and technology were easy to predict, relatively speaking. Trains would get faster (in some countries, anyway). Cooking and serving food would be done on the macro scale, and so on. Many of these developments follow naturally from scientific progress and advances in management techniques pioneered by people such as Frederick Winslow Taylor. What's impossible to forecast is social trends. Imagine picking up a book written a hundred years ago that predicted all the LGBTQ stuff of the last decade.

    Replies: @Thea, @Justvisiting, @Rosie, @FKI

    Good point about the LBGXYZ stuff. But you know subversive tactics to disrupt and destroy countries were all ways being schemed. They probably didn’t think of that perverse idea yet!

    Funny thing is – for the life of me, I cannot find the lone “boogie man” that was behind this methodology of society destruction. Some say it was the communists. Others have different “bad guys.”

    I wonder sometimes how big the operation really is.

    • Replies: @PhysicistDave
    @FKI

    FKI wrote:


    Good point about the LBGXYZ stuff. But you know subversive tactics to disrupt and destroy countries were all ways being schemed. They probably didn’t think of that perverse idea yet!

    Funny thing is – for the life of me, I cannot find the lone “boogie man” that was behind this methodology of society destruction.
     
    It's been "in the air" for a very long time.

    Since the seventeenth century, there has been a push -- on the whole, a good thing -- to liberate human beings from arbitrary and harmful limits, whether hard, physical labor or disease or the brutal impositions of throne and altar.

    But a fair number of people lacked the sense to realize that human nature itself was not an imposition but rather what makes life possible.

    And so you get transhumanism, radical feminism, LGBTQXI..., etc.

    Of course, Mother Nature always wins in the end. So, you end up with people who think of themselves as "progressives" who end up needing to defend themselves against the "more progressive" (e.g. the TERFs).

    We need to accept the allies we can get from the other side -- Joanne Rowling, Glenn Greenwald, etc.

    In the end, reality will win, though a lot of human lives are destroyed in the process.

    "Nature, to be commanded, must be obeyed."

    Replies: @Adept

  95. @Rosie
    @Rob McX


    Cooking and serving food would be done on the macro scale, and so on.
     
    Eating out is still surprisingly expensive. The economies of scale really don't work out, and cooking from home is still very economical by comparison. There are some things I buy prepared, though, because the ingredients are so expensive, that it's cheaper to buy in a jar, e.g. pesto.

    Replies: @JMcG, @AnotherDad, @Anonymous Jew

    Merry Christmas, Rosie.

    • Thanks: Rosie
  96. @Mr. Anon
    @AnotherDad


    If you live around mostly normal looking people it is shocking to see “the public”. Since AnotherMom had us retire to the beach, i’m much more in touch with “my fellow Americans” … we are not a pretty sight. (“Fats and tats”)
     
    The popularity of tattoos are certainly another thing unforeseen by 1900 Man. The fact that a large fraction of the Western World's population would go around in public tatted up like prison inmates or South Seas cannibals would have been a shock to the Ladies who read The Ladies Home Journal, and the men who wrote it. It's still a shock to me. It is, I think, one of the worst trends in our modern era. So many people now have chosen to uglify themselves and in so doing uglify the World around them. It's disgusting. The people who promoted this trend should be flogged to death.

    Replies: @Cortes, @Reg Cæsar, @Known Fact

    The fad for ear-plugs is just as revolting. The next step must be those shells in the lower lips sported by the dusky Amazonian ladies in National Geographic lo these many years ago.

    On a positive note, with the earlobe unplugged, you’d always have somewhere to keep your keys.

    • Replies: @Mr. Anon
    @Cortes


    The fad for ear-plugs is just as revolting.
     
    Agreed. So many people seem to be embracing barbarism as a lifestyle.

    Replies: @Reg Cæsar

  97. Texas Man With Swastika Tattoo Gets 6 Years for Punching Black Teen in Racist Attack

    Texas man was sentenced to six years in prison more than two years after he punched a Black teenager on the street in a racist attack.

    Charles Mitchell “Mitch” Patton, 27, pleaded guilty to injury to a charge of injury to a child in connection with the crime, Texarkana news site TXK Today reported on Wednesday. Prosecutors had also filed a hate crime enhancement in the case.

    On July 28, 2019, the teenager was walking down the street in New Boston, Texas when a Dodge ram pulled up on the side of the road. A man, identified as Patton, walked toward the boy, shouted racial slurs and removed his shirt to reveal a tattoo of a swastika, according to the probable cause affidavit.

    Patton swung at the boy, missing the first time, but hit him in the face in a second attempt. After Patton punched the teenager, two men got out of the truck “to get the suspect away from the juvenile,” the affidavit stated.

    Following the attack, the boy’s father called the police, and the teenager said he didn’t know the man who attacked him, TXK Today reported.

    Patton also pleaded guilty to a separate marijuana possession charge and a charge related to possessing a cell phone while in jail.

    Newsweek reached out to police in New Boston for comment on the case.

    In recent years, hate crimes have surged in the U.S. Data released by the FBI in August showed there were 7,759 reported hate crimes in the U.S. in 2020—the highest number since 2008.

    Between 2016 and 2019, the number of hate crimes jumped from 6,121 incidents to 7,314 in, a 19.49 percent increase, Newsweek reported in November 2020.

    In a separate case earlier this month, a California man was sentenced to more than six years behind bars for a federal hate crime against a Black man.

    The U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) said that the man, Ole Hougen, 45, of Santa Cruz, confronted a 29-year-old Black man who was crossing the street. Hougen stabbed at the man between 10 and 20 times, according to DOJ, which said this marked Hougen’s fourth racially motivated attack in seven years.

    “Racially motivated crimes have no place in our society. This defendant has attacked at least four people because they are Black, and for his most recent racially motivated attack of a Black man, the defendant has been convicted,” said Assistant Attorney General Kristen Clarke of the DOJ’s Civil Rights Division

    https://www.newsweek.com/texas-man-swastika-tattoo-gets-6-years-punching-black-teen-racist-attack-1662877

  98. @Alrenous
    Merry Christmas.

    English became the lingua franca because America is a global empire and it's important to understand what the emperor is saying. It's also your best bet for being heard in return. Spelling, grammar, etc, are all beside the point, as long as the emperor keeps being an anglophone. Likewise, Spanish and French are in fact varieties of Latin.

    Replies: @Reg Cæsar

    Spelling, grammar, etc, are all beside the point, as long as the emperor keeps being an anglophone.

    Proper nouns and (other proper words) such as Anglophone should be capitalized, as they were in the past, lest we allow ourselves to be Gallicized. Intercourse Oxford!

    • Agree: PhysicistDave
  99. @Anonymous
    Merry Xmas, everyone!

    https://youtu.be/CpVgkqCw7Nw

    Replies: @Joe S.Walker

    Interesting that the BBC’s website report of this story speaks primly of “a profane insult” and “an obscenity directed at Mr Biden.” The words “Fuck Joe Biden” can’t be set down even with asterisks, apparently.

    • Replies: @zoos
    @Joe S.Walker


    Interesting that the BBC’s website report of this story speaks primly of “a profane insult” and “an obscenity directed at Mr Biden.” The words “Fuck Joe Biden” can’t be set down even with asterisks, apparently.
     
    Also interesting that, as earlier noted, Biden's bungling of the free Covid home tests means feral negroes bum-rushing the home test distribution centers.

    I don’t see that much "white privilege" being exercised here…

    https://nypost.com/2021/12/24/cops-called-as-nyc-crowd-gathers-for-free-covid-19-tests/

    https://nypost.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2021/12/test-crowds-003.jpg?quality=90&strip=all

  100. @Muggles
    Off topic (again);

    In case you were wondering, the two shot (but no kill) in a west Chicago suburb of Oak Brook at a large fairly upscale mall were both shooting. Both black of course.

    That black fact (Black!) wasn't mentioned of course but the story link below shows one of the wanted perps in a big blue puffy jacket, obviously black. He appeared to be shooting at someone he knew.

    So the ChiTown gang wars are spreading out to the suburbs.

    This is a separate city so Mayor Groot isn't to blame. Just guilty for protecting her gang buddies in the big city. None of the white women interviewed said anything about black gangsters now in their quiet community. Or if they did, it wasn't aired.

    https://abc7chicago.com/oakbrook-mall-shooting-oak-brook-center-news-shooter/11380094/

    Replies: @Abolish_public_education, @Mike Tre, @Hibernian

    Finally some news about the shooting at a Durham mall, on Black Friday. Nothing recent about the shooting at that mall in Tacoma.

    @#91

    Grow basil.

  101. @Muggles
    Off topic (again);

    In case you were wondering, the two shot (but no kill) in a west Chicago suburb of Oak Brook at a large fairly upscale mall were both shooting. Both black of course.

    That black fact (Black!) wasn't mentioned of course but the story link below shows one of the wanted perps in a big blue puffy jacket, obviously black. He appeared to be shooting at someone he knew.

    So the ChiTown gang wars are spreading out to the suburbs.

    This is a separate city so Mayor Groot isn't to blame. Just guilty for protecting her gang buddies in the big city. None of the white women interviewed said anything about black gangsters now in their quiet community. Or if they did, it wasn't aired.

    https://abc7chicago.com/oakbrook-mall-shooting-oak-brook-center-news-shooter/11380094/

    Replies: @Abolish_public_education, @Mike Tre, @Hibernian

    “This is a separate city so Mayor Groot isn’t to blame.”

    I haven’t followed Groot to the extent of former Chicago Mayors but Daley and Emanuel (with the help of Obama) actively worked to displace inner city negroes to the surrounding suburbs. They brought their dysfunction with them of course. If either of these shooters in Oakbrook were recently released from jail for a separate violent offense committed in Chicago, we can lay some blame at Groot’s as well as Notta Fox’s feet more directly.

  102. @AndrewR
    One thing impeding China's rise as a superpower is its writing system which is orders of magnitude more difficult than English's. Granted, there is the Pinyin system (developed in large part by Zhou Youguang, who, upon his death at age 111, was the oldest person in history who had become famous for a reason other than being really, really old). But can the pride of the Chinese tolerate throwing out their ancient writing system in order to accommodate foreigners? Or will foreigners really learn the Chinese writing system en masse? Or can a sort of two-tiered system exist? All of this presumes that China will continue its meteoric geopolitical and economic rise.

    is used to some extent

    Replies: @Achmed E. Newman

    Andrew, I have told Chinese people directly that learning 3 or 4 thousand characters of 3 to 20 squiggly lines eash just to be able to read and right is downright ridiculous. However, there is more to the written language than the spoken language. Pinyin is just used to represent the way the characters sound, but it can’t relay the other information that the characters convey.

    That’s the problem, I guess. John Derbyshire could expound further on this matter.

    • Agree: PhysicistDave
    • Replies: @Goddard
    @Achmed E. Newman

    Ideographic and phonographic writing systems each have something to offer. "&" is a useful way to write and. However, I tell my Chinese friends, the alphabetic system in the end is far superior. The proof is that the Chinese saw the need to develop an entirely alphabetic way (Pinyin) of expressing their language; but alphabetic languages haven't developed ideographic systems to parallel the phonographic system. China today couldn't do without Pinyin (try typing on a smartphone with thousands of keys to express all the characters). But you could do away with all ideographs and the alphabetic languages would be little changed.

  103. @Mr. Anon
    @AnotherDad


    If you live around mostly normal looking people it is shocking to see “the public”. Since AnotherMom had us retire to the beach, i’m much more in touch with “my fellow Americans” … we are not a pretty sight. (“Fats and tats”)
     
    The popularity of tattoos are certainly another thing unforeseen by 1900 Man. The fact that a large fraction of the Western World's population would go around in public tatted up like prison inmates or South Seas cannibals would have been a shock to the Ladies who read The Ladies Home Journal, and the men who wrote it. It's still a shock to me. It is, I think, one of the worst trends in our modern era. So many people now have chosen to uglify themselves and in so doing uglify the World around them. It's disgusting. The people who promoted this trend should be flogged to death.

    Replies: @Cortes, @Reg Cæsar, @Known Fact

    The people who promoted this trend should be flogged to death.

    You just lost half the younger readers here. Dermatostiksiophobia is nothing but “boomer” bigotry.

    • Replies: @Mr. Anon
    @Reg Cæsar


    You just lost half the younger readers here.
     
    Only the stupid ones.

    Dermatostiksiophobia is nothing but “boomer” bigotry.
     
    It isn't bigotry. It's having standards. What kind of shallow nitwit wants to wear his every passing fancy in faded ink on his hide for the duration of his life?

    Replies: @Mike_from_SGV

    , @Chrisnonymous
    @Reg Cæsar

    No, tattoos are just group conformity signaling for younger people. They look disgusting. I live in Japan where almost nobody has tattoos. When I see young tourists from America (pre-COVID), it's shocking. They look disgusting--overweight, unshaven, covered in ugly tattoos, and usually with poorly designed and ill-fitting clothes. The tattoos are part of the whole package--lack of grooming and self-care, lack of style, and lack of standards. I am not a boomer, either.

    Replies: @Goddard

  104. @J.Ross
    If you ever feel sad picture Hunter Biden in the middle of explaining to a Chinese bureaucrat why so much money must be paid and then suddenly learning that Joe Biden has finally died.

    Replies: @Reg Cæsar

    If you ever feel sad picture Hunter Biden in the middle of explaining to a Chinese bureaucrat why so much money must be paid and then suddenly learning that Joe Biden has finally died.

    Yuck. I just pictured Hunter between Eric Swalwell and Fang Fang. What Ted, Chris, and Joe might have called a waitress wonton.

    • Replies: @Cortes
    @Reg Cæsar

    A wanton wonton?

  105. @Jack D
    @JR Ewing


    Russian being thought of as a language of the future.
     
    The only people who thought of Russian as being the language of the future were Communists. The Coen brothers make fun of this in Hail, Ceasar! where the Communist screenwriters call their secret cabal "The Future".

    No non-Leftist ordinary Americans thought that way. (In A Clockwork Orange, the violent teens speak a sort of Russian slang but this takes place in a dystopian world). If non-Communists were interested in a futuristic language they would study Esperanto.

    Despite the Communist spelling reforms (the Chinese Communists simplified the writing of Chinese characters), Russian is quite alien to English speakers and is usually ranked among the hardest common languages for English speakers to learn along with Mandarin and Arabic (and not just because of the alphabet but because of the alien grammar and vocabulary - Polish is up there too). You can see from all of the difficulties that Russian speakers have in learning to speak English how far apart the two languages are. (That Nabokov was fluent enough to write great literature in both languages shows what a genius he was).

    Replies: @Achmed E. Newman, @JR Ewing, @Ralph L, @Peter Akuleyev

    If non-Communists were interested in a futuristic language they would study Esperanto.

    I’ve been reading through this “guide”* to the Georgia Guidestones, called Common Sense Renewed by “J.C. Christian” (an alias) who was responsible for setting up the “American Stonehenge” in Elberton, Georgia.

    In it he has a small section about this new universal language he thinks should be created:

    Designing a universal human language for future generations will require discovery of the most efficient combinations and sequences of phonemes to most clearly express our thoughts with all their subtleties and nuances. Our esthetic sense will require its symbolic forms in sound and in letters to be pleasing to the ear and to the eye.

    Phonemes will be arrayed in patterns which reflect variations in function. Each sound will correspond precisely with a single visual symbol. Inflections, pauses, rhythms, and other modifi- cations of intonation will be indicated by accent symbols.

    The visual characters will permit ease of writing by hand in the same form used in type so that both can be “recognized” by the seeing eyes of machines. In this way it will be possible for words to be spoken in the presence of an appropriate electromechanical device and to be transcribed in printed form by that device. Conversely, the machine will be able to “read” the printed version and “vocalize” it as clearly intelligible speech.

    Development of the alphabet-syllabary of approximately 200 symbols will facilitate constructing a totally new language de novo, unlike the many previous efforts which have attempted to build upon existing language patterns (Esperanto, Interlingua, and others). The new language will reflect consideration for the sound patterns in the most general—and presumably most efficient—use within the languages which exist today.

    It sounds like a job for a computer program to handle. Any bright linguist on here want to comment on exactly how full of it this guy was.

    BTW, that on-line book (.pdf) is pretty interesting as a sample from 1986 – 35 years back – of how a fairly bright guy though things were going and how to solve the world’s problems. (His concentration was on America, and good on him for that.)

    .

    * Thank you very much, Adam Smith!

    • Replies: @Justvisiting
    @Achmed E. Newman

    There may be "top down" and/or "bottom up" changes to language.

    The LGBTXYZ is an example of the "top down" language--elites (through .gov, universities, mass media).

    The Urban Dictionary would be the "bottom up" version.

    The elites want to drive the language to make certain thoughts they don't like unsayable and unthinkable.

    The "bottom up" approach is to creatively describe anything and everything without limitation.

    Terence McKenna proposed a third alternative--a totally visual language (no alphabet, no words)--but it is hard to see something like that happening in the near future.

    , @Adam Smith
    @Achmed E. Newman

    • You're welcome, Achmed: Adam Smith

  106. @Joe S.Walker
    @Anonymous

    Interesting that the BBC's website report of this story speaks primly of "a profane insult" and "an obscenity directed at Mr Biden." The words "Fuck Joe Biden" can't be set down even with asterisks, apparently.

    Replies: @zoos

    Interesting that the BBC’s website report of this story speaks primly of “a profane insult” and “an obscenity directed at Mr Biden.” The words “Fuck Joe Biden” can’t be set down even with asterisks, apparently.

    Also interesting that, as earlier noted, Biden’s bungling of the free Covid home tests means feral negroes bum-rushing the home test distribution centers.

    I don’t see that much “white privilege” being exercised here…

    https://nypost.com/2021/12/24/cops-called-as-nyc-crowd-gathers-for-free-covid-19-tests/

  107. @FKI
    @Rob McX

    Good point about the LBGXYZ stuff. But you know subversive tactics to disrupt and destroy countries were all ways being schemed. They probably didn't think of that perverse idea yet!

    Funny thing is - for the life of me, I cannot find the lone "boogie man" that was behind this methodology of society destruction. Some say it was the communists. Others have different "bad guys."

    I wonder sometimes how big the operation really is.

    Replies: @PhysicistDave

    FKI wrote:

    Good point about the LBGXYZ stuff. But you know subversive tactics to disrupt and destroy countries were all ways being schemed. They probably didn’t think of that perverse idea yet!

    Funny thing is – for the life of me, I cannot find the lone “boogie man” that was behind this methodology of society destruction.

    It’s been “in the air” for a very long time.

    Since the seventeenth century, there has been a push — on the whole, a good thing — to liberate human beings from arbitrary and harmful limits, whether hard, physical labor or disease or the brutal impositions of throne and altar.

    But a fair number of people lacked the sense to realize that human nature itself was not an imposition but rather what makes life possible.

    And so you get transhumanism, radical feminism, LGBTQXI…, etc.

    Of course, Mother Nature always wins in the end. So, you end up with people who think of themselves as “progressives” who end up needing to defend themselves against the “more progressive” (e.g. the TERFs).

    We need to accept the allies we can get from the other side — Joanne Rowling, Glenn Greenwald, etc.

    In the end, reality will win, though a lot of human lives are destroyed in the process.

    “Nature, to be commanded, must be obeyed.”

    • Replies: @Adept
    @PhysicistDave

    Transhumanism is nothing more than the realization that we don't need to leave the development of the human species to the vagaries of chance and the dysgenic trends that are so apparent today. Eugenics is transhumanist. Genetic modification for improved mental or physical traits is transhumanist. Any drug or device that can improve those traits -- from steroids to stimulants to anti-aging treatments -- is basically, though usually weakly, transhumanist.

    Transhumanism is the great project of this century. It counters the problems of our age. For instance, the proper response to falling and catastrophically low birthrates must, necessarily, be transhumanist --- either in lifespan extension or in artificial wombs.

    ...There's a lot more to it than the whole business of transsexual nonsense -- which is, in truth, not really "transhumanist" at all.

    Replies: @Alrenous, @mc23, @PhysicistDave

  108. For the next year, I predict that Beverly Hills will continue to be a dangerous, third world shithole.

    • Replies: @rebel yell
    @zoos

    Nothing could be more pleasing to my eyes than to see BLM thugs smashing and grabbing expensive stuff on the elite streets of Beverly Hills. One can only hope that Rob Reiner has been inconvenienced.

    Replies: @Paperback Writer

  109. @Buffalo Joe
    @Muggles

    Muggs, at the nearby flea market is a vendor who sells old 'Life' magazines. the ads are the best, especially the ads for cars at less than a grand and doctors endorsing cigarettes. And, a local bank had the preumatic drive through system, cool, until the tube ices up and your paycheck is somewhere between your car and the teller. Happened to me. Stay safe.

    Replies: @Achmed E. Newman, @ScarletNumber

    Hey, Joe, for you and Muggles, believe it or not, but pneumatic tube systems at banks are NEW to me! See, my family was never into drive-through anything (hey, was that predicted by anyone? Fly-though, maybe…). I understand the benefits for some (Moms with small kids in the car) but still consider it laziness.

    Last year, during the COVID PanicFest, our bank had all the branches closed, so we had to use the drive-through lanes. I and the boy liked to watch the capsules go off and come back. The way the new vehicles are, I’ve got to get out of the car to use it though. The whole thing was kind of silly … back to normal now, though they never brought the nice wooden stand-alone counter back, to write out your transaction slips one… still in the de-contamination booth, I suppose …

    Merry Christmas, Joe and Muggles.

  110. @PhysicistDave
    @FKI

    FKI wrote:


    Good point about the LBGXYZ stuff. But you know subversive tactics to disrupt and destroy countries were all ways being schemed. They probably didn’t think of that perverse idea yet!

    Funny thing is – for the life of me, I cannot find the lone “boogie man” that was behind this methodology of society destruction.
     
    It's been "in the air" for a very long time.

    Since the seventeenth century, there has been a push -- on the whole, a good thing -- to liberate human beings from arbitrary and harmful limits, whether hard, physical labor or disease or the brutal impositions of throne and altar.

    But a fair number of people lacked the sense to realize that human nature itself was not an imposition but rather what makes life possible.

    And so you get transhumanism, radical feminism, LGBTQXI..., etc.

    Of course, Mother Nature always wins in the end. So, you end up with people who think of themselves as "progressives" who end up needing to defend themselves against the "more progressive" (e.g. the TERFs).

    We need to accept the allies we can get from the other side -- Joanne Rowling, Glenn Greenwald, etc.

    In the end, reality will win, though a lot of human lives are destroyed in the process.

    "Nature, to be commanded, must be obeyed."

    Replies: @Adept

    Transhumanism is nothing more than the realization that we don’t need to leave the development of the human species to the vagaries of chance and the dysgenic trends that are so apparent today. Eugenics is transhumanist. Genetic modification for improved mental or physical traits is transhumanist. Any drug or device that can improve those traits — from steroids to stimulants to anti-aging treatments — is basically, though usually weakly, transhumanist.

    Transhumanism is the great project of this century. It counters the problems of our age. For instance, the proper response to falling and catastrophically low birthrates must, necessarily, be transhumanist — either in lifespan extension or in artificial wombs.

    …There’s a lot more to it than the whole business of transsexual nonsense — which is, in truth, not really “transhumanist” at all.

    • Replies: @Alrenous
    @Adept

    Technically, eyeglasses, note paper, and telephones are transhumanist. Normally it implies more invasive procedures, but there's nothing inherently invasive about the idea. Anything which makes the human super-human is transhumanism.

    Evolution will make humans trans-human whether we want it to or not, exactly the way sapiens is trans-erectus. Or make it go extinct, if you prefer to interpret it that way. However, will this next species in fact have "expanded" abilities? Or merely different ones? It's an open question. We already know that significantly expanding IQ tends to lead to be sharply limited by disorders. This could be an overtraining issue, or it could be inherent limitations of carbohydrate engineering.

    Eugenics doesn't need to be invasive either. Eyeglasses release certain evolutionary pressures, and similarly non-invasive techniques could be used to increase them instead. Though admittedly my favourite intervention is fairly invasive.

    --

    You don't need transhumanism to fix the birth rates. Re-legalize marriage, that will solve 90% of the problem. Probably best not to re-criminalize fornication, since that will only lead to another round of re-criminalizing marriage. Don't actually outlaw living in sin, but allow it to be called "living in sin" again. A light touch is called for; the heavy hand already failed.
    SSC carefully summed this up: nearly every modern problem is a mere "stop digging" problem. It's caused by bad policy and the solution is to give up the bad policy. Literally cheaper than free...in a budgetary sense, anyway. The other side is a bunch of sinecures that form ferocious special interests.

    Replies: @Adept

    , @mc23
    @Adept

    I think Transhuman enhancements will be huge in a lot less then a 100 years.

    I think drugs or devices are more along the line of Cyborgs, Transhuman yes but not quite the same as genetic enhancement. Gentetic/Cyborg enhanced elite Super Humans are a sore subject. The Spartans and the SS were bad enough.

    Imagine Super Warriors under the command of a disembodied human mind uploaded to a super computer, The best of the bad might just be an immortal Bill Gates releasing Windows 40K.

    Transgenderism is fairly recent craze but it fits in quite nicely with the idea that the human race is infinitely mutable. Transgenderism will be used as a battering ram for the expansion of Transhumanism, I suspect this was foreseen. The enhancements will take a lot of wealth and resources. When the super wealthy can live for 200 years with augmented physical and mental powers it will be interesting.

    , @PhysicistDave
    @Adept

    Adept wrote to me:


    Transhumanism is nothing more than the realization that we don’t need to leave the development of the human species to the vagaries of chance and the dysgenic trends that are so apparent today.
     
    Well...

    If you have been following these guys (and it is overwhelmingly males!) for the last few decades, as I have, you'd know that two of their big things are cryopreservation of their brain when they die and mind uploading to computers. I actually have a friend who had has brain frozen when he died tragically young three decades ago.

    The cryopreserved brains are never going to be revived. Ask any physician or neuroscientist.

    And brain uploading is a bizarre science-fiction fantasy. Again, ask any neuroscientist.

    Adept also wrote:


    Genetic modification for improved mental or physical traits is transhumanist. Any drug or device that can improve those traits — from steroids to stimulants to anti-aging treatments — is basically, though usually weakly, transhumanist.
     
    Well, as another commenter mentioned, then eyeglasses would count as transhumanist.

    That is moving the goalposts. The transhumanists have made very, very clear that they have in mind things way, way beyond normal medical care, normal prosthetics, etc. If that is all they meant, it would all be very mundane and boring.

    No, they have made clear that they have in mind scientifically absurd things such as cryopreservation and mind uploading.

    And those ideas are just a crazy pseudo-religious cult, utter and complete nonsense, in the same league as clairvoyance or necromancy.

    Some people cannot distinguish science fiction from reality.

    Replies: @Adept, @Paperback Writer

  111. @Reg Cæsar
    @J.Ross


    If you ever feel sad picture Hunter Biden in the middle of explaining to a Chinese bureaucrat why so much money must be paid and then suddenly learning that Joe Biden has finally died.

     

    Yuck. I just pictured Hunter between Eric Swalwell and Fang Fang. What Ted, Chris, and Joe might have called a waitress wonton.

    Replies: @Cortes

    A wanton wonton?

  112. @anon
    What's the best source of futuristic predictions these days? Where would one look if they wanted an idea of the future predicted by people who actually know what they're talking about?

    Replies: @Clyde

    What’s the best source of futuristic predictions these days? Where would one look if they wanted an idea of the future predicted by people who actually know what they’re talking about?

    Clif High (aka Clif_High) made some very good predictions by analyzing internet chatter 10-20 years ago. He predicted and bought into bitcoin and made other good predictions. Today he has videos on — https://www.bitchute.com/channel/HBBwqdoMy7Gz/
    His twitterhttps://twitter.com/clif_high

    I am guessing the internet is too big these days and too censored, suppressed by the left/tech monopolists PTB to analyze chatter correctly

  113. @J.Ross
    @Paperback Writer

    >he doesn't know about Shibumi

    You hear laughter. You are likely to be eaten by a grue, laughing, which is the most smug sort of grue.
    Do you want to know more or do you want to believe?

    Replies: @Paperback Writer, @Reg Cæsar

    Are you responding to someone else? I didn’t write what you quoted.

    • Replies: @J.Ross
    @Paperback Writer

    Did you get that thing?

  114. @Rosie
    @advancedatheist


    Natural selection will favor the genes of the descendants of the women who marry and start families.
     
    Of course, it will also favor the genes of those men who are willing to marry women who have rights rather than MGTOW who take their ball and go home, so I wouldn't be so sure about that patriarchal future you're hankering for,

    Replies: @Thomm

    Of course, it will also favor the genes of those men who are willing to marry women who have rights rather than MGTOW who take their ball and go home, so I wouldn’t be so sure about that patriarchal future you’re hankering for,

    By that logic, a PUA or thug who impregnates multiple women outranks even the hypothetical ‘family man’ you speak of. You should be strongly in support of such men.

    This is one of the many problems with ‘feminism’. Everything they say is hypothetical, knee-jerk, poorly thought through, innumerate, and presumes that men exist only to be useful to women.

    Lastly, the presumption that MGTOW somehow takes away women’s rights is ignorant. Those are just men who decide to spend their time elsewhere, rather than be ATM machines in return for having no rights. Remember, men have vastly fewer rights in family court than women do. That is why the two-parent family is all but gone.

    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar
    @Thomm


    This is one of the many problems with ‘feminism’. Everything they say is hypothetical, knee-jerk, poorly thought through, innumerate, and presumes that men exist only to be useful to women.
     
    Michael Levin of NYU wrote, in some obscure journal, that feminism was mankind's first philosophy that is wrong about everything. A blind sow with a stuffed-up nose won't find a single truffle, not even twice a day.

    Replies: @Rosie

    , @Rosie
    @Thomm


    presumes that men exist only to be useful to women.
     
    Lie.

    Lastly, the presumption that MGTOW somehow takes away women’s rights is ignorant.
     
    MGTOW do not take away women's rights. They cut off theormown nose despite their face and will die miserable, lonely old men.

    Remember, men have vastly fewer rights in family court than women do.
     
    Muh biased courts. He dindu nuffin blah blah blah.

    That is why the two-parent family is all but gone.

     

    Stop trying to universalize your own personal problems. The two-parent family is still very much the norm.

    Many working-class couples don't bother getting married, even when they have children, because they don't have any money and there's no point. Even still, 62% of children grow up with legally married parents.

    Of course, I would love to see those numbers go higher, but you're still FOS.

    This statistic may well improve with declines in teen pregnancy and the high risk of divorce that goes along with early marriage.

    https://www.gannett-cdn.com/presto/2019/12/27/USAT/d144c65a-fc06-4544-977c-0083af31296b-married_parents_1.png?width=660&height=372&fit=crop&format=pjpg&auto=webp

    Replies: @Thomm, @Rosie, @res

  115. @Muggles
    @Almost Missouri

    The large very nice downtown department store in the town I grew up in had a big plastic pneumatic tube system. (That's now gone of course.)

    When you purchased something (pre credit card, etc.) they put in a set of invoices and your folding money/coins. That was zipped off to someplace upstairs (so it seemed) and later, in a minute or two, your change would be returned via tube along with a stamped "paid" receipt.

    It was a lot of fun to see these things work. So 'sales associates' didn't have cash registers or even keep your money.

    There is a bank I use that uses pneumatic tubes to take in deposits, dispense money for their car teller lines. They have TV screens and microphones. So pneumatics are still being used.

    Not quite the Wave of the Future though.

    It is fun to look at old back issues of publications (now websites if available) to read their breathless and confident predictions of the future. Good for a laugh.

    Who knew that Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged would be the most accurate depiction of future America only 65 years hence? Just try to avoid those dropping Boeing aircraft...

    Replies: @Buffalo Joe, @Jack D, @mc23, @ScarletNumber, @cityview

    I know some hospitals still use pnuematic tubes, mostly for lab samples now that physical paper work is going away.

  116. @James N. Kennett
    OT: reporting Daunte Wright

    Many US newspapers, including the NYT, have presented a sanitised account of the life of Daunte Wright. This is their right. However, the BBC has done exactly the same, although its charter requires it


    To provide impartial news and information to help people understand and engage with the world around them: the BBC should provide duly accurate and impartial news, current affairs and factual programming to build people’s understanding of all parts of the United Kingdom and of the wider world.
     
    The BBC's hagiography of Wright is titled "One of those kids everybody looked up to", and does not disclose his criminal past except to say that the police tried to arrest him on an outstanding warrant.

    The Daily Mail tells it like it is, in a story with the headline "EXCLUSIVE: 'He was either going to be imprisoned, kill someone, or be killed.' How Daunte Wright led a life of crime and violence before his death and shot his own friend in the head, broke into a neighbor's home, and robbed a woman at gunpoint".

    In unrelated news, large numbers of British people despise the Daily Mail as a racist, fascist rag produced from beyond the grave by Julius Streicher and Joseph Goebbels.

    Replies: @Rob McX, @AnotherDad

    The Daily Mail tells it like it is, in a story with the headline “EXCLUSIVE: ‘He was either going to be imprisoned, kill someone, or be killed.’ How Daunte Wright led a life of crime and violence before his death and shot his own friend in the head, broke into a neighbor’s home, and robbed a woman at gunpoint”.

    Kim Potter would have been a legit candidate to succeed Kyle Rittenhouse and be awarded the 2021 “Sanitation Worker of the Year” award… except incompetently stumblebumming into it is … uh … decidely unimpressive. Sanitation workers have their standards and take rightful pride in competently executing their important job.

  117. @Jack D
    @S

    Not only don't they get future hairstyles right, they don't get PAST ones right. In the MASH TV series, Alan Alda had 1970s style long hair:

    https://outsider.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/mash-how-alan-alda-was-cast-as-hawkeye-585x390.jpg

    And for Cleopatra, it looks like they stuck some Egyptian style imagery on an off the shelf 1960s dress.

    https://anotherimg-dazedgroup.netdna-ssl.com/439/azure/another-prod/360/8/368861.jpg

    Strip off the snake embroidery and she could have gone out to dinner in that dress.

    Replies: @S, @Steve Sailer, @Reg Cæsar

    In 1962, cowboys out on the range in Western TV shows got their hair cut every two weeks.

    In 1972, cowboys out on the range in Western TV shows got their hair cut once a year.

    In “Once Upon a Time in Hollywood,” part of Rick Dalton’s moral growth is when he decides in 1969 to ditch the pompadour and grow his hair long in the style of the times. (The moral of Tarantino’s novel version of his movie is that star actors like Leonardo DiCaprio’s character have the best job in the world, so they should stop complaining about their careers and make small sacrifices to please their fans.)

  118. @Adept
    @PhysicistDave

    Transhumanism is nothing more than the realization that we don't need to leave the development of the human species to the vagaries of chance and the dysgenic trends that are so apparent today. Eugenics is transhumanist. Genetic modification for improved mental or physical traits is transhumanist. Any drug or device that can improve those traits -- from steroids to stimulants to anti-aging treatments -- is basically, though usually weakly, transhumanist.

    Transhumanism is the great project of this century. It counters the problems of our age. For instance, the proper response to falling and catastrophically low birthrates must, necessarily, be transhumanist --- either in lifespan extension or in artificial wombs.

    ...There's a lot more to it than the whole business of transsexual nonsense -- which is, in truth, not really "transhumanist" at all.

    Replies: @Alrenous, @mc23, @PhysicistDave

    Technically, eyeglasses, note paper, and telephones are transhumanist. Normally it implies more invasive procedures, but there’s nothing inherently invasive about the idea. Anything which makes the human super-human is transhumanism.

    Evolution will make humans trans-human whether we want it to or not, exactly the way sapiens is trans-erectus. Or make it go extinct, if you prefer to interpret it that way. However, will this next species in fact have “expanded” abilities? Or merely different ones? It’s an open question. We already know that significantly expanding IQ tends to lead to be sharply limited by disorders. This could be an overtraining issue, or it could be inherent limitations of carbohydrate engineering.

    Eugenics doesn’t need to be invasive either. Eyeglasses release certain evolutionary pressures, and similarly non-invasive techniques could be used to increase them instead. Though admittedly my favourite intervention is fairly invasive.

    You don’t need transhumanism to fix the birth rates. Re-legalize marriage, that will solve 90% of the problem. Probably best not to re-criminalize fornication, since that will only lead to another round of re-criminalizing marriage. Don’t actually outlaw living in sin, but allow it to be called “living in sin” again. A light touch is called for; the heavy hand already failed.
    SSC carefully summed this up: nearly every modern problem is a mere “stop digging” problem. It’s caused by bad policy and the solution is to give up the bad policy. Literally cheaper than free…in a budgetary sense, anyway. The other side is a bunch of sinecures that form ferocious special interests.

    • Agree: Rob McX
    • Replies: @Adept
    @Alrenous

    This is going to sound trite, but it's a spectrum. On the one end, glasses and contact lenses. A bit further down the line, this guy:

    https://i.imgur.com/a5p3M0P.jpg

    Further than that, genetically-engineered or wholly artificial eyes that pick up the ultraviolet and near infrared, can record at any time for an artificial "photographic memory," and so forth.

    The pacemaker is one step down the line. The fully artificial heart, another. An artificial or bioengineered heart that is better in every way than our natural heart, a third step down the line. Then toss in the entire circulatory system, which has a habit of failing at bad times, with fatal results.

    Transhumanism is, in truth, little more than applying technology to the human itself. But, in particular, it refers to enhancements -- and most particularly to heritable enhancements. Eventually I believe that it will result in something much like speciation, orders of magnitude more quickly than the hand of Gnon would go about it.

    (For what it's worth, I remember you from Xenosystems, and I think that your blog is a good one. Enjoying your reading of Plato.)

    In any case, I don't know if the bad policies that afflict us are fixable. But technological solutions are attractive enough to most, and can be done from the bottom-up rather than the top-down. Healthspan extension neatly solves the declining population problem -- and when it becomes possible, there will be no stopping it; it is perfectly in sync with the modern psyche.

  119. The family that the Biden’s called on Christmas Eve sign off by saying let’s go Brandon:

    • Replies: @Stan Adams
    @Mike Tre

    I see a drone strike in that family’s future.

    Replies: @Kylie

    , @EdwardM
    @Mike Tre

    Ha-ha, hilarious. Biden handled it well. I wonder if he understood the reference?

    Replies: @Old Prude, @Paperback Writer

  120. @Rosie
    @Rob McX


    Cooking and serving food would be done on the macro scale, and so on.
     
    Eating out is still surprisingly expensive. The economies of scale really don't work out, and cooking from home is still very economical by comparison. There are some things I buy prepared, though, because the ingredients are so expensive, that it's cheaper to buy in a jar, e.g. pesto.

    Replies: @JMcG, @AnotherDad, @Anonymous Jew

    Eating out is still surprisingly expensive. The economies of scale really don’t work out, and cooking from home is still very economical by comparison.

    Agree. (And i always find it odd how much people blow “eating out” when the best experience is a dinner at home–less noisy, more comfortable, more time–with family and friends.)

    But … i really do expect the food prep equation is going to change with robotics. Take the labor cost–mostly–out of the equation and somewhat standardized (ex. “fast food”) prepared food is going to drop in price to the point many people will barely bother cooking.

    • Replies: @Rosie
    @AnotherDad


    Agree. (And i always find it odd how much people blow “eating out” when the best experience is a dinner at home–less noisy, more comfortable, more time–with family and friends.)
     
    I don't like having to wait for a server if I need more tea or something.

    But … i really do expect the food prep equation is going to change with robotics. Take the labor cost–mostly–out of the equation and somewhat standardized (ex. “fast food”) prepared food is going to drop in price to the point many people will barely bother cooking.
     
    Yep, for households of two or three, that's probably true.
    , @Kylie
    @AnotherDad

    "And i always find it odd how much people blow 'eating out' when the best experience is a dinner at home–less noisy, more comfortable, more time–with family and friends."

    I agree generally but this doesn't apply to me. I live alone in a small town. My neighbor and I go out to eat at local restaurants as often as we can. The food is good, inexpensive and we know the wait staff and some of the owners and are always treated well. It's a nice way to get a good meal and good conversation in friendly surroundings.

    But I realize this is the exception not the rule. We're very fortunate here in our little backwater. The kind of small town friendliness we pride ourselves on has vanished in many places.

    , @Jack D
    @AnotherDad

    The economics of restaurants is that food cost generally has to be no more that about 25% or so of the menu price or else your restaurant will go broke (or in other words, that $24 entree would cost you $6 in ingredients to make at home). The rest pays for labor, rent, utilities, supplies, etc. plus (hopefully) a profit. When you cook at home, you don't have most of those costs on a marginal basis - you are already paying rent (or a mortgage) whether you cook dinner or not. Your labor is free. And that 25% is just based on the menu price. With tax and tip, it's more like 20%.

    Now, 25% represents an average. Some dishes are high markup and some are lower. Fancy tablecloth restaurants have more overhead than fast food places. You can "game" the system somewhat by ordering the items with the lowest markup. In a fast food restaurant, get the hamburger and skip the french fries and Coke. In a fancy restaurant, order the beef or seafood and skip the chicken and pasta entrees.

    Even if restaurants get completely roboticized, robots themselves are not free. And the restaurant still has all of the other costs - labor is just one component. So it's still going to be cheaper to eat at home in most cases. But not all - even now, especially if you are cooking for 1, you would be hard pressed to make say a $1.29 McChicken sandwich at home for less than $1.29. It probably costs McDonalds more than $1.29 - they are counting on you ordering the fries and soda, where the markups are huge. The 1900 guy thought that the cost savings from economies of scale would outweigh the other costs but it didn't work out that way.

    I used to enjoy eating out to some extent but Covid has largely broken my desire to eat out. I will still do it now and then on special occassions but much less frequently than before. The idea of spending $100 on a meal that I could have made at home for $25 (and as you say, been more comfortable while doing so - no traveling and looking for parking, no waiting for service, etc.) has just lost its appeal. There are cuisines that are difficult to reproduce at home but the thought of paying $30 for $6 worth of food just isn't appealing.

  121. It begs the question: how much do making predictions actually cause the future to be that way? Is it like by trying to measure an electron you end up changing it?

    I mean, Jules Verne made exciting scifi adventure novels that are known to have inspired lots of scientific advancement later on. So did Verne predict the future, or did he cause lots of little boys to try to make a future like Jules Verne imagined?

    • Agree: ScarletNumber
    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    @R.G. Camara

    Gordon Moore's publication of Moore's Law is often said to have both predicted and changed the future by giving people a series of goals to organize their efforts around.

    , @Stan Adams
    @R.G. Camara

    Did Jules Verne like little boys as much as Arthur C. Clarke?

    Replies: @ScarletNumber

  122. @R.G. Camara
    It begs the question: how much do making predictions actually cause the future to be that way? Is it like by trying to measure an electron you end up changing it?

    I mean, Jules Verne made exciting scifi adventure novels that are known to have inspired lots of scientific advancement later on. So did Verne predict the future, or did he cause lots of little boys to try to make a future like Jules Verne imagined?

    Replies: @Steve Sailer, @Stan Adams

    Gordon Moore’s publication of Moore’s Law is often said to have both predicted and changed the future by giving people a series of goals to organize their efforts around.

    • Thanks: R.G. Camara
  123. @Adept
    @PhysicistDave

    Transhumanism is nothing more than the realization that we don't need to leave the development of the human species to the vagaries of chance and the dysgenic trends that are so apparent today. Eugenics is transhumanist. Genetic modification for improved mental or physical traits is transhumanist. Any drug or device that can improve those traits -- from steroids to stimulants to anti-aging treatments -- is basically, though usually weakly, transhumanist.

    Transhumanism is the great project of this century. It counters the problems of our age. For instance, the proper response to falling and catastrophically low birthrates must, necessarily, be transhumanist --- either in lifespan extension or in artificial wombs.

    ...There's a lot more to it than the whole business of transsexual nonsense -- which is, in truth, not really "transhumanist" at all.

    Replies: @Alrenous, @mc23, @PhysicistDave

    I think Transhuman enhancements will be huge in a lot less then a 100 years.

    I think drugs or devices are more along the line of Cyborgs, Transhuman yes but not quite the same as genetic enhancement. Gentetic/Cyborg enhanced elite Super Humans are a sore subject. The Spartans and the SS were bad enough.

    Imagine Super Warriors under the command of a disembodied human mind uploaded to a super computer, The best of the bad might just be an immortal Bill Gates releasing Windows 40K.

    Transgenderism is fairly recent craze but it fits in quite nicely with the idea that the human race is infinitely mutable. Transgenderism will be used as a battering ram for the expansion of Transhumanism, I suspect this was foreseen. The enhancements will take a lot of wealth and resources. When the super wealthy can live for 200 years with augmented physical and mental powers it will be interesting.

  124. @Thomm
    @Rosie


    Of course, it will also favor the genes of those men who are willing to marry women who have rights rather than MGTOW who take their ball and go home, so I wouldn’t be so sure about that patriarchal future you’re hankering for,
     
    By that logic, a PUA or thug who impregnates multiple women outranks even the hypothetical 'family man' you speak of. You should be strongly in support of such men.

    This is one of the many problems with 'feminism'. Everything they say is hypothetical, knee-jerk, poorly thought through, innumerate, and presumes that men exist only to be useful to women.

    Lastly, the presumption that MGTOW somehow takes away women's rights is ignorant. Those are just men who decide to spend their time elsewhere, rather than be ATM machines in return for having no rights. Remember, men have vastly fewer rights in family court than women do. That is why the two-parent family is all but gone.

    Replies: @Reg Cæsar, @Rosie

    This is one of the many problems with ‘feminism’. Everything they say is hypothetical, knee-jerk, poorly thought through, innumerate, and presumes that men exist only to be useful to women.

    Michael Levin of NYU wrote, in some obscure journal, that feminism was mankind’s first philosophy that is wrong about everything. A blind sow with a stuffed-up nose won’t find a single truffle, not even twice a day.

    • Replies: @Rosie
    @Reg Cæsar


    Michael Levin of NYU wrote, in some obscure journal, that feminism was mankind’s first philosophy that is wrong about everything. A blind sow with a stuffed-up nose won’t find a single truffle, not even twice a day.
     
    I didn't know it was possible for a complete and total dumbass to become a professor at NYU.

    https://www.aamc.org/news-insights/more-women-men-are-enrolled-medical-school
  125. we more or less stopped establishing new great national universities as the 20th Century progressed

    The University of Miami is almost 100 years old, having been founded in 1925. If you don’t consider The U to be a great national university, UCLA was founded in 1919.

    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar
    @ScarletNumber


    The University of Miami is almost 100 years old, having been founded in 1925.
     
    PJ O'Rourke went to the other Miami, where they wore shirts that said "We were a university before Florida was a state!"

    Does Cornell College in Iowa have something similar? They're a few years older than Cornell U, and were founded by a cousin of Ezra.

    Harvard and Yale, and perhaps some others, are older than every university in England but Oxford and Cambridge.
  126. @JMcG
    @Buffalo Joe

    Merry Christmas, Joe!

    Replies: @Buffalo Joe

    J, thank you and the best to you and yours. Stay safe.

  127. @The Germ Theory of Disease
    Sometimes you think you know something, and then you discover to your dismay that you don't actually know it.

    I grew up playing piano in bars, and I thought I was a half-way decent bar-room pianist, and then I heard this......

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6-iLCwoJKac&list=RDMM&index=6


    And I suddenly realized I had no actual idea what I was talking about.


    Just goes to show.

    Replies: @Alan Mercer, @Reg Cæsar, @kpkinsunnyphiladelphia

    Yes, Tori is heavenly. She’s a prodigy, and on top of this benefited from a serious classical music education from a young age. So don’t get too down on yourself.

    • Replies: @The Germ Theory of Disease
    @Alan Mercer

    Tori is sublime. She places time-bombs within time-bombs. I'm not anywhere nearly as good as her, but I am at least literate enough to recognize what she's doing back-stage and architecturally. She hides syncopations inside of other syncopations. She stashes diminishments inside of augmentations. She sometimes plays in like three or four different time signatures simultaneously. Her articulation is stunning. She plays against herself, and then with herself, and then against her band, and then with her band, at the same time. It's breathtaking, if you know what you're hearing.

    Also, she slaps and punches the piano, which is something I used to do, too. I'm in love.

  128. @Muggles
    @Almost Missouri

    The large very nice downtown department store in the town I grew up in had a big plastic pneumatic tube system. (That's now gone of course.)

    When you purchased something (pre credit card, etc.) they put in a set of invoices and your folding money/coins. That was zipped off to someplace upstairs (so it seemed) and later, in a minute or two, your change would be returned via tube along with a stamped "paid" receipt.

    It was a lot of fun to see these things work. So 'sales associates' didn't have cash registers or even keep your money.

    There is a bank I use that uses pneumatic tubes to take in deposits, dispense money for their car teller lines. They have TV screens and microphones. So pneumatics are still being used.

    Not quite the Wave of the Future though.

    It is fun to look at old back issues of publications (now websites if available) to read their breathless and confident predictions of the future. Good for a laugh.

    Who knew that Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged would be the most accurate depiction of future America only 65 years hence? Just try to avoid those dropping Boeing aircraft...

    Replies: @Buffalo Joe, @Jack D, @mc23, @ScarletNumber, @cityview

    There is a bank I use that uses pneumatic tubes to take in deposits, dispense money for their car teller lines.

    I think this is more common than not. Every Chase stand-alone branch here in New Jersey uses them.

    • Agree: Hibernian
  129. @R.G. Camara
    It begs the question: how much do making predictions actually cause the future to be that way? Is it like by trying to measure an electron you end up changing it?

    I mean, Jules Verne made exciting scifi adventure novels that are known to have inspired lots of scientific advancement later on. So did Verne predict the future, or did he cause lots of little boys to try to make a future like Jules Verne imagined?

    Replies: @Steve Sailer, @Stan Adams

    Did Jules Verne like little boys as much as Arthur C. Clarke?

    • Replies: @ScarletNumber
    @Stan Adams

    Certainly not as much as Alan Turing...

  130. @Buffalo Joe
    @Muggles

    Muggs, at the nearby flea market is a vendor who sells old 'Life' magazines. the ads are the best, especially the ads for cars at less than a grand and doctors endorsing cigarettes. And, a local bank had the preumatic drive through system, cool, until the tube ices up and your paycheck is somewhere between your car and the teller. Happened to me. Stay safe.

    Replies: @Achmed E. Newman, @ScarletNumber

    until the tube ices up and your paycheck is somewhere between your car and the teller

    I once had to park my car and go inside to retrieve my deposit. Why? Because the teller charged with manning the tube was deaf in one ear and couldn’t hear the pod arrive.

  131. @Mike Tre
    The family that the Biden's called on Christmas Eve sign off by saying let's go Brandon:

    https://youtu.be/CpVgkqCw7Nw

    Replies: @Stan Adams, @EdwardM

    I see a drone strike in that family’s future.

    • Replies: @Kylie
    @Stan Adams

    Lol! Merry Christmas, Stan!

    Replies: @Stan Adams, @Stan Adams

  132. @Jack D
    @S

    Not only don't they get future hairstyles right, they don't get PAST ones right. In the MASH TV series, Alan Alda had 1970s style long hair:

    https://outsider.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/mash-how-alan-alda-was-cast-as-hawkeye-585x390.jpg

    And for Cleopatra, it looks like they stuck some Egyptian style imagery on an off the shelf 1960s dress.

    https://anotherimg-dazedgroup.netdna-ssl.com/439/azure/another-prod/360/8/368861.jpg

    Strip off the snake embroidery and she could have gone out to dinner in that dress.

    Replies: @S, @Steve Sailer, @Reg Cæsar

    Strip off the snake embroidery and she could have gone out to dinner in that dress.

    Or, with an F2M chest binder and a fake 5 o’clock shadow, said Mass in Ordinary Time.


  133. @Reg Cæsar
    @Mr. Anon


    The people who promoted this trend should be flogged to death.
     
    You just lost half the younger readers here. Dermatostiksiophobia is nothing but "boomer" bigotry.


    https://bodyartguru.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/Colin-Unknown-Tattoo.jpg

    Replies: @Mr. Anon, @Chrisnonymous

    You just lost half the younger readers here.

    Only the stupid ones.

    Dermatostiksiophobia is nothing but “boomer” bigotry.

    It isn’t bigotry. It’s having standards. What kind of shallow nitwit wants to wear his every passing fancy in faded ink on his hide for the duration of his life?

    • Replies: @Mike_from_SGV
    @Mr. Anon

    In 2070 the rest homes will be full of geezers with faded, sagging tattoos. It will probably provoke a new genre of comedy.

  134. @ScarletNumber

    we more or less stopped establishing new great national universities as the 20th Century progressed
     
    The University of Miami is almost 100 years old, having been founded in 1925. If you don't consider The U to be a great national university, UCLA was founded in 1919.

    Replies: @Reg Cæsar

    The University of Miami is almost 100 years old, having been founded in 1925.

    PJ O’Rourke went to the other Miami, where they wore shirts that said “We were a university before Florida was a state!”

    Does Cornell College in Iowa have something similar? They’re a few years older than Cornell U, and were founded by a cousin of Ezra.

    Harvard and Yale, and perhaps some others, are older than every university in England but Oxford and Cambridge.

  135. @Cortes
    @Mr. Anon

    The fad for ear-plugs is just as revolting. The next step must be those shells in the lower lips sported by the dusky Amazonian ladies in National Geographic lo these many years ago.

    On a positive note, with the earlobe unplugged, you’d always have somewhere to keep your keys.

    Replies: @Mr. Anon

    The fad for ear-plugs is just as revolting.

    Agreed. So many people seem to be embracing barbarism as a lifestyle.

    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar
    @Mr. Anon



    The fad for ear-plugs is just as revolting.
     
    Agreed. So many people seem to be embracing barbarism as a lifestyle.
     
    Noise canceling ear plugs are a necessary tool in escaping barbarism today.


    https://cdn.shopify.com/s/files/1/1407/8708/products/just_for_kids_hearos_earplugs_product_image_120x.jpg?v=1542850001

    Replies: @Mr. Anon, @Paperback Writer

  136. Merry Christmas Steve!

    My subscription renewal is coming soon. Had to pay property tax first!

    All the best for 2022, which should have more rich material.

  137. @Jack D
    @JR Ewing


    Russian being thought of as a language of the future.
     
    The only people who thought of Russian as being the language of the future were Communists. The Coen brothers make fun of this in Hail, Ceasar! where the Communist screenwriters call their secret cabal "The Future".

    No non-Leftist ordinary Americans thought that way. (In A Clockwork Orange, the violent teens speak a sort of Russian slang but this takes place in a dystopian world). If non-Communists were interested in a futuristic language they would study Esperanto.

    Despite the Communist spelling reforms (the Chinese Communists simplified the writing of Chinese characters), Russian is quite alien to English speakers and is usually ranked among the hardest common languages for English speakers to learn along with Mandarin and Arabic (and not just because of the alphabet but because of the alien grammar and vocabulary - Polish is up there too). You can see from all of the difficulties that Russian speakers have in learning to speak English how far apart the two languages are. (That Nabokov was fluent enough to write great literature in both languages shows what a genius he was).

    Replies: @Achmed E. Newman, @JR Ewing, @Ralph L, @Peter Akuleyev

    Yes, the communist thing was exactly what I was pointing out about Obama’s parents.

    My high school offered Russian for some reason reason and I didn’t want to take Spanish or German, and then I took four more years in college, so now I have this neat parlor truck that it mostly useless today. Just a red neck white boy from west Texas who speaks fluent Russian.

    Agree that the language itself (but not the alphabet) is hard to learn for Americans because English grammar is dumbed down already and Americans are lazy. Russian grammar is very precise and learning it opened a whole new understanding of English grammar for me, which is one of the reasons foreign languages are required in many schools.

  138. @Jack D
    @AnotherDad

    1. Self driving cars - despite the skepticism, they are getting really close. Waymo has a fleet of driverless taxis in Arizona. No "safety driver" - you get in the cab and the car drives itself. Not perfect yet - it doesn't like left turns and will often make 3 rights to save 1 left. Not 100% accident free but neither are human drivers.

    This, combined with electric cars, is really going to change how people own cars, especially in cities.

    2. Life extension doesn't seem to change the ages at which females are fertile or how many children they want to have. You are going to have lots and lots of people who are old but not yet dead. Some of them will need care. A lot of them will no longer be capable of (or interested) in working. Life extension doesn't solve the population problem or the problem of how you support all those old people without a growing population of younger working people. Smart places (Japan) will solve this problem with robots, not Africans.

    3. The "guaranteed income" people are not crazy. On the one end, you are going to have massive elimination of the kind of low skilled jobs now done by blacks (I don't mean carjacking, I mean like Amazon delivery driver). OTOH, the Tyquans of the world still keep churning out babies, esp. relative to whites and Asians where female fertility is below replacement. As it is now, there's hardly anything that these folks are qualfied to do. Once McDonalds is automated and the DMV is online and there are no more delivery drivers, there is going to be literally nothing left for a significant portion of these folks to do but we are not going to be able to just let them starve. Eventually this will extend beyond blacks to the point where even many white people jobs are automated.

    Replies: @Colin Wright

    ‘…As it is now, there’s hardly anything that these folks are qualfied to do. Once McDonalds is automated and the DMV is online and there are no more delivery drivers, there is going to be literally nothing left for a significant portion of these folks to do but we are not going to be able to just let them starve. Eventually this will extend beyond blacks to the point where even many white people jobs are automated.’

    The difficulty is not that they will starve, but that they will have nothing to do.

    The devil makes work for idle hands. I have seen this demonstrated in multiple contexts.

  139. @Adept
    @PhysicistDave

    Transhumanism is nothing more than the realization that we don't need to leave the development of the human species to the vagaries of chance and the dysgenic trends that are so apparent today. Eugenics is transhumanist. Genetic modification for improved mental or physical traits is transhumanist. Any drug or device that can improve those traits -- from steroids to stimulants to anti-aging treatments -- is basically, though usually weakly, transhumanist.

    Transhumanism is the great project of this century. It counters the problems of our age. For instance, the proper response to falling and catastrophically low birthrates must, necessarily, be transhumanist --- either in lifespan extension or in artificial wombs.

    ...There's a lot more to it than the whole business of transsexual nonsense -- which is, in truth, not really "transhumanist" at all.

    Replies: @Alrenous, @mc23, @PhysicistDave

    Adept wrote to me:

    Transhumanism is nothing more than the realization that we don’t need to leave the development of the human species to the vagaries of chance and the dysgenic trends that are so apparent today.

    Well…

    If you have been following these guys (and it is overwhelmingly males!) for the last few decades, as I have, you’d know that two of their big things are cryopreservation of their brain when they die and mind uploading to computers. I actually have a friend who had has brain frozen when he died tragically young three decades ago.

    The cryopreserved brains are never going to be revived. Ask any physician or neuroscientist.

    And brain uploading is a bizarre science-fiction fantasy. Again, ask any neuroscientist.

    Adept also wrote:

    Genetic modification for improved mental or physical traits is transhumanist. Any drug or device that can improve those traits — from steroids to stimulants to anti-aging treatments — is basically, though usually weakly, transhumanist.

    Well, as another commenter mentioned, then eyeglasses would count as transhumanist.

    That is moving the goalposts. The transhumanists have made very, very clear that they have in mind things way, way beyond normal medical care, normal prosthetics, etc. If that is all they meant, it would all be very mundane and boring.

    No, they have made clear that they have in mind scientifically absurd things such as cryopreservation and mind uploading.

    And those ideas are just a crazy pseudo-religious cult, utter and complete nonsense, in the same league as clairvoyance or necromancy.

    Some people cannot distinguish science fiction from reality.

    • Replies: @Adept
    @PhysicistDave

    There are some very influential people in or adjacent to the Transhumanist community -- like Robin Hanson -- who have fallen in love with certain ideas. One such much-loved idea is the notion of cryopreservation. Whether or not it is plausible is beside the point -- which is that transhumanism, as a conceptual notion, should mean much more than just that.

    Besides, I don't think that mind uploading is necessarily that far-fetched, and it can be done in a way that doesn't necessarily make a mere copy. At least conceptually. Consider this:

    A man goes into an operation where a piece of his brain is removed and replaced with a digital signal processor that perfectly compensates for it. After a while, there is a second operation, then a third, and so forth. After each operation our man is sent home to go about his business. After 40 such operations, there is nothing left of the original matter of his brain. That man now has a perfectly transparent mind -- in the sense that its workings are not mysterious -- that can quite easily be "uploaded." And after what operation does he stop being man? After one? After ten? It's really quite impossible to say. Of course, this is the old Ship of Theseus problem, but it's also perhaps the only way to upload a living mind and simultaneously ensure the continuity of self.

    Such things may come about, if we can somehow stop the Brazilification of civilization.

    Replies: @PhysicistDave, @Alrenous

    , @Paperback Writer
    @PhysicistDave


    Some people cannot distinguish science fiction from reality.

     

    I've been laughing at the transhumanists for 20 years now.

    The question is, are they crazier than the "men can get pregnant" crowd? Who is the more insane, the more repellent?
  140. @The Germ Theory of Disease
    Sometimes you think you know something, and then you discover to your dismay that you don't actually know it.

    I grew up playing piano in bars, and I thought I was a half-way decent bar-room pianist, and then I heard this......

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6-iLCwoJKac&list=RDMM&index=6


    And I suddenly realized I had no actual idea what I was talking about.


    Just goes to show.

    Replies: @Alan Mercer, @Reg Cæsar, @kpkinsunnyphiladelphia

    Okay, she’s quick with the fingers. But is there a song in there somewhere? And are cornflake and raisin racial references, or just geographic?

    • Replies: @The Germ Theory of Disease
    @Reg Cæsar

    "But is there a song in there somewhere?"

    It's a matter of taste I suppose: I definitely think there's a song in there, but for intelligent tasteful folks like yourself who disagree, I would say it's more a matter of "conception". It also helps to understand this stuff if you are yourself a pianist, a guitarist, or a guy (like me) who plays the drums using hunting knives instead of sticks.

    Tori and PJ Harvey were the two greatest practitioners in the 90s of a sort of back-stage artistry that requires explanation: they both had proper classical training, and then they both listened to and studied and absorbed and internalized the work and the methodology of Don Van Vliet/Captain Beefheart: the so-called "car-crash" rhythms and anti-rhythms, the sense of time versus anti-time, tonality versus anti-tonality, lyrics versus anti-lyrics. Tori and PJ both figured out how to make the Beefheart aesthetic musical theory appealing, instead of just confrontational and insane. Which was the way us boys liked it.

    Replies: @Abolish_public_education

  141. @Mr. Anon
    @Cortes


    The fad for ear-plugs is just as revolting.
     
    Agreed. So many people seem to be embracing barbarism as a lifestyle.

    Replies: @Reg Cæsar

    The fad for ear-plugs is just as revolting.

    Agreed. So many people seem to be embracing barbarism as a lifestyle.

    Noise canceling ear plugs are a necessary tool in escaping barbarism today.

    • Replies: @Mr. Anon
    @Reg Cæsar

    By "ear plugs" I think that commenter Cortes meant "ear gauges". They are also called "ear plugs" (at least according to Wikipedia).

    , @Paperback Writer
    @Reg Cæsar

    In my neck of the woods they're called gauges.

    Visual mnemonic:

    https://nypost.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2021/11/rittenhouse-survivor-517.jpg?quality=90&strip=all

    I know a younger guy of that generation who said to me, "I don't know one guy who has those who isn't a total prick."

  142. @Mike Tre
    The family that the Biden's called on Christmas Eve sign off by saying let's go Brandon:

    https://youtu.be/CpVgkqCw7Nw

    Replies: @Stan Adams, @EdwardM

    Ha-ha, hilarious. Biden handled it well. I wonder if he understood the reference?

    • Replies: @Old Prude
    @EdwardM

    One can't tell about Joe's understanding who Brandon is, but the fella on the other end of that call has balls of steel. Un real!

    Replies: @Boy the way Glenn Miller played

    , @Paperback Writer
    @EdwardM

    Richard Hanania, contrarian type, thinks Biden owned the other guy, and that conservatives are stupid for thinking he was phased.

    Replies: @EdwardM

  143. @zoos
    For the next year, I predict that Beverly Hills will continue to be a dangerous, third world shithole.

    https://twitter.com/MrAndyNgo/status/1474496927978831873?s=20

    Replies: @rebel yell

    Nothing could be more pleasing to my eyes than to see BLM thugs smashing and grabbing expensive stuff on the elite streets of Beverly Hills. One can only hope that Rob Reiner has been inconvenienced.

    • Replies: @Paperback Writer
    @rebel yell

    Agree. And lest anyone think I'm a phony, NYC could do with a bit of this as well. Let Adams & his new cutie pie Police Commish handle looting on 5th Avenue or SoHo.

    Would you agree about your neck of the woods, RY? There's a rich part of every town, village, and county.

    Replies: @rebel yell

  144. @JMcG
    Merry Christmas, Steve. And to all the commentariat; once again, I’ve learned a great deal from all of you. Steve, I joined up on the monthly plan earlier in the year- thanks for all your work. God Bless.

    Replies: @cityview

    From this commenter, thank you and best wishes for the new year.

  145. @Reg Cæsar
    @Mr. Anon


    The people who promoted this trend should be flogged to death.
     
    You just lost half the younger readers here. Dermatostiksiophobia is nothing but "boomer" bigotry.


    https://bodyartguru.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/Colin-Unknown-Tattoo.jpg

    Replies: @Mr. Anon, @Chrisnonymous

    No, tattoos are just group conformity signaling for younger people. They look disgusting. I live in Japan where almost nobody has tattoos. When I see young tourists from America (pre-COVID), it’s shocking. They look disgusting–overweight, unshaven, covered in ugly tattoos, and usually with poorly designed and ill-fitting clothes. The tattoos are part of the whole package–lack of grooming and self-care, lack of style, and lack of standards. I am not a boomer, either.

    • Agree: Seneca44, Goddard
    • Replies: @Goddard
    @Chrisnonymous


    The tattoos are part of the whole package–lack of grooming and self-care, lack of style, and lack of standards.
     
    Even hot chicks are tatting up. It's disgusting. The prettiest ones go from marriageable to merely fuckable. I'd rather they be (slightly) overweight but untatted. I'm not a Boomer, either.
  146. @Muggles
    @Almost Missouri

    The large very nice downtown department store in the town I grew up in had a big plastic pneumatic tube system. (That's now gone of course.)

    When you purchased something (pre credit card, etc.) they put in a set of invoices and your folding money/coins. That was zipped off to someplace upstairs (so it seemed) and later, in a minute or two, your change would be returned via tube along with a stamped "paid" receipt.

    It was a lot of fun to see these things work. So 'sales associates' didn't have cash registers or even keep your money.

    There is a bank I use that uses pneumatic tubes to take in deposits, dispense money for their car teller lines. They have TV screens and microphones. So pneumatics are still being used.

    Not quite the Wave of the Future though.

    It is fun to look at old back issues of publications (now websites if available) to read their breathless and confident predictions of the future. Good for a laugh.

    Who knew that Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged would be the most accurate depiction of future America only 65 years hence? Just try to avoid those dropping Boeing aircraft...

    Replies: @Buffalo Joe, @Jack D, @mc23, @ScarletNumber, @cityview

    Oh, yes, the big vertical downtown department stores had them–now, that’s something I hadn’t thought about recently. I don’t remember them in use for every transaction as you described, though; maybe every store was a little different. I do remember the clinking, chiming sound that you could hear all through the store at times when they were in use. I’ll use as my example Woodward and Lothrop in downtown Washington DC, which went bankrupt in 1992, but honestly, I was in department stores from the District to New York City and back that no longer exist.

    If bank drive-through windows still use them, I’m glad; I used to see these in use from inside the bank on foot.

  147. @Reg Cæsar
    @Mr. Anon



    The fad for ear-plugs is just as revolting.
     
    Agreed. So many people seem to be embracing barbarism as a lifestyle.
     
    Noise canceling ear plugs are a necessary tool in escaping barbarism today.


    https://cdn.shopify.com/s/files/1/1407/8708/products/just_for_kids_hearos_earplugs_product_image_120x.jpg?v=1542850001

    Replies: @Mr. Anon, @Paperback Writer

    By “ear plugs” I think that commenter Cortes meant “ear gauges”. They are also called “ear plugs” (at least according to Wikipedia).

  148. @Paperback Writer
    @J.Ross

    Are you responding to someone else? I didn't write what you quoted.

    Replies: @J.Ross

    Did you get that thing?

    • Troll: Paperback Writer
  149. @Mr. Anon
    Who could have forseen this new California trend...........Liquor Mining:

    https://citizenfreepress.com/breaking/woman-with-giant-pickaxe-casually-steals-liquor-from-rite-aid/

    Replies: @Rob McX

    A new awakening – the spirit of 1848.

  150. @Anonymous
    @Rob McX


    I was looking at these reports of Officer Potter being convicted. The only consolation is that a violent and dangerous thug is dead, something that can’t be reversed no matter how vindictive the sentence that’s handed down
     
    Agreed. Thank god that black psychopath is dead. Highly likely that her actions saved some innocent lives.

    Regarding the officer, intent matters in this case. Her stated intent was to taser. She accidentally shot him instead. Involuntary manslaughter must be the verdict. No more, or less. Such is the destiny of excitable little fat chicks, way in over their heads. I’m guessing she’ll do better on appeal. Black people aren’t so good with the perception of time. By the time the case gets retried, most of the thugs family will be on to other things. Much less negro hoopla.

    This incompetence problem for the local police could certainly be mitigated on a vetting process based on solely on intellectual, emotional, and physical merit, but that would mean America’s "Jabari's" would be inadvertently spared. The little piece of shit is off the face of the planet forever. That’s a very good thing.

    I’ll take the underqualified diversity hires. Saves court time, taxes, and lives.

    Sitting her fat little ass in jail for a year or so is a small price to pay for the good of modern civilization.

    Replies: @Rob McX

    By the time the case gets retried, most of the thugs family will be on to other things. Much less negro hoopla.

    Yes, by that time they’ll have got their hands on the compensation millions, so they’re unlikely to be distracted by judicial matters.

  151. @Alrenous
    @Adept

    Technically, eyeglasses, note paper, and telephones are transhumanist. Normally it implies more invasive procedures, but there's nothing inherently invasive about the idea. Anything which makes the human super-human is transhumanism.

    Evolution will make humans trans-human whether we want it to or not, exactly the way sapiens is trans-erectus. Or make it go extinct, if you prefer to interpret it that way. However, will this next species in fact have "expanded" abilities? Or merely different ones? It's an open question. We already know that significantly expanding IQ tends to lead to be sharply limited by disorders. This could be an overtraining issue, or it could be inherent limitations of carbohydrate engineering.

    Eugenics doesn't need to be invasive either. Eyeglasses release certain evolutionary pressures, and similarly non-invasive techniques could be used to increase them instead. Though admittedly my favourite intervention is fairly invasive.

    --

    You don't need transhumanism to fix the birth rates. Re-legalize marriage, that will solve 90% of the problem. Probably best not to re-criminalize fornication, since that will only lead to another round of re-criminalizing marriage. Don't actually outlaw living in sin, but allow it to be called "living in sin" again. A light touch is called for; the heavy hand already failed.
    SSC carefully summed this up: nearly every modern problem is a mere "stop digging" problem. It's caused by bad policy and the solution is to give up the bad policy. Literally cheaper than free...in a budgetary sense, anyway. The other side is a bunch of sinecures that form ferocious special interests.

    Replies: @Adept

    This is going to sound trite, but it’s a spectrum. On the one end, glasses and contact lenses. A bit further down the line, this guy:

    Further than that, genetically-engineered or wholly artificial eyes that pick up the ultraviolet and near infrared, can record at any time for an artificial “photographic memory,” and so forth.

    The pacemaker is one step down the line. The fully artificial heart, another. An artificial or bioengineered heart that is better in every way than our natural heart, a third step down the line. Then toss in the entire circulatory system, which has a habit of failing at bad times, with fatal results.

    Transhumanism is, in truth, little more than applying technology to the human itself. But, in particular, it refers to enhancements — and most particularly to heritable enhancements. Eventually I believe that it will result in something much like speciation, orders of magnitude more quickly than the hand of Gnon would go about it.

    (For what it’s worth, I remember you from Xenosystems, and I think that your blog is a good one. Enjoying your reading of Plato.)

    In any case, I don’t know if the bad policies that afflict us are fixable. But technological solutions are attractive enough to most, and can be done from the bottom-up rather than the top-down. Healthspan extension neatly solves the declining population problem — and when it becomes possible, there will be no stopping it; it is perfectly in sync with the modern psyche.

  152. “But if you could fully figure out the supply chain of the future the way the McDonald Brothers did, you’d be making your fortune off it, not sharing it with some Ladies Home Journal writer.” The McDonald Bros. hamburger assembly line was impressive, but McDonald’s would still have been a nothing burger (well, at least just a very small fortune) if Ray Kroc didn’t take over and revolutionize the franchise system.

  153. @Alan Mercer
    @The Germ Theory of Disease

    Yes, Tori is heavenly. She's a prodigy, and on top of this benefited from a serious classical music education from a young age. So don't get too down on yourself.

    Replies: @The Germ Theory of Disease

    Tori is sublime. She places time-bombs within time-bombs. I’m not anywhere nearly as good as her, but I am at least literate enough to recognize what she’s doing back-stage and architecturally. She hides syncopations inside of other syncopations. She stashes diminishments inside of augmentations. She sometimes plays in like three or four different time signatures simultaneously. Her articulation is stunning. She plays against herself, and then with herself, and then against her band, and then with her band, at the same time. It’s breathtaking, if you know what you’re hearing.

    Also, she slaps and punches the piano, which is something I used to do, too. I’m in love.

  154. Was it Yogi Berra who’s credited with: “Predictions are hard, especially about the future”?

    Random, but I hope apposite thoughts, on the topic this early Christmas morning before dinner with family and a woman friend.

    Physicists successfully predicted the possibility of an atomic bomb almost immediately after that paper on fission was published in the late 1930s.

    As a sales manager, my sales estimates, i. e., predictions, got to be good enough once I reasonably understood my product, the capabilities of my sales force, the market, etc.

    Minatory dystopian fiction—We, 1984, Brave New World, City, etc.—never dissuades people or nations from engaging in the very things those fictions were warning against.

    Predictions that one makes about the course of one’s own life, or the lives of people you presume are close to you, are mostly bosh.

    Dire predictions offered by American conservatives regarding our government’s military interventions, market interventions, and social interventions are usually right and usually ignored. Those interventions create factions that, once created, snuff out the oxygen in the room so those factions can maintain their unearned advantage over their fellow Americans.

    Well, that’s it. Brain cells exhausted; morning coffee’s working.

    Merry Christmas to all, and many thanks to our host, Ron Unz, and his writers.

    • Thanks: Rob McX
    • Replies: @JackOH
    @JackOH

    Still have time to try a rough of a prediction as though made in 1900. Here goes:


    In 2021, the well-paid senior functionary of a giant economic corporation, earning many thousands of times what an ordinary laborer of middling talent earns today [in 1900], and enjoying luxuries as commonplaces that would be the envy of Midas, shall nonetheless find his moral ambit smaller than that of our common workmen.

    While today's skilled machine operators [in 1900] may earn enough to marry a suitable woman and found a family, and rely with confidence upon our schools, churches, and institutions of governance to offer guidance in accord with well-established standards, the captains and lieutenants of tomorrow's world [2021] will find themselves in a mean world.

    The authority and influence disposed of naturally by our menfolk [in 1900] shall be denied the men of 2021, by virtue of the rising of women, as can be seen among the suffragists, and the pressing of Negroes, some of no little talent, who will seek to establish their own ambit of authority by agitation and law where their own natural abilities find little purchase in tradition or the blessings of Providence.
     
    Well, I gave it a shot, hey. Best wishes to all.
  155. @EdwardM
    @Mike Tre

    Ha-ha, hilarious. Biden handled it well. I wonder if he understood the reference?

    Replies: @Old Prude, @Paperback Writer

    One can’t tell about Joe’s understanding who Brandon is, but the fella on the other end of that call has balls of steel. Un real!

    • Replies: @Boy the way Glenn Miller played
    @Old Prude


    One can’t tell about Joe’s understanding who Brandon is, but the fella on the other end of that call has balls of steel. Un real!
     
    Imagine what a seasoned KGB operator could do with Brandon.
    Imagine if Brandon's son had a long, easily documented trail of dirt.
  156. @AnotherDad
    Old man ambling by ... i'll pick some of the low hanging fruit:

    1) Robotics/Automation
    Driverless cars/trucks, food prep, cleaners ... huge disruption in employment.

    Issues of welfare--and the associated social issues (drugs etc.); and the associated fiscal issues--will loom large. In just a couple decades anyone honest--not part of the "state party" apparat--will wonder "what the hell were they thinking" when the West allowed millions of low IQ immigrants. Issues of "eugenics" however phrased, back on the table.

    Regardless of whether this is effectively managed well--it's the land of milk and honey across the earth--or poorly, the result will be increased nationalism. Being able to live around people like yourself--people who aren't annoying--is the ultimate "luxury good".


    2) Life extension.
    It's become obvious that "wear and tear" is not really the aging story. It's more hormonal and programmatic. Old rats can be made younger being hooked up to the blood of younger rats. (Not sure why Bill Gates isn't funding this in secret laboratories.)

    Little doubt people in 2100 will be living much longer.

    If therapies are straightforward and results substantial ... huge, huge, huge ... disruption. Will reverse the population decline issues. Brings population control back to the fore--along with eugenics, nationalism.


    3) Genetic manipulation.
    The question is will this just be a medical "one off"--fix this defective gene--or designer babies. I could see people having basically their own babies with a bunch of "fixes" or "enhancements". Less clear is whether they would have designer babies? Is the baby then really "yours"?

    Pretty easy to guess Chinese will charge ahead with this while--as Jack pointed out--we have discussions about "equity" and the "racism" of people not wanting black phenotypes.

    The meaning of family, of life, of a whole lot of stuff up for grabs with this. But i'm significantly less clear on where we'll be this 2100.


    This i know: 2100 is going to a wildly different world than today. Don't know how smooth or wild and violent the ride may be.

    Replies: @Jack D, @Mr. Anon, @Justvisiting

    The current science fiction take on the future is that nanotechnology will be “the thing”.

    If all goes well that means each home will have an “everything machine” that will be able to take waste products, break them down to the molecular level, then reconstitute them as anything and everything desired (directed by software to make it happen).

    That would be the alchemist’s dream of actually being able to turn lead into gold, or excrement into caviar or a golden retriever, in your own home.

    The downside of nanotechnology was portrayed in Greg Bear’s SF classic “Blood Music”:

  157. @Colin Wright
    One interesting misstep I notice almost routinely in science fiction literature from the fifties is that computers will be really, really powerful...and therefore, really, really big. In fact, they'll be so big and powerful that one computer will fill an entire warehouse!

    The opposite definitely happened there. I use a 12.9" iPad for everything -- and it's only that big to accommodate the screen.

    Another missed trend is blacks running amok. That really was visibly starting to happen by the mid-Sixties, and yet to my knowledge, few have ever seriously speculated as to where it might be going. Many of us see where it is -- but beyond denial and/or lunatic genocidal prescriptions, no one suggests where it might be going.

    It's intriguing. They obviously lack the chops to be a new master race -- but we're determined to treat them as such. What happens next?

    Replies: @Adept, @Don Unf, @anonymous coward, @res, @Peter Akuleyev, @Known Fact

    In fact, they’ll be so big and powerful that one computer will fill an entire warehouse!

    Google and Amazon fill many warehouses with computing power. (They’re called “data centers” now.)

  158. In these old-time predictions, there is a refreshing optimism, an assumption that the focus of society would be to improve things, instead of cultural vandalism or handicapping the best people or subsidizing and worshipping the worst people. I wonder if America will ever get back to that mentality.

  159. @Mr. Anon
    @Reg Cæsar


    You just lost half the younger readers here.
     
    Only the stupid ones.

    Dermatostiksiophobia is nothing but “boomer” bigotry.
     
    It isn't bigotry. It's having standards. What kind of shallow nitwit wants to wear his every passing fancy in faded ink on his hide for the duration of his life?

    Replies: @Mike_from_SGV

    In 2070 the rest homes will be full of geezers with faded, sagging tattoos. It will probably provoke a new genre of comedy.

  160. @Achmed E. Newman
    @Jack D


    If non-Communists were interested in a futuristic language they would study Esperanto.
     
    I've been reading through this "guide"* to the Georgia Guidestones, called Common Sense Renewed by "J.C. Christian" (an alias) who was responsible for setting up the "American Stonehenge" in Elberton, Georgia.

    In it he has a small section about this new universal language he thinks should be created:


    Designing a universal human language for future generations will require discovery of the most efficient combinations and sequences of phonemes to most clearly express our thoughts with all their subtleties and nuances. Our esthetic sense will require its symbolic forms in sound and in letters to be pleasing to the ear and to the eye.

    Phonemes will be arrayed in patterns which reflect variations in function. Each sound will correspond precisely with a single visual symbol. Inflections, pauses, rhythms, and other modifi- cations of intonation will be indicated by accent symbols.

    The visual characters will permit ease of writing by hand in the same form used in type so that both can be "recognized" by the seeing eyes of machines. In this way it will be possible for words to be spoken in the presence of an appropriate electromechanical device and to be transcribed in printed form by that device. Conversely, the machine will be able to "read" the printed version and "vocalize" it as clearly intelligible speech.

    Development of the alphabet-syllabary of approximately 200 symbols will facilitate constructing a totally new language de novo, unlike the many previous efforts which have attempted to build upon existing language patterns (Esperanto, Interlingua, and others). The new language will reflect consideration for the sound patterns in the most general—and presumably most efficient—use within the languages which exist today.
     

    It sounds like a job for a computer program to handle. Any bright linguist on here want to comment on exactly how full of it this guy was.

    BTW, that on-line book (.pdf) is pretty interesting as a sample from 1986 - 35 years back - of how a fairly bright guy though things were going and how to solve the world's problems. (His concentration was on America, and good on him for that.)

    .

    * Thank you very much, Adam Smith!

    Replies: @Justvisiting, @Adam Smith

    There may be “top down” and/or “bottom up” changes to language.

    The LGBTXYZ is an example of the “top down” language–elites (through .gov, universities, mass media).

    The Urban Dictionary would be the “bottom up” version.

    The elites want to drive the language to make certain thoughts they don’t like unsayable and unthinkable.

    The “bottom up” approach is to creatively describe anything and everything without limitation.

    Terence McKenna proposed a third alternative–a totally visual language (no alphabet, no words)–but it is hard to see something like that happening in the near future.

  161. @Known Fact
    @Jack D

    People were thin in the 1970s, on into the 80s -- watch an old ballgame or rock concert. You'd have one obese person in a class or office and they really stood out. Maybe it was the cigarettes and cocaine, or the pre-fructose food. Certainly not due to abstemious behavior

    Replies: @Paperback Writer

    Read the entire linked article.

    https://voxeu.org/article/100-years-us-obesity

    It doesn’t say people were fat in the 1970s, just that BMIs were going up for a long time. Before the 70s they were scrawny. The 70s were a sweet spot: adequate nutrition, enough exercise, etc.

    There’s a straightforward graph in that article which shows this better than the one Jack copied, which only show rate of increase for white men.

    • Replies: @Known Fact
    @Paperback Writer

    People can laugh at the 70s all they want but it was a sweet spot in a variety of ways. Anyway thanks for the article -- And you could also draw up a list of potent additional factors since 1986. The sheer variety of available food and drink has exploded. Of course we may now be headed back toward a more spartan lifestyle, eating bugs instead of burgers

    Replies: @Paperback Writer

  162. @Reg Cæsar
    @Mr. Anon



    The fad for ear-plugs is just as revolting.
     
    Agreed. So many people seem to be embracing barbarism as a lifestyle.
     
    Noise canceling ear plugs are a necessary tool in escaping barbarism today.


    https://cdn.shopify.com/s/files/1/1407/8708/products/just_for_kids_hearos_earplugs_product_image_120x.jpg?v=1542850001

    Replies: @Mr. Anon, @Paperback Writer

    In my neck of the woods they’re called gauges.

    Visual mnemonic:

    I know a younger guy of that generation who said to me, “I don’t know one guy who has those who isn’t a total prick.”

  163. @Justvisiting
    @Rob McX

    Who knew that Orwell's "1984" would become a training manual for leaders of the "democracies"?

    Replies: @Intelligent Dasein, @Inquiring Mind

    Who knew that Orwell’s “1984” would become a training manual for leaders of the “democracies”?

    Well, George Orwell, for one.

    I don’t know why the default position on Orwell is always that he was some sort of liberty-loving visionary who wrote warnings and cautionary tales. Nobody writes something like Nineteen Eighty-Four unless he feels the same tyrannical impulses moving inside of him. The easiest way for any writer to make a buck is to spill his own brutality, lasciviousness, and pathologies out onto the page, change a few names and verb tenses, and call it “fiction.”

    George Orwell was an atheist, a socialist, and an all-around hypocrite. Nineteen Eighty-Four is wish fulfillment.

    • Replies: @SaneClownPosse
    @Intelligent Dasein

    Orwell was British Intelligence, as was Huxley.

    "1984" forecast a total, brutal fascism, 24 by 7, in your face, boot on your neck future.

    The masses are okay with a less brutal fascism, as long as it is not "1984" level, and has some social goal that is promoted as good for the whole.

    Replies: @Reg Cæsar

  164. @Jack D
    @JR Ewing


    Russian being thought of as a language of the future.
     
    The only people who thought of Russian as being the language of the future were Communists. The Coen brothers make fun of this in Hail, Ceasar! where the Communist screenwriters call their secret cabal "The Future".

    No non-Leftist ordinary Americans thought that way. (In A Clockwork Orange, the violent teens speak a sort of Russian slang but this takes place in a dystopian world). If non-Communists were interested in a futuristic language they would study Esperanto.

    Despite the Communist spelling reforms (the Chinese Communists simplified the writing of Chinese characters), Russian is quite alien to English speakers and is usually ranked among the hardest common languages for English speakers to learn along with Mandarin and Arabic (and not just because of the alphabet but because of the alien grammar and vocabulary - Polish is up there too). You can see from all of the difficulties that Russian speakers have in learning to speak English how far apart the two languages are. (That Nabokov was fluent enough to write great literature in both languages shows what a genius he was).

    Replies: @Achmed E. Newman, @JR Ewing, @Ralph L, @Peter Akuleyev

    Nabokov and the later Romanovs had English nannies, so it wasn’t a second language.

    • Replies: @Paperback Writer
    @Ralph L

    Nabokov was raised trilingual - also French. Doesn't take away from his literary genius, but his fluency in three languages wasn't an example of it.

    Joseph Conrad - now that's an amazing case! He didn't speak English fluently until he was in his 20s, and became one of the great stylists of the English language. I can't think of anyone else like that.

  165. @Justvisiting
    @Rob McX

    Who knew that Orwell's "1984" would become a training manual for leaders of the "democracies"?

    Replies: @Intelligent Dasein, @Inquiring Mind

    Training manual?

    This recalls David Hackworth’s account of his efforts to distribute a pamphlet he wrote regarding the tactics of the Viet Cong. Colonel Hackworth was frustrated in his effort to disseminate this to our soldiers out in the field fighting the war in Vietnam. His superiors quickly put it under a high level of security classification.

    Hackworth fumed that the enemy knew what their own tactics were. It was our guys who were in the dark about what the enemy was up to.

    You bet 1984 was a training manual, and the whole point of the novel was to get the rest of us to see what the people carrying out those tactics already knew.

  166. @JimDandy
    Pneumatic tubes are the great lost steampunk technology

    This sentence hit me really hard. Because it's true.

    Replies: @Inquiring Mind, @Slim

    Don’t the drive-through banking lanes use pneumatic tubes?

    • Replies: @JimDandy
    @Inquiring Mind

    An excruciating tease of what could have been.

  167. @AnotherDad
    @Rosie


    Eating out is still surprisingly expensive. The economies of scale really don’t work out, and cooking from home is still very economical by comparison.
     
    Agree. (And i always find it odd how much people blow "eating out" when the best experience is a dinner at home--less noisy, more comfortable, more time--with family and friends.)

    But ... i really do expect the food prep equation is going to change with robotics. Take the labor cost--mostly--out of the equation and somewhat standardized (ex. "fast food") prepared food is going to drop in price to the point many people will barely bother cooking.

    Replies: @Rosie, @Kylie, @Jack D

    Agree. (And i always find it odd how much people blow “eating out” when the best experience is a dinner at home–less noisy, more comfortable, more time–with family and friends.)

    I don’t like having to wait for a server if I need more tea or something.

    But … i really do expect the food prep equation is going to change with robotics. Take the labor cost–mostly–out of the equation and somewhat standardized (ex. “fast food”) prepared food is going to drop in price to the point many people will barely bother cooking.

    Yep, for households of two or three, that’s probably true.

  168. @JackOH
    Was it Yogi Berra who's credited with: "Predictions are hard, especially about the future"?

    Random, but I hope apposite thoughts, on the topic this early Christmas morning before dinner with family and a woman friend.

    Physicists successfully predicted the possibility of an atomic bomb almost immediately after that paper on fission was published in the late 1930s.

    As a sales manager, my sales estimates, i. e., predictions, got to be good enough once I reasonably understood my product, the capabilities of my sales force, the market, etc.

    Minatory dystopian fiction---We, 1984, Brave New World, City, etc.---never dissuades people or nations from engaging in the very things those fictions were warning against.

    Predictions that one makes about the course of one's own life, or the lives of people you presume are close to you, are mostly bosh.

    Dire predictions offered by American conservatives regarding our government's military interventions, market interventions, and social interventions are usually right and usually ignored. Those interventions create factions that, once created, snuff out the oxygen in the room so those factions can maintain their unearned advantage over their fellow Americans.

    Well, that's it. Brain cells exhausted; morning coffee's working.

    Merry Christmas to all, and many thanks to our host, Ron Unz, and his writers.

    Replies: @JackOH

    Still have time to try a rough of a prediction as though made in 1900. Here goes:

    In 2021, the well-paid senior functionary of a giant economic corporation, earning many thousands of times what an ordinary laborer of middling talent earns today [in 1900], and enjoying luxuries as commonplaces that would be the envy of Midas, shall nonetheless find his moral ambit smaller than that of our common workmen.

    While today’s skilled machine operators [in 1900] may earn enough to marry a suitable woman and found a family, and rely with confidence upon our schools, churches, and institutions of governance to offer guidance in accord with well-established standards, the captains and lieutenants of tomorrow’s world [2021] will find themselves in a mean world.

    The authority and influence disposed of naturally by our menfolk [in 1900] shall be denied the men of 2021, by virtue of the rising of women, as can be seen among the suffragists, and the pressing of Negroes, some of no little talent, who will seek to establish their own ambit of authority by agitation and law where their own natural abilities find little purchase in tradition or the blessings of Providence.

    Well, I gave it a shot, hey. Best wishes to all.

  169. @Paperback Writer
    @Known Fact

    Read the entire linked article.

    https://voxeu.org/article/100-years-us-obesity

    It doesn't say people were fat in the 1970s, just that BMIs were going up for a long time. Before the 70s they were scrawny. The 70s were a sweet spot: adequate nutrition, enough exercise, etc.

    There's a straightforward graph in that article which shows this better than the one Jack copied, which only show rate of increase for white men.

    Replies: @Known Fact

    People can laugh at the 70s all they want but it was a sweet spot in a variety of ways. Anyway thanks for the article — And you could also draw up a list of potent additional factors since 1986. The sheer variety of available food and drink has exploded. Of course we may now be headed back toward a more spartan lifestyle, eating bugs instead of burgers

    • Replies: @Paperback Writer
    @Known Fact

    Thank Jack D - he linked to it up-thread.

    Also "res" came up with an awesome article:

    https://www.econstor.eu/bitstream/10419/38885/1/633112313.pdf

    I know what you mean about laughing at the 70s. Actually people thought it was awful. Lennon gave one of his last interviews on Dick Cavett he said, "Weren't the 70s awful?"

    It was better than it seemed.

    I will never eat bugs.

    Replies: @Reg Cæsar

  170. @Muggles
    Off topic (again);

    In case you were wondering, the two shot (but no kill) in a west Chicago suburb of Oak Brook at a large fairly upscale mall were both shooting. Both black of course.

    That black fact (Black!) wasn't mentioned of course but the story link below shows one of the wanted perps in a big blue puffy jacket, obviously black. He appeared to be shooting at someone he knew.

    So the ChiTown gang wars are spreading out to the suburbs.

    This is a separate city so Mayor Groot isn't to blame. Just guilty for protecting her gang buddies in the big city. None of the white women interviewed said anything about black gangsters now in their quiet community. Or if they did, it wasn't aired.

    https://abc7chicago.com/oakbrook-mall-shooting-oak-brook-center-news-shooter/11380094/

    Replies: @Abolish_public_education, @Mike Tre, @Hibernian

    This is a separate city so Mayor Groot isn’t to blame.

    Chicago serves as a sanctuary for criminals who operate in the suburbs. In Capone’s day it was the other way around.

  171. @Colin Wright
    One interesting misstep I notice almost routinely in science fiction literature from the fifties is that computers will be really, really powerful...and therefore, really, really big. In fact, they'll be so big and powerful that one computer will fill an entire warehouse!

    The opposite definitely happened there. I use a 12.9" iPad for everything -- and it's only that big to accommodate the screen.

    Another missed trend is blacks running amok. That really was visibly starting to happen by the mid-Sixties, and yet to my knowledge, few have ever seriously speculated as to where it might be going. Many of us see where it is -- but beyond denial and/or lunatic genocidal prescriptions, no one suggests where it might be going.

    It's intriguing. They obviously lack the chops to be a new master race -- but we're determined to treat them as such. What happens next?

    Replies: @Adept, @Don Unf, @anonymous coward, @res, @Peter Akuleyev, @Known Fact

    One interesting misstep I notice almost routinely in science fiction literature from the fifties is that computers will be really, really powerful…and therefore, really, really big. In fact, they’ll be so big and powerful that one computer will fill an entire warehouse!

    That was understandable in the fifties when computers were generally made with tubes (first solid state computer 1956). But with transistors and then ICs (Moore’s law in 1965 covered size, Dennard scaling in 1974 covered power) things changed.

    • Replies: @Jim Don Bob
    @res


    That was understandable in the fifties when computers were generally made with tubes (first solid state computer 1956).
     
    And computer memory was magnets wired together that retained their state after a power off. The first machine I used was an IBM 360/50. You could power it down, bring it back up and resume what you were doing.

    One of the main things that made cell phones and tablets possible was reducing the price of static RAM (SRAM). It used to be much more expensive than dynamic RAM (DRAM).
  172. @Rob McX
    @Almost Missouri

    The greatest genius who ever lived couldn't have foreseen the current Diversity worship. It's relatively easy to chart the path of future progress. It's human stupidity and irrationality that defy all efforts at prediction or prognostication.

    Replies: @J.Ross, @res, @kaganovitch

    It’s human stupidity and irrationality that defy all efforts at prediction or prognostication.

    Except to note that there will be plenty of it. What form it takes–who knows.

    • Agree: Rob McX
  173. @PhysicistDave
    @Adept

    Adept wrote to me:


    Transhumanism is nothing more than the realization that we don’t need to leave the development of the human species to the vagaries of chance and the dysgenic trends that are so apparent today.
     
    Well...

    If you have been following these guys (and it is overwhelmingly males!) for the last few decades, as I have, you'd know that two of their big things are cryopreservation of their brain when they die and mind uploading to computers. I actually have a friend who had has brain frozen when he died tragically young three decades ago.

    The cryopreserved brains are never going to be revived. Ask any physician or neuroscientist.

    And brain uploading is a bizarre science-fiction fantasy. Again, ask any neuroscientist.

    Adept also wrote:


    Genetic modification for improved mental or physical traits is transhumanist. Any drug or device that can improve those traits — from steroids to stimulants to anti-aging treatments — is basically, though usually weakly, transhumanist.
     
    Well, as another commenter mentioned, then eyeglasses would count as transhumanist.

    That is moving the goalposts. The transhumanists have made very, very clear that they have in mind things way, way beyond normal medical care, normal prosthetics, etc. If that is all they meant, it would all be very mundane and boring.

    No, they have made clear that they have in mind scientifically absurd things such as cryopreservation and mind uploading.

    And those ideas are just a crazy pseudo-religious cult, utter and complete nonsense, in the same league as clairvoyance or necromancy.

    Some people cannot distinguish science fiction from reality.

    Replies: @Adept, @Paperback Writer

    There are some very influential people in or adjacent to the Transhumanist community — like Robin Hanson — who have fallen in love with certain ideas. One such much-loved idea is the notion of cryopreservation. Whether or not it is plausible is beside the point — which is that transhumanism, as a conceptual notion, should mean much more than just that.

    Besides, I don’t think that mind uploading is necessarily that far-fetched, and it can be done in a way that doesn’t necessarily make a mere copy. At least conceptually. Consider this:

    A man goes into an operation where a piece of his brain is removed and replaced with a digital signal processor that perfectly compensates for it. After a while, there is a second operation, then a third, and so forth. After each operation our man is sent home to go about his business. After 40 such operations, there is nothing left of the original matter of his brain. That man now has a perfectly transparent mind — in the sense that its workings are not mysterious — that can quite easily be “uploaded.” And after what operation does he stop being man? After one? After ten? It’s really quite impossible to say. Of course, this is the old Ship of Theseus problem, but it’s also perhaps the only way to upload a living mind and simultaneously ensure the continuity of self.

    Such things may come about, if we can somehow stop the Brazilification of civilization.

    • Replies: @PhysicistDave
    @Adept

    Adept wrote to me:


    A man goes into an operation where a piece of his brain is removed and replaced with a digital signal processor that perfectly compensates for it. After a while, there is a second operation, then a third, and so forth. After each operation our man is sent home to go about his business. After 40 such operations, there is nothing left of the original matter of his brain.
     
    Well, the continuation of the thought experiment is that you slow down all the signal processors to a crawl and then one by one replace them with clerks who have the input-output table for the processor you are replacing. In the end, the brain has been replaced with clerks passing slips of paper to each other.

    A variant of Searle's "Chinese room" thought experiment.

    This is a reduction ad absurdum that shows that "information processing" is not the basis of consciousness.

    There is a long history of "The brain is just a (fill in the latest technology)." "Digital signal processor is just the latest fad.

    It is probably no more correct than the earlier fads that compared the brain to a clockwork or a hydraulic system or whatever.

    There are other problems with the whole "consciousness is information processing" meme that I will not go into here (I am thinking about writing a book about all this -- I actually have a rough outline).

    Suffice it to say that there are a whole lot of reasons to view it as science fiction, or at least as a flawed metaphor, not as science.

    And Merry Christmas!

    Replies: @Adept

    , @Alrenous
    @Adept

    My favourite bottom-up transhumanist hack is tying a vibrating belt to a compass. The wearer develops a new quale for direction. Turns out civilizations really do refuse to study certain things, and for Americoids, consciousness is top of the list. What other quale can you induce? By contrast, tying random I/O into a computer is as likely as not to cause it to crash.

    If someone bothered to develop proper metal/carbohydrate interfaces or learned from the master and gave up metal engineering for carbohydrate engineering, it would be possible to tie the brain via radio link to a computer. Mind expansion. No need to teach the brain what's it's seeing, any more than it needs help to learn direction. Or language, for that matter.

    You can't actually upload a mind because it depends on quantum relationships. Evolution really does use every part of the buffalo. Any instrument trying to measure it will destroy the thing it's trying to measure. There's no reason the relationships couldn't be expanded into an artifact, however. Grafting a new arm on is well beyond current medical science, but grafting on a new thinking machine is not. Might be hideously expensive, though, especially if it has to use metal equivalents of the quantum components. I priced a metal one in the $10,000 magnitudes, and estimate the human brain has a couple billion of the things. Could be more, though.

    Losing your meat brain will always be a serious blow, but there's no reason you have to rely so totally on it.

    --

    Glad you're enjoying the Plato stuff.

  174. @EdwardM
    @Mike Tre

    Ha-ha, hilarious. Biden handled it well. I wonder if he understood the reference?

    Replies: @Old Prude, @Paperback Writer

    Richard Hanania, contrarian type, thinks Biden owned the other guy, and that conservatives are stupid for thinking he was phased.

    • Replies: @EdwardM
    @Paperback Writer

    "Owned" might be a bit strong, but he handled it like a seasoned politican who is used to parrying questions. Either he still is that or he is demented but got lucky with his response, which didn't miss a beat. Watching the clip, either explanation seems plausible.

  175. @Jack D
    @Paperback Writer

    https://voxeu.org/article/100-years-us-obesity

    Replies: @res

    Thanks, Jack. That is an interesting graph for a long time series which I had not seen.

    For those who did not click through it is important to realize.
    1. The years are birth cohorts. So the 1986 point is people who were 25 years old when the paper was published in 2010.
    2. That graph shows the rate of change of BMI not BMI itself.

    The graphs for white females and black males/females are rather different. For example, in the shape across the post 1965 birth cohorts.

    There is another version of the paper which includes BMI graphs for all four groups. I think those are easier to understand for conveying the status of a point in time.
    https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1570677X11000414
    https://www.econstor.eu/bitstream/10419/38885/1/633112313.pdf

    Table 1 gives an alternative way of looking at the progression of obesity in each group. Hopefully the formatting is adequate for understanding.

    Table 1. Dates by which given centile reached a BMI value of 30
    (Birth Cohort)
    White Black
    Centile Males Females Males Females
    9th 1911 1912 1907 1897
    8th 1926 1931 1924 1905
    7th 1942 1946 1950 1917
    6th 1967 1964 1962 1927
    5th na 1980 1982 1942
    4th na na na 1959
    Note: Among white men and women, and black men, the 5th, 4th and 3rd centiles have not
    reached the BMI value of 30 during the observation period

    I found that confusing until I realized their terminology is funky. They aren’t talking about centiles here. They are talking about deciles. The lines in their plots are 10-90 centiles, but if you are going to refer to the top line as 9th etc. then you should really call it deciles. And in the page Jack linked, they do use “deciles” in the text (but not captions, since those figures are just copies of the paper versions).

    So 60% of black females born in 1959 are obese. Wow.

    Here is another version of that work with some different figures.
    https://www.nber.org/papers/w15862
    https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w15862/w15862.pdf

    Figure 1 shows average BMIs for each group. Black women are an outlier with an average BMI for the 1986 birth cohort of 39 compared to 32 for the other three groups. Figure 2 shows the rate of change for each group. Which captures the interesting differences I mentioned above. Figure 3 shows BMI by age curves for each group. Figures 6 and 7 show Iso-BMI lines for given age birth cohort combinations for white and black women.

    While we’re on the obesity topic (this paper showed up in my image search), this paper provides a very interesting look at how both risk and BMI vary with height and weight. In particular, it shows how poor a proxy BMI is for health across different heights.
    https://www.hindawi.com/journals/jobe/2016/6734043/

    https://static-01.hindawi.com/articles/jobe/volume-2016/6734043/figures/6734043.fig.003.svgz
    Unfortunately, I don’t think the svgz file will embed here, but please take a look at Figure 3.

    That figure is conceptually dense. Three of the (sets of) curves are described well in the legend, but may need thought to assimilate. The fourth curve (dashed line with dated dots) is described in the text just above.

    For example, at a height of 175 cm the minimum mortality risk of 0.8 occurs at 75 kg which is a BMI of 25.

    One thing I found interesting is how the mortality risk at optimum weight decreases significantly from 1.3 to less than 0.7 as you go from 155 cm to 190 cm tall.

    • Replies: @Paperback Writer
    @res

    Thanks - excellent links.

    Looking at the rate of increase between the races is interesting. Maybe I'm confirmation biasing here, but it looks to me as if obesity = gluttony more than sloth.

    The original article that Jack D linked to does have a simple, easy-to-understand graph of BMI increase. Pretty shocking overall.

    https://voxeu.org/sites/default/files/image/FromAug2010/KomlosFig1.gif

    , @Paperback Writer
    @res


    So 60% of black females born in 1959 are obese. Wow.

     

    Here's another, from the CESinfo Working Paper, p. 7:


    Among men it took on average about 19 years for
    an additional centile to reach a BMI value of 30 while among white and black women it took
    17 years and 13 years respectively. The black females were often 30-40 years ahead of the
    other three groups in reaching the level of obesity in a particular centile.

     

    Bear in mind that a BMI of 30 is pretty large - and is way worse on women than men.
    , @Reg Cæsar
    @res


    So 60% of black females born in 1959 are obese. Wow.
     
    Only by white standards. Or East or South Asian.
  176. @rebel yell
    @zoos

    Nothing could be more pleasing to my eyes than to see BLM thugs smashing and grabbing expensive stuff on the elite streets of Beverly Hills. One can only hope that Rob Reiner has been inconvenienced.

    Replies: @Paperback Writer

    Agree. And lest anyone think I’m a phony, NYC could do with a bit of this as well. Let Adams & his new cutie pie Police Commish handle looting on 5th Avenue or SoHo.

    Would you agree about your neck of the woods, RY? There’s a rich part of every town, village, and county.

    • Replies: @rebel yell
    @Paperback Writer

    Every neighborhood in my city is Woke - the rich, the middle class, the poor. BLM signs are everywhere. While I selfishly don't want trouble on my own street, everyone in town deserves a riot in their front yard.

    Replies: @Known Fact

  177. @res
    @Jack D

    Thanks, Jack. That is an interesting graph for a long time series which I had not seen.

    For those who did not click through it is important to realize.
    1. The years are birth cohorts. So the 1986 point is people who were 25 years old when the paper was published in 2010.
    2. That graph shows the rate of change of BMI not BMI itself.

    The graphs for white females and black males/females are rather different. For example, in the shape across the post 1965 birth cohorts.

    There is another version of the paper which includes BMI graphs for all four groups. I think those are easier to understand for conveying the status of a point in time.
    https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1570677X11000414
    https://www.econstor.eu/bitstream/10419/38885/1/633112313.pdf

    Table 1 gives an alternative way of looking at the progression of obesity in each group. Hopefully the formatting is adequate for understanding.

    Table 1. Dates by which given centile reached a BMI value of 30
    (Birth Cohort)
    White Black
    Centile Males Females Males Females
    9th 1911 1912 1907 1897
    8th 1926 1931 1924 1905
    7th 1942 1946 1950 1917
    6th 1967 1964 1962 1927
    5th na 1980 1982 1942
    4th na na na 1959
    Note: Among white men and women, and black men, the 5th, 4th and 3rd centiles have not
    reached the BMI value of 30 during the observation period

    I found that confusing until I realized their terminology is funky. They aren't talking about centiles here. They are talking about deciles. The lines in their plots are 10-90 centiles, but if you are going to refer to the top line as 9th etc. then you should really call it deciles. And in the page Jack linked, they do use "deciles" in the text (but not captions, since those figures are just copies of the paper versions).

    So 60% of black females born in 1959 are obese. Wow.

    Here is another version of that work with some different figures.
    https://www.nber.org/papers/w15862
    https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w15862/w15862.pdf

    Figure 1 shows average BMIs for each group. Black women are an outlier with an average BMI for the 1986 birth cohort of 39 compared to 32 for the other three groups. Figure 2 shows the rate of change for each group. Which captures the interesting differences I mentioned above. Figure 3 shows BMI by age curves for each group. Figures 6 and 7 show Iso-BMI lines for given age birth cohort combinations for white and black women.

    While we're on the obesity topic (this paper showed up in my image search), this paper provides a very interesting look at how both risk and BMI vary with height and weight. In particular, it shows how poor a proxy BMI is for health across different heights.
    https://www.hindawi.com/journals/jobe/2016/6734043/

    https://static-01.hindawi.com/articles/jobe/volume-2016/6734043/figures/6734043.fig.003.svgz
    Unfortunately, I don't think the svgz file will embed here, but please take a look at Figure 3.

    That figure is conceptually dense. Three of the (sets of) curves are described well in the legend, but may need thought to assimilate. The fourth curve (dashed line with dated dots) is described in the text just above.

    For example, at a height of 175 cm the minimum mortality risk of 0.8 occurs at 75 kg which is a BMI of 25.

    One thing I found interesting is how the mortality risk at optimum weight decreases significantly from 1.3 to less than 0.7 as you go from 155 cm to 190 cm tall.

    Replies: @Paperback Writer, @Paperback Writer, @Reg Cæsar

    Thanks – excellent links.

    Looking at the rate of increase between the races is interesting. Maybe I’m confirmation biasing here, but it looks to me as if obesity = gluttony more than sloth.

    The original article that Jack D linked to does have a simple, easy-to-understand graph of BMI increase. Pretty shocking overall.

  178. @Rosie
    @Rob McX


    Cooking and serving food would be done on the macro scale, and so on.
     
    Eating out is still surprisingly expensive. The economies of scale really don't work out, and cooking from home is still very economical by comparison. There are some things I buy prepared, though, because the ingredients are so expensive, that it's cheaper to buy in a jar, e.g. pesto.

    Replies: @JMcG, @AnotherDad, @Anonymous Jew

    Only if you’re retired. If you’re a yuppie making the equivalent of \$50-100/hour it makes a lot of sense to spend an extra \$10 on takeout (\$15 – \$5 that you would spend on ingredients at home). Time is money.

  179. @Inquiring Mind
    @Jack D

    Is it just me, or is anyone else around here simply amazed on how the police solved this case that quickly?

    Replies: @Jack D, @Jim Don Bob

    Apparently, they were able to track the car using GPS (either from the Congresscritter’s iPhone or else from the car itself). Josiah had driven to Wilmington and picked up a bunch of his teenage friends and gone to a nearby suburban mall (to go shopping with Congresscritter’s credit cards?) and they found the car there and staked it out until the gang returned to the car. At that point they scattered like rats but there were a lot of cops waiting so they caught them all (the teenagers were catch and release).

    But yes, I have the feeling that if it was me who had been carjacked, the cops (especially the Federales) would have been a LOT less interested. The Philly cops would have taken a report and that would have been it. Carjacking is now the most common form of car theft because you don’t have to deal with all the anti-theft technology – they must have thousands of open cases.

    If they found the car later because it was illegally parked (they are really good at parking enforcement because it’s a big money maker), they’d tow it to an impound lot with the windows left open and let me know in about 3 months, by which time there would be huge storage charges plus lots of weather damage.

    • Agree: Achmed E. Newman
  180. @Jack D
    @John Milton’s Ghost

    1. Boas, although Jewish by blood, grew up in a completely assimilated and secular German home.

    2. 1900 would have been too early for Boas to have influenced the author.

    3. The Darwinan view in 1900, that the poor, especially of other racial groups were "less evolved" than rich white people, was just wrong. Black are not less evolved than whites - everyone has the same number of ancestors going back to day 1. Rather, they are DIFFERENTLY evolved for the conditions that their ancestors lived under. And their problems are not JUST biological - they are perhaps 1/2 cultural. American Blacks got the double whammy.

    4. If you are talking about the "huddled masses" type poor of European stock, the author was not wrong - you could take the children of shtetl Jews or Southern Italian peasants and clean them up a bit and teach them table manners and then they would be as good as WASPs. Lido Iococca could become "Lee" and sit at Henry Ford's desk. Walker of MIT who said that the huddled masses would never amount to anything was the one who was wrong. (This doesn't mean that it's wrong to say the same thing about Congolese today).

    Replies: @John Milton’s Ghost

    First, Jack, I enjoy your posts and realize you probably get grief on Unz just because that’s how some assholes roll. That wasn’t my intent to be one of those.

    1. Boas advocated an anti-genetic position with a lot of other Jewish intellectuals specifically opposed to the WASP elite who had run the academies. Antisemites are nasty in that no ethnic Jew can ever be other in their minds, but at the same time the initial driving force for pure environmentalism was almost exclusively Jewish, at first. The fact that Boas worked with mostly Jewish colleagues and students (with a gentile lesbian or two) is significant.

    2. My point was Darwin was already in decline by 1900. Boas’s triumph accelerated it later. But a decade before Theodore Roosevelt could suggest the winning of the west was due to Anglo Saxon stock and even by 1900 that had shifted to Frederick Jackson Turner’s idea of a transforming frontier.

    3. Sure popular Darwinians would get this wrong and suggest lesser and greater peoples. The science is more subtle and suggests adaptation that is maladaptation for other environments. Looking at Native American struggles in the WEIRD world is especially striking.

    4. I didn’t say the author was wrong. But it’s clear the academy at first and now the political and cultural world we live in adamantly refuses to consider the biological aspects of it. Part of the success of those peoples you mentioned was due to 1. The Continental genetic differences between northwest Europeans with eastern and southern groups is in hindsight minuscule and 2. The curtailing of immigration in the 1920s really helped those groups considerably as such removed the ability to remain truly peoples apart.

    • Thanks: Jack D
  181. @Stan Adams
    @R.G. Camara

    Did Jules Verne like little boys as much as Arthur C. Clarke?

    Replies: @ScarletNumber

    Certainly not as much as Alan Turing…

  182. @Achmed E. Newman
    @Jack D


    If non-Communists were interested in a futuristic language they would study Esperanto.
     
    I've been reading through this "guide"* to the Georgia Guidestones, called Common Sense Renewed by "J.C. Christian" (an alias) who was responsible for setting up the "American Stonehenge" in Elberton, Georgia.

    In it he has a small section about this new universal language he thinks should be created:


    Designing a universal human language for future generations will require discovery of the most efficient combinations and sequences of phonemes to most clearly express our thoughts with all their subtleties and nuances. Our esthetic sense will require its symbolic forms in sound and in letters to be pleasing to the ear and to the eye.

    Phonemes will be arrayed in patterns which reflect variations in function. Each sound will correspond precisely with a single visual symbol. Inflections, pauses, rhythms, and other modifi- cations of intonation will be indicated by accent symbols.

    The visual characters will permit ease of writing by hand in the same form used in type so that both can be "recognized" by the seeing eyes of machines. In this way it will be possible for words to be spoken in the presence of an appropriate electromechanical device and to be transcribed in printed form by that device. Conversely, the machine will be able to "read" the printed version and "vocalize" it as clearly intelligible speech.

    Development of the alphabet-syllabary of approximately 200 symbols will facilitate constructing a totally new language de novo, unlike the many previous efforts which have attempted to build upon existing language patterns (Esperanto, Interlingua, and others). The new language will reflect consideration for the sound patterns in the most general—and presumably most efficient—use within the languages which exist today.
     

    It sounds like a job for a computer program to handle. Any bright linguist on here want to comment on exactly how full of it this guy was.

    BTW, that on-line book (.pdf) is pretty interesting as a sample from 1986 - 35 years back - of how a fairly bright guy though things were going and how to solve the world's problems. (His concentration was on America, and good on him for that.)

    .

    * Thank you very much, Adam Smith!

    Replies: @Justvisiting, @Adam Smith

    • You’re welcome, Achmed: Adam Smith

  183. @Reg Cæsar
    @The Germ Theory of Disease

    Okay, she's quick with the fingers. But is there a song in there somewhere? And are cornflake and raisin racial references, or just geographic?

    Replies: @The Germ Theory of Disease

    “But is there a song in there somewhere?”

    It’s a matter of taste I suppose: I definitely think there’s a song in there, but for intelligent tasteful folks like yourself who disagree, I would say it’s more a matter of “conception”. It also helps to understand this stuff if you are yourself a pianist, a guitarist, or a guy (like me) who plays the drums using hunting knives instead of sticks.

    Tori and PJ Harvey were the two greatest practitioners in the 90s of a sort of back-stage artistry that requires explanation: they both had proper classical training, and then they both listened to and studied and absorbed and internalized the work and the methodology of Don Van Vliet/Captain Beefheart: the so-called “car-crash” rhythms and anti-rhythms, the sense of time versus anti-time, tonality versus anti-tonality, lyrics versus anti-lyrics. Tori and PJ both figured out how to make the Beefheart aesthetic musical theory appealing, instead of just confrontational and insane. Which was the way us boys liked it.

    • Replies: @Abolish_public_education
    @The Germ Theory of Disease

    I couldn't understand what you were saying, technically, about TA, so I passed along your comments to a music expert (itself not very familiar with TA's work).

    "Pop piano".

    Replies: @The Germ Theory of Disease

  184. @Jack D
    @Paperback Writer

    I don't think anyone saw the obesity epidemic coming until after WWII.

    BMI was flat until around 1900 when the above was written. It has been going up ever since but the rate of increase at first was modest and probably considered beneficial - no more scraggly looking poor people. Then the Great Depression and war rationing hit and the rate of increase slows down considerably.

    But then after WWII is over, it really takes off. People move to the suburbs and no longer have to walk as much. Convenience foods become available. Incomes are higher and the poor get free food. The rate of increase just keeps going up and up. The lines are the deciles - note that it's much worse for the highest deciles - just as the rich get richer, the fat get fatter:

    https://voxeu.org/sites/default/files/image/FromAug2010/KomlosFig3.gif

    Replies: @AnotherDad, @Paperback Writer, @Known Fact, @James N. Kennett

    Amazing that the population was so homogeneous in the late 19th Century. Perhaps most white males then did manual labor in agriculture or factories. Can the broadening of the distribution from 1900 onwards be attributed to the rise of office jobs?

  185. @Reg Cæsar
    @Thomm


    This is one of the many problems with ‘feminism’. Everything they say is hypothetical, knee-jerk, poorly thought through, innumerate, and presumes that men exist only to be useful to women.
     
    Michael Levin of NYU wrote, in some obscure journal, that feminism was mankind's first philosophy that is wrong about everything. A blind sow with a stuffed-up nose won't find a single truffle, not even twice a day.

    Replies: @Rosie

    Michael Levin of NYU wrote, in some obscure journal, that feminism was mankind’s first philosophy that is wrong about everything. A blind sow with a stuffed-up nose won’t find a single truffle, not even twice a day.

    I didn’t know it was possible for a complete and total dumbass to become a professor at NYU.

    https://www.aamc.org/news-insights/more-women-men-are-enrolled-medical-school

  186. @Colin Wright
    One interesting misstep I notice almost routinely in science fiction literature from the fifties is that computers will be really, really powerful...and therefore, really, really big. In fact, they'll be so big and powerful that one computer will fill an entire warehouse!

    The opposite definitely happened there. I use a 12.9" iPad for everything -- and it's only that big to accommodate the screen.

    Another missed trend is blacks running amok. That really was visibly starting to happen by the mid-Sixties, and yet to my knowledge, few have ever seriously speculated as to where it might be going. Many of us see where it is -- but beyond denial and/or lunatic genocidal prescriptions, no one suggests where it might be going.

    It's intriguing. They obviously lack the chops to be a new master race -- but we're determined to treat them as such. What happens next?

    Replies: @Adept, @Don Unf, @anonymous coward, @res, @Peter Akuleyev, @Known Fact

    Another missed trend is blacks running amok. That really was visibly starting to happen by the mid-Sixties, and yet to my knowledge, few have ever seriously speculated as to where it might be going. Many of us see where it is — but beyond denial and/or lunatic genocidal prescriptions, no one suggests where it might be going.

    They made a whole movie about it in 1968 – it was called “Planet of the Apes.” A metaphor of course, but fairly transparent at the time. True, in that 1960s way the overt message was that the “Apes” were in many ways more moral than the “maniac” whites who blew up the planet, but the subtext was still fairly clear.

  187. @Thomm
    @Rosie


    Of course, it will also favor the genes of those men who are willing to marry women who have rights rather than MGTOW who take their ball and go home, so I wouldn’t be so sure about that patriarchal future you’re hankering for,
     
    By that logic, a PUA or thug who impregnates multiple women outranks even the hypothetical 'family man' you speak of. You should be strongly in support of such men.

    This is one of the many problems with 'feminism'. Everything they say is hypothetical, knee-jerk, poorly thought through, innumerate, and presumes that men exist only to be useful to women.

    Lastly, the presumption that MGTOW somehow takes away women's rights is ignorant. Those are just men who decide to spend their time elsewhere, rather than be ATM machines in return for having no rights. Remember, men have vastly fewer rights in family court than women do. That is why the two-parent family is all but gone.

    Replies: @Reg Cæsar, @Rosie

    presumes that men exist only to be useful to women.

    Lie.

    Lastly, the presumption that MGTOW somehow takes away women’s rights is ignorant.

    MGTOW do not take away women’s rights. They cut off theormown nose despite their face and will die miserable, lonely old men.

    Remember, men have vastly fewer rights in family court than women do.

    Muh biased courts. He dindu nuffin blah blah blah.

    That is why the two-parent family is all but gone.

    Stop trying to universalize your own personal problems. The two-parent family is still very much the norm.

    Many working-class couples don’t bother getting married, even when they have children, because they don’t have any money and there’s no point. Even still, 62% of children grow up with legally married parents.

    Of course, I would love to see those numbers go higher, but you’re still FOS.

    This statistic may well improve with declines in teen pregnancy and the high risk of divorce that goes along with early marriage.

    • Replies: @Thomm
    @Rosie

    Everything you said is wrong, and fails even the most basic logical scrutiny. If you wanted to play a caricature of an unthinking feminist, you could hardly do better.

    Cassie Jaye made a documentary that cleanly debunks everything you said :

    https://youtu.be/3WMuzhQXJoY

    So has Dr. Helen Smith :

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2VGij9KYcAk&t=301s

    These are women who are actually married to men, and have children. You can't relate. They are smart enough to know that the destruction of men does not benefit women, and that women have sons, nephews, grandsons, etc. Again, you can't relate.

    Everyone from Twinkie to AnotherDad has corrected your falsehoods many times over. But then again, your words are not based on facts or logic, so none of your ignorant, innumerate opinions will change.

    Remember, a modern 'feminist' is defined as a woman who gets aroused from being corrected by men, and so uttering the most easily debunked fallacies is how you effectively seek arousal. That is what you do when you post here. Aren't you a bit too old for that?

    Gross.

    Heh heh heh heh

    , @Rosie
    @Rosie

    Oh look almost 80% of White children live in the all-but-gone two-parent household.

    https://www.census.gov/content/dam/Census/library/stories/2021/04/number-of-children-living-only-with-their-mothers-has-doubled-in-past-50-years-figure-3.jpg

    Replies: @Reg Cæsar

    , @res
    @Rosie

    It's good to include charts, but maybe a little longer time series to give better perspective? Note that the 2007 start date of your chart was actually a local maxima. Also note that 2018 and 2019 are projections!

    Here is a fifty year series from the census.
    https://www.census.gov/library/stories/2021/04/number-of-children-living-only-with-their-mothers-has-doubled-in-past-50-years.html

    https://www.census.gov/content/dam/Census/library/stories/2021/04/number-of-children-living-only-with-their-mothers-has-doubled-in-past-50-years-figure-1.jpg

    Notice the fine print as well. It turns out they changed the way the number is reported in the census in 2007. When you don't like what the numbers show just change the measurement to make them look better! (credo of the 21st century US it seems, though hardly limited to us/now)

    It looks like your graphic uses the ACS instead so not sure if previous paragraph is applicable to it.

    If this page is correct the 2018 ACS numbers were even higher than they projected.
    https://ifstudies.org/blog/a-portrait-of-contemporary-family-living-arrangements-for-us-children
    Here is the detailed 2018 breakdown for context.

    https://ifstudies.org/ifs-admin/resources/wendyfigurenew-w640.png

    A bit more detail on the category definitions.


    Most of these children lived with two parents in their first marriage (76%) while the rest lived with parents who were in a remarriage (these children could be born in the new marriage or from an earlier marriage). Another 7% of children lived with cohabiting opposite-sex parents. In these cohabiting families, children either lived with their unmarried mom and dad or with a single parent and an opposite-sex partner of the parent.
     
    P.S. Here are two sources for your graphic which add some context.
    https://ifstudies.org/blog/the-good-and-bad-news-about-family-life-in-america
    https://www.jec.senate.gov/public/_cache/files/1ae6cc11-6639-4989-a78e-d6cb630b3c72/w-bradford-wilcox---aei--testimony.pdf

    P.P.S. It is interesting to see your dismissal of the issues which men have with family court. Makes me wonder how much of your perception of the attitude here towards women is just projection of your attitude towards men.

    Replies: @Rosie

  188. @Jack D
    @JR Ewing


    Russian being thought of as a language of the future.
     
    The only people who thought of Russian as being the language of the future were Communists. The Coen brothers make fun of this in Hail, Ceasar! where the Communist screenwriters call their secret cabal "The Future".

    No non-Leftist ordinary Americans thought that way. (In A Clockwork Orange, the violent teens speak a sort of Russian slang but this takes place in a dystopian world). If non-Communists were interested in a futuristic language they would study Esperanto.

    Despite the Communist spelling reforms (the Chinese Communists simplified the writing of Chinese characters), Russian is quite alien to English speakers and is usually ranked among the hardest common languages for English speakers to learn along with Mandarin and Arabic (and not just because of the alphabet but because of the alien grammar and vocabulary - Polish is up there too). You can see from all of the difficulties that Russian speakers have in learning to speak English how far apart the two languages are. (That Nabokov was fluent enough to write great literature in both languages shows what a genius he was).

    Replies: @Achmed E. Newman, @JR Ewing, @Ralph L, @Peter Akuleyev

    I have met hundreds of Russians who speak impeccable English. Russians (and Poles) are generally better at English than Italians or French speakers, in my experience.

    Russian is an Indo-European language. It is not really all that foreign to anyone who has studied Greek, Latin or even German. Of course, these days that describes a vanishingly small pool of native English speakers.

    Polish is even easier because of the Latin alphabet and significant vocabulary borrowed from Latin due to Catholic cultural influence. It is really a question of motivation, and most English speakers aren’t motivated to learn languages that don’t offer career advancement and are spoken in cold climates and unattractive industrial cities (that is the perception even if not true). The fact that educated Russians and Poles often speak excellent English just makes the situation even worse.

    • Replies: @Paperback Writer
    @Peter Akuleyev

    All languages are hard to learn if you have no motivation, which Americans do not. They are unmotivated for all the reasons I don't have to repeat here but also this: they're just lazy and arrogant. They expect other people to speak English, and other people do, or want to, so it compounds the situation.

    When I was forced into learning the basics of other languages, I did. I was never fluent but I became basic.

    I also saw Ethiopian children sop up Hebrew in a matter of months in Israel. Maybe they didn't do so great in school, but after a few months they were chattering away in the dominant language.

    , @Jack D
    @Peter Akuleyev

    Of course it is possible with enough effort to learn any foreign language (although completely losing an accent can be difficult unless you learn the language when you are quite young. I have met many Scandavians and Germans whose accents are so good that they could "pass" for native English speakers but very rarely any Russian or Chinese, even those who speak perfectly grammatical English otherwise.). However, the US Defense Language Institute (where they teach members of the CIA and the military foreign languages) has made a systemic study of which languages are the most difficult for an English speaker to learn. Category 1 is the easiest to learn and Category 4 is the hardest. The rating system is based upon the # of weeks they need to spend in order to teach you a language at a certain level - they know this with a high degree of accuracy after having taught these languages to thouand of people for many decades. As you can see, Russian is rated in Category 3 which is the 2nd to most difficult.

    Category 1: Spanish, Italian, French, Portuguese (36 weeks)
    Category 2: German, Indonesian (36 weeks also)
    Category 3: Hebrew, Hindi, Persian Farsi, Russian, Serbian, Tagalog, Thai, Urdu, Turkish (48 weeks)
    Category 4: Mandarin, Korean, Japanese, Modern Standard Arabic (64 weeks)

    https://www.dliflc.edu/about/languages-at-dliflc/

  189. @Rosie
    @Thomm


    presumes that men exist only to be useful to women.
     
    Lie.

    Lastly, the presumption that MGTOW somehow takes away women’s rights is ignorant.
     
    MGTOW do not take away women's rights. They cut off theormown nose despite their face and will die miserable, lonely old men.

    Remember, men have vastly fewer rights in family court than women do.
     
    Muh biased courts. He dindu nuffin blah blah blah.

    That is why the two-parent family is all but gone.

     

    Stop trying to universalize your own personal problems. The two-parent family is still very much the norm.

    Many working-class couples don't bother getting married, even when they have children, because they don't have any money and there's no point. Even still, 62% of children grow up with legally married parents.

    Of course, I would love to see those numbers go higher, but you're still FOS.

    This statistic may well improve with declines in teen pregnancy and the high risk of divorce that goes along with early marriage.

    https://www.gannett-cdn.com/presto/2019/12/27/USAT/d144c65a-fc06-4544-977c-0083af31296b-married_parents_1.png?width=660&height=372&fit=crop&format=pjpg&auto=webp

    Replies: @Thomm, @Rosie, @res

    Everything you said is wrong, and fails even the most basic logical scrutiny. If you wanted to play a caricature of an unthinking feminist, you could hardly do better.

    Cassie Jaye made a documentary that cleanly debunks everything you said :

    So has Dr. Helen Smith :

    These are women who are actually married to men, and have children. You can’t relate. They are smart enough to know that the destruction of men does not benefit women, and that women have sons, nephews, grandsons, etc. Again, you can’t relate.

    Everyone from Twinkie to AnotherDad has corrected your falsehoods many times over. But then again, your words are not based on facts or logic, so none of your ignorant, innumerate opinions will change.

    Remember, a modern ‘feminist’ is defined as a woman who gets aroused from being corrected by men, and so uttering the most easily debunked fallacies is how you effectively seek arousal. That is what you do when you post here. Aren’t you a bit too old for that?

    Gross.

    Heh heh heh heh

    • LOL: Rosie
  190. @Rosie
    @Thomm


    presumes that men exist only to be useful to women.
     
    Lie.

    Lastly, the presumption that MGTOW somehow takes away women’s rights is ignorant.
     
    MGTOW do not take away women's rights. They cut off theormown nose despite their face and will die miserable, lonely old men.

    Remember, men have vastly fewer rights in family court than women do.
     
    Muh biased courts. He dindu nuffin blah blah blah.

    That is why the two-parent family is all but gone.

     

    Stop trying to universalize your own personal problems. The two-parent family is still very much the norm.

    Many working-class couples don't bother getting married, even when they have children, because they don't have any money and there's no point. Even still, 62% of children grow up with legally married parents.

    Of course, I would love to see those numbers go higher, but you're still FOS.

    This statistic may well improve with declines in teen pregnancy and the high risk of divorce that goes along with early marriage.

    https://www.gannett-cdn.com/presto/2019/12/27/USAT/d144c65a-fc06-4544-977c-0083af31296b-married_parents_1.png?width=660&height=372&fit=crop&format=pjpg&auto=webp

    Replies: @Thomm, @Rosie, @res

    Oh look almost 80% of White children live in the all-but-gone two-parent household.

    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar
    @Rosie


    Oh look almost 80% of White children live in the all-but-gone two-parent household
     
    In 1960, that was true of black families.

    Replies: @Rosie

  191. @Known Fact
    @Paperback Writer

    People can laugh at the 70s all they want but it was a sweet spot in a variety of ways. Anyway thanks for the article -- And you could also draw up a list of potent additional factors since 1986. The sheer variety of available food and drink has exploded. Of course we may now be headed back toward a more spartan lifestyle, eating bugs instead of burgers

    Replies: @Paperback Writer

    Thank Jack D – he linked to it up-thread.

    Also “res” came up with an awesome article:

    https://www.econstor.eu/bitstream/10419/38885/1/633112313.pdf

    I know what you mean about laughing at the 70s. Actually people thought it was awful. Lennon gave one of his last interviews on Dick Cavett he said, “Weren’t the 70s awful?”

    It was better than it seemed.

    I will never eat bugs.

    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar
    @Paperback Writer


    Actually people thought it was awful. Lennon gave one of his last interviews on Dick Cavett he said, “Weren’t the 70s awful?”

     

    One who gave his very last interview on Cavett was Jerome Rodale, who collapsed on the show and died.

    Imagine someone tweeting this today:

    Rodale was an anti-vaccinationist. He also made dubious claims about cancer. In his book Happy People Rarely Get Cancer, Rodale said, "Negroes get less cancer than whites, for the Negro is a happy race. True, there is their problem of segregation, but the Negro race being what it is, I think a Negro sings just the same, and is not going to let segregation dampen his spirits as much as a similar problem would do to the white person."

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._I._Rodale#Criticism
     
  192. @res
    @Jack D

    Thanks, Jack. That is an interesting graph for a long time series which I had not seen.

    For those who did not click through it is important to realize.
    1. The years are birth cohorts. So the 1986 point is people who were 25 years old when the paper was published in 2010.
    2. That graph shows the rate of change of BMI not BMI itself.

    The graphs for white females and black males/females are rather different. For example, in the shape across the post 1965 birth cohorts.

    There is another version of the paper which includes BMI graphs for all four groups. I think those are easier to understand for conveying the status of a point in time.
    https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1570677X11000414
    https://www.econstor.eu/bitstream/10419/38885/1/633112313.pdf

    Table 1 gives an alternative way of looking at the progression of obesity in each group. Hopefully the formatting is adequate for understanding.

    Table 1. Dates by which given centile reached a BMI value of 30
    (Birth Cohort)
    White Black
    Centile Males Females Males Females
    9th 1911 1912 1907 1897
    8th 1926 1931 1924 1905
    7th 1942 1946 1950 1917
    6th 1967 1964 1962 1927
    5th na 1980 1982 1942
    4th na na na 1959
    Note: Among white men and women, and black men, the 5th, 4th and 3rd centiles have not
    reached the BMI value of 30 during the observation period

    I found that confusing until I realized their terminology is funky. They aren't talking about centiles here. They are talking about deciles. The lines in their plots are 10-90 centiles, but if you are going to refer to the top line as 9th etc. then you should really call it deciles. And in the page Jack linked, they do use "deciles" in the text (but not captions, since those figures are just copies of the paper versions).

    So 60% of black females born in 1959 are obese. Wow.

    Here is another version of that work with some different figures.
    https://www.nber.org/papers/w15862
    https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w15862/w15862.pdf

    Figure 1 shows average BMIs for each group. Black women are an outlier with an average BMI for the 1986 birth cohort of 39 compared to 32 for the other three groups. Figure 2 shows the rate of change for each group. Which captures the interesting differences I mentioned above. Figure 3 shows BMI by age curves for each group. Figures 6 and 7 show Iso-BMI lines for given age birth cohort combinations for white and black women.

    While we're on the obesity topic (this paper showed up in my image search), this paper provides a very interesting look at how both risk and BMI vary with height and weight. In particular, it shows how poor a proxy BMI is for health across different heights.
    https://www.hindawi.com/journals/jobe/2016/6734043/

    https://static-01.hindawi.com/articles/jobe/volume-2016/6734043/figures/6734043.fig.003.svgz
    Unfortunately, I don't think the svgz file will embed here, but please take a look at Figure 3.

    That figure is conceptually dense. Three of the (sets of) curves are described well in the legend, but may need thought to assimilate. The fourth curve (dashed line with dated dots) is described in the text just above.

    For example, at a height of 175 cm the minimum mortality risk of 0.8 occurs at 75 kg which is a BMI of 25.

    One thing I found interesting is how the mortality risk at optimum weight decreases significantly from 1.3 to less than 0.7 as you go from 155 cm to 190 cm tall.

    Replies: @Paperback Writer, @Paperback Writer, @Reg Cæsar

    So 60% of black females born in 1959 are obese. Wow.

    Here’s another, from the CESinfo Working Paper, p. 7:

    Among men it took on average about 19 years for
    an additional centile to reach a BMI value of 30 while among white and black women it took
    17 years and 13 years respectively. The black females were often 30-40 years ahead of the
    other three groups in reaching the level of obesity in a particular centile.

    Bear in mind that a BMI of 30 is pretty large – and is way worse on women than men.

  193. @Rosie
    @Thomm


    presumes that men exist only to be useful to women.
     
    Lie.

    Lastly, the presumption that MGTOW somehow takes away women’s rights is ignorant.
     
    MGTOW do not take away women's rights. They cut off theormown nose despite their face and will die miserable, lonely old men.

    Remember, men have vastly fewer rights in family court than women do.
     
    Muh biased courts. He dindu nuffin blah blah blah.

    That is why the two-parent family is all but gone.

     

    Stop trying to universalize your own personal problems. The two-parent family is still very much the norm.

    Many working-class couples don't bother getting married, even when they have children, because they don't have any money and there's no point. Even still, 62% of children grow up with legally married parents.

    Of course, I would love to see those numbers go higher, but you're still FOS.

    This statistic may well improve with declines in teen pregnancy and the high risk of divorce that goes along with early marriage.

    https://www.gannett-cdn.com/presto/2019/12/27/USAT/d144c65a-fc06-4544-977c-0083af31296b-married_parents_1.png?width=660&height=372&fit=crop&format=pjpg&auto=webp

    Replies: @Thomm, @Rosie, @res

    It’s good to include charts, but maybe a little longer time series to give better perspective? Note that the 2007 start date of your chart was actually a local maxima. Also note that 2018 and 2019 are projections!

    Here is a fifty year series from the census.
    https://www.census.gov/library/stories/2021/04/number-of-children-living-only-with-their-mothers-has-doubled-in-past-50-years.html

    Notice the fine print as well. It turns out they changed the way the number is reported in the census in 2007. When you don’t like what the numbers show just change the measurement to make them look better! (credo of the 21st century US it seems, though hardly limited to us/now)

    It looks like your graphic uses the ACS instead so not sure if previous paragraph is applicable to it.

    If this page is correct the 2018 ACS numbers were even higher than they projected.
    https://ifstudies.org/blog/a-portrait-of-contemporary-family-living-arrangements-for-us-children
    Here is the detailed 2018 breakdown for context.

    A bit more detail on the category definitions.

    Most of these children lived with two parents in their first marriage (76%) while the rest lived with parents who were in a remarriage (these children could be born in the new marriage or from an earlier marriage). Another 7% of children lived with cohabiting opposite-sex parents. In these cohabiting families, children either lived with their unmarried mom and dad or with a single parent and an opposite-sex partner of the parent.

    P.S. Here are two sources for your graphic which add some context.
    https://ifstudies.org/blog/the-good-and-bad-news-about-family-life-in-america
    https://www.jec.senate.gov/public/_cache/files/1ae6cc11-6639-4989-a78e-d6cb630b3c72/w-bradford-wilcox---aei--testimony.pdf

    P.P.S. It is interesting to see your dismissal of the issues which men have with family court. Makes me wonder how much of your perception of the attitude here towards women is just projection of your attitude towards men.

    • Replies: @Rosie
    @res


    P.P.S. It is interesting to see your dismissal of the issues which men have with family court. Makes me wonder how much of your perception of the attitude here towards women is just projection of your attitude towards men.
     
    Res, I haven't seen any evidence that men have any particular issues in family court. Bad outcomes are not evidence of disparate treatment. Why are there not more women in STEM? Is it discrimination or do women just have less of an aptitude for and/or interest in STEM? You can’t have it both ways, res. We're not going to assume discrimination when men have worse outcomes but they reject that conclusion when women have worse outcomes.

    Makes me wonder how much of your perception of the attitude here towards women is just projection of your attitude towards men.
     
    Irrelevant psychobabble.

    Anyway, your charts confirm my point. Far from being "all but gone," the two parent household is still normative, as I said. I also note that your charts don't account for racial differences, and so single-mather household statistics are massively distorted by black household arrangements.

    Replies: @Reg Cæsar

  194. @Peter Akuleyev
    @Jack D

    I have met hundreds of Russians who speak impeccable English. Russians (and Poles) are generally better at English than Italians or French speakers, in my experience.

    Russian is an Indo-European language. It is not really all that foreign to anyone who has studied Greek, Latin or even German. Of course, these days that describes a vanishingly small pool of native English speakers.

    Polish is even easier because of the Latin alphabet and significant vocabulary borrowed from Latin due to Catholic cultural influence. It is really a question of motivation, and most English speakers aren't motivated to learn languages that don't offer career advancement and are spoken in cold climates and unattractive industrial cities (that is the perception even if not true). The fact that educated Russians and Poles often speak excellent English just makes the situation even worse.

    Replies: @Paperback Writer, @Jack D

    All languages are hard to learn if you have no motivation, which Americans do not. They are unmotivated for all the reasons I don’t have to repeat here but also this: they’re just lazy and arrogant. They expect other people to speak English, and other people do, or want to, so it compounds the situation.

    When I was forced into learning the basics of other languages, I did. I was never fluent but I became basic.

    I also saw Ethiopian children sop up Hebrew in a matter of months in Israel. Maybe they didn’t do so great in school, but after a few months they were chattering away in the dominant language.

  195. @Stan Adams
    @Mike Tre

    I see a drone strike in that family’s future.

    Replies: @Kylie

    Lol! Merry Christmas, Stan!

    • Replies: @Stan Adams
    @Kylie

    Thank you. Same to you.

    , @Stan Adams
    @Kylie

    Thanks. A belated Merry Christmas to you, as well.

  196. @Intelligent Dasein
    @Justvisiting


    Who knew that Orwell’s “1984” would become a training manual for leaders of the “democracies”?
     
    Well, George Orwell, for one.

    I don't know why the default position on Orwell is always that he was some sort of liberty-loving visionary who wrote warnings and cautionary tales. Nobody writes something like Nineteen Eighty-Four unless he feels the same tyrannical impulses moving inside of him. The easiest way for any writer to make a buck is to spill his own brutality, lasciviousness, and pathologies out onto the page, change a few names and verb tenses, and call it "fiction."

    George Orwell was an atheist, a socialist, and an all-around hypocrite. Nineteen Eighty-Four is wish fulfillment.

    Replies: @SaneClownPosse

    Orwell was British Intelligence, as was Huxley.

    “1984” forecast a total, brutal fascism, 24 by 7, in your face, boot on your neck future.

    The masses are okay with a less brutal fascism, as long as it is not “1984” level, and has some social goal that is promoted as good for the whole.

    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar
    @SaneClownPosse


    “1984” forecast a total, brutal fascism, 24 by 7, in your face, boot on your neck future.
     
    No, Animal Farm did that. 1984 mocked the show trials in Moscow.
  197. @res
    @Rosie

    It's good to include charts, but maybe a little longer time series to give better perspective? Note that the 2007 start date of your chart was actually a local maxima. Also note that 2018 and 2019 are projections!

    Here is a fifty year series from the census.
    https://www.census.gov/library/stories/2021/04/number-of-children-living-only-with-their-mothers-has-doubled-in-past-50-years.html

    https://www.census.gov/content/dam/Census/library/stories/2021/04/number-of-children-living-only-with-their-mothers-has-doubled-in-past-50-years-figure-1.jpg

    Notice the fine print as well. It turns out they changed the way the number is reported in the census in 2007. When you don't like what the numbers show just change the measurement to make them look better! (credo of the 21st century US it seems, though hardly limited to us/now)

    It looks like your graphic uses the ACS instead so not sure if previous paragraph is applicable to it.

    If this page is correct the 2018 ACS numbers were even higher than they projected.
    https://ifstudies.org/blog/a-portrait-of-contemporary-family-living-arrangements-for-us-children
    Here is the detailed 2018 breakdown for context.

    https://ifstudies.org/ifs-admin/resources/wendyfigurenew-w640.png

    A bit more detail on the category definitions.


    Most of these children lived with two parents in their first marriage (76%) while the rest lived with parents who were in a remarriage (these children could be born in the new marriage or from an earlier marriage). Another 7% of children lived with cohabiting opposite-sex parents. In these cohabiting families, children either lived with their unmarried mom and dad or with a single parent and an opposite-sex partner of the parent.
     
    P.S. Here are two sources for your graphic which add some context.
    https://ifstudies.org/blog/the-good-and-bad-news-about-family-life-in-america
    https://www.jec.senate.gov/public/_cache/files/1ae6cc11-6639-4989-a78e-d6cb630b3c72/w-bradford-wilcox---aei--testimony.pdf

    P.P.S. It is interesting to see your dismissal of the issues which men have with family court. Makes me wonder how much of your perception of the attitude here towards women is just projection of your attitude towards men.

    Replies: @Rosie

    P.P.S. It is interesting to see your dismissal of the issues which men have with family court. Makes me wonder how much of your perception of the attitude here towards women is just projection of your attitude towards men.

    Res, I haven’t seen any evidence that men have any particular issues in family court. Bad outcomes are not evidence of disparate treatment. Why are there not more women in STEM? Is it discrimination or do women just have less of an aptitude for and/or interest in STEM? You can’t have it both ways, res. We’re not going to assume discrimination when men have worse outcomes but they reject that conclusion when women have worse outcomes.

    Makes me wonder how much of your perception of the attitude here towards women is just projection of your attitude towards men.

    Irrelevant psychobabble.

    Anyway, your charts confirm my point. Far from being “all but gone,” the two parent household is still normative, as I said. I also note that your charts don’t account for racial differences, and so single-mather household statistics are massively distorted by black household arrangements.

    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar
    @Rosie


    single-mather household statistics
     
    Do these distinguish between riding, walk-behind, and reel?


    https://www.deere.com/assets/images/region-4/products/mowers/lawn-tractors/lawn-tractor-hero-image-r4g074715_rrd-1366x398.jpg

    https://m.media-amazon.com/images/I/71If9PkMhPL._AC_SX425_.jpg

    https://imgc.artprintimages.com/img/print/suspicious-man-with-a-push-reel-lawn-mower_u-l-q1bwmkb0.jpg?artHeight=900&artPerspective=n&artWidth=900&background=fbfbfb

    Replies: @Rob McX

  198. @Colin Wright
    One interesting misstep I notice almost routinely in science fiction literature from the fifties is that computers will be really, really powerful...and therefore, really, really big. In fact, they'll be so big and powerful that one computer will fill an entire warehouse!

    The opposite definitely happened there. I use a 12.9" iPad for everything -- and it's only that big to accommodate the screen.

    Another missed trend is blacks running amok. That really was visibly starting to happen by the mid-Sixties, and yet to my knowledge, few have ever seriously speculated as to where it might be going. Many of us see where it is -- but beyond denial and/or lunatic genocidal prescriptions, no one suggests where it might be going.

    It's intriguing. They obviously lack the chops to be a new master race -- but we're determined to treat them as such. What happens next?

    Replies: @Adept, @Don Unf, @anonymous coward, @res, @Peter Akuleyev, @Known Fact

    One interesting misstep I notice almost routinely in science fiction literature from the fifties is that computers will be really, really powerful…and therefore, really, really big.

    My holiday gift to myself is reviewing the artistically triumphant season 2 of The Man From UNCLE – including The Ultimate Computer Affair, in which the good guys and bad guys (the great Roger C Carmel!) battle over a four-foot-by six-foot console (complete with flashing lights and plastic bubble) that supposedly and hilariously will give THRUSH the decision-making power to rule the world!

    Other technological predictions from The Man From UNCLE (1965 = 1968)
    Earthquake machine
    Tsunami generator
    Mind-reading machine
    Killer bees (way ahead of their time there!)
    Ray gun that can hit European capitals from the Swiss Alps
    Obedience gas (crazed general Leslie Nielsen planning to take over the world)

    • Replies: @Joe Stalin
    @Known Fact


    Ray gun that can hit European capitals from the Swiss Alps
     
    That's actually very good idea, certainly enough to pay homage to...

    https://youtu.be/Z4wZt4J3Q5k?list=PLZbXA4lyCtqpGVOT9pGE1kITDAtFHonx1

    Replies: @Known Fact

  199. @Ralph L
    @Jack D

    Nabokov and the later Romanovs had English nannies, so it wasn't a second language.

    Replies: @Paperback Writer

    Nabokov was raised trilingual – also French. Doesn’t take away from his literary genius, but his fluency in three languages wasn’t an example of it.

    Joseph Conrad – now that’s an amazing case! He didn’t speak English fluently until he was in his 20s, and became one of the great stylists of the English language. I can’t think of anyone else like that.

  200. @PhysicistDave
    @Adept

    Adept wrote to me:


    Transhumanism is nothing more than the realization that we don’t need to leave the development of the human species to the vagaries of chance and the dysgenic trends that are so apparent today.
     
    Well...

    If you have been following these guys (and it is overwhelmingly males!) for the last few decades, as I have, you'd know that two of their big things are cryopreservation of their brain when they die and mind uploading to computers. I actually have a friend who had has brain frozen when he died tragically young three decades ago.

    The cryopreserved brains are never going to be revived. Ask any physician or neuroscientist.

    And brain uploading is a bizarre science-fiction fantasy. Again, ask any neuroscientist.

    Adept also wrote:


    Genetic modification for improved mental or physical traits is transhumanist. Any drug or device that can improve those traits — from steroids to stimulants to anti-aging treatments — is basically, though usually weakly, transhumanist.
     
    Well, as another commenter mentioned, then eyeglasses would count as transhumanist.

    That is moving the goalposts. The transhumanists have made very, very clear that they have in mind things way, way beyond normal medical care, normal prosthetics, etc. If that is all they meant, it would all be very mundane and boring.

    No, they have made clear that they have in mind scientifically absurd things such as cryopreservation and mind uploading.

    And those ideas are just a crazy pseudo-religious cult, utter and complete nonsense, in the same league as clairvoyance or necromancy.

    Some people cannot distinguish science fiction from reality.

    Replies: @Adept, @Paperback Writer

    Some people cannot distinguish science fiction from reality.

    I’ve been laughing at the transhumanists for 20 years now.

    The question is, are they crazier than the “men can get pregnant” crowd? Who is the more insane, the more repellent?

  201. @Inquiring Mind
    @JimDandy

    Don't the drive-through banking lanes use pneumatic tubes?

    Replies: @JimDandy

    An excruciating tease of what could have been.

  202. Gentlemen, Merry Christmas…

  203. @Old Prude
    @EdwardM

    One can't tell about Joe's understanding who Brandon is, but the fella on the other end of that call has balls of steel. Un real!

    Replies: @Boy the way Glenn Miller played

    One can’t tell about Joe’s understanding who Brandon is, but the fella on the other end of that call has balls of steel. Un real!

    Imagine what a seasoned KGB operator could do with Brandon.
    Imagine if Brandon’s son had a long, easily documented trail of dirt.

  204. @Adept
    @PhysicistDave

    There are some very influential people in or adjacent to the Transhumanist community -- like Robin Hanson -- who have fallen in love with certain ideas. One such much-loved idea is the notion of cryopreservation. Whether or not it is plausible is beside the point -- which is that transhumanism, as a conceptual notion, should mean much more than just that.

    Besides, I don't think that mind uploading is necessarily that far-fetched, and it can be done in a way that doesn't necessarily make a mere copy. At least conceptually. Consider this:

    A man goes into an operation where a piece of his brain is removed and replaced with a digital signal processor that perfectly compensates for it. After a while, there is a second operation, then a third, and so forth. After each operation our man is sent home to go about his business. After 40 such operations, there is nothing left of the original matter of his brain. That man now has a perfectly transparent mind -- in the sense that its workings are not mysterious -- that can quite easily be "uploaded." And after what operation does he stop being man? After one? After ten? It's really quite impossible to say. Of course, this is the old Ship of Theseus problem, but it's also perhaps the only way to upload a living mind and simultaneously ensure the continuity of self.

    Such things may come about, if we can somehow stop the Brazilification of civilization.

    Replies: @PhysicistDave, @Alrenous

    Adept wrote to me:

    A man goes into an operation where a piece of his brain is removed and replaced with a digital signal processor that perfectly compensates for it. After a while, there is a second operation, then a third, and so forth. After each operation our man is sent home to go about his business. After 40 such operations, there is nothing left of the original matter of his brain.

    Well, the continuation of the thought experiment is that you slow down all the signal processors to a crawl and then one by one replace them with clerks who have the input-output table for the processor you are replacing. In the end, the brain has been replaced with clerks passing slips of paper to each other.

    A variant of Searle’s “Chinese room” thought experiment.

    This is a reduction ad absurdum that shows that “information processing” is not the basis of consciousness.

    There is a long history of “The brain is just a (fill in the latest technology).” “Digital signal processor is just the latest fad.

    It is probably no more correct than the earlier fads that compared the brain to a clockwork or a hydraulic system or whatever.

    There are other problems with the whole “consciousness is information processing” meme that I will not go into here (I am thinking about writing a book about all this — I actually have a rough outline).

    Suffice it to say that there are a whole lot of reasons to view it as science fiction, or at least as a flawed metaphor, not as science.

    And Merry Christmas!

    • Replies: @Adept
    @PhysicistDave

    But though the notion of paper-passing is clearly impossible and absurd, we can today make digital signal processing equipment on the same physical scale as the neuron. And we do so very routinely.

    So to take it a step further, imagine that the synthetic equipment our surgeons implant can precisely measure the state of each neuron and glial cell, and compensate perfectly for those states. If neuron N1 is connected to N2, N3 . . . N10898, etc., the equipment compensates both for the removal of that original brain matter, for all of those neural connections, and for every signal they would send or receive.

    Because we assume that the replacement of his gray matter takes place in a stepwise fashion, over several years, our man would notice if his grasp on consciousness is slipping, or if he were somehow becoming diminished. This is very unlikely and implies that brain matter is somehow privileged.

    And two things besides: First, it's highly likely that consciousness did arise as a mere byproduct of information processing. I like Sperry's theory that consciousness is "interpreted to be a direct emergent property of cerebral activity, is conceived to be an integral component of the brain process that functions as an essential constituent of the action and exerts a directive holistic form of control over the flow pattern of cerebral excitation."

    Second, there's nothing that's not simulable, at least in principle if not yet in practice. There's nothing about the human brain to suggest that it can't be simulated -- for, if one cell can be accurately simulated, including its various connections and its chemical state, then simulating 90 billion more is a mere matter of addition.

    Anyway, I hope you had a Merry Christmas! And if you do write that book, please post about it here so that I can buy a copy. I am, of course, keenly interested.

  205. @The Germ Theory of Disease
    @Reg Cæsar

    "But is there a song in there somewhere?"

    It's a matter of taste I suppose: I definitely think there's a song in there, but for intelligent tasteful folks like yourself who disagree, I would say it's more a matter of "conception". It also helps to understand this stuff if you are yourself a pianist, a guitarist, or a guy (like me) who plays the drums using hunting knives instead of sticks.

    Tori and PJ Harvey were the two greatest practitioners in the 90s of a sort of back-stage artistry that requires explanation: they both had proper classical training, and then they both listened to and studied and absorbed and internalized the work and the methodology of Don Van Vliet/Captain Beefheart: the so-called "car-crash" rhythms and anti-rhythms, the sense of time versus anti-time, tonality versus anti-tonality, lyrics versus anti-lyrics. Tori and PJ both figured out how to make the Beefheart aesthetic musical theory appealing, instead of just confrontational and insane. Which was the way us boys liked it.

    Replies: @Abolish_public_education

    I couldn’t understand what you were saying, technically, about TA, so I passed along your comments to a music expert (itself not very familiar with TA’s work).

    “Pop piano”.

    • Replies: @The Germ Theory of Disease
    @Abolish_public_education

    Well, the world is a rather big place, and there's all sorts of different stuff to like. Everybody doesn't have to like everything. If for whatever reason you find that you're just not that impressed by Tori's work, there's certainly plenty of other things to enjoy instead. Cheerio, and a happy New Year!

  206. @AnotherDad
    @Rosie


    Eating out is still surprisingly expensive. The economies of scale really don’t work out, and cooking from home is still very economical by comparison.
     
    Agree. (And i always find it odd how much people blow "eating out" when the best experience is a dinner at home--less noisy, more comfortable, more time--with family and friends.)

    But ... i really do expect the food prep equation is going to change with robotics. Take the labor cost--mostly--out of the equation and somewhat standardized (ex. "fast food") prepared food is going to drop in price to the point many people will barely bother cooking.

    Replies: @Rosie, @Kylie, @Jack D

    “And i always find it odd how much people blow ‘eating out’ when the best experience is a dinner at home–less noisy, more comfortable, more time–with family and friends.”

    I agree generally but this doesn’t apply to me. I live alone in a small town. My neighbor and I go out to eat at local restaurants as often as we can. The food is good, inexpensive and we know the wait staff and some of the owners and are always treated well. It’s a nice way to get a good meal and good conversation in friendly surroundings.

    But I realize this is the exception not the rule. We’re very fortunate here in our little backwater. The kind of small town friendliness we pride ourselves on has vanished in many places.

  207. @Known Fact
    @Colin Wright


    One interesting misstep I notice almost routinely in science fiction literature from the fifties is that computers will be really, really powerful…and therefore, really, really big.
     
    My holiday gift to myself is reviewing the artistically triumphant season 2 of The Man From UNCLE - including The Ultimate Computer Affair, in which the good guys and bad guys (the great Roger C Carmel!) battle over a four-foot-by six-foot console (complete with flashing lights and plastic bubble) that supposedly and hilariously will give THRUSH the decision-making power to rule the world!

    Other technological predictions from The Man From UNCLE (1965 = 1968)
    Earthquake machine
    Tsunami generator
    Mind-reading machine
    Killer bees (way ahead of their time there!)
    Ray gun that can hit European capitals from the Swiss Alps
    Obedience gas (crazed general Leslie Nielsen planning to take over the world)

    Replies: @Joe Stalin

    Ray gun that can hit European capitals from the Swiss Alps

    That’s actually very good idea, certainly enough to pay homage to…

    • Replies: @Known Fact
    @Joe Stalin

    Haha, thanks for catching these writers in ripoff mode! The funmy thing with the UNCLE episode is that THRUSH had to take over and hilariously run an Alpine monastery as a cover for their evil plot. Much like the episodes where they ran a dance club, a vacuum cleaner store, a mortuary and a godawful off-Broadway play as covers for their absurd plots

  208. @Paperback Writer
    @rebel yell

    Agree. And lest anyone think I'm a phony, NYC could do with a bit of this as well. Let Adams & his new cutie pie Police Commish handle looting on 5th Avenue or SoHo.

    Would you agree about your neck of the woods, RY? There's a rich part of every town, village, and county.

    Replies: @rebel yell

    Every neighborhood in my city is Woke – the rich, the middle class, the poor. BLM signs are everywhere. While I selfishly don’t want trouble on my own street, everyone in town deserves a riot in their front yard.

    • Replies: @Known Fact
    @rebel yell

    "BLM flags are everywhere" -- we also have that weird new one that seems at first like the gay rainbow but I think is trying to represent every oppressed group under the sun with a different colored stripe on a white background. And then there's the "Hate Has No Home Here" signs. Just confide some of your own views to them and watch Hate show up, unpack and get comfy real fast

  209. @Joe Stalin
    @Known Fact


    Ray gun that can hit European capitals from the Swiss Alps
     
    That's actually very good idea, certainly enough to pay homage to...

    https://youtu.be/Z4wZt4J3Q5k?list=PLZbXA4lyCtqpGVOT9pGE1kITDAtFHonx1

    Replies: @Known Fact

    Haha, thanks for catching these writers in ripoff mode! The funmy thing with the UNCLE episode is that THRUSH had to take over and hilariously run an Alpine monastery as a cover for their evil plot. Much like the episodes where they ran a dance club, a vacuum cleaner store, a mortuary and a godawful off-Broadway play as covers for their absurd plots

  210. @Rosie
    @Rosie

    Oh look almost 80% of White children live in the all-but-gone two-parent household.

    https://www.census.gov/content/dam/Census/library/stories/2021/04/number-of-children-living-only-with-their-mothers-has-doubled-in-past-50-years-figure-3.jpg

    Replies: @Reg Cæsar

    Oh look almost 80% of White children live in the all-but-gone two-parent household

    In 1960, that was true of black families.

    • Replies: @Rosie
    @Reg Cæsar


    In 1960, that was true of black families.
     
    Not my problem.

    Replies: @Reg Cæsar, @kaganovitch

  211. @Reg Cæsar
    @Rosie


    Oh look almost 80% of White children live in the all-but-gone two-parent household
     
    In 1960, that was true of black families.

    Replies: @Rosie

    In 1960, that was true of black families.

    Not my problem.

    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar
    @Rosie

    Funny, but Daniel Patrick Moynihan thought it his problem. Now whites have sunk to the level that shocked him 55 years ago.

    Replies: @Rosie

    , @kaganovitch
    @Rosie

    Not my problem.

    "You may not be interested in the Revolution , but the Revolution is interested in you."

  212. @Paperback Writer
    @Known Fact

    Thank Jack D - he linked to it up-thread.

    Also "res" came up with an awesome article:

    https://www.econstor.eu/bitstream/10419/38885/1/633112313.pdf

    I know what you mean about laughing at the 70s. Actually people thought it was awful. Lennon gave one of his last interviews on Dick Cavett he said, "Weren't the 70s awful?"

    It was better than it seemed.

    I will never eat bugs.

    Replies: @Reg Cæsar

    Actually people thought it was awful. Lennon gave one of his last interviews on Dick Cavett he said, “Weren’t the 70s awful?”

    One who gave his very last interview on Cavett was Jerome Rodale, who collapsed on the show and died.

    Imagine someone tweeting this today:

    Rodale was an anti-vaccinationist. He also made dubious claims about cancer. In his book Happy People Rarely Get Cancer, Rodale said, “Negroes get less cancer than whites, for the Negro is a happy race. True, there is their problem of segregation, but the Negro race being what it is, I think a Negro sings just the same, and is not going to let segregation dampen his spirits as much as a similar problem would do to the white person.”

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._I._Rodale#Criticism

  213. @res
    @Jack D

    Thanks, Jack. That is an interesting graph for a long time series which I had not seen.

    For those who did not click through it is important to realize.
    1. The years are birth cohorts. So the 1986 point is people who were 25 years old when the paper was published in 2010.
    2. That graph shows the rate of change of BMI not BMI itself.

    The graphs for white females and black males/females are rather different. For example, in the shape across the post 1965 birth cohorts.

    There is another version of the paper which includes BMI graphs for all four groups. I think those are easier to understand for conveying the status of a point in time.
    https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1570677X11000414
    https://www.econstor.eu/bitstream/10419/38885/1/633112313.pdf

    Table 1 gives an alternative way of looking at the progression of obesity in each group. Hopefully the formatting is adequate for understanding.

    Table 1. Dates by which given centile reached a BMI value of 30
    (Birth Cohort)
    White Black
    Centile Males Females Males Females
    9th 1911 1912 1907 1897
    8th 1926 1931 1924 1905
    7th 1942 1946 1950 1917
    6th 1967 1964 1962 1927
    5th na 1980 1982 1942
    4th na na na 1959
    Note: Among white men and women, and black men, the 5th, 4th and 3rd centiles have not
    reached the BMI value of 30 during the observation period

    I found that confusing until I realized their terminology is funky. They aren't talking about centiles here. They are talking about deciles. The lines in their plots are 10-90 centiles, but if you are going to refer to the top line as 9th etc. then you should really call it deciles. And in the page Jack linked, they do use "deciles" in the text (but not captions, since those figures are just copies of the paper versions).

    So 60% of black females born in 1959 are obese. Wow.

    Here is another version of that work with some different figures.
    https://www.nber.org/papers/w15862
    https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w15862/w15862.pdf

    Figure 1 shows average BMIs for each group. Black women are an outlier with an average BMI for the 1986 birth cohort of 39 compared to 32 for the other three groups. Figure 2 shows the rate of change for each group. Which captures the interesting differences I mentioned above. Figure 3 shows BMI by age curves for each group. Figures 6 and 7 show Iso-BMI lines for given age birth cohort combinations for white and black women.

    While we're on the obesity topic (this paper showed up in my image search), this paper provides a very interesting look at how both risk and BMI vary with height and weight. In particular, it shows how poor a proxy BMI is for health across different heights.
    https://www.hindawi.com/journals/jobe/2016/6734043/

    https://static-01.hindawi.com/articles/jobe/volume-2016/6734043/figures/6734043.fig.003.svgz
    Unfortunately, I don't think the svgz file will embed here, but please take a look at Figure 3.

    That figure is conceptually dense. Three of the (sets of) curves are described well in the legend, but may need thought to assimilate. The fourth curve (dashed line with dated dots) is described in the text just above.

    For example, at a height of 175 cm the minimum mortality risk of 0.8 occurs at 75 kg which is a BMI of 25.

    One thing I found interesting is how the mortality risk at optimum weight decreases significantly from 1.3 to less than 0.7 as you go from 155 cm to 190 cm tall.

    Replies: @Paperback Writer, @Paperback Writer, @Reg Cæsar

    So 60% of black females born in 1959 are obese. Wow.

    Only by white standards. Or East or South Asian.

  214. @Adept
    @PhysicistDave

    There are some very influential people in or adjacent to the Transhumanist community -- like Robin Hanson -- who have fallen in love with certain ideas. One such much-loved idea is the notion of cryopreservation. Whether or not it is plausible is beside the point -- which is that transhumanism, as a conceptual notion, should mean much more than just that.

    Besides, I don't think that mind uploading is necessarily that far-fetched, and it can be done in a way that doesn't necessarily make a mere copy. At least conceptually. Consider this:

    A man goes into an operation where a piece of his brain is removed and replaced with a digital signal processor that perfectly compensates for it. After a while, there is a second operation, then a third, and so forth. After each operation our man is sent home to go about his business. After 40 such operations, there is nothing left of the original matter of his brain. That man now has a perfectly transparent mind -- in the sense that its workings are not mysterious -- that can quite easily be "uploaded." And after what operation does he stop being man? After one? After ten? It's really quite impossible to say. Of course, this is the old Ship of Theseus problem, but it's also perhaps the only way to upload a living mind and simultaneously ensure the continuity of self.

    Such things may come about, if we can somehow stop the Brazilification of civilization.

    Replies: @PhysicistDave, @Alrenous

    My favourite bottom-up transhumanist hack is tying a vibrating belt to a compass. The wearer develops a new quale for direction. Turns out civilizations really do refuse to study certain things, and for Americoids, consciousness is top of the list. What other quale can you induce? By contrast, tying random I/O into a computer is as likely as not to cause it to crash.

    If someone bothered to develop proper metal/carbohydrate interfaces or learned from the master and gave up metal engineering for carbohydrate engineering, it would be possible to tie the brain via radio link to a computer. Mind expansion. No need to teach the brain what’s it’s seeing, any more than it needs help to learn direction. Or language, for that matter.

    You can’t actually upload a mind because it depends on quantum relationships. Evolution really does use every part of the buffalo. Any instrument trying to measure it will destroy the thing it’s trying to measure. There’s no reason the relationships couldn’t be expanded into an artifact, however. Grafting a new arm on is well beyond current medical science, but grafting on a new thinking machine is not. Might be hideously expensive, though, especially if it has to use metal equivalents of the quantum components. I priced a metal one in the \$10,000 magnitudes, and estimate the human brain has a couple billion of the things. Could be more, though.

    Losing your meat brain will always be a serious blow, but there’s no reason you have to rely so totally on it.

    Glad you’re enjoying the Plato stuff.

  215. @Kylie
    @Stan Adams

    Lol! Merry Christmas, Stan!

    Replies: @Stan Adams, @Stan Adams

    Thank you. Same to you.

    • Thanks: Kylie
  216. @Paperback Writer
    @J.Ross

    You say Trevalyan as if everyone knows who yr referring to, LOL. Is this the one?

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G._E._Trevelyan

    They don't mention a novel of that name.

    Replies: @J.Ross, @Charlotte

    I believe he’s referring to Trevanian https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trevanian

  217. @Rosie
    @Reg Cæsar


    In 1960, that was true of black families.
     
    Not my problem.

    Replies: @Reg Cæsar, @kaganovitch

    Funny, but Daniel Patrick Moynihan thought it his problem. Now whites have sunk to the level that shocked him 55 years ago.

    • Replies: @Rosie
    @Reg Cæsar


    Funny, but Daniel Patrick Moynihan thought it his problem. Now whites have sunk to the level that shocked him 55 years ago.
     
    That's because he was a silly, race-denying basic bitch conservative who subscribed to the semi-magical idea that even a really shitty father is better than no father. Anyone who grew up with a dysfunctional father can tell you this is not the case.

    You men like to thump your chests about any statistical disparity that favors you, then you ignore the fact that men are overrepresented among criminals, drug addicts, gamblers, etc. As a result, men are more likely than women to be unfit parents. Forcing women to put up with these life-sucking ne'er-do-wells is not "good for the children."

    Replies: @Jack D, @rebel yell, @AnotherDad

  218. @Abolish_public_education
    @The Germ Theory of Disease

    I couldn't understand what you were saying, technically, about TA, so I passed along your comments to a music expert (itself not very familiar with TA's work).

    "Pop piano".

    Replies: @The Germ Theory of Disease

    Well, the world is a rather big place, and there’s all sorts of different stuff to like. Everybody doesn’t have to like everything. If for whatever reason you find that you’re just not that impressed by Tori’s work, there’s certainly plenty of other things to enjoy instead. Cheerio, and a happy New Year!

  219. @PhysicistDave
    @Adept

    Adept wrote to me:


    A man goes into an operation where a piece of his brain is removed and replaced with a digital signal processor that perfectly compensates for it. After a while, there is a second operation, then a third, and so forth. After each operation our man is sent home to go about his business. After 40 such operations, there is nothing left of the original matter of his brain.
     
    Well, the continuation of the thought experiment is that you slow down all the signal processors to a crawl and then one by one replace them with clerks who have the input-output table for the processor you are replacing. In the end, the brain has been replaced with clerks passing slips of paper to each other.

    A variant of Searle's "Chinese room" thought experiment.

    This is a reduction ad absurdum that shows that "information processing" is not the basis of consciousness.

    There is a long history of "The brain is just a (fill in the latest technology)." "Digital signal processor is just the latest fad.

    It is probably no more correct than the earlier fads that compared the brain to a clockwork or a hydraulic system or whatever.

    There are other problems with the whole "consciousness is information processing" meme that I will not go into here (I am thinking about writing a book about all this -- I actually have a rough outline).

    Suffice it to say that there are a whole lot of reasons to view it as science fiction, or at least as a flawed metaphor, not as science.

    And Merry Christmas!

    Replies: @Adept

    But though the notion of paper-passing is clearly impossible and absurd, we can today make digital signal processing equipment on the same physical scale as the neuron. And we do so very routinely.

    So to take it a step further, imagine that the synthetic equipment our surgeons implant can precisely measure the state of each neuron and glial cell, and compensate perfectly for those states. If neuron N1 is connected to N2, N3 . . . N10898, etc., the equipment compensates both for the removal of that original brain matter, for all of those neural connections, and for every signal they would send or receive.

    Because we assume that the replacement of his gray matter takes place in a stepwise fashion, over several years, our man would notice if his grasp on consciousness is slipping, or if he were somehow becoming diminished. This is very unlikely and implies that brain matter is somehow privileged.

    And two things besides: First, it’s highly likely that consciousness did arise as a mere byproduct of information processing. I like Sperry’s theory that consciousness is “interpreted to be a direct emergent property of cerebral activity, is conceived to be an integral component of the brain process that functions as an essential constituent of the action and exerts a directive holistic form of control over the flow pattern of cerebral excitation.”

    Second, there’s nothing that’s not simulable, at least in principle if not yet in practice. There’s nothing about the human brain to suggest that it can’t be simulated — for, if one cell can be accurately simulated, including its various connections and its chemical state, then simulating 90 billion more is a mere matter of addition.

    Anyway, I hope you had a Merry Christmas! And if you do write that book, please post about it here so that I can buy a copy. I am, of course, keenly interested.

  220. @Reg Cæsar
    @Rosie

    Funny, but Daniel Patrick Moynihan thought it his problem. Now whites have sunk to the level that shocked him 55 years ago.

    Replies: @Rosie

    Funny, but Daniel Patrick Moynihan thought it his problem. Now whites have sunk to the level that shocked him 55 years ago.

    That’s because he was a silly, race-denying basic bitch conservative who subscribed to the semi-magical idea that even a really shitty father is better than no father. Anyone who grew up with a dysfunctional father can tell you this is not the case.

    You men like to thump your chests about any statistical disparity that favors you, then you ignore the fact that men are overrepresented among criminals, drug addicts, gamblers, etc. As a result, men are more likely than women to be unfit parents. Forcing women to put up with these life-sucking ne’er-do-wells is not “good for the children.”

    • Agree: Paperback Writer, S
    • Replies: @Jack D
    @Rosie

    Maybe women should think about this first before they allow these ne’er-do-wells to impregnate them. But there seems to be a big overlap between ne’er-do-wells and the kind of men certain women find to be sexy. Whereas the personality traits of men who are hardworking nose to the grindstone nerdy type guys they find to be repulsive. So maybe women are their own worst enemies?

    Regardless of whether women have made poor choices in man selection, not having a father around is very bad for children - every study confirms this. OTOH, when Johns Hopkins did its "Study of Exceptional Talent", they found that the overwhelming majority of their budding geniuses came from intact families. Now while there are some cases where the father is out because he is physically abusive, etc. in far more cases (that I know of at least), the father that gets kicked out is a perfectly nice guy and the woman (women initiate most divorces) just doesn't want him around anymore.

    Replies: @Rosie, @Reg Cæsar, @Paperback Writer

    , @rebel yell
    @Rosie


    You men like to thump your chests about any statistical disparity that favors you, then you ignore the fact that men are overrepresented among criminals, drug addicts, gamblers, etc.
     
    Rosie, I seem to remember on a previous post that the men commentors here on Unz were arguing that men tend to more extremes than women, and that this included more male criminals as well as more male geniuses. The context of that argument was sexual dimorphism in humans, and the biological reasons that men succeed more at the extremes than women do. The commentors were also readily admitting that men fail more at the extremes as well, with higher crime rates than women.
    In that thread you argued against sexual dimporphism, since you didn't want to admit that women do not excel as much as men at the extreme good end due to biology.
    So the Rosie rule seems to be, men outnumber women on the good end because they oppress women. Men outnumber women on the bad end because they are pigs.
    At any rate, men here do not ignore the fact that men are overrepresented among criminals. They just discuss that fact more objectively than you do.

    Replies: @Reg Cæsar, @Paperback Writer, @Rosie

    , @AnotherDad
    @Rosie

    C'mon Rosie, tell us how you really feel about men.

    Some of us men--testosterone poisoning--have just had a hard time getting a read on you.

  221. @JimDandy
    Pneumatic tubes are the great lost steampunk technology

    This sentence hit me really hard. Because it's true.

    Replies: @Inquiring Mind, @Slim

    The bank I use has four lanes of drive-thru pneumatic tube banking. It isn’t a relic of a bygone age, this branch bank was constructed about ten years ago. It’s way more fun than an ATM.

  222. @rebel yell
    @Paperback Writer

    Every neighborhood in my city is Woke - the rich, the middle class, the poor. BLM signs are everywhere. While I selfishly don't want trouble on my own street, everyone in town deserves a riot in their front yard.

    Replies: @Known Fact

    “BLM flags are everywhere” — we also have that weird new one that seems at first like the gay rainbow but I think is trying to represent every oppressed group under the sun with a different colored stripe on a white background. And then there’s the “Hate Has No Home Here” signs. Just confide some of your own views to them and watch Hate show up, unpack and get comfy real fast

  223. @Peter Akuleyev
    @Jack D

    I have met hundreds of Russians who speak impeccable English. Russians (and Poles) are generally better at English than Italians or French speakers, in my experience.

    Russian is an Indo-European language. It is not really all that foreign to anyone who has studied Greek, Latin or even German. Of course, these days that describes a vanishingly small pool of native English speakers.

    Polish is even easier because of the Latin alphabet and significant vocabulary borrowed from Latin due to Catholic cultural influence. It is really a question of motivation, and most English speakers aren't motivated to learn languages that don't offer career advancement and are spoken in cold climates and unattractive industrial cities (that is the perception even if not true). The fact that educated Russians and Poles often speak excellent English just makes the situation even worse.

    Replies: @Paperback Writer, @Jack D

    Of course it is possible with enough effort to learn any foreign language (although completely losing an accent can be difficult unless you learn the language when you are quite young. I have met many Scandavians and Germans whose accents are so good that they could “pass” for native English speakers but very rarely any Russian or Chinese, even those who speak perfectly grammatical English otherwise.). However, the US Defense Language Institute (where they teach members of the CIA and the military foreign languages) has made a systemic study of which languages are the most difficult for an English speaker to learn. Category 1 is the easiest to learn and Category 4 is the hardest. The rating system is based upon the # of weeks they need to spend in order to teach you a language at a certain level – they know this with a high degree of accuracy after having taught these languages to thouand of people for many decades. As you can see, Russian is rated in Category 3 which is the 2nd to most difficult.

    Category 1: Spanish, Italian, French, Portuguese (36 weeks)
    Category 2: German, Indonesian (36 weeks also)
    Category 3: Hebrew, Hindi, Persian Farsi, Russian, Serbian, Tagalog, Thai, Urdu, Turkish (48 weeks)
    Category 4: Mandarin, Korean, Japanese, Modern Standard Arabic (64 weeks)

    https://www.dliflc.edu/about/languages-at-dliflc/

  224. @Mr. Anon
    @AnotherDad


    If you live around mostly normal looking people it is shocking to see “the public”. Since AnotherMom had us retire to the beach, i’m much more in touch with “my fellow Americans” … we are not a pretty sight. (“Fats and tats”)
     
    The popularity of tattoos are certainly another thing unforeseen by 1900 Man. The fact that a large fraction of the Western World's population would go around in public tatted up like prison inmates or South Seas cannibals would have been a shock to the Ladies who read The Ladies Home Journal, and the men who wrote it. It's still a shock to me. It is, I think, one of the worst trends in our modern era. So many people now have chosen to uglify themselves and in so doing uglify the World around them. It's disgusting. The people who promoted this trend should be flogged to death.

    Replies: @Cortes, @Reg Cæsar, @Known Fact

    Tats and piercings. Futuristic and atavistic all at once

  225. @Rosie
    @Reg Cæsar


    Funny, but Daniel Patrick Moynihan thought it his problem. Now whites have sunk to the level that shocked him 55 years ago.
     
    That's because he was a silly, race-denying basic bitch conservative who subscribed to the semi-magical idea that even a really shitty father is better than no father. Anyone who grew up with a dysfunctional father can tell you this is not the case.

    You men like to thump your chests about any statistical disparity that favors you, then you ignore the fact that men are overrepresented among criminals, drug addicts, gamblers, etc. As a result, men are more likely than women to be unfit parents. Forcing women to put up with these life-sucking ne'er-do-wells is not "good for the children."

    Replies: @Jack D, @rebel yell, @AnotherDad

    Maybe women should think about this first before they allow these ne’er-do-wells to impregnate them. But there seems to be a big overlap between ne’er-do-wells and the kind of men certain women find to be sexy. Whereas the personality traits of men who are hardworking nose to the grindstone nerdy type guys they find to be repulsive. So maybe women are their own worst enemies?

    Regardless of whether women have made poor choices in man selection, not having a father around is very bad for children – every study confirms this. OTOH, when Johns Hopkins did its “Study of Exceptional Talent”, they found that the overwhelming majority of their budding geniuses came from intact families. Now while there are some cases where the father is out because he is physically abusive, etc. in far more cases (that I know of at least), the father that gets kicked out is a perfectly nice guy and the woman (women initiate most divorces) just doesn’t want him around anymore.

    • Replies: @Rosie
    @Jack D


    Maybe women should think about this first before they allow these ne’er-do-wells to impregnate them. But there seems to be a big overlap between ne’er-do-wells and the kind of men certain women find to be sexy. Whereas the personality traits of men who are hardworking nose to the grindstone nerdy type guys they find to be repulsive. So maybe women are their own worst enemies?
     
    I can always count on you to blame the victim and look for a way to blame women for men's failures, Jack. In any event, it hardly matters. Even if everything you say is true (it isn't), the question still remains whether a family is better off with or without said ne'er-do-wells.

    OTOH, when Johns Hopkins did its “Study of Exceptional Talent”, they found that the overwhelming majority of their budding geniuses came from intact families.
     
    No shit, Sherlock. Budding geniuses are more likely to have fathers who aren't useless degenerates. Who could possibly have predicted it?

    Now while there are some cases where the father is out because he is physically abusive, etc. in far more cases (that I know of at least), the father that gets kicked out is a perfectly nice guy and the woman (women initiate most divorces) just doesn’t want him around anymore.
     
    Yes, Jack I know you claim that frivolous women go around divorcing perfectly good men no reason whatsoever, even after they already have kids with them and are now older than they werewhen they got married. Then mean old judges award her the house and the kids (over his objection) and child support because they're men who are biased against men or something. This is, of course, an extraordinary claim that requires some production of evidence on your part.

    Your anecdotes don't cut it. Here's one of mine: The young couple has one child. She leaves because she "feels like she has two kids." He's perfectly nice, and certainly not abusive, but after work he does nothing but sit on the couch and smoke weed. Though I hate to see families break up, I agreed with her. Who knows? Maybe he'll even clean up his act in hopes of reconciliation. Of course, he probably won't, and that will just confirm that she made the right choice.

    Replies: @Jack D, @AnotherDad, @AnotherDad

    , @Reg Cæsar
    @Jack D


    Maybe women should think about this first before they allow these ne’er-do-wells to impregnate them.
     
    That would require agency. Something which fetuses have but women lack:

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evictionism

    OTOH, when Johns Hopkins did its “Study of Exceptional Talent”, they found that the overwhelming majority of their budding geniuses came from intact families.
     
    Frans Johanssen reports that those who lose a parent young are overrepresented in measures of great success. But in these cases, the loss is usually due to death rather than dysfunction. Paul McCartney is an example of the former, John Lennon of both.
    , @Paperback Writer
    @Jack D


    Now while there are some cases where the father is out because he is physically abusive, etc. in far more cases (that I know of at least), the father that gets kicked out is a perfectly nice guy and the woman (women initiate most divorces) just doesn’t want him around anymore.
     
    Are you a divorce lawyer? The top reason for divorce is adultery.

    https://www.kevinhickeylaw.com/legal-blog/top-5-reasons-for-divorce

    Maybe in your world women "kick out a out a perfectly nice guy," but not in the real world. Back in the day, women just sucked it in and put up with it. They don't anymore.

    Replies: @Jack D, @Reg Cæsar, @res

  226. @AnotherDad
    @Rosie


    Eating out is still surprisingly expensive. The economies of scale really don’t work out, and cooking from home is still very economical by comparison.
     
    Agree. (And i always find it odd how much people blow "eating out" when the best experience is a dinner at home--less noisy, more comfortable, more time--with family and friends.)

    But ... i really do expect the food prep equation is going to change with robotics. Take the labor cost--mostly--out of the equation and somewhat standardized (ex. "fast food") prepared food is going to drop in price to the point many people will barely bother cooking.

    Replies: @Rosie, @Kylie, @Jack D

    The economics of restaurants is that food cost generally has to be no more that about 25% or so of the menu price or else your restaurant will go broke (or in other words, that \$24 entree would cost you \$6 in ingredients to make at home). The rest pays for labor, rent, utilities, supplies, etc. plus (hopefully) a profit. When you cook at home, you don’t have most of those costs on a marginal basis – you are already paying rent (or a mortgage) whether you cook dinner or not. Your labor is free. And that 25% is just based on the menu price. With tax and tip, it’s more like 20%.

    Now, 25% represents an average. Some dishes are high markup and some are lower. Fancy tablecloth restaurants have more overhead than fast food places. You can “game” the system somewhat by ordering the items with the lowest markup. In a fast food restaurant, get the hamburger and skip the french fries and Coke. In a fancy restaurant, order the beef or seafood and skip the chicken and pasta entrees.

    Even if restaurants get completely roboticized, robots themselves are not free. And the restaurant still has all of the other costs – labor is just one component. So it’s still going to be cheaper to eat at home in most cases. But not all – even now, especially if you are cooking for 1, you would be hard pressed to make say a \$1.29 McChicken sandwich at home for less than \$1.29. It probably costs McDonalds more than \$1.29 – they are counting on you ordering the fries and soda, where the markups are huge. The 1900 guy thought that the cost savings from economies of scale would outweigh the other costs but it didn’t work out that way.

    I used to enjoy eating out to some extent but Covid has largely broken my desire to eat out. I will still do it now and then on special occassions but much less frequently than before. The idea of spending \$100 on a meal that I could have made at home for \$25 (and as you say, been more comfortable while doing so – no traveling and looking for parking, no waiting for service, etc.) has just lost its appeal. There are cuisines that are difficult to reproduce at home but the thought of paying \$30 for \$6 worth of food just isn’t appealing.

    • Agree: JMcG, Johann Ricke
  227. @Jack D
    @Rosie

    Maybe women should think about this first before they allow these ne’er-do-wells to impregnate them. But there seems to be a big overlap between ne’er-do-wells and the kind of men certain women find to be sexy. Whereas the personality traits of men who are hardworking nose to the grindstone nerdy type guys they find to be repulsive. So maybe women are their own worst enemies?

    Regardless of whether women have made poor choices in man selection, not having a father around is very bad for children - every study confirms this. OTOH, when Johns Hopkins did its "Study of Exceptional Talent", they found that the overwhelming majority of their budding geniuses came from intact families. Now while there are some cases where the father is out because he is physically abusive, etc. in far more cases (that I know of at least), the father that gets kicked out is a perfectly nice guy and the woman (women initiate most divorces) just doesn't want him around anymore.

    Replies: @Rosie, @Reg Cæsar, @Paperback Writer

    Maybe women should think about this first before they allow these ne’er-do-wells to impregnate them. But there seems to be a big overlap between ne’er-do-wells and the kind of men certain women find to be sexy. Whereas the personality traits of men who are hardworking nose to the grindstone nerdy type guys they find to be repulsive. So maybe women are their own worst enemies?

    I can always count on you to blame the victim and look for a way to blame women for men’s failures, Jack. In any event, it hardly matters. Even if everything you say is true (it isn’t), the question still remains whether a family is better off with or without said ne’er-do-wells.

    OTOH, when Johns Hopkins did its “Study of Exceptional Talent”, they found that the overwhelming majority of their budding geniuses came from intact families.

    No shit, Sherlock. Budding geniuses are more likely to have fathers who aren’t useless degenerates. Who could possibly have predicted it?

    Now while there are some cases where the father is out because he is physically abusive, etc. in far more cases (that I know of at least), the father that gets kicked out is a perfectly nice guy and the woman (women initiate most divorces) just doesn’t want him around anymore.

    Yes, Jack I know you claim that frivolous women go around divorcing perfectly good men no reason whatsoever, even after they already have kids with them and are now older than they werewhen they got married. Then mean old judges award her the house and the kids (over his objection) and child support because they’re men who are biased against men or something. This is, of course, an extraordinary claim that requires some production of evidence on your part.

    Your anecdotes don’t cut it. Here’s one of mine: The young couple has one child. She leaves because she “feels like she has two kids.” He’s perfectly nice, and certainly not abusive, but after work he does nothing but sit on the couch and smoke weed. Though I hate to see families break up, I agreed with her. Who knows? Maybe he’ll even clean up his act in hopes of reconciliation. Of course, he probably won’t, and that will just confirm that she made the right choice.

    • Replies: @Jack D
    @Rosie

    In the old days, when adults were still adults, the woman would not throw the father out because she realized that, even though dad was not perfect, it was better to have him around because kids need their fathers. If their dad is not around, they are going to be permanently damaged in ways that are not easy to see but are very real. So they would at least wait until the kids were grown. But now women are trained to put themselves first, so screw the kids. The bum won't even take out the trash.

    Replies: @Rosie

    , @AnotherDad
    @Rosie



    Maybe women should think about this first before they allow these ne’er-do-wells to impregnate them. But there seems to be a big overlap between ne’er-do-wells and the kind of men certain women find to be sexy. Whereas the personality traits of men who are hardworking nose to the grindstone nerdy type guys they find to be repulsive. So maybe women are their own worst enemies?
     
    I can always count on you to blame the victim and look for a way to blame women for men’s failures, Jack.
     
    Women who have sex--much less unprotected sex and allow themselves to get knocked up--by ne'er do wells, are not "victims" they are preps, right along with the ne'er do well man. (Their kids are the victims.)

    The whole premise of feminism is that women were capable--and inherently--entitled to male freedoms and responsibilities. (Personally, i don't really like people telling me what to do, so i perfectly get the right of women to craft their own life path.)

    But what we've actually gotten from feminism, is female freedom without responsibility. When the going gets tough or when poor decisions blow up ... they are poor fainting victims.

    Ideologically feminism is minoritarianism for women. Women are virtuous, oppressed victims.
    And the feminist program boiled down: Men must give stuff to women, regardless of what women do for men.
    , @AnotherDad
    @Rosie


    Your anecdotes don’t cut it. Here’s one of mine:
     
    Jack's annecdote is way more on target than yours.

    Women initiate about 70% of the divorces in the US. Only a small slice even allege abuse, despite divorce lawyers encouraging it. (It just isn't credible in most cases.) Drugs has certainly gotten worse--and i do know of one case (know the wife, not really her ex). But again a small fraction of overall divorces.

    The largest number of divorces--and why there are a lot more than in the before time--is the wife simply decides she doesn't feel like having the husband around but would prefer to have the house and the kids and a good slice of his paycheck--but not him. (Those divorces i know of several in my community.) The post-feminist "modern" divorce industry makes that ridiculous easy to achieve.

    Women have a hypogamous urge. And when they decide their hubby hasn't really measured up to their expectations and lose respect, they really, really do not want to sleep with him and then divorce is likely--absent old style religious/social norms that marriage is a permanent deal.

    The removal of the "scandal" of divorce--for both sexes, but particularly for women--with the ability now to toss hubby and keep house and kids is what seems to have set off the divorce explosion. Divorce is actually somewhat "contagious" among women--"oh, i could chuck him out too!"--and is not contagious at all among men.

    ~~

    A growing awareness, of this set of circumstances is a big part of MGTOW. Basically that there is no longer any external constraint upon women to live up their marriage vows, not social, not religious, not legal. And that women can cancel the marriage contract at any time, for any reason, take the house and kids and a huge bite of your (if you're a guy) paycheck--all enforced by the law. Her marital responsibilities--gone. Yours continue. And your relationship with your kids will never be normal--and in fact often you'll struggle to have anything normal with them, sometimes struggle even to see them.
  228. @Rob McX
    @Almost Missouri

    The greatest genius who ever lived couldn't have foreseen the current Diversity worship. It's relatively easy to chart the path of future progress. It's human stupidity and irrationality that defy all efforts at prediction or prognostication.

    Replies: @J.Ross, @res, @kaganovitch

    It’s relatively easy to chart the path of future progress. It’s human stupidity and irrationality that defy all efforts at prediction or prognostication.

    As Schiller has it “Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens.” =”With stupidity, Gods themselves contend in vain.”

    • Agree: Rob McX
  229. @Rosie
    @Jack D


    Maybe women should think about this first before they allow these ne’er-do-wells to impregnate them. But there seems to be a big overlap between ne’er-do-wells and the kind of men certain women find to be sexy. Whereas the personality traits of men who are hardworking nose to the grindstone nerdy type guys they find to be repulsive. So maybe women are their own worst enemies?
     
    I can always count on you to blame the victim and look for a way to blame women for men's failures, Jack. In any event, it hardly matters. Even if everything you say is true (it isn't), the question still remains whether a family is better off with or without said ne'er-do-wells.

    OTOH, when Johns Hopkins did its “Study of Exceptional Talent”, they found that the overwhelming majority of their budding geniuses came from intact families.
     
    No shit, Sherlock. Budding geniuses are more likely to have fathers who aren't useless degenerates. Who could possibly have predicted it?

    Now while there are some cases where the father is out because he is physically abusive, etc. in far more cases (that I know of at least), the father that gets kicked out is a perfectly nice guy and the woman (women initiate most divorces) just doesn’t want him around anymore.
     
    Yes, Jack I know you claim that frivolous women go around divorcing perfectly good men no reason whatsoever, even after they already have kids with them and are now older than they werewhen they got married. Then mean old judges award her the house and the kids (over his objection) and child support because they're men who are biased against men or something. This is, of course, an extraordinary claim that requires some production of evidence on your part.

    Your anecdotes don't cut it. Here's one of mine: The young couple has one child. She leaves because she "feels like she has two kids." He's perfectly nice, and certainly not abusive, but after work he does nothing but sit on the couch and smoke weed. Though I hate to see families break up, I agreed with her. Who knows? Maybe he'll even clean up his act in hopes of reconciliation. Of course, he probably won't, and that will just confirm that she made the right choice.

    Replies: @Jack D, @AnotherDad, @AnotherDad

    In the old days, when adults were still adults, the woman would not throw the father out because she realized that, even though dad was not perfect, it was better to have him around because kids need their fathers. If their dad is not around, they are going to be permanently damaged in ways that are not easy to see but are very real. So they would at least wait until the kids were grown. But now women are trained to put themselves first, so screw the kids. The bum won’t even take out the trash.

    • Thanks: Johann Ricke
    • Replies: @Rosie
    @Jack D


    not easy to see but are very real
     
    Lol.

    Anyway, has it ever occurred to you that keeping a useless husband around might damage children, especially girls, who are given to understand that such behavior is normal?

  230. @Jack D
    @Rosie

    In the old days, when adults were still adults, the woman would not throw the father out because she realized that, even though dad was not perfect, it was better to have him around because kids need their fathers. If their dad is not around, they are going to be permanently damaged in ways that are not easy to see but are very real. So they would at least wait until the kids were grown. But now women are trained to put themselves first, so screw the kids. The bum won't even take out the trash.

    Replies: @Rosie

    not easy to see but are very real

    Lol.

    Anyway, has it ever occurred to you that keeping a useless husband around might damage children, especially girls, who are given to understand that such behavior is normal?

  231. @Rosie
    @Reg Cæsar


    Funny, but Daniel Patrick Moynihan thought it his problem. Now whites have sunk to the level that shocked him 55 years ago.
     
    That's because he was a silly, race-denying basic bitch conservative who subscribed to the semi-magical idea that even a really shitty father is better than no father. Anyone who grew up with a dysfunctional father can tell you this is not the case.

    You men like to thump your chests about any statistical disparity that favors you, then you ignore the fact that men are overrepresented among criminals, drug addicts, gamblers, etc. As a result, men are more likely than women to be unfit parents. Forcing women to put up with these life-sucking ne'er-do-wells is not "good for the children."

    Replies: @Jack D, @rebel yell, @AnotherDad

    You men like to thump your chests about any statistical disparity that favors you, then you ignore the fact that men are overrepresented among criminals, drug addicts, gamblers, etc.

    Rosie, I seem to remember on a previous post that the men commentors here on Unz were arguing that men tend to more extremes than women, and that this included more male criminals as well as more male geniuses. The context of that argument was sexual dimorphism in humans, and the biological reasons that men succeed more at the extremes than women do. The commentors were also readily admitting that men fail more at the extremes as well, with higher crime rates than women.
    In that thread you argued against sexual dimporphism, since you didn’t want to admit that women do not excel as much as men at the extreme good end due to biology.
    So the Rosie rule seems to be, men outnumber women on the good end because they oppress women. Men outnumber women on the bad end because they are pigs.
    At any rate, men here do not ignore the fact that men are overrepresented among criminals. They just discuss that fact more objectively than you do.

    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar
    @rebel yell


    So the Rosie rule seems to be, men outnumber women on the good end because they oppress women. Men outnumber women on the bad end because they are pigs.
     
    Or, in Jennifer Roback Morse's encapsulation of feminism, men and women are exactly the same, except women are better.
    , @Paperback Writer
    @rebel yell

    RY,

    Yes, that does get discussed a lot (dimorphism, etc.) but the overall slant here at Unz is "Men Are Wonderful" perhaps to counteract the opposite, which pertains just about everywhere else.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women-are-wonderful_effect

    Perhaps most of the guys here don't openly say, "Women Are Defective" but some come awfully close. I'll leave it to you to figure out which ones I mean. This is just a comment line on a website. I don't take it that seriously.

    Replies: @Rosie

    , @Rosie
    @rebel yell


    In that thread you argued against sexual dimporphism,
     
    No, I didn't. I have never denied that men have an average IQ advantage nor that men are more numerous at the right tail.

    You are either lying or are you are ignorant of the substance of my comment history. In the latter case, that is easily remedied. Just go look.

    They just discuss that fact more objectively than you do.
     
    The opposite of the truth. Men here are all about statistical disparities so long as they favor men. Otherwise, they're to be ignored. While men here will, in the abstract, admit that there are more male criminals, they will never, ever, accept the real world implications of that fact, namely, that men are more likely to be unfit parents than women.

    Replies: @AnotherDad

  232. @J.Ross
    @Paperback Writer

    >he doesn't know about Shibumi

    You hear laughter. You are likely to be eaten by a grue, laughing, which is the most smug sort of grue.
    Do you want to know more or do you want to believe?

    Replies: @Paperback Writer, @Reg Cæsar

    You are likely to be eaten by a grue

    That would be gruesome.

    he doesn’t know about Shibumi

    Is that like sashimi and surimi? I can never keep those straight.

  233. @rebel yell
    @Rosie


    You men like to thump your chests about any statistical disparity that favors you, then you ignore the fact that men are overrepresented among criminals, drug addicts, gamblers, etc.
     
    Rosie, I seem to remember on a previous post that the men commentors here on Unz were arguing that men tend to more extremes than women, and that this included more male criminals as well as more male geniuses. The context of that argument was sexual dimorphism in humans, and the biological reasons that men succeed more at the extremes than women do. The commentors were also readily admitting that men fail more at the extremes as well, with higher crime rates than women.
    In that thread you argued against sexual dimporphism, since you didn't want to admit that women do not excel as much as men at the extreme good end due to biology.
    So the Rosie rule seems to be, men outnumber women on the good end because they oppress women. Men outnumber women on the bad end because they are pigs.
    At any rate, men here do not ignore the fact that men are overrepresented among criminals. They just discuss that fact more objectively than you do.

    Replies: @Reg Cæsar, @Paperback Writer, @Rosie

    So the Rosie rule seems to be, men outnumber women on the good end because they oppress women. Men outnumber women on the bad end because they are pigs.

    Or, in Jennifer Roback Morse’s encapsulation of feminism, men and women are exactly the same, except women are better.

  234. @Rosie
    @res


    P.P.S. It is interesting to see your dismissal of the issues which men have with family court. Makes me wonder how much of your perception of the attitude here towards women is just projection of your attitude towards men.
     
    Res, I haven't seen any evidence that men have any particular issues in family court. Bad outcomes are not evidence of disparate treatment. Why are there not more women in STEM? Is it discrimination or do women just have less of an aptitude for and/or interest in STEM? You can’t have it both ways, res. We're not going to assume discrimination when men have worse outcomes but they reject that conclusion when women have worse outcomes.

    Makes me wonder how much of your perception of the attitude here towards women is just projection of your attitude towards men.
     
    Irrelevant psychobabble.

    Anyway, your charts confirm my point. Far from being "all but gone," the two parent household is still normative, as I said. I also note that your charts don't account for racial differences, and so single-mather household statistics are massively distorted by black household arrangements.

    Replies: @Reg Cæsar

    single-mather household statistics

    Do these distinguish between riding, walk-behind, and reel?

    • Replies: @Rob McX
    @Reg Cæsar

    What the hell is that? Looks like some 1950s homoerotic photography.

    https://imgc.artprintimages.com/img/print/suspicious-man-with-a-push-reel-lawn-mower_u-l-q1bwmkb0.jpg?artHeight=900&artPerspective=n&artWidth=900&background=fbfbfb

  235. @Kylie
    @Stan Adams

    Lol! Merry Christmas, Stan!

    Replies: @Stan Adams, @Stan Adams

    Thanks. A belated Merry Christmas to you, as well.

    • Thanks: Kylie
  236. @Jack D
    @Rosie

    Maybe women should think about this first before they allow these ne’er-do-wells to impregnate them. But there seems to be a big overlap between ne’er-do-wells and the kind of men certain women find to be sexy. Whereas the personality traits of men who are hardworking nose to the grindstone nerdy type guys they find to be repulsive. So maybe women are their own worst enemies?

    Regardless of whether women have made poor choices in man selection, not having a father around is very bad for children - every study confirms this. OTOH, when Johns Hopkins did its "Study of Exceptional Talent", they found that the overwhelming majority of their budding geniuses came from intact families. Now while there are some cases where the father is out because he is physically abusive, etc. in far more cases (that I know of at least), the father that gets kicked out is a perfectly nice guy and the woman (women initiate most divorces) just doesn't want him around anymore.

    Replies: @Rosie, @Reg Cæsar, @Paperback Writer

    Maybe women should think about this first before they allow these ne’er-do-wells to impregnate them.

    That would require agency. Something which fetuses have but women lack:

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evictionism

    OTOH, when Johns Hopkins did its “Study of Exceptional Talent”, they found that the overwhelming majority of their budding geniuses came from intact families.

    Frans Johanssen reports that those who lose a parent young are overrepresented in measures of great success. But in these cases, the loss is usually due to death rather than dysfunction. Paul McCartney is an example of the former, John Lennon of both.

  237. @rebel yell
    @Rosie


    You men like to thump your chests about any statistical disparity that favors you, then you ignore the fact that men are overrepresented among criminals, drug addicts, gamblers, etc.
     
    Rosie, I seem to remember on a previous post that the men commentors here on Unz were arguing that men tend to more extremes than women, and that this included more male criminals as well as more male geniuses. The context of that argument was sexual dimorphism in humans, and the biological reasons that men succeed more at the extremes than women do. The commentors were also readily admitting that men fail more at the extremes as well, with higher crime rates than women.
    In that thread you argued against sexual dimporphism, since you didn't want to admit that women do not excel as much as men at the extreme good end due to biology.
    So the Rosie rule seems to be, men outnumber women on the good end because they oppress women. Men outnumber women on the bad end because they are pigs.
    At any rate, men here do not ignore the fact that men are overrepresented among criminals. They just discuss that fact more objectively than you do.

    Replies: @Reg Cæsar, @Paperback Writer, @Rosie

    RY,

    Yes, that does get discussed a lot (dimorphism, etc.) but the overall slant here at Unz is “Men Are Wonderful” perhaps to counteract the opposite, which pertains just about everywhere else.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women-are-wonderful_effect

    Perhaps most of the guys here don’t openly say, “Women Are Defective” but some come awfully close. I’ll leave it to you to figure out which ones I mean. This is just a comment line on a website. I don’t take it that seriously.

    • Replies: @Rosie
    @Paperback Writer


    Yes, that does get discussed a lot (dimorphism, etc.) but the overall slant here at Unz is “Men Are Wonderful” perhaps to counteract the opposite, which pertains just about everywhere else.
     
    I must say, Jack D's Magic Dick Theory takes it to a whole 'nother level. It turns out that the guy whose idea of helping around the house is moving his feet out of the way so you can vacuum is actually doing your children a great service by simply sitting on the couch smoking a joint while possessing a penis.

    Anyway, since I only get 3 comments per hour, I'll add the following in response to those who accuse me of hypocrisy. Here I am thanking someone for acknowledging that some women are good at math, even though men are generally better mathemicians.

    https://www.unz.com/anepigone/support-for-black-lives-matter-by-age-education-sex-partisan-affiliation-and-race/#comment-3953031

    Me admitting that men are better at inventing stuff:

    https://www.unz.com/anepigone/sex-and-marriage-go-together-like-a-horse-and-carriage/#comment-3707915

    Me admitting that men are more courageous and likely to rescue people than women:

    https://www.unz.com/isteve/what-women-want-2/#comment-4446560

    This thread exemplifies the whole problem with this forum. It has long been clear that these are not serious, good-faith truth-seeking debates. IOW, this politics, not philosophy. As such, I am losing interest.

    Replies: @Paperback Writer

  238. @rebel yell
    @Rosie


    You men like to thump your chests about any statistical disparity that favors you, then you ignore the fact that men are overrepresented among criminals, drug addicts, gamblers, etc.
     
    Rosie, I seem to remember on a previous post that the men commentors here on Unz were arguing that men tend to more extremes than women, and that this included more male criminals as well as more male geniuses. The context of that argument was sexual dimorphism in humans, and the biological reasons that men succeed more at the extremes than women do. The commentors were also readily admitting that men fail more at the extremes as well, with higher crime rates than women.
    In that thread you argued against sexual dimporphism, since you didn't want to admit that women do not excel as much as men at the extreme good end due to biology.
    So the Rosie rule seems to be, men outnumber women on the good end because they oppress women. Men outnumber women on the bad end because they are pigs.
    At any rate, men here do not ignore the fact that men are overrepresented among criminals. They just discuss that fact more objectively than you do.

    Replies: @Reg Cæsar, @Paperback Writer, @Rosie

    In that thread you argued against sexual dimporphism,

    No, I didn’t. I have never denied that men have an average IQ advantage nor that men are more numerous at the right tail.

    You are either lying or are you are ignorant of the substance of my comment history. In the latter case, that is easily remedied. Just go look.

    They just discuss that fact more objectively than you do.

    The opposite of the truth. Men here are all about statistical disparities so long as they favor men. Otherwise, they’re to be ignored. While men here will, in the abstract, admit that there are more male criminals, they will never, ever, accept the real world implications of that fact, namely, that men are more likely to be unfit parents than women.

    • Replies: @AnotherDad
    @Rosie


    Men here are all about statistical disparities so long as they favor men. Otherwise, they’re to be ignored. While men here will, in the abstract, admit that there are more male criminals, they will never, ever, accept the real world implications of that fact, namely, that men are more likely to be unfit parents than women.
     
    Men are more likely to be unfit parents than women.

    Men are on average stronger, more rational and particularly better at anything involving mathematical or spatial skills, but they are more aggressive and more divergent--hence more likely to be seriously crazy or criminally violent or engage in reckless behavior.

    Women are on average weaker, more naturally verbal, better at social interactions and better at nurturing. Their "anti-social" behavior tends more along the BPD direction. (Also, distinctly sub-optimal for raising children, but less directly problematic than abusive physical violence.)


    All that said--men being "unfit parents" has nothing to do with the vast majority of divorces in the US. It is because one spouse is unhappy with the other and no longer wants to be married. That spouse is usually the woman. (Who is usually able to extract cash+prizes in the divorce.)

    Replies: @Rosie

  239. Con Ed in NYC still has a substantial 105 mile Steam System for around 1500 buildings.
    Over a century .

    https://untappedcities.com/2021/07/09/new-york-city-steam-system/

    “New York City’s steam system starts in the Financial District, with the first steam plant located on the site of the current World Trade Center. It spreads north through Manhattan, and it goes on both sides of Central Park. On the west side, it extends all the way to 96th Street and on the east side, it extends to 89th Street. Although the system does not extend to Brooklyn, there is a co-generation plant at the Brooklyn Navy Yard from which Con Edison does buy steam. This then gets transported into the Manhattan steam grid through a pipe under the East River.”

  240. @Jack D
    @Rosie

    Maybe women should think about this first before they allow these ne’er-do-wells to impregnate them. But there seems to be a big overlap between ne’er-do-wells and the kind of men certain women find to be sexy. Whereas the personality traits of men who are hardworking nose to the grindstone nerdy type guys they find to be repulsive. So maybe women are their own worst enemies?

    Regardless of whether women have made poor choices in man selection, not having a father around is very bad for children - every study confirms this. OTOH, when Johns Hopkins did its "Study of Exceptional Talent", they found that the overwhelming majority of their budding geniuses came from intact families. Now while there are some cases where the father is out because he is physically abusive, etc. in far more cases (that I know of at least), the father that gets kicked out is a perfectly nice guy and the woman (women initiate most divorces) just doesn't want him around anymore.

    Replies: @Rosie, @Reg Cæsar, @Paperback Writer

    Now while there are some cases where the father is out because he is physically abusive, etc. in far more cases (that I know of at least), the father that gets kicked out is a perfectly nice guy and the woman (women initiate most divorces) just doesn’t want him around anymore.

    Are you a divorce lawyer? The top reason for divorce is adultery.

    https://www.kevinhickeylaw.com/legal-blog/top-5-reasons-for-divorce

    Maybe in your world women “kick out a out a perfectly nice guy,” but not in the real world. Back in the day, women just sucked it in and put up with it. They don’t anymore.

    • Replies: @Jack D
    @Paperback Writer

    So in our society, every kind of sex is acceptable - premarital sex, gay sex, all kinds of sex. Not just acceptable but normal, expected, praiseworthy and don't you dare say otherwise. But extramarital sex is grounds for divorce. Kinda strange, wouldn't you say? Are women ever unfaithful or only men?

    Replies: @Paperback Writer

    , @Reg Cæsar
    @Paperback Writer


    Are you a divorce lawyer?
     
    Marilyn York is. In Reno.


    https://youtu.be/RlSwsE22nX0

    Back in the day, women just sucked it in and put up with it. They don’t anymore.
     
    That's more of a guy thing now.



    https://youtu.be/3WMuzhQXJoY

    Replies: @Rosie

    , @res
    @Paperback Writer

    Your link is in Arkansas. Which is a fault state for divorce. Note that this link also contradicts their assertion of the most common reason there. I'll leave it to someone who cares to figure out which is more likely to be true.
    https://cordellcordell.com/resources/arkansas/


    Arkansas is a fault state for divorce. This means whoever files for divorce must show that he/she has grounds or reasons to get a divorce from the other person. The grounds for divorce in Arkansas are the following:
    - Impotence;
    - The other spouse was convicted of a felony;
    - Habitual drunkenness;
    - Cruel and barbarous treatment;
    - Adultery;
    - General indignities;
    - Lived separate and apart for eighteen 18 continuous months;
    - Lived separate and apart for three years due to spouse’s incurable insanity and the spouse has been committed to a mental health facility;
    - Lack of support—when the spouse has a legal obligation to support you and the ability but does not.
    The most commonly used ground for divorce in Arkansas is general indignities. This means that your spouse has made your life so intolerable that you can no longer stand to be married to him or her.
     
    This link has some explanation of fault vs. no-fault divorce.
    https://www.findlaw.com/family/divorce/an-overview-of-no-fault-and-fault-divorce-law.html

    The reason given by parties seeking a no-fault divorce is "irreconcilable differences" or an "irreparable breakdown of the marriage." The spouse receiving the divorce petition cannot object to the other party's petition for a no-fault divorce. That objection itself can be viewed by the court as an irreconcilable difference.
     
    According to this link 17 states are no-fault divorce only, while 33 states allow either fault or no-fault divorce.
    https://southdenverlaw.com/case/divorce-no-fault-states/

    (this doesn't seem to line up with the quote above saying fault is required in Arkansas, also note Arkansas appears in a list of 14--rather than the 33 above--fault states)

    About this:

    Maybe in your world women “kick out a out a perfectly nice guy,” but not in the real world. Back in the day, women just sucked it in and put up with it. They don’t anymore.
     
    I think the complaint being voiced here is more about not putting up with it and getting cash and prizes for walking away.

    I'll just note one more thing.

    Both parties decided to marry each other (for better or for worse for life, for whatever statements like that are worth anymore). It is doubtful that in most cases either party changed THAT much. I think this quote is worth considering.
    https://quoteinvestigator.com/2017/01/17/marry/
    "Men Marry Women with the Hope They Will Never Change. Women Marry Men with the Hope They Will Change"

    Replies: @Paperback Writer

  241. @Paperback Writer
    @rebel yell

    RY,

    Yes, that does get discussed a lot (dimorphism, etc.) but the overall slant here at Unz is "Men Are Wonderful" perhaps to counteract the opposite, which pertains just about everywhere else.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women-are-wonderful_effect

    Perhaps most of the guys here don't openly say, "Women Are Defective" but some come awfully close. I'll leave it to you to figure out which ones I mean. This is just a comment line on a website. I don't take it that seriously.

    Replies: @Rosie

    Yes, that does get discussed a lot (dimorphism, etc.) but the overall slant here at Unz is “Men Are Wonderful” perhaps to counteract the opposite, which pertains just about everywhere else.

    I must say, Jack D’s Magic Dick Theory takes it to a whole ‘nother level. It turns out that the guy whose idea of helping around the house is moving his feet out of the way so you can vacuum is actually doing your children a great service by simply sitting on the couch smoking a joint while possessing a penis.

    Anyway, since I only get 3 comments per hour, I’ll add the following in response to those who accuse me of hypocrisy. Here I am thanking someone for acknowledging that some women are good at math, even though men are generally better mathemicians.

    https://www.unz.com/anepigone/support-for-black-lives-matter-by-age-education-sex-partisan-affiliation-and-race/#comment-3953031

    Me admitting that men are better at inventing stuff:

    https://www.unz.com/anepigone/sex-and-marriage-go-together-like-a-horse-and-carriage/#comment-3707915

    Me admitting that men are more courageous and likely to rescue people than women:

    https://www.unz.com/isteve/what-women-want-2/#comment-4446560

    This thread exemplifies the whole problem with this forum. It has long been clear that these are not serious, good-faith truth-seeking debates. IOW, this politics, not philosophy. As such, I am losing interest.

    • Replies: @Paperback Writer
    @Rosie

    You and I have had our differences, Rosie, but in this instance I think you're the one who is arguing in good faith.

    For the record, here's a more scholarly citation about why marriages fail:

    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4012696/

    As you can see, the two top reasons are lack of commitment, and adultery. They are obviously self-reinforcing, two sides of the same coin.

    See my comment to Jack about this: women initiate divorce because they no longer want to put up the sort of stuff that their grandmothers did.

    I do not see that you're defending this, rather it seems to me that you're bemoaning it, that you sincerely think it's better - other things equal - for kids to grow up in an intact, two-parent family, and Jack is simply being his usual hostile, aggressive self, picking arguments where there are none. He'd argue with a table, if it were the only thing available.


    Anyway, since I only get 3 comments per hour

     

    Me, too. How does Jack get away with dominating every comment thread with numerous, verbose comments? Does he & his sock puppet Johann have some sort of special dispensation?

    Replies: @res

  242. @Rosie
    @Reg Cæsar


    In 1960, that was true of black families.
     
    Not my problem.

    Replies: @Reg Cæsar, @kaganovitch

    Not my problem.

    “You may not be interested in the Revolution , but the Revolution is interested in you.”

  243. @Rosie
    @Paperback Writer


    Yes, that does get discussed a lot (dimorphism, etc.) but the overall slant here at Unz is “Men Are Wonderful” perhaps to counteract the opposite, which pertains just about everywhere else.
     
    I must say, Jack D's Magic Dick Theory takes it to a whole 'nother level. It turns out that the guy whose idea of helping around the house is moving his feet out of the way so you can vacuum is actually doing your children a great service by simply sitting on the couch smoking a joint while possessing a penis.

    Anyway, since I only get 3 comments per hour, I'll add the following in response to those who accuse me of hypocrisy. Here I am thanking someone for acknowledging that some women are good at math, even though men are generally better mathemicians.

    https://www.unz.com/anepigone/support-for-black-lives-matter-by-age-education-sex-partisan-affiliation-and-race/#comment-3953031

    Me admitting that men are better at inventing stuff:

    https://www.unz.com/anepigone/sex-and-marriage-go-together-like-a-horse-and-carriage/#comment-3707915

    Me admitting that men are more courageous and likely to rescue people than women:

    https://www.unz.com/isteve/what-women-want-2/#comment-4446560

    This thread exemplifies the whole problem with this forum. It has long been clear that these are not serious, good-faith truth-seeking debates. IOW, this politics, not philosophy. As such, I am losing interest.

    Replies: @Paperback Writer

    You and I have had our differences, Rosie, but in this instance I think you’re the one who is arguing in good faith.

    For the record, here’s a more scholarly citation about why marriages fail:

    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4012696/

    As you can see, the two top reasons are lack of commitment, and adultery. They are obviously self-reinforcing, two sides of the same coin.

    See my comment to Jack about this: women initiate divorce because they no longer want to put up the sort of stuff that their grandmothers did.

    I do not see that you’re defending this, rather it seems to me that you’re bemoaning it, that you sincerely think it’s better – other things equal – for kids to grow up in an intact, two-parent family, and Jack is simply being his usual hostile, aggressive self, picking arguments where there are none. He’d argue with a table, if it were the only thing available.

    Anyway, since I only get 3 comments per hour

    Me, too. How does Jack get away with dominating every comment thread with numerous, verbose comments? Does he & his sock puppet Johann have some sort of special dispensation?

    • Replies: @res
    @Paperback Writer



    Anyway, since I only get 3 comments per hour
     
    Me, too. How does Jack get away with dominating every comment thread with numerous, verbose comments? Does he & his sock puppet Johann have some sort of special dispensation?
     
    Check the timestamps. No special dispensations that I can see.

    Like Jack D's comments or not (and I certainly have had my share of go rounds with him) I think it is hard to dispute that he has one of the better signal to noise ratios here and though not always correct (who is?!) tends to be a font of interesting knowledge.

    Replies: @Paperback Writer

  244. @Reg Cæsar
    @Rosie


    single-mather household statistics
     
    Do these distinguish between riding, walk-behind, and reel?


    https://www.deere.com/assets/images/region-4/products/mowers/lawn-tractors/lawn-tractor-hero-image-r4g074715_rrd-1366x398.jpg

    https://m.media-amazon.com/images/I/71If9PkMhPL._AC_SX425_.jpg

    https://imgc.artprintimages.com/img/print/suspicious-man-with-a-push-reel-lawn-mower_u-l-q1bwmkb0.jpg?artHeight=900&artPerspective=n&artWidth=900&background=fbfbfb

    Replies: @Rob McX

    What the hell is that? Looks like some 1950s homoerotic photography.

  245. @SaneClownPosse
    @Intelligent Dasein

    Orwell was British Intelligence, as was Huxley.

    "1984" forecast a total, brutal fascism, 24 by 7, in your face, boot on your neck future.

    The masses are okay with a less brutal fascism, as long as it is not "1984" level, and has some social goal that is promoted as good for the whole.

    Replies: @Reg Cæsar

    “1984” forecast a total, brutal fascism, 24 by 7, in your face, boot on your neck future.

    No, Animal Farm did that. 1984 mocked the show trials in Moscow.

  246. @Paperback Writer
    @Jack D


    Now while there are some cases where the father is out because he is physically abusive, etc. in far more cases (that I know of at least), the father that gets kicked out is a perfectly nice guy and the woman (women initiate most divorces) just doesn’t want him around anymore.
     
    Are you a divorce lawyer? The top reason for divorce is adultery.

    https://www.kevinhickeylaw.com/legal-blog/top-5-reasons-for-divorce

    Maybe in your world women "kick out a out a perfectly nice guy," but not in the real world. Back in the day, women just sucked it in and put up with it. They don't anymore.

    Replies: @Jack D, @Reg Cæsar, @res

    So in our society, every kind of sex is acceptable – premarital sex, gay sex, all kinds of sex. Not just acceptable but normal, expected, praiseworthy and don’t you dare say otherwise. But extramarital sex is grounds for divorce. Kinda strange, wouldn’t you say? Are women ever unfaithful or only men?

    • Replies: @Paperback Writer
    @Jack D

    None of that is relevant to the issue.

  247. @Paperback Writer
    @Jack D


    Now while there are some cases where the father is out because he is physically abusive, etc. in far more cases (that I know of at least), the father that gets kicked out is a perfectly nice guy and the woman (women initiate most divorces) just doesn’t want him around anymore.
     
    Are you a divorce lawyer? The top reason for divorce is adultery.

    https://www.kevinhickeylaw.com/legal-blog/top-5-reasons-for-divorce

    Maybe in your world women "kick out a out a perfectly nice guy," but not in the real world. Back in the day, women just sucked it in and put up with it. They don't anymore.

    Replies: @Jack D, @Reg Cæsar, @res

    Are you a divorce lawyer?

    Marilyn York is. In Reno.

    Back in the day, women just sucked it in and put up with it. They don’t anymore.

    That’s more of a guy thing now.

    • Replies: @Rosie
    @Reg Cæsar

    I watched that video with the pretty girl and I have to say, she said absolutely nothing that I disagree with, but I had to chuckle when she started talking about "finding solutions together." The MRA have no interest in that at all.

  248. Food will be served hot or cold to private houses in pneumatic tubes or automobile wagons.

    Paris had pneumatic mail delivery tubes from 1866-2004.

    Pneumatic tubes are the great lost steampunk technology:

    The pneumatic tube, and the initial great hopes associated with it, is an example of what I would call a technological misfire.

    There were plans in the works of pneumatic tubes even being used to transport people, much as trains do. The Beach Pneumatic Transit Company between 1870 – 1873 had a working three hundred foot experimental line (pictured and linked below) running underneath New York City. Much like the Moscow subway of today (but, in miniature) for the cultural benefit of it’s customers (400,000 paid rides at 25 cents each was recorded in one year) the walls of the subway were lined with painted murals. The waiting/boarding area featured statuary, a piano to provide music, along with a gold fish pond.

    Alas, in 1873, the line shut down in part due to political opposition, and an economic depression. Steam locomotives, and, in time, electric trolleys, would win out.

    Another example of a technological misfire would be bicycles. Big plans were in the works in the 1880’s and 90’s for bicycles to replace the horse as the individual’s primary mode of transportation. With the invention of the ‘safety bicycle’, the proliferation of bicycle clubs, the explosion in designs of multi-rider cycles (such as the-circa 1886 quadracycle pictured below), and the intention of constructing asphalt covered bicycle ‘highways’ connecting major US cities, everything seemed ready to go.

    However, the near concurrent development of the gasoline powered internal combustion engine, and its being hooked up to a now ‘horseless’ carriage (ie the new ‘automobile’) and the bicycle (now a ‘motorcycle’) would in Western countries largely leave the human powered bicycle left on the side of the road, so to speak.


    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beach_Pneumatic_Transit

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_bicycle

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    @S

    Sexy. Plus I love the word 'pneumatic'.

    (Where's that Alita 'I want to be a cylinder' comic?)

    ETA: https://imgur.com/pdUnrUh

  249. @Jack D
    @Paperback Writer

    So in our society, every kind of sex is acceptable - premarital sex, gay sex, all kinds of sex. Not just acceptable but normal, expected, praiseworthy and don't you dare say otherwise. But extramarital sex is grounds for divorce. Kinda strange, wouldn't you say? Are women ever unfaithful or only men?

    Replies: @Paperback Writer

    None of that is relevant to the issue.

    • Agree: Athenian Gentleman
  250. …they will never, ever, accept the real world implications of that fact, namely, that men are more likely to be unfit parents than women.

    Like there are no factors other than criminality that would make one an unfit parent? Or that some criminals may still be fit parents? Even the prosecution had to admit that there was no reason to take OJ Simpson’s children from him if he wasn’t going to be in prison. He wasn’t a threat to them.

    An Egyptian told me in his country, the mother is presumed to get custody until the child is about seven, thereafter the father. After that age, and especially after puberty, his parental role replaces hers as the more important.

    Men here are all about statistical disparities so long as they favor men. Otherwise, they’re to be ignored.

    Here is a statistical disparity suggesting real bias and more certainly does not favor men– and is ignored here:

    Male “advantage” in criminality is overblown by focusing on the physical stuff and ignoring felonies where the sexes are much closer to parity, such as embezzlement, fraud, larceny, shoplifting, and check kiting. Women are gradually playing catch-up in property crime as well. A major factor seems to be the risk assumed by the perpetrator.

    Women are less directly responsible for crime, but indirectly? If Raoul impregnates and abandons 19 women and half of his progeny go bad, how is this specifically a male problem? 95% of the protoperpetrators are female! Daniel Amneus compared crime to colorblindness– carried in the female, expressed in the male.

    Civilization, whether building it or tearing it down, takes teamwork.

    • Replies: @Rosie
    @Reg Cæsar

    Reg, the more intactions I have with you, the more unreasonable you become.


    Like there are no factors other than criminality that would make one an unfit parent?
     
    Sure, like alcoholism and homelessness, both of which disproportionately affect men. Dysfunctional behaviors tend to build on each other.

    Women are less directly responsible for crime, but indirectly? If Raoul impregnates and abandons 19 women and half of his progeny go bad, how is this specifically a male problem?
     
    Lol.

    95% of the protoperpetrators are female! Daniel Amneus compared crime to colorblindness– carried in the female, expressed in the male.
     
    Wow, you'll stop at nothing to thoroughly pathologize women, will you Reg? I sense desperation.

    Replies: @Reg Cæsar

  251. @Inquiring Mind
    @Jack D

    Is it just me, or is anyone else around here simply amazed on how the police solved this case that quickly?

    Replies: @Jack D, @Jim Don Bob

    The stupid libtard said it would not have happened if we had “common sense” gun control. Even reality will not change the libtard mind.

    PS Ron: comments seem to be displaying oldest first again.

  252. @res
    @Colin Wright


    One interesting misstep I notice almost routinely in science fiction literature from the fifties is that computers will be really, really powerful…and therefore, really, really big. In fact, they’ll be so big and powerful that one computer will fill an entire warehouse!
     
    That was understandable in the fifties when computers were generally made with tubes (first solid state computer 1956). But with transistors and then ICs (Moore's law in 1965 covered size, Dennard scaling in 1974 covered power) things changed.

    Replies: @Jim Don Bob

    That was understandable in the fifties when computers were generally made with tubes (first solid state computer 1956).

    And computer memory was magnets wired together that retained their state after a power off. The first machine I used was an IBM 360/50. You could power it down, bring it back up and resume what you were doing.

    One of the main things that made cell phones and tablets possible was reducing the price of static RAM (SRAM). It used to be much more expensive than dynamic RAM (DRAM).

  253. @Rosie
    @Reg Cæsar


    Funny, but Daniel Patrick Moynihan thought it his problem. Now whites have sunk to the level that shocked him 55 years ago.
     
    That's because he was a silly, race-denying basic bitch conservative who subscribed to the semi-magical idea that even a really shitty father is better than no father. Anyone who grew up with a dysfunctional father can tell you this is not the case.

    You men like to thump your chests about any statistical disparity that favors you, then you ignore the fact that men are overrepresented among criminals, drug addicts, gamblers, etc. As a result, men are more likely than women to be unfit parents. Forcing women to put up with these life-sucking ne'er-do-wells is not "good for the children."

    Replies: @Jack D, @rebel yell, @AnotherDad

    C’mon Rosie, tell us how you really feel about men.

    Some of us men–testosterone poisoning–have just had a hard time getting a read on you.

  254. Years before the Battle of the Little Big Horn (1876) and the Lincoln County War (1881) in the Montana and New Mexico territories out West, the progs circa 1870 were quietly and diligently working behind the scenes in the United States on ideas and plans for the distant future, naturally for everyone else’s own good.

    One Hundred Years Progress of the United States would be published in 1871. A section of the book entitled ‘One Hundred Years Progress in the Future’, or ‘Marvels That Our Grandchildren Will See’, starting on pg 460, tells what life is to be like in the United States in June, 1970.

    On pg 496 ‘pneumatic tubes for railways’ is lauded, but, as is known, didn’t quite pan out.

    Pg 462, linked below, shows a map of the future United States of [North] America in 1970, the US having become a true continental super-state, the whole of North America, Canada and Mexico included, being under Washington DC’s overt direct control.

    Pg 467 gives a population projection of almost five hundred million US population in 1970. This is a direct result of completely open borders and the importation of many tens of millions of wage slaves (ie so called ‘cheap labor’/’immigrants’) from all over the planet over the course of a hundred years.

    This section of the book makes its very plain that in the prog’s world view, whether this prog is a Mitt Romney or Susan Warren of today or yesteryear, the ‘immigrant’ is the slave, and they ‘care’ about the wage slave in the same way and for the same reasons the masters of old ‘cared’ about their slaves.

    ‘From 1960 to 1970, the increase is estimated on a ratio of 21 percent., giving [the United States] a population in 1970 of 474,011,000.’

    On, pg 515, a fundamental change projected for the American citizen of 1970, for better or worse, in not only physical appearance, but in intellect and character as well. Again, a direct result of the uncontrolled mass immigration.

    ‘But the future man of the American Republic will be a thoroughly composite being. It is not simply the union of the Mongolian, and Caucasian types to which we are to look forward, but an agglomeration of almost all races and nationalities to make up the coming man…will give to the average American of a hundred years hence, a darker complexion and very different intellectual and moral characteristics from those which we possess today.’

    Pg 526 describes quite vividly one of the ‘marvels which our grandchildren will see’ in 1970, ie the few pure blooded Anglo-Saxons left in the future, presumably the writer’s own hypothetical grandchildren, being routinely murdered in the streets in acts of ultra-violence by the angry, hatred driven, and drug crazed, discarded inner city descendants of the imported wage slaves (ie the so called ‘cheap labor’/’immigrants’).

    But hey, the writer already ‘got his’ and will be long gone by the time any of this might roll around.

    On pg 527, a little after dinner music to end the day, played by the very progressive, but also quite racially and ethnically mixed, Marston family.

    ‘The evening would have been dull had music been wanting; but in this the Marston family are adepts. All joined in some sweet, new songs, while Madame accompanied them on the organ-
    piano, a new combination of string, reed and wind instruments, whose soft and delicious tones delighted all ears. So ends a day in June, 1970.’

    https://archive.org/details/onehundredyearsp00flinrich/page/462/mode/2up

    • Thanks: Rob McX
  255. @Rosie
    @Jack D


    Maybe women should think about this first before they allow these ne’er-do-wells to impregnate them. But there seems to be a big overlap between ne’er-do-wells and the kind of men certain women find to be sexy. Whereas the personality traits of men who are hardworking nose to the grindstone nerdy type guys they find to be repulsive. So maybe women are their own worst enemies?
     
    I can always count on you to blame the victim and look for a way to blame women for men's failures, Jack. In any event, it hardly matters. Even if everything you say is true (it isn't), the question still remains whether a family is better off with or without said ne'er-do-wells.

    OTOH, when Johns Hopkins did its “Study of Exceptional Talent”, they found that the overwhelming majority of their budding geniuses came from intact families.
     
    No shit, Sherlock. Budding geniuses are more likely to have fathers who aren't useless degenerates. Who could possibly have predicted it?

    Now while there are some cases where the father is out because he is physically abusive, etc. in far more cases (that I know of at least), the father that gets kicked out is a perfectly nice guy and the woman (women initiate most divorces) just doesn’t want him around anymore.
     
    Yes, Jack I know you claim that frivolous women go around divorcing perfectly good men no reason whatsoever, even after they already have kids with them and are now older than they werewhen they got married. Then mean old judges award her the house and the kids (over his objection) and child support because they're men who are biased against men or something. This is, of course, an extraordinary claim that requires some production of evidence on your part.

    Your anecdotes don't cut it. Here's one of mine: The young couple has one child. She leaves because she "feels like she has two kids." He's perfectly nice, and certainly not abusive, but after work he does nothing but sit on the couch and smoke weed. Though I hate to see families break up, I agreed with her. Who knows? Maybe he'll even clean up his act in hopes of reconciliation. Of course, he probably won't, and that will just confirm that she made the right choice.

    Replies: @Jack D, @AnotherDad, @AnotherDad

    Maybe women should think about this first before they allow these ne’er-do-wells to impregnate them. But there seems to be a big overlap between ne’er-do-wells and the kind of men certain women find to be sexy. Whereas the personality traits of men who are hardworking nose to the grindstone nerdy type guys they find to be repulsive. So maybe women are their own worst enemies?

    I can always count on you to blame the victim and look for a way to blame women for men’s failures, Jack.

    Women who have sex–much less unprotected sex and allow themselves to get knocked up–by ne’er do wells, are not “victims” they are preps, right along with the ne’er do well man. (Their kids are the victims.)

    The whole premise of feminism is that women were capable–and inherently–entitled to male freedoms and responsibilities. (Personally, i don’t really like people telling me what to do, so i perfectly get the right of women to craft their own life path.)

    But what we’ve actually gotten from feminism, is female freedom without responsibility. When the going gets tough or when poor decisions blow up … they are poor fainting victims.

    Ideologically feminism is minoritarianism for women. Women are virtuous, oppressed victims.
    And the feminist program boiled down: Men must give stuff to women, regardless of what women do for men.

    • Agree: Kylie
  256. @Rosie
    @Jack D


    Maybe women should think about this first before they allow these ne’er-do-wells to impregnate them. But there seems to be a big overlap between ne’er-do-wells and the kind of men certain women find to be sexy. Whereas the personality traits of men who are hardworking nose to the grindstone nerdy type guys they find to be repulsive. So maybe women are their own worst enemies?
     
    I can always count on you to blame the victim and look for a way to blame women for men's failures, Jack. In any event, it hardly matters. Even if everything you say is true (it isn't), the question still remains whether a family is better off with or without said ne'er-do-wells.

    OTOH, when Johns Hopkins did its “Study of Exceptional Talent”, they found that the overwhelming majority of their budding geniuses came from intact families.
     
    No shit, Sherlock. Budding geniuses are more likely to have fathers who aren't useless degenerates. Who could possibly have predicted it?

    Now while there are some cases where the father is out because he is physically abusive, etc. in far more cases (that I know of at least), the father that gets kicked out is a perfectly nice guy and the woman (women initiate most divorces) just doesn’t want him around anymore.
     
    Yes, Jack I know you claim that frivolous women go around divorcing perfectly good men no reason whatsoever, even after they already have kids with them and are now older than they werewhen they got married. Then mean old judges award her the house and the kids (over his objection) and child support because they're men who are biased against men or something. This is, of course, an extraordinary claim that requires some production of evidence on your part.

    Your anecdotes don't cut it. Here's one of mine: The young couple has one child. She leaves because she "feels like she has two kids." He's perfectly nice, and certainly not abusive, but after work he does nothing but sit on the couch and smoke weed. Though I hate to see families break up, I agreed with her. Who knows? Maybe he'll even clean up his act in hopes of reconciliation. Of course, he probably won't, and that will just confirm that she made the right choice.

    Replies: @Jack D, @AnotherDad, @AnotherDad

    Your anecdotes don’t cut it. Here’s one of mine:

    Jack’s annecdote is way more on target than yours.

    Women initiate about 70% of the divorces in the US. Only a small slice even allege abuse, despite divorce lawyers encouraging it. (It just isn’t credible in most cases.) Drugs has certainly gotten worse–and i do know of one case (know the wife, not really her ex). But again a small fraction of overall divorces.

    The largest number of divorces–and why there are a lot more than in the before time–is the wife simply decides she doesn’t feel like having the husband around but would prefer to have the house and the kids and a good slice of his paycheck–but not him. (Those divorces i know of several in my community.) The post-feminist “modern” divorce industry makes that ridiculous easy to achieve.

    Women have a hypogamous urge. And when they decide their hubby hasn’t really measured up to their expectations and lose respect, they really, really do not want to sleep with him and then divorce is likely–absent old style religious/social norms that marriage is a permanent deal.

    The removal of the “scandal” of divorce–for both sexes, but particularly for women–with the ability now to toss hubby and keep house and kids is what seems to have set off the divorce explosion. Divorce is actually somewhat “contagious” among women–“oh, i could chuck him out too!”–and is not contagious at all among men.

    ~~

    A growing awareness, of this set of circumstances is a big part of MGTOW. Basically that there is no longer any external constraint upon women to live up their marriage vows, not social, not religious, not legal. And that women can cancel the marriage contract at any time, for any reason, take the house and kids and a huge bite of your (if you’re a guy) paycheck–all enforced by the law. Her marital responsibilities–gone. Yours continue. And your relationship with your kids will never be normal–and in fact often you’ll struggle to have anything normal with them, sometimes struggle even to see them.

  257. @Rosie
    @rebel yell


    In that thread you argued against sexual dimporphism,
     
    No, I didn't. I have never denied that men have an average IQ advantage nor that men are more numerous at the right tail.

    You are either lying or are you are ignorant of the substance of my comment history. In the latter case, that is easily remedied. Just go look.

    They just discuss that fact more objectively than you do.
     
    The opposite of the truth. Men here are all about statistical disparities so long as they favor men. Otherwise, they're to be ignored. While men here will, in the abstract, admit that there are more male criminals, they will never, ever, accept the real world implications of that fact, namely, that men are more likely to be unfit parents than women.

    Replies: @AnotherDad

    Men here are all about statistical disparities so long as they favor men. Otherwise, they’re to be ignored. While men here will, in the abstract, admit that there are more male criminals, they will never, ever, accept the real world implications of that fact, namely, that men are more likely to be unfit parents than women.

    Men are more likely to be unfit parents than women.

    Men are on average stronger, more rational and particularly better at anything involving mathematical or spatial skills, but they are more aggressive and more divergent–hence more likely to be seriously crazy or criminally violent or engage in reckless behavior.

    Women are on average weaker, more naturally verbal, better at social interactions and better at nurturing. Their “anti-social” behavior tends more along the BPD direction. (Also, distinctly sub-optimal for raising children, but less directly problematic than abusive physical violence.)

    All that said–men being “unfit parents” has nothing to do with the vast majority of divorces in the US. It is because one spouse is unhappy with the other and no longer wants to be married. That spouse is usually the woman. (Who is usually able to extract cash+prizes in the divorce.)

    • Replies: @Rosie
    @AnotherDad


    All that said–men being “unfit parents” has nothing to do with the vast majority of divorces in the US. It is because one spouse is unhappy with the other and no longer wants to be married.
     
    That's true, because the vast majority of divorces don't involve any children at all. If women are going to divorce a man, they usually do it before having children with them.

    Once a woman has children with a man, the sunk cost fallacy kicks in.

    https://www.deseret.com/2011/8/8/20208396/childless-couples-still-divorce-at-a-much-higher-rate-than-those-with-children

    (Who is usually able to extract cash+prizes in the divorce.)
     
    Muh biased courts again.

    Replies: @rebel yell, @res

  258. @Reg Cæsar
    @Paperback Writer


    Are you a divorce lawyer?
     
    Marilyn York is. In Reno.


    https://youtu.be/RlSwsE22nX0

    Back in the day, women just sucked it in and put up with it. They don’t anymore.
     
    That's more of a guy thing now.



    https://youtu.be/3WMuzhQXJoY

    Replies: @Rosie

    I watched that video with the pretty girl and I have to say, she said absolutely nothing that I disagree with, but I had to chuckle when she started talking about “finding solutions together.” The MRA have no interest in that at all.

  259. @Reg Cæsar

    ...they will never, ever, accept the real world implications of that fact, namely, that men are more likely to be unfit parents than women.
     
    Like there are no factors other than criminality that would make one an unfit parent? Or that some criminals may still be fit parents? Even the prosecution had to admit that there was no reason to take OJ Simpson's children from him if he wasn't going to be in prison. He wasn't a threat to them.

    An Egyptian told me in his country, the mother is presumed to get custody until the child is about seven, thereafter the father. After that age, and especially after puberty, his parental role replaces hers as the more important.

    Men here are all about statistical disparities so long as they favor men. Otherwise, they’re to be ignored.
     
    Here is a statistical disparity suggesting real bias and more certainly does not favor men-- and is ignored here:


    https://youtu.be/usq-IHT5ARc


    Male "advantage" in criminality is overblown by focusing on the physical stuff and ignoring felonies where the sexes are much closer to parity, such as embezzlement, fraud, larceny, shoplifting, and check kiting. Women are gradually playing catch-up in property crime as well. A major factor seems to be the risk assumed by the perpetrator.

    Women are less directly responsible for crime, but indirectly? If Raoul impregnates and abandons 19 women and half of his progeny go bad, how is this specifically a male problem? 95% of the protoperpetrators are female! Daniel Amneus compared crime to colorblindness-- carried in the female, expressed in the male.

    Civilization, whether building it or tearing it down, takes teamwork.

    Replies: @Rosie

    Reg, the more intactions I have with you, the more unreasonable you become.

    Like there are no factors other than criminality that would make one an unfit parent?

    Sure, like alcoholism and homelessness, both of which disproportionately affect men. Dysfunctional behaviors tend to build on each other.

    Women are less directly responsible for crime, but indirectly? If Raoul impregnates and abandons 19 women and half of his progeny go bad, how is this specifically a male problem?

    Lol.

    95% of the protoperpetrators are female! Daniel Amneus compared crime to colorblindness– carried in the female, expressed in the male.

    Wow, you’ll stop at nothing to thoroughly pathologize women, will you Reg? I sense desperation.

    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar
    @Rosie


    Wow, you’ll stop at nothing to thoroughly pathologize women, will you Reg? I sense desperation.
     
    Am I "blaming the victim"? In other words, imputing agency where it doesn't belong? How is holding people responsible for the results of their actions "pathologizing"? Sickness isn't involved, unless it's moral.


    Such men exist. The question is, how are they so successful? Often with people old enough to vote.

    Man who had 30 kids with 11 women wants child-support break


    Below is is the more "civilized" version of the same phenomenon.


    https://youtu.be/px-Lm3meF_w

    To me, "child support" means tucking them into bed every night. But neither of these men is supplying it by my definition or yours.

    Satisfied customers of sperm banks are outraged by ghetto babymommas' use of "sperm donor" for their wayward men. But how are the cases any different?

  260. @AnotherDad
    @Rosie


    Men here are all about statistical disparities so long as they favor men. Otherwise, they’re to be ignored. While men here will, in the abstract, admit that there are more male criminals, they will never, ever, accept the real world implications of that fact, namely, that men are more likely to be unfit parents than women.
     
    Men are more likely to be unfit parents than women.

    Men are on average stronger, more rational and particularly better at anything involving mathematical or spatial skills, but they are more aggressive and more divergent--hence more likely to be seriously crazy or criminally violent or engage in reckless behavior.

    Women are on average weaker, more naturally verbal, better at social interactions and better at nurturing. Their "anti-social" behavior tends more along the BPD direction. (Also, distinctly sub-optimal for raising children, but less directly problematic than abusive physical violence.)


    All that said--men being "unfit parents" has nothing to do with the vast majority of divorces in the US. It is because one spouse is unhappy with the other and no longer wants to be married. That spouse is usually the woman. (Who is usually able to extract cash+prizes in the divorce.)

    Replies: @Rosie

    All that said–men being “unfit parents” has nothing to do with the vast majority of divorces in the US. It is because one spouse is unhappy with the other and no longer wants to be married.

    That’s true, because the vast majority of divorces don’t involve any children at all. If women are going to divorce a man, they usually do it before having children with them.

    Once a woman has children with a man, the sunk cost fallacy kicks in.

    https://www.deseret.com/2011/8/8/20208396/childless-couples-still-divorce-at-a-much-higher-rate-than-those-with-children

    (Who is usually able to extract cash+prizes in the divorce.)

    Muh biased courts again.

    • Replies: @rebel yell
    @Rosie

    Rosie, there's something off about the way you argue and I can't quite put my finger on it. You keep moving the goal posts.
    You said, "then you (men on Unz) ignore the fact that men are overrepresented among criminals."
    I said, "men here do not ignore the fact that men are overrepresented among criminals."
    You then said, "While men here will, in the abstract, admit that there are more male criminals, they will never, ever, accept the real world implications of that fact, namely, that men are more likely to be unfit parents than women."
    AD then responds, "Men are more likely to be unfit parents than women."
    You ignore that crucial part of his comment and then go on to taking other pot shots.
    Do you ever acknowledge what someone has said to you? I've noticed your argument strings tend to go on and on and on with no closure.

    Replies: @Kylie

    , @res
    @Rosie


    That’s true, because the vast majority of divorces don’t involve any children at all. If women are going to divorce a man, they usually do it before having children with them.
     
    That's an interesting assertion. Lots of sites claim the opposite (well, nobody except you is claiming "a vast majority", but the numbers vary around 50%). Try searching for something like: percentage of divorces involving children

    I looked at your link. It cites this article:
    https://www.huffpost.com/entry/are-childfree-couples-doo_b_913051

    The only clear reference supporting your claim I see there is this.

    Yes, according to journalist Anneli Rufus, whose number crunching discovered that of the divorced couples in the United States, 66 percent are childless compared with 40 percent who have kids.
     
    First, read those numbers again. Am I supposed to take seriously someone who can't figure out that 66% + 40% > 100%?! Despite that, let's follow the link (by the way, this is what a truth seeking conversation looks like, presenting and evaluating evidence, ideally with credible references).

    That page makes a number of assertions including this one.

    If you have a childless marriage. The absence of children leads to loneliness, and at least 66 percent of divorced couples in the United States are childless.
     
    There are a number of sources at the bottom (some broken links). In none of them do I see that figure supported. If you want to try to figure out the broken links, feel free.

    Let's look at more evidence. Here is something from 1998 which gives an interesting set of assertions.
    https://www.policyarchive.org/download/17944#:~:text=A%20substantial%20number%20of%20divorces,under%2018%20years%20of%20age.

    A substantial number of divorces involve couples with children. 61 percent of the couples in which both the husband and wife are divorcing from a first marriage have children under 18 years of age. With regard to divorces in which one spouse is divorcing from a first marriage and the other from a remarriage, 54 percent in which the husband was the remarried partner had children upon divorce while 47 percent of those in which the wife was the remarried partner had children. 29 percent of couples in which both spouses are divorcing from a remarriage have children.

    In 1990, a quarter of divorcing couples had one child, 20 percent had two children, and 8 percent had three children or more.
     
    The second indicates overall 53% of divorcing couples had children. The first indicates couples in which both spouses are divorcing from a remarriage are significantly lower than the other groups in proportion with children.

    Here is a 2014 paper.
    The impact of family structure on the health of children: Effects of divorce
    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4240051/

    Jane Anderson is not as optimistic as you are about our current situation.

    In 1970, 84 percent of children lived with their married biologic parents, whereas by 2009, only 60 percent did so. In 2009, only 29 percent of African-American children lived with their married biologic parents, while 50 percent were living in single-mother homes. Furthermore, 58 percent of Hispanic children lived with married biologic parents, while 25 percent were living in single-mother homes. Importantly, a recent Harvard study on single-parent families revealed that the most prominent factor preventing many children from upward mobility is living with a single parent (Chetty et al. 2014).

     

    And just to remind us that divorce is not the only thing which matters here.

    In addition, the number of couples who choose to cohabit rather than marry has increased dramatically, with 4.9 million cohabiting couples in 2002, versus just 500,000 in 1970 (U.S. Census Bureau 2003). Half of the unmarried births are to mothers who are in cohabitating relationships, and seven in ten children of cohabitating couples will experience parental separation. The dissolution rate of cohabitating couples is four times higher than married couples who did not cohabitate before marriage (Osborne, Manning, and Stock 2007).
     
    This seems relevant.

    The Centers for Disease Control stopped gathering complete data on the number of children affected by divorce in 1988, and at that time more than one million children were affected (Cohen 2002). Since then, the incidence of divorce has continued to climb, and according to the 2009 American Community Survey, only 45.8 percent of children reach age 17 years while still living with their biologic parents who were married before or around the time of the child's birth (Fagan and Zill 2011). The majority of divorces affect younger children since 72 percent of divorces occur during the first 14 years of marriage. Because a high percentage of divorced adults remarry, and 40 percent of these remarriages also end in divorce, children may be subjected to multiple family realignments (Cohen 2002).
     
    The rest of that paper is mostly about the negative effects of divorce. So let's look for something which bears more directly on the point at issue: "What proportion of divorces involve children?"

    This 1984 paper is old, but it raises a point I think it is worth keeping in mind.
    https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/series/sr_21/sr21_046.pdf

    An analysis comparing vital statistics data with data from the Census Bureau’s Current Population Survey (CPS ) concluded that some children from previous marriages are not reported on divorce certificates, perhaps because their custody is not being decided. According to divorce certificates, 35 percent of previously married women who divorced in 1983 had children under 18 years of age. According to the CPS, however. 64 percent had children under 18 years of age. Apparently the discrepancy between the two data sources was due to children from previous marriages being omitted from divorce certificates, not to the CPS overestimating their number (London, 1986).
     
    This 1980 paper gives some useful historical comparisons.
    https://www.jstor.org/stable/583850

    In 1970, 60% of all divorces involved children (U.S. Bureau of the Census, 1970). The largest increase in divorces involving children came between the years of 1953 and 1962 when there was an increase from 45.2% to 60.2%. Currently, over one million children per year are involved in their parents' divorce (U.S. Bureau of the Census, 1977) and this number increases each year.
     
    This OECD document is most useful for international comparisons, but the US data is notably lacking. It does indicate that in the US about 7% of non-parents are divorced/separated compared to about 14% of parents.
    https://www.oecd.org/els/family/SF_3_2_Family_dissolution_children.pdf

    This page has some interesting related statistics, but not really bearing on our issue.
    https://www.pewresearch.org/social-trends/2010/11/18/v-children/

    What seems most notable about all of this is the lack of recent US statistics bearing directly on our issue. But it at least seems clear that this was a significant overstatement: "That’s true, because the vast majority of divorces don’t involve any children at all." Even your own reference did not really support that (66%, which they really did not support well). Here is a page discussing the use of "vast majority."
    https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/126654/is-vast-majority-something-to-avoid/126757

    P.S. Pro tip: if your reference is a short article in mass media which references the HufPo, consider looking for something better.

    Replies: @Paperback Writer, @Rosie

  261. Drugs has certainly gotten worse–and i do know of one case (know the wife, not really her ex). But again a small fraction of overall divorces.

    How the hell can you possibly know that?

    The post-feminist “modern” divorce industry makes that ridiculous easy to achieve.

    So you say. Do bad outcomes prove discrimination, AD, yes or no?

    Women have a hypogamous urge.

    This is so fucking ridiculous. Women do not decide they can do better after they’ve had kids and are now 10 years older than they were when they were last in the dating market. How stupid do you think we are?

    If men are so badly treated in divorce court, why don’t you tell me why they are more likely than women to remarry? I mean, how can they possibly afford it with all those child support payments?

    https://www.huffpost.com/entry/why-divorced-men-are-quic_b_980121

    https://www.vox.com/xpress/2014/12/9/7332691/men-remarry-younger-women

    Her marital responsibilities–gone. Yours continue.

    Bullshit. Men only owe spousal support when they have a traditional SAHW, and even then only until she “rehabilitates herself.” Yes, men have to continue supporting their children. You don’t get to walk away and dump your kids.

    https://www.lawyers.com/legal-info/family-law/spousal-support/what-is-rehabilitative-alimony.html#:~:text=Rehabilitative%20alimony%20is%20the%20type,a%20specific%20period%20of%20time.

    That you attempt to paint MGTOW as some sort of rational response to current events is really sad. If you follow a few simple guidelines, the risk of divorce after children is quite low. Don’t marry as teenagers, marry someone your own age, etc.

    Men are on average stronger, more rational and particularly better at anything involving mathematical or spatial skills

    Men are better at math, and certainly better at spatial reasoning, but I completely reject the idea that men are “more rational” than women.

    And the feminist program boiled down: Men must give stuff to women, regardless of what women do for men.

    The usual manosphere bullshit: Requiring men to support their kids amounts to letting women off the hook. This makes no fucking sense whatsoever. I suppose you’d rather see young mothers forced into prostitution like in the good ol’ days amirite? I must say, I suspect that is what you have in mind when you talk about “what women do for men.” You’re just not so crass as to come right out and say it like AA.

    If you are referring to welfare, I would remind you that plenty of welfare programs benefit men. Worker’s compensation is due without regard to contributory negligence. As such, it is a welfare program. Free emergency medical care when you lot beat each other up, shoot each other or wreck your cars: welfare. Prison instead of the gallows: welfare.

  262. @Paperback Writer
    @Jack D


    Now while there are some cases where the father is out because he is physically abusive, etc. in far more cases (that I know of at least), the father that gets kicked out is a perfectly nice guy and the woman (women initiate most divorces) just doesn’t want him around anymore.
     
    Are you a divorce lawyer? The top reason for divorce is adultery.

    https://www.kevinhickeylaw.com/legal-blog/top-5-reasons-for-divorce

    Maybe in your world women "kick out a out a perfectly nice guy," but not in the real world. Back in the day, women just sucked it in and put up with it. They don't anymore.

    Replies: @Jack D, @Reg Cæsar, @res

    Your link is in Arkansas. Which is a fault state for divorce. Note that this link also contradicts their assertion of the most common reason there. I’ll leave it to someone who cares to figure out which is more likely to be true.
    https://cordellcordell.com/resources/arkansas/

    Arkansas is a fault state for divorce. This means whoever files for divorce must show that he/she has grounds or reasons to get a divorce from the other person. The grounds for divorce in Arkansas are the following:
    – Impotence;
    – The other spouse was convicted of a felony;
    – Habitual drunkenness;
    – Cruel and barbarous treatment;
    – Adultery;
    – General indignities;
    – Lived separate and apart for eighteen 18 continuous months;
    – Lived separate and apart for three years due to spouse’s incurable insanity and the spouse has been committed to a mental health facility;
    – Lack of support—when the spouse has a legal obligation to support you and the ability but does not.
    The most commonly used ground for divorce in Arkansas is general indignities. This means that your spouse has made your life so intolerable that you can no longer stand to be married to him or her.

    This link has some explanation of fault vs. no-fault divorce.
    https://www.findlaw.com/family/divorce/an-overview-of-no-fault-and-fault-divorce-law.html

    The reason given by parties seeking a no-fault divorce is “irreconcilable differences” or an “irreparable breakdown of the marriage.” The spouse receiving the divorce petition cannot object to the other party’s petition for a no-fault divorce. That objection itself can be viewed by the court as an irreconcilable difference.

    According to this link 17 states are no-fault divorce only, while 33 states allow either fault or no-fault divorce.
    https://southdenverlaw.com/case/divorce-no-fault-states/

    (this doesn’t seem to line up with the quote above saying fault is required in Arkansas, also note Arkansas appears in a list of 14–rather than the 33 above–fault states)

    About this:

    Maybe in your world women “kick out a out a perfectly nice guy,” but not in the real world. Back in the day, women just sucked it in and put up with it. They don’t anymore.

    I think the complaint being voiced here is more about not putting up with it and getting cash and prizes for walking away.

    I’ll just note one more thing.

    Both parties decided to marry each other (for better or for worse for life, for whatever statements like that are worth anymore). It is doubtful that in most cases either party changed THAT much. I think this quote is worth considering.
    https://quoteinvestigator.com/2017/01/17/marry/
    “Men Marry Women with the Hope They Will Never Change. Women Marry Men with the Hope They Will Change”

    • Replies: @Paperback Writer
    @res

    Anticipating that you or someone else would challenge my link, I supplied another link in another comment, here:

    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4012696/

    And commented upon it in the other comment. It's tiresome & "noisy" to repeat myself but whatever, in the more scientific link adultery is #2, with lack of emotional commitment being #1 - obviously they are 2 sides of the same coin.


    I think the complaint being voiced here is more about not putting up with it and getting cash and prizes for walking away.

     

    Wow, nasty much? You improved on Jack! Not only do heartless bitches kick out "perfectly nice" guys, but they get cash prizes for doing so. OK.

    Replies: @res

  263. @Paperback Writer
    @Rosie

    You and I have had our differences, Rosie, but in this instance I think you're the one who is arguing in good faith.

    For the record, here's a more scholarly citation about why marriages fail:

    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4012696/

    As you can see, the two top reasons are lack of commitment, and adultery. They are obviously self-reinforcing, two sides of the same coin.

    See my comment to Jack about this: women initiate divorce because they no longer want to put up the sort of stuff that their grandmothers did.

    I do not see that you're defending this, rather it seems to me that you're bemoaning it, that you sincerely think it's better - other things equal - for kids to grow up in an intact, two-parent family, and Jack is simply being his usual hostile, aggressive self, picking arguments where there are none. He'd argue with a table, if it were the only thing available.


    Anyway, since I only get 3 comments per hour

     

    Me, too. How does Jack get away with dominating every comment thread with numerous, verbose comments? Does he & his sock puppet Johann have some sort of special dispensation?

    Replies: @res

    Anyway, since I only get 3 comments per hour

    Me, too. How does Jack get away with dominating every comment thread with numerous, verbose comments? Does he & his sock puppet Johann have some sort of special dispensation?

    Check the timestamps. No special dispensations that I can see.

    Like Jack D’s comments or not (and I certainly have had my share of go rounds with him) I think it is hard to dispute that he has one of the better signal to noise ratios here and though not always correct (who is?!) tends to be a font of interesting knowledge.

    • Replies: @Paperback Writer
    @res


    Check the timestamps. No special dispensations that I can see.
     
    I'm not that obsessed but I'll take your word for it.

    Replies: @res

  264. @Rosie
    @AnotherDad


    All that said–men being “unfit parents” has nothing to do with the vast majority of divorces in the US. It is because one spouse is unhappy with the other and no longer wants to be married.
     
    That's true, because the vast majority of divorces don't involve any children at all. If women are going to divorce a man, they usually do it before having children with them.

    Once a woman has children with a man, the sunk cost fallacy kicks in.

    https://www.deseret.com/2011/8/8/20208396/childless-couples-still-divorce-at-a-much-higher-rate-than-those-with-children

    (Who is usually able to extract cash+prizes in the divorce.)
     
    Muh biased courts again.

    Replies: @rebel yell, @res

    Rosie, there’s something off about the way you argue and I can’t quite put my finger on it. You keep moving the goal posts.
    You said, “then you (men on Unz) ignore the fact that men are overrepresented among criminals.”
    I said, “men here do not ignore the fact that men are overrepresented among criminals.”
    You then said, “While men here will, in the abstract, admit that there are more male criminals, they will never, ever, accept the real world implications of that fact, namely, that men are more likely to be unfit parents than women.”
    AD then responds, “Men are more likely to be unfit parents than women.”
    You ignore that crucial part of his comment and then go on to taking other pot shots.
    Do you ever acknowledge what someone has said to you? I’ve noticed your argument strings tend to go on and on and on with no closure.

    • Replies: @Kylie
    @rebel yell

    "Rosie, there’s something off about the way you argue and I can’t quite put my finger on it. You keep moving the goal posts."

    That's it. She keeps moving the goal posts. In other words, she argues like a typical female. She doesn't argue to explore or clarify an issue. She argues to win, period. Because with her, it's always personal, always a chance to sling mud or settle a score in her favor. Logic, reason and truth are of no interest to her, a fact which her superficial intelligence unfortunately obscures.

    Most of the men here are far brighter than I am. I am therefore puzzled at their willingness to engage repeatedly with a insulting, dishonest and spiteful fourth-rate intellect like her. You all really need to stop trying to teach that sow to sing.

    Replies: @ScarletNumber, @Yngvar

  265. @Rosie
    @AnotherDad


    All that said–men being “unfit parents” has nothing to do with the vast majority of divorces in the US. It is because one spouse is unhappy with the other and no longer wants to be married.
     
    That's true, because the vast majority of divorces don't involve any children at all. If women are going to divorce a man, they usually do it before having children with them.

    Once a woman has children with a man, the sunk cost fallacy kicks in.

    https://www.deseret.com/2011/8/8/20208396/childless-couples-still-divorce-at-a-much-higher-rate-than-those-with-children

    (Who is usually able to extract cash+prizes in the divorce.)
     
    Muh biased courts again.

    Replies: @rebel yell, @res

    That’s true, because the vast majority of divorces don’t involve any children at all. If women are going to divorce a man, they usually do it before having children with them.

    That’s an interesting assertion. Lots of sites claim the opposite (well, nobody except you is claiming “a vast majority”, but the numbers vary around 50%). Try searching for something like: percentage of divorces involving children

    I looked at your link. It cites this article:
    https://www.huffpost.com/entry/are-childfree-couples-doo_b_913051

    The only clear reference supporting your claim I see there is this.

    Yes, according to journalist Anneli Rufus, whose number crunching discovered that of the divorced couples in the United States, 66 percent are childless compared with 40 percent who have kids.

    First, read those numbers again. Am I supposed to take seriously someone who can’t figure out that 66% + 40% > 100%?! Despite that, let’s follow the link (by the way, this is what a truth seeking conversation looks like, presenting and evaluating evidence, ideally with credible references).

    That page makes a number of assertions including this one.

    If you have a childless marriage. The absence of children leads to loneliness, and at least 66 percent of divorced couples in the United States are childless.

    There are a number of sources at the bottom (some broken links). In none of them do I see that figure supported. If you want to try to figure out the broken links, feel free.

    Let’s look at more evidence. Here is something from 1998 which gives an interesting set of assertions.
    https://www.policyarchive.org/download/17944#:~:text=A%20substantial%20number%20of%20divorces,under%2018%20years%20of%20age.

    A substantial number of divorces involve couples with children. 61 percent of the couples in which both the husband and wife are divorcing from a first marriage have children under 18 years of age. With regard to divorces in which one spouse is divorcing from a first marriage and the other from a remarriage, 54 percent in which the husband was the remarried partner had children upon divorce while 47 percent of those in which the wife was the remarried partner had children. 29 percent of couples in which both spouses are divorcing from a remarriage have children.

    In 1990, a quarter of divorcing couples had one child, 20 percent had two children, and 8 percent had three children or more.

    The second indicates overall 53% of divorcing couples had children. The first indicates couples in which both spouses are divorcing from a remarriage are significantly lower than the other groups in proportion with children.

    Here is a 2014 paper.
    The impact of family structure on the health of children: Effects of divorce
    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4240051/

    Jane Anderson is not as optimistic as you are about our current situation.

    In 1970, 84 percent of children lived with their married biologic parents, whereas by 2009, only 60 percent did so. In 2009, only 29 percent of African-American children lived with their married biologic parents, while 50 percent were living in single-mother homes. Furthermore, 58 percent of Hispanic children lived with married biologic parents, while 25 percent were living in single-mother homes. Importantly, a recent Harvard study on single-parent families revealed that the most prominent factor preventing many children from upward mobility is living with a single parent (Chetty et al. 2014).

    And just to remind us that divorce is not the only thing which matters here.

    In addition, the number of couples who choose to cohabit rather than marry has increased dramatically, with 4.9 million cohabiting couples in 2002, versus just 500,000 in 1970 (U.S. Census Bureau 2003). Half of the unmarried births are to mothers who are in cohabitating relationships, and seven in ten children of cohabitating couples will experience parental separation. The dissolution rate of cohabitating couples is four times higher than married couples who did not cohabitate before marriage (Osborne, Manning, and Stock 2007).

    This seems relevant.

    The Centers for Disease Control stopped gathering complete data on the number of children affected by divorce in 1988, and at that time more than one million children were affected (Cohen 2002). Since then, the incidence of divorce has continued to climb, and according to the 2009 American Community Survey, only 45.8 percent of children reach age 17 years while still living with their biologic parents who were married before or around the time of the child’s birth (Fagan and Zill 2011). The majority of divorces affect younger children since 72 percent of divorces occur during the first 14 years of marriage. Because a high percentage of divorced adults remarry, and 40 percent of these remarriages also end in divorce, children may be subjected to multiple family realignments (Cohen 2002).

    The rest of that paper is mostly about the negative effects of divorce. So let’s look for something which bears more directly on the point at issue: “What proportion of divorces involve children?”

    This 1984 paper is old, but it raises a point I think it is worth keeping in mind.
    https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/series/sr_21/sr21_046.pdf

    An analysis comparing vital statistics data with data from the Census Bureau’s Current Population Survey (CPS ) concluded that some children from previous marriages are not reported on divorce certificates, perhaps because their custody is not being decided. According to divorce certificates, 35 percent of previously married women who divorced in 1983 had children under 18 years of age. According to the CPS, however. 64 percent had children under 18 years of age. Apparently the discrepancy between the two data sources was due to children from previous marriages being omitted from divorce certificates, not to the CPS overestimating their number (London, 1986).

    This 1980 paper gives some useful historical comparisons.
    https://www.jstor.org/stable/583850

    In 1970, 60% of all divorces involved children (U.S. Bureau of the Census, 1970). The largest increase in divorces involving children came between the years of 1953 and 1962 when there was an increase from 45.2% to 60.2%. Currently, over one million children per year are involved in their parents’ divorce (U.S. Bureau of the Census, 1977) and this number increases each year.

    This OECD document is most useful for international comparisons, but the US data is notably lacking. It does indicate that in the US about 7% of non-parents are divorced/separated compared to about 14% of parents.
    https://www.oecd.org/els/family/SF_3_2_Family_dissolution_children.pdf

    This page has some interesting related statistics, but not really bearing on our issue.
    https://www.pewresearch.org/social-trends/2010/11/18/v-children/

    What seems most notable about all of this is the lack of recent US statistics bearing directly on our issue. But it at least seems clear that this was a significant overstatement: “That’s true, because the vast majority of divorces don’t involve any children at all.” Even your own reference did not really support that (66%, which they really did not support well). Here is a page discussing the use of “vast majority.”
    https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/126654/is-vast-majority-something-to-avoid/126757

    P.S. Pro tip: if your reference is a short article in mass media which references the HufPo, consider looking for something better.

    • Replies: @Paperback Writer
    @res

    Great links, as usual, res.

    But when it comes to divorce, and this is nothing that can be proven, only asserted, neither sex is at fault, and blaming either one is indicative of a malicious temperament - although in this case, I exempt Rosie as she is a representative of the more criticized sex, here on Unz, and is battling to defend what she sees as her besieged sisters against viciously personal attacks arising from a bilious misogyny.

    I'm happy to defend that, except when she says things that are factually wrong.

    Replies: @Rosie

    , @Rosie
    @res


    (by the way, this is what a truth seeking conversation looks like, presenting and evaluating evidence, ideally with credible references).
     
    Not really, res. Of course, I welcome this sort of analysis. It is certainly beneficial, but at the end of the day, it doesn't really change the most fundamental point, which you characteristically lose sight of: that various claims to the effect that women divorce men for no or increasingly frivolous reasons, harming children in the process, is unwarranted by the evidence.

    First of all, your own data rather support my claim that the overwhelming majority of White children live with married biological parents. If, as of 2009, 60% of children were living with married biological parents, then that figure for White children was certainly higher. By the same token, it is reasonable to suppose that the number is even higher now than it was then, because unplanned pregnancies, and associated premature marriages, are down.

    A second point that can be quickly disposed of is the idea that divorce has demonstrable negative effects on children. Claims like this remind me of the view that college degrees cause prosperity, and if everyone had this magic piece of paper, we would all be prosperous. This line of thinking has devastated a generation. I have no doubt that children of divorce fare worse than children from intact families, but it does not follow that children of divorce would have done better in the absence of divorce.

    I would very much like to see retrospective data on this. For adult children, who do they believe was at fault for the marriage? How did it affect them? Do they believe they would have been better off without the divorce? For my own part, I can say that the divorce I experienced as a child was long overdue. My mother tried way to hard and should have thrown in the towel years before she finally went and filed for divorce from the husband who had long since constructively abandoned the family. I will never forget how she geared herself up to tell me this long-expected news that she cluelessly believed would be Earth-shattering for me. I do not assume that my experience was typical, but neither do I assume that it was atypical. The only way to find out would be to ask.

    Taking a closer look at some of these data points.


    A substantial number of divorces involve couples with children. 61 percent of the couples in which both the husband and wife are divorcing from a first marriage have children under 18 years of age.
     
    Let's go ahead and assume that this statement is true. Indeed, I don’t think it is inconsistent with the 66% figure, because it is also true that first marriages are relatively unlikely to end in divorce. One must take that into account in determining one's own risk. Let's say the first marriage divorce risk is ~40%, and the chances are ~60% that children will be involved. That would mean that, unless, you're remarrying, there is a ~25% chance that there will be a divorce with children and, presumably, a child support order.

    Even if we stop here, it becomes quite obvious that a 25% chance of a bad outcome (divorce with children) is a great deal better than a 100% chance of a bad outcome (never having a family at all.) But that is not the end of the story, because you can significantly reduce your risk of divorce by

    1. Not marrying too early.
    2. Not marrying too late.
    3. Marrying someone your own age or very close in age.
    4. Having a college degree. (Probably just a proxy for generally having your shit together.)

    Now, if you do these things, what is the risk of divorce? I don't know, but it is clear that these things significantly reduce the risk, so now, instead of talking about a 25% chance of a bad outcome, we're talking about something significantly less than that. Let's say the chances are now only 20%, a very conservative speculation.

    Now, let's assume that divorce isn't all women's fault all the time, and that men can reduce their risk by not being an asshole. Since so many around here consider the question of who files the paperwork to be dispositive, let's go ahead and assume that 70% of divorces are women's fault. and only 30% are men's fault. Where does that leave us in terms of actual risk that our hypothetical man will wind up divorced, paying child support, through no fault of his own? Somewhere in the teens?

    How low does it have to go before we can safely say that the cynics should stop trying to persuade men to join in their temper tantrum? 10%? Even lower? On what grounds do men believe that marriage can or should be made a risk-free proposition for them? How can that be accomplished without unfairly requiring women to bear disproportionate risk?

    As I have any number of times, I would be on board with getting rid of no-fault divorce.
    Like Marcia Pappas, President of New York NOW, I think no-fault divorce is a net negative for all concerned. I don't say this lightly, because any such measure would cost some women their very lives.

    https://www.jstor.org/stable/25098790


    P.S. Pro tip: if your reference is a short article in mass media which references the HufPo, consider looking for something better.
     
    Fair enough, but TBH, I'm not sure that should be my burden. I suspect you any many other commenters have more time for that sort of thing than I do. I also have a suggestion for you: Give some thought to whether my own arguably exaggerated claim that the vast majority of divorces don't involve children bothered you more than Thommm "dot-not-feather's" obviously exaggerated claim that the two-parent family is "all but gone" did, and if so, why?

    Replies: @res

  266. @res
    @Rosie


    That’s true, because the vast majority of divorces don’t involve any children at all. If women are going to divorce a man, they usually do it before having children with them.
     
    That's an interesting assertion. Lots of sites claim the opposite (well, nobody except you is claiming "a vast majority", but the numbers vary around 50%). Try searching for something like: percentage of divorces involving children

    I looked at your link. It cites this article:
    https://www.huffpost.com/entry/are-childfree-couples-doo_b_913051

    The only clear reference supporting your claim I see there is this.

    Yes, according to journalist Anneli Rufus, whose number crunching discovered that of the divorced couples in the United States, 66 percent are childless compared with 40 percent who have kids.
     
    First, read those numbers again. Am I supposed to take seriously someone who can't figure out that 66% + 40% > 100%?! Despite that, let's follow the link (by the way, this is what a truth seeking conversation looks like, presenting and evaluating evidence, ideally with credible references).

    That page makes a number of assertions including this one.

    If you have a childless marriage. The absence of children leads to loneliness, and at least 66 percent of divorced couples in the United States are childless.
     
    There are a number of sources at the bottom (some broken links). In none of them do I see that figure supported. If you want to try to figure out the broken links, feel free.

    Let's look at more evidence. Here is something from 1998 which gives an interesting set of assertions.
    https://www.policyarchive.org/download/17944#:~:text=A%20substantial%20number%20of%20divorces,under%2018%20years%20of%20age.

    A substantial number of divorces involve couples with children. 61 percent of the couples in which both the husband and wife are divorcing from a first marriage have children under 18 years of age. With regard to divorces in which one spouse is divorcing from a first marriage and the other from a remarriage, 54 percent in which the husband was the remarried partner had children upon divorce while 47 percent of those in which the wife was the remarried partner had children. 29 percent of couples in which both spouses are divorcing from a remarriage have children.

    In 1990, a quarter of divorcing couples had one child, 20 percent had two children, and 8 percent had three children or more.
     
    The second indicates overall 53% of divorcing couples had children. The first indicates couples in which both spouses are divorcing from a remarriage are significantly lower than the other groups in proportion with children.

    Here is a 2014 paper.
    The impact of family structure on the health of children: Effects of divorce
    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4240051/

    Jane Anderson is not as optimistic as you are about our current situation.

    In 1970, 84 percent of children lived with their married biologic parents, whereas by 2009, only 60 percent did so. In 2009, only 29 percent of African-American children lived with their married biologic parents, while 50 percent were living in single-mother homes. Furthermore, 58 percent of Hispanic children lived with married biologic parents, while 25 percent were living in single-mother homes. Importantly, a recent Harvard study on single-parent families revealed that the most prominent factor preventing many children from upward mobility is living with a single parent (Chetty et al. 2014).

     

    And just to remind us that divorce is not the only thing which matters here.

    In addition, the number of couples who choose to cohabit rather than marry has increased dramatically, with 4.9 million cohabiting couples in 2002, versus just 500,000 in 1970 (U.S. Census Bureau 2003). Half of the unmarried births are to mothers who are in cohabitating relationships, and seven in ten children of cohabitating couples will experience parental separation. The dissolution rate of cohabitating couples is four times higher than married couples who did not cohabitate before marriage (Osborne, Manning, and Stock 2007).
     
    This seems relevant.

    The Centers for Disease Control stopped gathering complete data on the number of children affected by divorce in 1988, and at that time more than one million children were affected (Cohen 2002). Since then, the incidence of divorce has continued to climb, and according to the 2009 American Community Survey, only 45.8 percent of children reach age 17 years while still living with their biologic parents who were married before or around the time of the child's birth (Fagan and Zill 2011). The majority of divorces affect younger children since 72 percent of divorces occur during the first 14 years of marriage. Because a high percentage of divorced adults remarry, and 40 percent of these remarriages also end in divorce, children may be subjected to multiple family realignments (Cohen 2002).
     
    The rest of that paper is mostly about the negative effects of divorce. So let's look for something which bears more directly on the point at issue: "What proportion of divorces involve children?"

    This 1984 paper is old, but it raises a point I think it is worth keeping in mind.
    https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/series/sr_21/sr21_046.pdf

    An analysis comparing vital statistics data with data from the Census Bureau’s Current Population Survey (CPS ) concluded that some children from previous marriages are not reported on divorce certificates, perhaps because their custody is not being decided. According to divorce certificates, 35 percent of previously married women who divorced in 1983 had children under 18 years of age. According to the CPS, however. 64 percent had children under 18 years of age. Apparently the discrepancy between the two data sources was due to children from previous marriages being omitted from divorce certificates, not to the CPS overestimating their number (London, 1986).
     
    This 1980 paper gives some useful historical comparisons.
    https://www.jstor.org/stable/583850

    In 1970, 60% of all divorces involved children (U.S. Bureau of the Census, 1970). The largest increase in divorces involving children came between the years of 1953 and 1962 when there was an increase from 45.2% to 60.2%. Currently, over one million children per year are involved in their parents' divorce (U.S. Bureau of the Census, 1977) and this number increases each year.
     
    This OECD document is most useful for international comparisons, but the US data is notably lacking. It does indicate that in the US about 7% of non-parents are divorced/separated compared to about 14% of parents.
    https://www.oecd.org/els/family/SF_3_2_Family_dissolution_children.pdf

    This page has some interesting related statistics, but not really bearing on our issue.
    https://www.pewresearch.org/social-trends/2010/11/18/v-children/

    What seems most notable about all of this is the lack of recent US statistics bearing directly on our issue. But it at least seems clear that this was a significant overstatement: "That’s true, because the vast majority of divorces don’t involve any children at all." Even your own reference did not really support that (66%, which they really did not support well). Here is a page discussing the use of "vast majority."
    https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/126654/is-vast-majority-something-to-avoid/126757

    P.S. Pro tip: if your reference is a short article in mass media which references the HufPo, consider looking for something better.

    Replies: @Paperback Writer, @Rosie

    Great links, as usual, res.

    But when it comes to divorce, and this is nothing that can be proven, only asserted, neither sex is at fault, and blaming either one is indicative of a malicious temperament – although in this case, I exempt Rosie as she is a representative of the more criticized sex, here on Unz, and is battling to defend what she sees as her besieged sisters against viciously personal attacks arising from a bilious misogyny.

    I’m happy to defend that, except when she says things that are factually wrong.

    • Replies: @Rosie
    @Paperback Writer


    although in this case, I exempt Rosie as she is a representative of the more criticized sex, here on Unz, and is battling to defend what she sees as her besieged sisters against viciously personal attacks arising from a bilious misogyny.
     
    That is very generous. Thank you. I don't actually argue that men are particularly at fault for divorce. I have my suspicions, but I don’t claim to have proof, and I would be more than happy to say both are equally at fault and leave it at that. Men who post here about the issue haven't shown any interest in such a truce nor in any constructive, realistic solutions.

    Of course, given that I'm not the one who picks these fights, I don’t pull punches.

    Replies: @Justvisiting, @Paperback Writer

  267. @res
    @Paperback Writer



    Anyway, since I only get 3 comments per hour
     
    Me, too. How does Jack get away with dominating every comment thread with numerous, verbose comments? Does he & his sock puppet Johann have some sort of special dispensation?
     
    Check the timestamps. No special dispensations that I can see.

    Like Jack D's comments or not (and I certainly have had my share of go rounds with him) I think it is hard to dispute that he has one of the better signal to noise ratios here and though not always correct (who is?!) tends to be a font of interesting knowledge.

    Replies: @Paperback Writer

    Check the timestamps. No special dispensations that I can see.

    I’m not that obsessed but I’ll take your word for it.

    • Replies: @res
    @Paperback Writer

    If facts mattering more than innuendo is being obsessive then I proudly wear that label. And marvel at people who consider it a criticism.

  268. @res
    @Rosie


    That’s true, because the vast majority of divorces don’t involve any children at all. If women are going to divorce a man, they usually do it before having children with them.
     
    That's an interesting assertion. Lots of sites claim the opposite (well, nobody except you is claiming "a vast majority", but the numbers vary around 50%). Try searching for something like: percentage of divorces involving children

    I looked at your link. It cites this article:
    https://www.huffpost.com/entry/are-childfree-couples-doo_b_913051

    The only clear reference supporting your claim I see there is this.

    Yes, according to journalist Anneli Rufus, whose number crunching discovered that of the divorced couples in the United States, 66 percent are childless compared with 40 percent who have kids.
     
    First, read those numbers again. Am I supposed to take seriously someone who can't figure out that 66% + 40% > 100%?! Despite that, let's follow the link (by the way, this is what a truth seeking conversation looks like, presenting and evaluating evidence, ideally with credible references).

    That page makes a number of assertions including this one.

    If you have a childless marriage. The absence of children leads to loneliness, and at least 66 percent of divorced couples in the United States are childless.
     
    There are a number of sources at the bottom (some broken links). In none of them do I see that figure supported. If you want to try to figure out the broken links, feel free.

    Let's look at more evidence. Here is something from 1998 which gives an interesting set of assertions.
    https://www.policyarchive.org/download/17944#:~:text=A%20substantial%20number%20of%20divorces,under%2018%20years%20of%20age.

    A substantial number of divorces involve couples with children. 61 percent of the couples in which both the husband and wife are divorcing from a first marriage have children under 18 years of age. With regard to divorces in which one spouse is divorcing from a first marriage and the other from a remarriage, 54 percent in which the husband was the remarried partner had children upon divorce while 47 percent of those in which the wife was the remarried partner had children. 29 percent of couples in which both spouses are divorcing from a remarriage have children.

    In 1990, a quarter of divorcing couples had one child, 20 percent had two children, and 8 percent had three children or more.
     
    The second indicates overall 53% of divorcing couples had children. The first indicates couples in which both spouses are divorcing from a remarriage are significantly lower than the other groups in proportion with children.

    Here is a 2014 paper.
    The impact of family structure on the health of children: Effects of divorce
    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4240051/

    Jane Anderson is not as optimistic as you are about our current situation.

    In 1970, 84 percent of children lived with their married biologic parents, whereas by 2009, only 60 percent did so. In 2009, only 29 percent of African-American children lived with their married biologic parents, while 50 percent were living in single-mother homes. Furthermore, 58 percent of Hispanic children lived with married biologic parents, while 25 percent were living in single-mother homes. Importantly, a recent Harvard study on single-parent families revealed that the most prominent factor preventing many children from upward mobility is living with a single parent (Chetty et al. 2014).

     

    And just to remind us that divorce is not the only thing which matters here.

    In addition, the number of couples who choose to cohabit rather than marry has increased dramatically, with 4.9 million cohabiting couples in 2002, versus just 500,000 in 1970 (U.S. Census Bureau 2003). Half of the unmarried births are to mothers who are in cohabitating relationships, and seven in ten children of cohabitating couples will experience parental separation. The dissolution rate of cohabitating couples is four times higher than married couples who did not cohabitate before marriage (Osborne, Manning, and Stock 2007).
     
    This seems relevant.

    The Centers for Disease Control stopped gathering complete data on the number of children affected by divorce in 1988, and at that time more than one million children were affected (Cohen 2002). Since then, the incidence of divorce has continued to climb, and according to the 2009 American Community Survey, only 45.8 percent of children reach age 17 years while still living with their biologic parents who were married before or around the time of the child's birth (Fagan and Zill 2011). The majority of divorces affect younger children since 72 percent of divorces occur during the first 14 years of marriage. Because a high percentage of divorced adults remarry, and 40 percent of these remarriages also end in divorce, children may be subjected to multiple family realignments (Cohen 2002).
     
    The rest of that paper is mostly about the negative effects of divorce. So let's look for something which bears more directly on the point at issue: "What proportion of divorces involve children?"

    This 1984 paper is old, but it raises a point I think it is worth keeping in mind.
    https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/series/sr_21/sr21_046.pdf

    An analysis comparing vital statistics data with data from the Census Bureau’s Current Population Survey (CPS ) concluded that some children from previous marriages are not reported on divorce certificates, perhaps because their custody is not being decided. According to divorce certificates, 35 percent of previously married women who divorced in 1983 had children under 18 years of age. According to the CPS, however. 64 percent had children under 18 years of age. Apparently the discrepancy between the two data sources was due to children from previous marriages being omitted from divorce certificates, not to the CPS overestimating their number (London, 1986).
     
    This 1980 paper gives some useful historical comparisons.
    https://www.jstor.org/stable/583850

    In 1970, 60% of all divorces involved children (U.S. Bureau of the Census, 1970). The largest increase in divorces involving children came between the years of 1953 and 1962 when there was an increase from 45.2% to 60.2%. Currently, over one million children per year are involved in their parents' divorce (U.S. Bureau of the Census, 1977) and this number increases each year.
     
    This OECD document is most useful for international comparisons, but the US data is notably lacking. It does indicate that in the US about 7% of non-parents are divorced/separated compared to about 14% of parents.
    https://www.oecd.org/els/family/SF_3_2_Family_dissolution_children.pdf

    This page has some interesting related statistics, but not really bearing on our issue.
    https://www.pewresearch.org/social-trends/2010/11/18/v-children/

    What seems most notable about all of this is the lack of recent US statistics bearing directly on our issue. But it at least seems clear that this was a significant overstatement: "That’s true, because the vast majority of divorces don’t involve any children at all." Even your own reference did not really support that (66%, which they really did not support well). Here is a page discussing the use of "vast majority."
    https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/126654/is-vast-majority-something-to-avoid/126757

    P.S. Pro tip: if your reference is a short article in mass media which references the HufPo, consider looking for something better.

    Replies: @Paperback Writer, @Rosie

    (by the way, this is what a truth seeking conversation looks like, presenting and evaluating evidence, ideally with credible references).

    Not really, res. Of course, I welcome this sort of analysis. It is certainly beneficial, but at the end of the day, it doesn’t really change the most fundamental point, which you characteristically lose sight of: that various claims to the effect that women divorce men for no or increasingly frivolous reasons, harming children in the process, is unwarranted by the evidence.

    First of all, your own data rather support my claim that the overwhelming majority of White children live with married biological parents. If, as of 2009, 60% of children were living with married biological parents, then that figure for White children was certainly higher. By the same token, it is reasonable to suppose that the number is even higher now than it was then, because unplanned pregnancies, and associated premature marriages, are down.

    A second point that can be quickly disposed of is the idea that divorce has demonstrable negative effects on children. Claims like this remind me of the view that college degrees cause prosperity, and if everyone had this magic piece of paper, we would all be prosperous. This line of thinking has devastated a generation. I have no doubt that children of divorce fare worse than children from intact families, but it does not follow that children of divorce would have done better in the absence of divorce.

    I would very much like to see retrospective data on this. For adult children, who do they believe was at fault for the marriage? How did it affect them? Do they believe they would have been better off without the divorce? For my own part, I can say that the divorce I experienced as a child was long overdue. My mother tried way to hard and should have thrown in the towel years before she finally went and filed for divorce from the husband who had long since constructively abandoned the family. I will never forget how she geared herself up to tell me this long-expected news that she cluelessly believed would be Earth-shattering for me. I do not assume that my experience was typical, but neither do I assume that it was atypical. The only way to find out would be to ask.

    Taking a closer look at some of these data points.

    A substantial number of divorces involve couples with children. 61 percent of the couples in which both the husband and wife are divorcing from a first marriage have children under 18 years of age.

    Let’s go ahead and assume that this statement is true. Indeed, I don’t think it is inconsistent with the 66% figure, because it is also true that first marriages are relatively unlikely to end in divorce. One must take that into account in determining one’s own risk. Let’s say the first marriage divorce risk is ~40%, and the chances are ~60% that children will be involved. That would mean that, unless, you’re remarrying, there is a ~25% chance that there will be a divorce with children and, presumably, a child support order.

    Even if we stop here, it becomes quite obvious that a 25% chance of a bad outcome (divorce with children) is a great deal better than a 100% chance of a bad outcome (never having a family at all.) But that is not the end of the story, because you can significantly reduce your risk of divorce by

    1. Not marrying too early.
    2. Not marrying too late.
    3. Marrying someone your own age or very close in age.
    4. Having a college degree. (Probably just a proxy for generally having your shit together.)

    Now, if you do these things, what is the risk of divorce? I don’t know, but it is clear that these things significantly reduce the risk, so now, instead of talking about a 25% chance of a bad outcome, we’re talking about something significantly less than that. Let’s say the chances are now only 20%, a very conservative speculation.

    Now, let’s assume that divorce isn’t all women’s fault all the time, and that men can reduce their risk by not being an asshole. Since so many around here consider the question of who files the paperwork to be dispositive, let’s go ahead and assume that 70% of divorces are women’s fault. and only 30% are men’s fault. Where does that leave us in terms of actual risk that our hypothetical man will wind up divorced, paying child support, through no fault of his own? Somewhere in the teens?

    How low does it have to go before we can safely say that the cynics should stop trying to persuade men to join in their temper tantrum? 10%? Even lower? On what grounds do men believe that marriage can or should be made a risk-free proposition for them? How can that be accomplished without unfairly requiring women to bear disproportionate risk?

    As I have any number of times, I would be on board with getting rid of no-fault divorce.
    Like Marcia Pappas, President of New York NOW, I think no-fault divorce is a net negative for all concerned. I don’t say this lightly, because any such measure would cost some women their very lives.

    https://www.jstor.org/stable/25098790

    P.S. Pro tip: if your reference is a short article in mass media which references the HufPo, consider looking for something better.

    Fair enough, but TBH, I’m not sure that should be my burden. I suspect you any many other commenters have more time for that sort of thing than I do. I also have a suggestion for you: Give some thought to whether my own arguably exaggerated claim that the vast majority of divorces don’t involve children bothered you more than Thommm “dot-not-feather’s” obviously exaggerated claim that the two-parent family is “all but gone” did, and if so, why?

    • Replies: @res
    @Rosie


    the most fundamental point, which you characteristically lose sight of: that various claims to the effect that women divorce men for no or increasingly frivolous reasons, harming children in the process, is unwarranted by the evidence.
     
    What makes you think I have lost sight of that? Let's break down your statement.

    1. Are you honestly claiming that divorce does not harm children? Far from losing sight of that, the Anderson link I gave is full of discussion of it. Rather than the two paragraphs of speculation you gave, how about engaging with Anderson's research?

    2. Women initiate something like 70% of divorces.
    https://bestlifeonline.com/women-initiate-divorce-more-than-men/

    3. The rate of divorce in the US has increased. Do you think men's behavior towards women has gotten worse over that period? If not, that seems evidence divorces are happening for lesser reasons than in the past.

    4. Let's leave "no reason" as the strawman it is and talk about increasingly frivolous reasons. Below you talk about no fault divorce. Is the rise of no fault divorce not sufficient evidence of the lesser reasons? If not, then take a closer look at the link I gave in 1. They state: 'Women are less likely to tolerate "bad behavior" today.' which I think it is hard to disagree with. Looked at another way it is hard to see that as anything other than affirming that divorce is happening for lesser reasons than in the past.

    Frivolous is a very loaded term. Do you disagree with "women are divorcing men for lesser reasons than in the past"?

    How can you claim with a straight face that is "unwarranted by the evidence" given 1-4?

    One thing which is important is to specify time frames for claims of change. I prefer to look at the long term from say the 1960s to present while your comments seem focused on the last 10-20 years. I suspect that is because you realize the longer time frame view is devastating to your argument.

    First of all, your own data rather support my claim that the overwhelming majority of White children live with married biological parents. If, as of 2009, 60% of children were living with married biological parents
     
    Enough with the exaggeration. 60-40 is hardly overwhelming.

    A second point that can be quickly disposed of is the idea that divorce has demonstrable negative effects on children. Claims like this remind me of the view that college degrees cause prosperity, and if everyone had this magic piece of paper, we would all be prosperous. This line of thinking has devastated a generation. I have no doubt that children of divorce fare worse than children from intact families, but it does not follow that children of divorce would have done better in the absence of divorce.
     
    That last sentence is an excellent point which is hard to evaluate. I tend to agree and would add that the genetics which result in divorce probably don't help child outcomes.

    That said, do you have any evidence? Did you look at the Anderson paper I linked to see if you can counter her points with specifics?

    because it is also true that first marriages are relatively unlikely to end in divorce.
     
    I think it is more clear to frame that as remarriages are even more likely to end in divorce. In 2001 43% of first marriages broke up within 15 years.
    https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/pressroom/01news/firstmarr.htm

    Even if we stop here, it becomes quite obvious that a 25% chance of a bad outcome (divorce with children) is a great deal better than a 100% chance of a bad outcome (never having a family at all.)
     
    I like that reasoning. Also worth noting all of the out of wedlock children. That is the trend that mystifies me. I consider having children with someone a bigger commitment than marriage.

    How low does it have to go before we can safely say that the cynics should stop trying to persuade men to join in their temper tantrum? 10%? Even lower? On what grounds do men believe that marriage can or should be made a risk-free proposition for them? How can that be accomplished without unfairly requiring women to bear disproportionate risk?
     
    That you reduce what happens to that small proportion of men to "temper tantrums" and think a 10% chance of getting shafted like that is something to dismiss says a great deal about you. And explains why others are attacking you here. How much risk are women at of being shafted by divorce (probably much lower since they are initiating 70%, right?)? Would equal risk of bad outcomes from divorce be proportionate? Seems like scales would need to shift in a direction you don't like for that to happen so maybe drop "disproportionate" from your argument?

    As I have any number of times, I would be on board with getting rid of no-fault divorce.
    Like Marcia Pappas, President of New York NOW, I think no-fault divorce is a net negative for all concerned. I don’t say this lightly, because any such measure would cost some women their very lives.
     
    So you at least acknowledge there is a problem here. I think exploring this point at length would be something where you would find more agreement with those arguing with you.

    If everybody could back away from the extreme examples (often given as representative) and strawmen conversations like this would be much better.

    I’m not sure that should be my burden. I suspect you any many other commenters have more time for that sort of thing than I do.
     
    That's lame. If you are going to argue with references then it is your burden to see they are valid. If you don't have time for that maybe be less extreme and argumentative.

    I also have a suggestion for you: Give some thought to whether my own arguably exaggerated claim that the vast majority of divorces don’t involve children bothered you more than Thommm “dot-not-feather’s” obviously exaggerated claim that the two-parent family is “all but gone” did, and if so, why?
     
    Nice whataboutism. I notice you and Triteleia Laxa have both seized on that as a way of attacking me. Since this one is such a softball over the middle of the plate....

    1. Thomm makes no pretense at trying to have a rational debate. (BTW, I take my share of shots at his stupidity, check my comment history) Me ignoring his nonsense at a given time is no compliment to him.

    2. I think my comments demonstrate your claim is exaggerated and "arguably" is at best a polite fiction on your part. Or would you prefer to supply some argument supporting it? That is part of being "arguable," right? Maybe start with what percentage you think justifies the phrase "vast majority"?

    3. We all get to choose which comments we make. While we are on that topic I would still like to know why you so seldom respond to the good points in my comments or acknowledge when I supply links which demolish points you assert.

    P.S. Again, the simplistic strawmen you assign to me are tiresome. I think this conversation if anything indicates that I think about this (and other) issues in a more serious and nuanced form than you do.

    Replies: @Rosie

  269. @Paperback Writer
    @res

    Great links, as usual, res.

    But when it comes to divorce, and this is nothing that can be proven, only asserted, neither sex is at fault, and blaming either one is indicative of a malicious temperament - although in this case, I exempt Rosie as she is a representative of the more criticized sex, here on Unz, and is battling to defend what she sees as her besieged sisters against viciously personal attacks arising from a bilious misogyny.

    I'm happy to defend that, except when she says things that are factually wrong.

    Replies: @Rosie

    although in this case, I exempt Rosie as she is a representative of the more criticized sex, here on Unz, and is battling to defend what she sees as her besieged sisters against viciously personal attacks arising from a bilious misogyny.

    That is very generous. Thank you. I don’t actually argue that men are particularly at fault for divorce. I have my suspicions, but I don’t claim to have proof, and I would be more than happy to say both are equally at fault and leave it at that. Men who post here about the issue haven’t shown any interest in such a truce nor in any constructive, realistic solutions.

    Of course, given that I’m not the one who picks these fights, I don’t pull punches.

    • Replies: @Justvisiting
    @Rosie

    The men arguing with you have violated the first rule of the manosphere--never argue with a woman.

    :-)

    , @Paperback Writer
    @Rosie


    Men who post here about the issue haven’t shown any interest in such a truce nor in any constructive, realistic solutions.
     
    Most of the commenters here are pretty good-natured. As I said elsewhere I come here as a refuge against clown world. Plus I learn some great stuff.

    If I have one criticism of *some* of the commenters it's not their rage. I share that so who am I to criticize them? It's that they are instant experts on everything (when it's obvious they've been reading Wikipedia), they can predict the future with 100% accuracy, and their explanations for societal breakdown always involve blaming one or more groups of people.
  270. @Rosie
    @Paperback Writer


    although in this case, I exempt Rosie as she is a representative of the more criticized sex, here on Unz, and is battling to defend what she sees as her besieged sisters against viciously personal attacks arising from a bilious misogyny.
     
    That is very generous. Thank you. I don't actually argue that men are particularly at fault for divorce. I have my suspicions, but I don’t claim to have proof, and I would be more than happy to say both are equally at fault and leave it at that. Men who post here about the issue haven't shown any interest in such a truce nor in any constructive, realistic solutions.

    Of course, given that I'm not the one who picks these fights, I don’t pull punches.

    Replies: @Justvisiting, @Paperback Writer

    The men arguing with you have violated the first rule of the manosphere–never argue with a woman.

    🙂

  271. @res
    @Paperback Writer

    Your link is in Arkansas. Which is a fault state for divorce. Note that this link also contradicts their assertion of the most common reason there. I'll leave it to someone who cares to figure out which is more likely to be true.
    https://cordellcordell.com/resources/arkansas/


    Arkansas is a fault state for divorce. This means whoever files for divorce must show that he/she has grounds or reasons to get a divorce from the other person. The grounds for divorce in Arkansas are the following:
    - Impotence;
    - The other spouse was convicted of a felony;
    - Habitual drunkenness;
    - Cruel and barbarous treatment;
    - Adultery;
    - General indignities;
    - Lived separate and apart for eighteen 18 continuous months;
    - Lived separate and apart for three years due to spouse’s incurable insanity and the spouse has been committed to a mental health facility;
    - Lack of support—when the spouse has a legal obligation to support you and the ability but does not.
    The most commonly used ground for divorce in Arkansas is general indignities. This means that your spouse has made your life so intolerable that you can no longer stand to be married to him or her.
     
    This link has some explanation of fault vs. no-fault divorce.
    https://www.findlaw.com/family/divorce/an-overview-of-no-fault-and-fault-divorce-law.html

    The reason given by parties seeking a no-fault divorce is "irreconcilable differences" or an "irreparable breakdown of the marriage." The spouse receiving the divorce petition cannot object to the other party's petition for a no-fault divorce. That objection itself can be viewed by the court as an irreconcilable difference.
     
    According to this link 17 states are no-fault divorce only, while 33 states allow either fault or no-fault divorce.
    https://southdenverlaw.com/case/divorce-no-fault-states/

    (this doesn't seem to line up with the quote above saying fault is required in Arkansas, also note Arkansas appears in a list of 14--rather than the 33 above--fault states)

    About this:

    Maybe in your world women “kick out a out a perfectly nice guy,” but not in the real world. Back in the day, women just sucked it in and put up with it. They don’t anymore.
     
    I think the complaint being voiced here is more about not putting up with it and getting cash and prizes for walking away.

    I'll just note one more thing.

    Both parties decided to marry each other (for better or for worse for life, for whatever statements like that are worth anymore). It is doubtful that in most cases either party changed THAT much. I think this quote is worth considering.
    https://quoteinvestigator.com/2017/01/17/marry/
    "Men Marry Women with the Hope They Will Never Change. Women Marry Men with the Hope They Will Change"

    Replies: @Paperback Writer

    Anticipating that you or someone else would challenge my link, I supplied another link in another comment, here:

    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4012696/

    And commented upon it in the other comment. It’s tiresome & “noisy” to repeat myself but whatever, in the more scientific link adultery is #2, with lack of emotional commitment being #1 – obviously they are 2 sides of the same coin.

    I think the complaint being voiced here is more about not putting up with it and getting cash and prizes for walking away.

    Wow, nasty much? You improved on Jack! Not only do heartless bitches kick out “perfectly nice” guys, but they get cash prizes for doing so. OK.

    • Replies: @res
    @Paperback Writer


    It’s tiresome & “noisy” to repeat myself but whatever, in the more scientific link adultery is #2, with lack of emotional commitment being #1 – obviously they are 2 sides of the same coin.
     
    Well, one could argue it is even more tiresome & “noisy” to have to rebut apparently incorrect statements (adultery #1) and insufficient (overly specific to a single state--which as a fault divorce state is a special case--and as it turns out not adequately backed up by them) links.


    I think the complaint being voiced here is more about not putting up with it and getting cash and prizes for walking away.

     

    Wow, nasty much? You improved on Jack! Not only do heartless bitches kick out “perfectly nice” guys, but they get cash prizes for doing so. OK.
     
    Harsh, yes, but do you deny that what I describe happens sometimes? Do you think that is acceptable? Can you not see what effect that has on the stability of marriage overall? Incentives matter.

    (BTW, the phrase was "cash and prizes" with the latter being things like houses and children)

    You seem to be a pretty reasonable commenter so let's take a step back.

    Can we agree that there is typically plenty of bad behavior on both sides during a divorce? Not getting into who is the bigger meanie or who started it or who is more justified (those are all so subjective as to be hard to come to any agreement), but just that both men and women sometime through the process of a marriage falling apart and the divorce being granted often behave badly.

    Can we further agree that there are examples of both extremes of a man behaving badly to a relatively blameless woman and vice versa? Simple examples of those are relatively unprovoked adultery by either side. (as you note in your comment though, at some level adultery is often provoked)

    Now lets take those extreme cases. In a no fault divorce state (the norm these days!) how do you envision the respective divorces playing out in terms of assets and custody? My sense is the woman tends to do better unless she is basically an axe murderer and it can be proven. If you have DATA to the contrary please link it.


    Not only do heartless bitches kick out “perfectly nice” guys
     
    Where do you see that in my comments? The strawmen are beyond tiresome. If you are going to engage in a Rosie flame fest one thing which is important to realize is her comments are full of strawmen (and projection, but she thinks that is only psychobabble, psychobabble it may be, but incredibly useful for understanding the world and the people in it).

    I also ask that you spend some time perusing her comment history so you can realize that her "Of course, given that I’m not the one who picks these fights, I don’t pull punches." is ROTFLMAO! level funny. See comment https://www.unz.com/isteve/sexist-sexplanation-for-mens-brilliance-debunked/#comment-5076892

    If leading off a comment with "Anotherasshole" isn't picking a fight then I don't know what is.

    Replies: @Paperback Writer

  272. Thank you. I don’t actually argue that men are particularly at fault for divorce.

    OK.

    JMO: Divorce is universal and in some societies it isn’t the shattering horror story that it is in the Western world because the parents usually lived near one another & there were plenty of other family members to take up the slack. It’s bad in our society though, and it’s a mirror of the stresses neoliberal capitalism places on people.

    Steve talks about the problems of family formation. It’s quite insane, really: we make it hard on normal people to form stable families, while the Daunte Wright’s merrily seed bastards and let the moms and governments take over. But that’s another discussion entirely.

  273. @Paperback Writer
    @res

    Anticipating that you or someone else would challenge my link, I supplied another link in another comment, here:

    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4012696/

    And commented upon it in the other comment. It's tiresome & "noisy" to repeat myself but whatever, in the more scientific link adultery is #2, with lack of emotional commitment being #1 - obviously they are 2 sides of the same coin.


    I think the complaint being voiced here is more about not putting up with it and getting cash and prizes for walking away.

     

    Wow, nasty much? You improved on Jack! Not only do heartless bitches kick out "perfectly nice" guys, but they get cash prizes for doing so. OK.

    Replies: @res

    It’s tiresome & “noisy” to repeat myself but whatever, in the more scientific link adultery is #2, with lack of emotional commitment being #1 – obviously they are 2 sides of the same coin.

    Well, one could argue it is even more tiresome & “noisy” to have to rebut apparently incorrect statements (adultery #1) and insufficient (overly specific to a single state–which as a fault divorce state is a special case–and as it turns out not adequately backed up by them) links.

    I think the complaint being voiced here is more about not putting up with it and getting cash and prizes for walking away.

    Wow, nasty much? You improved on Jack! Not only do heartless bitches kick out “perfectly nice” guys, but they get cash prizes for doing so. OK.

    Harsh, yes, but do you deny that what I describe happens sometimes? Do you think that is acceptable? Can you not see what effect that has on the stability of marriage overall? Incentives matter.

    (BTW, the phrase was “cash and prizes” with the latter being things like houses and children)

    You seem to be a pretty reasonable commenter so let’s take a step back.

    Can we agree that there is typically plenty of bad behavior on both sides during a divorce? Not getting into who is the bigger meanie or who started it or who is more justified (those are all so subjective as to be hard to come to any agreement), but just that both men and women sometime through the process of a marriage falling apart and the divorce being granted often behave badly.

    Can we further agree that there are examples of both extremes of a man behaving badly to a relatively blameless woman and vice versa? Simple examples of those are relatively unprovoked adultery by either side. (as you note in your comment though, at some level adultery is often provoked)

    Now lets take those extreme cases. In a no fault divorce state (the norm these days!) how do you envision the respective divorces playing out in terms of assets and custody? My sense is the woman tends to do better unless she is basically an axe murderer and it can be proven. If you have DATA to the contrary please link it.

    Not only do heartless bitches kick out “perfectly nice” guys

    Where do you see that in my comments? The strawmen are beyond tiresome. If you are going to engage in a Rosie flame fest one thing which is important to realize is her comments are full of strawmen (and projection, but she thinks that is only psychobabble, psychobabble it may be, but incredibly useful for understanding the world and the people in it).

    I also ask that you spend some time perusing her comment history so you can realize that her “Of course, given that I’m not the one who picks these fights, I don’t pull punches.” is ROTFLMAO! level funny. See comment https://www.unz.com/isteve/sexist-sexplanation-for-mens-brilliance-debunked/#comment-5076892

    If leading off a comment with “Anotherasshole” isn’t picking a fight then I don’t know what is.

    • Replies: @Paperback Writer
    @res

    I don't get paid for being here. Quite the contrary. Your verbosity is a form of narcissism. Do you think I'm going to read all the shit you write, especially since it's obvious that you're on the lookout for every little lapse, and don't engage in good faith arguing, which gives the other guy the benefit of the doubt?

    I'm here the reason everyone else is: to vent and be around other people who are of like mind in this clown world, so no, I'm not going to peruse Rosie's comment history. My memory is fine. For someone as fact-oriented as you are, that's a weird thing I don't have emotional attitudes that I carry over from previous comments. I disagree w/Rosie on some things but I don't dislike her. I agreed with her here, so I stuck up for her. She was being attacked by bad faith, nasty arguers, so I stuck up for her. I'm not going to fall for your schoolyard hijinks, "res."

    PS I did look up that link you provided though. I thought it was funny, and in this case, I am again on her side. Not only do I not blame American women for the lowered fertility rates, I salute them. The nostalgia for big families is insane. But if you're disappointed with American women, import some Koreans.

    PS & LOL: Another Dad responded to Rosie thus:


    This “how dare you! …you’re hurting my feelings! … you’re evil!” is the battle whine of our minoritarian age. You hear it from the entire fringe–blacks, muzzies, Jews, Asians, immigrants, homos, trannies … but yes the “my feelings matter!” thing is very femininine"
     
    And somehow Rosie is the bad guy here?

    LOL again.

    Replies: @res

  274. @rebel yell
    @Rosie

    Rosie, there's something off about the way you argue and I can't quite put my finger on it. You keep moving the goal posts.
    You said, "then you (men on Unz) ignore the fact that men are overrepresented among criminals."
    I said, "men here do not ignore the fact that men are overrepresented among criminals."
    You then said, "While men here will, in the abstract, admit that there are more male criminals, they will never, ever, accept the real world implications of that fact, namely, that men are more likely to be unfit parents than women."
    AD then responds, "Men are more likely to be unfit parents than women."
    You ignore that crucial part of his comment and then go on to taking other pot shots.
    Do you ever acknowledge what someone has said to you? I've noticed your argument strings tend to go on and on and on with no closure.

    Replies: @Kylie

    “Rosie, there’s something off about the way you argue and I can’t quite put my finger on it. You keep moving the goal posts.”

    That’s it. She keeps moving the goal posts. In other words, she argues like a typical female. She doesn’t argue to explore or clarify an issue. She argues to win, period. Because with her, it’s always personal, always a chance to sling mud or settle a score in her favor. Logic, reason and truth are of no interest to her, a fact which her superficial intelligence unfortunately obscures.

    Most of the men here are far brighter than I am. I am therefore puzzled at their willingness to engage repeatedly with a insulting, dishonest and spiteful fourth-rate intellect like her. You all really need to stop trying to teach that sow to sing.

    • Agree: rebel yell
    • Replies: @ScarletNumber
    @Kylie

    There used to be a poster here named education realist, who wouldn't give their gender. The context clues seemed like he was a man, but he argued like a woman.

    , @Yngvar
    @Kylie

    Forget it Jake. It's ragtime-Rosie.

  275. @Rosie
    @res


    (by the way, this is what a truth seeking conversation looks like, presenting and evaluating evidence, ideally with credible references).
     
    Not really, res. Of course, I welcome this sort of analysis. It is certainly beneficial, but at the end of the day, it doesn't really change the most fundamental point, which you characteristically lose sight of: that various claims to the effect that women divorce men for no or increasingly frivolous reasons, harming children in the process, is unwarranted by the evidence.

    First of all, your own data rather support my claim that the overwhelming majority of White children live with married biological parents. If, as of 2009, 60% of children were living with married biological parents, then that figure for White children was certainly higher. By the same token, it is reasonable to suppose that the number is even higher now than it was then, because unplanned pregnancies, and associated premature marriages, are down.

    A second point that can be quickly disposed of is the idea that divorce has demonstrable negative effects on children. Claims like this remind me of the view that college degrees cause prosperity, and if everyone had this magic piece of paper, we would all be prosperous. This line of thinking has devastated a generation. I have no doubt that children of divorce fare worse than children from intact families, but it does not follow that children of divorce would have done better in the absence of divorce.

    I would very much like to see retrospective data on this. For adult children, who do they believe was at fault for the marriage? How did it affect them? Do they believe they would have been better off without the divorce? For my own part, I can say that the divorce I experienced as a child was long overdue. My mother tried way to hard and should have thrown in the towel years before she finally went and filed for divorce from the husband who had long since constructively abandoned the family. I will never forget how she geared herself up to tell me this long-expected news that she cluelessly believed would be Earth-shattering for me. I do not assume that my experience was typical, but neither do I assume that it was atypical. The only way to find out would be to ask.

    Taking a closer look at some of these data points.


    A substantial number of divorces involve couples with children. 61 percent of the couples in which both the husband and wife are divorcing from a first marriage have children under 18 years of age.
     
    Let's go ahead and assume that this statement is true. Indeed, I don’t think it is inconsistent with the 66% figure, because it is also true that first marriages are relatively unlikely to end in divorce. One must take that into account in determining one's own risk. Let's say the first marriage divorce risk is ~40%, and the chances are ~60% that children will be involved. That would mean that, unless, you're remarrying, there is a ~25% chance that there will be a divorce with children and, presumably, a child support order.

    Even if we stop here, it becomes quite obvious that a 25% chance of a bad outcome (divorce with children) is a great deal better than a 100% chance of a bad outcome (never having a family at all.) But that is not the end of the story, because you can significantly reduce your risk of divorce by

    1. Not marrying too early.
    2. Not marrying too late.
    3. Marrying someone your own age or very close in age.
    4. Having a college degree. (Probably just a proxy for generally having your shit together.)

    Now, if you do these things, what is the risk of divorce? I don't know, but it is clear that these things significantly reduce the risk, so now, instead of talking about a 25% chance of a bad outcome, we're talking about something significantly less than that. Let's say the chances are now only 20%, a very conservative speculation.

    Now, let's assume that divorce isn't all women's fault all the time, and that men can reduce their risk by not being an asshole. Since so many around here consider the question of who files the paperwork to be dispositive, let's go ahead and assume that 70% of divorces are women's fault. and only 30% are men's fault. Where does that leave us in terms of actual risk that our hypothetical man will wind up divorced, paying child support, through no fault of his own? Somewhere in the teens?

    How low does it have to go before we can safely say that the cynics should stop trying to persuade men to join in their temper tantrum? 10%? Even lower? On what grounds do men believe that marriage can or should be made a risk-free proposition for them? How can that be accomplished without unfairly requiring women to bear disproportionate risk?

    As I have any number of times, I would be on board with getting rid of no-fault divorce.
    Like Marcia Pappas, President of New York NOW, I think no-fault divorce is a net negative for all concerned. I don't say this lightly, because any such measure would cost some women their very lives.

    https://www.jstor.org/stable/25098790


    P.S. Pro tip: if your reference is a short article in mass media which references the HufPo, consider looking for something better.
     
    Fair enough, but TBH, I'm not sure that should be my burden. I suspect you any many other commenters have more time for that sort of thing than I do. I also have a suggestion for you: Give some thought to whether my own arguably exaggerated claim that the vast majority of divorces don't involve children bothered you more than Thommm "dot-not-feather's" obviously exaggerated claim that the two-parent family is "all but gone" did, and if so, why?

    Replies: @res

    the most fundamental point, which you characteristically lose sight of: that various claims to the effect that women divorce men for no or increasingly frivolous reasons, harming children in the process, is unwarranted by the evidence.

    What makes you think I have lost sight of that? Let’s break down your statement.

    1. Are you honestly claiming that divorce does not harm children? Far from losing sight of that, the Anderson link I gave is full of discussion of it. Rather than the two paragraphs of speculation you gave, how about engaging with Anderson’s research?

    2. Women initiate something like 70% of divorces.
    https://bestlifeonline.com/women-initiate-divorce-more-than-men/

    3. The rate of divorce in the US has increased. Do you think men’s behavior towards women has gotten worse over that period? If not, that seems evidence divorces are happening for lesser reasons than in the past.

    4. Let’s leave “no reason” as the strawman it is and talk about increasingly frivolous reasons. Below you talk about no fault divorce. Is the rise of no fault divorce not sufficient evidence of the lesser reasons? If not, then take a closer look at the link I gave in 1. They state: ‘Women are less likely to tolerate “bad behavior” today.’ which I think it is hard to disagree with. Looked at another way it is hard to see that as anything other than affirming that divorce is happening for lesser reasons than in the past.

    Frivolous is a very loaded term. Do you disagree with “women are divorcing men for lesser reasons than in the past”?

    How can you claim with a straight face that is “unwarranted by the evidence” given 1-4?

    One thing which is important is to specify time frames for claims of change. I prefer to look at the long term from say the 1960s to present while your comments seem focused on the last 10-20 years. I suspect that is because you realize the longer time frame view is devastating to your argument.

    First of all, your own data rather support my claim that the overwhelming majority of White children live with married biological parents. If, as of 2009, 60% of children were living with married biological parents

    Enough with the exaggeration. 60-40 is hardly overwhelming.

    A second point that can be quickly disposed of is the idea that divorce has demonstrable negative effects on children. Claims like this remind me of the view that college degrees cause prosperity, and if everyone had this magic piece of paper, we would all be prosperous. This line of thinking has devastated a generation. I have no doubt that children of divorce fare worse than children from intact families, but it does not follow that children of divorce would have done better in the absence of divorce.

    That last sentence is an excellent point which is hard to evaluate. I tend to agree and would add that the genetics which result in divorce probably don’t help child outcomes.

    That said, do you have any evidence? Did you look at the Anderson paper I linked to see if you can counter her points with specifics?

    because it is also true that first marriages are relatively unlikely to end in divorce.

    I think it is more clear to frame that as remarriages are even more likely to end in divorce. In 2001 43% of first marriages broke up within 15 years.
    https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/pressroom/01news/firstmarr.htm

    Even if we stop here, it becomes quite obvious that a 25% chance of a bad outcome (divorce with children) is a great deal better than a 100% chance of a bad outcome (never having a family at all.)

    I like that reasoning. Also worth noting all of the out of wedlock children. That is the trend that mystifies me. I consider having children with someone a bigger commitment than marriage.

    How low does it have to go before we can safely say that the cynics should stop trying to persuade men to join in their temper tantrum? 10%? Even lower? On what grounds do men believe that marriage can or should be made a risk-free proposition for them? How can that be accomplished without unfairly requiring women to bear disproportionate risk?

    That you reduce what happens to that small proportion of men to “temper tantrums” and think a 10% chance of getting shafted like that is something to dismiss says a great deal about you. And explains why others are attacking you here. How much risk are women at of being shafted by divorce (probably much lower since they are initiating 70%, right?)? Would equal risk of bad outcomes from divorce be proportionate? Seems like scales would need to shift in a direction you don’t like for that to happen so maybe drop “disproportionate” from your argument?

    As I have any number of times, I would be on board with getting rid of no-fault divorce.
    Like Marcia Pappas, President of New York NOW, I think no-fault divorce is a net negative for all concerned. I don’t say this lightly, because any such measure would cost some women their very lives.

    So you at least acknowledge there is a problem here. I think exploring this point at length would be something where you would find more agreement with those arguing with you.

    If everybody could back away from the extreme examples (often given as representative) and strawmen conversations like this would be much better.

    I’m not sure that should be my burden. I suspect you any many other commenters have more time for that sort of thing than I do.

    That’s lame. If you are going to argue with references then it is your burden to see they are valid. If you don’t have time for that maybe be less extreme and argumentative.

    I also have a suggestion for you: Give some thought to whether my own arguably exaggerated claim that the vast majority of divorces don’t involve children bothered you more than Thommm “dot-not-feather’s” obviously exaggerated claim that the two-parent family is “all but gone” did, and if so, why?

    Nice whataboutism. I notice you and Triteleia Laxa have both seized on that as a way of attacking me. Since this one is such a softball over the middle of the plate….

    1. Thomm makes no pretense at trying to have a rational debate. (BTW, I take my share of shots at his stupidity, check my comment history) Me ignoring his nonsense at a given time is no compliment to him.

    2. I think my comments demonstrate your claim is exaggerated and “arguably” is at best a polite fiction on your part. Or would you prefer to supply some argument supporting it? That is part of being “arguable,” right? Maybe start with what percentage you think justifies the phrase “vast majority”?

    3. We all get to choose which comments we make. While we are on that topic I would still like to know why you so seldom respond to the good points in my comments or acknowledge when I supply links which demolish points you assert.

    P.S. Again, the simplistic strawmen you assign to me are tiresome. I think this conversation if anything indicates that I think about this (and other) issues in a more serious and nuanced form than you do.

    • Replies: @Rosie
    @res


    Are you honestly claiming that divorce does not harm children?
     
    Something like that, yes. In my own case, as I explained, the damage was already long done by the time the divorce was filed. My mother had so little bargaining power in the relationship that he would basically come and go as he pleased. Towards the end, the family home was nothing nor than a place to SS&S as you men say. It would have been far more harmful to me if she had stayed in that fucked-up relationship. I already told you that I don’t know how typical my experience was. That would require further research. Until I see such research, I remain agnostic, though I am as entitled to my suspicions as you are.

    Women initiate something like 70% of divorces.
     
    For the billionth time, filing the paperwork does not mean that a woman is fault in the breakdown of a marriage. Consider my own case, did my mom "initiate" that divorce? In a technical sense, I suppose she did. That creep didn't want a divorce necessarily. He just didn't care enough to show my mom even the most basic level of respect.

    The rate of divorce in the US has increased. Do you think men’s behavior towards women has gotten worse over that period? If not, that seems evidence divorces are happening for lesser reasons than in the past.
     
    "Lesser" does not mean "frivolous."

    Frivolous is a very loaded term. Do you disagree with “women are divorcing men for lesser reasons than in the past”?
     
    Yes, but we're still left the question of whether it would be better if those divorces hadn't happened. My maternal grandfather was such a son-of-a-bitch that I consider my late Grandma a Saint for not taking revenge on him while he lay dying and helpless, and I have no doubt that he contributed to my mother's situation.

    Enough with the exaggeration. 60-40 is hardly overwhelming.
     
    Here is what I said:


    If, as of 2009, 60% of children were living with married biological parents, then that figure for White children was certainly higher.
     
    Can you see your mistake now? Let's estimate conservatively that, at the time, 66.6% of White children lived with married parents. IMO, when you reach a ratio of 2:1, you're in "overwhelming majority" territory.

    One thing which is important is to specify time frames for claims of change. I prefer to look at the long term from say the 1960s to present while your comments seem focused on the last 10-20 years. I suspect that is because you realize the longer time frame view is devastating to your argument.
     
    Not in the least. You assume that the 1960s divorce rate should be the measuring stick. I have explained to you already why I believe that is wrong.

    That you reduce what happens to that small proportion of men to “temper tantrums” and think a 10% chance of getting shafted like that is something to dismiss says a great deal about you.
     
    I would be glad to hear any ideas you have to reduce it. And, I note, that anyone thinks that a 10, or what the heck let's say it's 15% chance of having to pay child support is intolerable compared to a 100% chance of not having a family at all reveals that they really don't consider having children all that important. Their money is their chief concern. Let them take it to the grave.

    How much risk are women at of being shafted by divorce (probably much lower since they are initiating 70%, right?)?
     
    This is the essential point you fail miserably to appreciate, as it divorce is the only or even main risk of marriage. How about being forced to live your whole adult life with a man who is so mean that he locks you out of the house naked to "discipline" you without leaving any evidence. For a less extreme example, consider the husband who says he is going out for a pack of cigarettes and comes back three days later having spent every penny you both had on a meth binge. Or how about the guy who just doesn't like you and makes no effort to conceal that fact? For a woman, a marriage without tenderness is like a marriage without sex for men. Would you require a man to put up with that?

    When you make it impossible for a woman to leave a marriage with her children, a fair share of the marital property, and a child support order, you are effectively leaving her without a means to escape these kinds of situations. Would you want that for your daughter?

    That’s lame. If you are going to argue with references then it is your burden to see they are valid. If you don’t have time for that maybe be less extreme and argumentative.

    ***

    Nice whataboutism. I notice you and Triteleia Laxa have both seized on that as a way of attacking me. Since this one is such a softball over the middle of the plate….

    1. Thomm makes no pretense at trying to have a rational debate. (BTW, I take my share of shots at his stupidity, check my comment history) Me ignoring his nonsense at a given time is no compliment to him.
     
    Nice excuse-making for selective outrage. If you were truly interested in sincere and rational debate, you would make it a point to be as charitable as possible to me given that, without me, this place would be an echo chamber. That's why I post info graphics. It shows proper respect for other people's time.

    In any event, I guess I'll take it as a compliment, albeit unintended, that you spend so much time responding to me here.

    While we are on that topic I would still like to know why you so seldom respond to the good points in my comments or acknowledge when I supply links which demolish points you assert.
     
    I'll tell you what. Hit me with your best shot. Of the barage of articles you have shown me, find the data point that you believe most powerfully refutes me, overcoming the fatal causation problem that you, to your credit, acknowledged above.

    Replies: @res

  276. @Paperback Writer
    @res


    Check the timestamps. No special dispensations that I can see.
     
    I'm not that obsessed but I'll take your word for it.

    Replies: @res

    If facts mattering more than innuendo is being obsessive then I proudly wear that label. And marvel at people who consider it a criticism.

  277. @Achmed E. Newman
    @AndrewR

    Andrew, I have told Chinese people directly that learning 3 or 4 thousand characters of 3 to 20 squiggly lines eash just to be able to read and right is downright ridiculous. However, there is more to the written language than the spoken language. Pinyin is just used to represent the way the characters sound, but it can't relay the other information that the characters convey.

    That's the problem, I guess. John Derbyshire could expound further on this matter.

    Replies: @Goddard

    Ideographic and phonographic writing systems each have something to offer. “&” is a useful way to write and. However, I tell my Chinese friends, the alphabetic system in the end is far superior. The proof is that the Chinese saw the need to develop an entirely alphabetic way (Pinyin) of expressing their language; but alphabetic languages haven’t developed ideographic systems to parallel the phonographic system. China today couldn’t do without Pinyin (try typing on a smartphone with thousands of keys to express all the characters). But you could do away with all ideographs and the alphabetic languages would be little changed.

    • Agree: Achmed E. Newman
  278. @Chrisnonymous
    @Reg Cæsar

    No, tattoos are just group conformity signaling for younger people. They look disgusting. I live in Japan where almost nobody has tattoos. When I see young tourists from America (pre-COVID), it's shocking. They look disgusting--overweight, unshaven, covered in ugly tattoos, and usually with poorly designed and ill-fitting clothes. The tattoos are part of the whole package--lack of grooming and self-care, lack of style, and lack of standards. I am not a boomer, either.

    Replies: @Goddard

    The tattoos are part of the whole package–lack of grooming and self-care, lack of style, and lack of standards.

    Even hot chicks are tatting up. It’s disgusting. The prettiest ones go from marriageable to merely fuckable. I’d rather they be (slightly) overweight but untatted. I’m not a Boomer, either.

  279. Anonymous[796] • Disclaimer says:

    There will be No C, X, or Q in our every-day alphabet. They will be abandoned because unnecessary. Spelling by sound will have been adopted, first by the newspapers.

    This man was a genius. He came up with the idea of the phonetic alphabet. I bet the Phoenicians wish they had come up with an idea like that.

    When I was a kid you still used to hear paeans to the belief that standardized spelling should go away. I would guess that the main reason calls like that disappeared is partly because people realized how dumb an idea it was, but mostly because the invention of the internet made the written word more important than ever. Many people used to assume that in the future the illiterate could just get all their information from television and radio. Now the barely literate get all their information from more reliable sources, like Facebook and Twitter.

    Of course the real damage to the phonetic alphabet’s usefulness occurs when you start importing lots of words from foreign languages, usually thanks to importing lots of people who speak foreign languages, and words from those languages begin to make it into the native language without adjusted spelling.

    Political correctness or no, really tough words still get their spelling adjusted at least a little. “Karaoke” may not have the most obvious pronunciation, but at least no one in the West insists on writing it in kanji. But what’s really ruining the usefulness of the phonetic alphabet are foreign proper names – large and growing numbers of immigrants who insist on giving their kids names that are insanely difficult to guess at the pronunciation of in their adopted language, and some who even insist that we pronounce them as they do in the original language, accent and all.

    It’s easy to find the correct pronunciation for “raison d’être,” if you’re one of the five people who care. But finding a source for the correct pronunciation of, say, “Kamala,” is a little bit harder, and there are even fewer people who care.

  280. @res
    @Paperback Writer


    It’s tiresome & “noisy” to repeat myself but whatever, in the more scientific link adultery is #2, with lack of emotional commitment being #1 – obviously they are 2 sides of the same coin.
     
    Well, one could argue it is even more tiresome & “noisy” to have to rebut apparently incorrect statements (adultery #1) and insufficient (overly specific to a single state--which as a fault divorce state is a special case--and as it turns out not adequately backed up by them) links.


    I think the complaint being voiced here is more about not putting up with it and getting cash and prizes for walking away.

     

    Wow, nasty much? You improved on Jack! Not only do heartless bitches kick out “perfectly nice” guys, but they get cash prizes for doing so. OK.
     
    Harsh, yes, but do you deny that what I describe happens sometimes? Do you think that is acceptable? Can you not see what effect that has on the stability of marriage overall? Incentives matter.

    (BTW, the phrase was "cash and prizes" with the latter being things like houses and children)

    You seem to be a pretty reasonable commenter so let's take a step back.

    Can we agree that there is typically plenty of bad behavior on both sides during a divorce? Not getting into who is the bigger meanie or who started it or who is more justified (those are all so subjective as to be hard to come to any agreement), but just that both men and women sometime through the process of a marriage falling apart and the divorce being granted often behave badly.

    Can we further agree that there are examples of both extremes of a man behaving badly to a relatively blameless woman and vice versa? Simple examples of those are relatively unprovoked adultery by either side. (as you note in your comment though, at some level adultery is often provoked)

    Now lets take those extreme cases. In a no fault divorce state (the norm these days!) how do you envision the respective divorces playing out in terms of assets and custody? My sense is the woman tends to do better unless she is basically an axe murderer and it can be proven. If you have DATA to the contrary please link it.


    Not only do heartless bitches kick out “perfectly nice” guys
     
    Where do you see that in my comments? The strawmen are beyond tiresome. If you are going to engage in a Rosie flame fest one thing which is important to realize is her comments are full of strawmen (and projection, but she thinks that is only psychobabble, psychobabble it may be, but incredibly useful for understanding the world and the people in it).

    I also ask that you spend some time perusing her comment history so you can realize that her "Of course, given that I’m not the one who picks these fights, I don’t pull punches." is ROTFLMAO! level funny. See comment https://www.unz.com/isteve/sexist-sexplanation-for-mens-brilliance-debunked/#comment-5076892

    If leading off a comment with "Anotherasshole" isn't picking a fight then I don't know what is.

    Replies: @Paperback Writer

    I don’t get paid for being here. Quite the contrary. Your verbosity is a form of narcissism. Do you think I’m going to read all the shit you write, especially since it’s obvious that you’re on the lookout for every little lapse, and don’t engage in good faith arguing, which gives the other guy the benefit of the doubt?

    I’m here the reason everyone else is: to vent and be around other people who are of like mind in this clown world, so no, I’m not going to peruse Rosie’s comment history. My memory is fine. For someone as fact-oriented as you are, that’s a weird thing I don’t have emotional attitudes that I carry over from previous comments. I disagree w/Rosie on some things but I don’t dislike her. I agreed with her here, so I stuck up for her. She was being attacked by bad faith, nasty arguers, so I stuck up for her. I’m not going to fall for your schoolyard hijinks, “res.”

    PS I did look up that link you provided though. I thought it was funny, and in this case, I am again on her side. Not only do I not blame American women for the lowered fertility rates, I salute them. The nostalgia for big families is insane. But if you’re disappointed with American women, import some Koreans.

    PS & LOL: Another Dad responded to Rosie thus:

    This “how dare you! …you’re hurting my feelings! … you’re evil!” is the battle whine of our minoritarian age. You hear it from the entire fringe–blacks, muzzies, Jews, Asians, immigrants, homos, trannies … but yes the “my feelings matter!” thing is very femininine”

    And somehow Rosie is the bad guy here?

    LOL again.

    • Replies: @res
    @Paperback Writer


    I don’t get paid for being here. Quite the contrary.
     
    Nor do I. Nor do most commenters here. The exceptions are the ones I worry about FWIW.

    Your verbosity is a form of narcissism.
     
    Perhaps, but much of it is an attempt to communicate (and are anyone's comments here not narcissistic?). If other people don't want to make the effort to do the same and consistently assign positions to me which are not mine. THAT IS NOT MY FAULT.

    don’t engage in good faith arguing, which gives the other guy the benefit of the doubt?
     
    Calling out untrue statements (including exaggeration and strawmen) is part of good faith argument (and an attempt to counter bad faith argument). I support my positions.

    And it sure seems to me failure to give the benefit of the doubt is endemic to all parties in this conversation.

    I’m not going to peruse Rosie’s comment history. My memory is fine.
     
    You have been commenting here a year, Rosie and I have both been commenting here for more than five years. So even if your memory is flawless it is far from sufficient to understand the full context.

    I don’t have emotional attitudes that I carry over from previous comments
     
    Understanding someone's comment history helps understand how to communicate with them. And how to assess their "poor me" and similar stories. Context is important.

    So you are saying your comments to me and Jack D in this thread are only related to the comments you were replying to? Or is within the same thread (or week, month, ?) OK?

    BTW, when people pretend to be more than human (e.g. immediately forget hostile past interactions) they seriously undermine their own credibility. It's especially ironic when you bring AnotherDad's comments in as a seeming accusation against me (and note how Rosie did something similar by bringing up Thomm and calling out comments she thinks I should have made, LOL!). That is much worse than referring to the past history of the person you are replying to.

    I’m not going to fall for your schoolyard hijinks, “res.”
     
    Speaking of bad faith, how about you support that assertion? Or is baseless innuendo just how you roll (like the Jack D special dispensation comment). And the more I reread your comment, the more that reads as projection.

    And somehow Rosie is the bad guy here?
     
    How about sticking to what I have said when replying to ME. I don't have responsibility for AnotherDad's comments.

    P.S. Do you have any response of substance to my comment(s) or is it just all ad hominems all the way down?

    Replies: @Paperback Writer, @Paperback Writer

  281. @Rosie
    @Paperback Writer


    although in this case, I exempt Rosie as she is a representative of the more criticized sex, here on Unz, and is battling to defend what she sees as her besieged sisters against viciously personal attacks arising from a bilious misogyny.
     
    That is very generous. Thank you. I don't actually argue that men are particularly at fault for divorce. I have my suspicions, but I don’t claim to have proof, and I would be more than happy to say both are equally at fault and leave it at that. Men who post here about the issue haven't shown any interest in such a truce nor in any constructive, realistic solutions.

    Of course, given that I'm not the one who picks these fights, I don’t pull punches.

    Replies: @Justvisiting, @Paperback Writer

    Men who post here about the issue haven’t shown any interest in such a truce nor in any constructive, realistic solutions.

    Most of the commenters here are pretty good-natured. As I said elsewhere I come here as a refuge against clown world. Plus I learn some great stuff.

    If I have one criticism of *some* of the commenters it’s not their rage. I share that so who am I to criticize them? It’s that they are instant experts on everything (when it’s obvious they’ve been reading Wikipedia), they can predict the future with 100% accuracy, and their explanations for societal breakdown always involve blaming one or more groups of people.

  282. @res
    @Rosie


    the most fundamental point, which you characteristically lose sight of: that various claims to the effect that women divorce men for no or increasingly frivolous reasons, harming children in the process, is unwarranted by the evidence.
     
    What makes you think I have lost sight of that? Let's break down your statement.

    1. Are you honestly claiming that divorce does not harm children? Far from losing sight of that, the Anderson link I gave is full of discussion of it. Rather than the two paragraphs of speculation you gave, how about engaging with Anderson's research?

    2. Women initiate something like 70% of divorces.
    https://bestlifeonline.com/women-initiate-divorce-more-than-men/

    3. The rate of divorce in the US has increased. Do you think men's behavior towards women has gotten worse over that period? If not, that seems evidence divorces are happening for lesser reasons than in the past.

    4. Let's leave "no reason" as the strawman it is and talk about increasingly frivolous reasons. Below you talk about no fault divorce. Is the rise of no fault divorce not sufficient evidence of the lesser reasons? If not, then take a closer look at the link I gave in 1. They state: 'Women are less likely to tolerate "bad behavior" today.' which I think it is hard to disagree with. Looked at another way it is hard to see that as anything other than affirming that divorce is happening for lesser reasons than in the past.

    Frivolous is a very loaded term. Do you disagree with "women are divorcing men for lesser reasons than in the past"?

    How can you claim with a straight face that is "unwarranted by the evidence" given 1-4?

    One thing which is important is to specify time frames for claims of change. I prefer to look at the long term from say the 1960s to present while your comments seem focused on the last 10-20 years. I suspect that is because you realize the longer time frame view is devastating to your argument.

    First of all, your own data rather support my claim that the overwhelming majority of White children live with married biological parents. If, as of 2009, 60% of children were living with married biological parents
     
    Enough with the exaggeration. 60-40 is hardly overwhelming.

    A second point that can be quickly disposed of is the idea that divorce has demonstrable negative effects on children. Claims like this remind me of the view that college degrees cause prosperity, and if everyone had this magic piece of paper, we would all be prosperous. This line of thinking has devastated a generation. I have no doubt that children of divorce fare worse than children from intact families, but it does not follow that children of divorce would have done better in the absence of divorce.
     
    That last sentence is an excellent point which is hard to evaluate. I tend to agree and would add that the genetics which result in divorce probably don't help child outcomes.

    That said, do you have any evidence? Did you look at the Anderson paper I linked to see if you can counter her points with specifics?

    because it is also true that first marriages are relatively unlikely to end in divorce.
     
    I think it is more clear to frame that as remarriages are even more likely to end in divorce. In 2001 43% of first marriages broke up within 15 years.
    https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/pressroom/01news/firstmarr.htm

    Even if we stop here, it becomes quite obvious that a 25% chance of a bad outcome (divorce with children) is a great deal better than a 100% chance of a bad outcome (never having a family at all.)
     
    I like that reasoning. Also worth noting all of the out of wedlock children. That is the trend that mystifies me. I consider having children with someone a bigger commitment than marriage.

    How low does it have to go before we can safely say that the cynics should stop trying to persuade men to join in their temper tantrum? 10%? Even lower? On what grounds do men believe that marriage can or should be made a risk-free proposition for them? How can that be accomplished without unfairly requiring women to bear disproportionate risk?
     
    That you reduce what happens to that small proportion of men to "temper tantrums" and think a 10% chance of getting shafted like that is something to dismiss says a great deal about you. And explains why others are attacking you here. How much risk are women at of being shafted by divorce (probably much lower since they are initiating 70%, right?)? Would equal risk of bad outcomes from divorce be proportionate? Seems like scales would need to shift in a direction you don't like for that to happen so maybe drop "disproportionate" from your argument?

    As I have any number of times, I would be on board with getting rid of no-fault divorce.
    Like Marcia Pappas, President of New York NOW, I think no-fault divorce is a net negative for all concerned. I don’t say this lightly, because any such measure would cost some women their very lives.
     
    So you at least acknowledge there is a problem here. I think exploring this point at length would be something where you would find more agreement with those arguing with you.

    If everybody could back away from the extreme examples (often given as representative) and strawmen conversations like this would be much better.

    I’m not sure that should be my burden. I suspect you any many other commenters have more time for that sort of thing than I do.
     
    That's lame. If you are going to argue with references then it is your burden to see they are valid. If you don't have time for that maybe be less extreme and argumentative.

    I also have a suggestion for you: Give some thought to whether my own arguably exaggerated claim that the vast majority of divorces don’t involve children bothered you more than Thommm “dot-not-feather’s” obviously exaggerated claim that the two-parent family is “all but gone” did, and if so, why?
     
    Nice whataboutism. I notice you and Triteleia Laxa have both seized on that as a way of attacking me. Since this one is such a softball over the middle of the plate....

    1. Thomm makes no pretense at trying to have a rational debate. (BTW, I take my share of shots at his stupidity, check my comment history) Me ignoring his nonsense at a given time is no compliment to him.

    2. I think my comments demonstrate your claim is exaggerated and "arguably" is at best a polite fiction on your part. Or would you prefer to supply some argument supporting it? That is part of being "arguable," right? Maybe start with what percentage you think justifies the phrase "vast majority"?

    3. We all get to choose which comments we make. While we are on that topic I would still like to know why you so seldom respond to the good points in my comments or acknowledge when I supply links which demolish points you assert.

    P.S. Again, the simplistic strawmen you assign to me are tiresome. I think this conversation if anything indicates that I think about this (and other) issues in a more serious and nuanced form than you do.

    Replies: @Rosie

    Are you honestly claiming that divorce does not harm children?

    Something like that, yes. In my own case, as I explained, the damage was already long done by the time the divorce was filed. My mother had so little bargaining power in the relationship that he would basically come and go as he pleased. Towards the end, the family home was nothing nor than a place to SS&S as you men say. It would have been far more harmful to me if she had stayed in that fucked-up relationship. I already told you that I don’t know how typical my experience was. That would require further research. Until I see such research, I remain agnostic, though I am as entitled to my suspicions as you are.

    Women initiate something like 70% of divorces.

    For the billionth time, filing the paperwork does not mean that a woman is fault in the breakdown of a marriage. Consider my own case, did my mom “initiate” that divorce? In a technical sense, I suppose she did. That creep didn’t want a divorce necessarily. He just didn’t care enough to show my mom even the most basic level of respect.

    The rate of divorce in the US has increased. Do you think men’s behavior towards women has gotten worse over that period? If not, that seems evidence divorces are happening for lesser reasons than in the past.

    “Lesser” does not mean “frivolous.”

    Frivolous is a very loaded term. Do you disagree with “women are divorcing men for lesser reasons than in the past”?

    Yes, but we’re still left the question of whether it would be better if those divorces hadn’t happened. My maternal grandfather was such a son-of-a-bitch that I consider my late Grandma a Saint for not taking revenge on him while he lay dying and helpless, and I have no doubt that he contributed to my mother’s situation.

    Enough with the exaggeration. 60-40 is hardly overwhelming.

    Here is what I said:

    If, as of 2009, 60% of children were living with married biological parents, then that figure for White children was certainly higher.

    Can you see your mistake now? Let’s estimate conservatively that, at the time, 66.6% of White children lived with married parents. IMO, when you reach a ratio of 2:1, you’re in “overwhelming majority” territory.

    One thing which is important is to specify time frames for claims of change. I prefer to look at the long term from say the 1960s to present while your comments seem focused on the last 10-20 years. I suspect that is because you realize the longer time frame view is devastating to your argument.

    Not in the least. You assume that the 1960s divorce rate should be the measuring stick. I have explained to you already why I believe that is wrong.

    That you reduce what happens to that small proportion of men to “temper tantrums” and think a 10% chance of getting shafted like that is something to dismiss says a great deal about you.

    I would be glad to hear any ideas you have to reduce it. And, I note, that anyone thinks that a 10, or what the heck let’s say it’s 15% chance of having to pay child support is intolerable compared to a 100% chance of not having a family at all reveals that they really don’t consider having children all that important. Their money is their chief concern. Let them take it to the grave.

    How much risk are women at of being shafted by divorce (probably much lower since they are initiating 70%, right?)?

    This is the essential point you fail miserably to appreciate, as it divorce is the only or even main risk of marriage. How about being forced to live your whole adult life with a man who is so mean that he locks you out of the house naked to “discipline” you without leaving any evidence. For a less extreme example, consider the husband who says he is going out for a pack of cigarettes and comes back three days later having spent every penny you both had on a meth binge. Or how about the guy who just doesn’t like you and makes no effort to conceal that fact? For a woman, a marriage without tenderness is like a marriage without sex for men. Would you require a man to put up with that?

    When you make it impossible for a woman to leave a marriage with her children, a fair share of the marital property, and a child support order, you are effectively leaving her without a means to escape these kinds of situations. Would you want that for your daughter?

    That’s lame. If you are going to argue with references then it is your burden to see they are valid. If you don’t have time for that maybe be less extreme and argumentative.

    ***

    Nice whataboutism. I notice you and Triteleia Laxa have both seized on that as a way of attacking me. Since this one is such a softball over the middle of the plate….

    1. Thomm makes no pretense at trying to have a rational debate. (BTW, I take my share of shots at his stupidity, check my comment history) Me ignoring his nonsense at a given time is no compliment to him.

    Nice excuse-making for selective outrage. If you were truly interested in sincere and rational debate, you would make it a point to be as charitable as possible to me given that, without me, this place would be an echo chamber. That’s why I post info graphics. It shows proper respect for other people’s time.

    In any event, I guess I’ll take it as a compliment, albeit unintended, that you spend so much time responding to me here.

    While we are on that topic I would still like to know why you so seldom respond to the good points in my comments or acknowledge when I supply links which demolish points you assert.

    I’ll tell you what. Hit me with your best shot. Of the barage of articles you have shown me, find the data point that you believe most powerfully refutes me, overcoming the fatal causation problem that you, to your credit, acknowledged above.

    • Replies: @res
    @Rosie


    Something like that, yes. In my own case, as I explained, the damage was already long done by the time the divorce was filed. My mother had so little bargaining power in the relationship that he would basically come and go as he pleased. Towards the end, the family home was nothing nor than a place to SS&S as you men say. It would have been far more harmful to me if she had stayed in that fucked-up relationship. I already told you that I don’t know how typical my experience was. That would require further research. Until I see such research, I remain agnostic, though I am as entitled to my suspicions as you are.
     
    Thanks for elaborating. I will note that you expect me to remember our past history, while Paperback Writer thinks I should ignore it. I am more with you on that one, though unlike Paperback Writer I appreciate reminders because my memory is not flawless.

    Here your point reads to me that divorce might not be worse than the marriage for children. In your case that sounds like the case (and is probably true for a non-trivial portion of cases). I do think that is less true for some non-trivial quantity of the "lesser reason" divorces (more on that below). I also think the balance between those two circumstances has changed dramatically with the rise of no fault divorce. I think you taking your experience as the norm in the current year is difficult to support. But good data is hard to find.

    Since your take on that is so intensely personal how about you extend as much good faith to the men here that their personal takes are at least somewhat justified as you expect us to extend to you?


    Women initiate something like 70% of divorces.
     
    For the billionth time, filing the paperwork does not mean that a woman is fault in the breakdown of a marriage. Consider my own case, did my mom “initiate” that divorce? In a technical sense, I suppose she did. That creep didn’t want a divorce necessarily. He just didn’t care enough to show my mom even the most basic level of respect.
     
    Women aren't necessarily responsible for the majority of bad marriages (both parties tend to carry a heavy load there). But they are responsible for the majority of divorces (that is what filing the paperwork does).


    The rate of divorce in the US has increased. Do you think men’s behavior towards women has gotten worse over that period? If not, that seems evidence divorces are happening for lesser reasons than in the past.
     
    “Lesser” does not mean “frivolous.”

    Frivolous is a very loaded term. Do you disagree with “women are divorcing men for lesser reasons than in the past”?
     
    Yes, but we’re still left the question of whether it would be better if those divorces hadn’t happened. My maternal grandfather was such a son-of-a-bitch that I consider my late Grandma a Saint for not taking revenge on him while he lay dying and helpless, and I have no doubt that he contributed to my mother’s situation.

     

    Agreed lesser does not mean frivolous, but both are useful points on the continuum. The question is which words best describe what everyone is arguing? The first usage of "frivolous" in this thread is your comment 229. I would say it was justified in response to Jack's "perfectly nice guy" statement. Though I would suspect those cases occur, they are rare (as are homicidal maniacs of either sex). So not worth focusing on except to note they should not happen.

    Does your yes mean you agree (I phrased my question as do you disagree) with "women are divorcing men for lesser reasons than in the past"?

    If so I think there is much room for agreement here though I doubt any two of us will agree on the exact optimum point. For myself, I think we are better off with women having more opportunity to get out of bad marriages than they had in the 1960s, but I think the pendulum has swung too far the other way.

    Let's put it this way. If a no fault divorce ends with one party being markedly better off than the other (e.g. has the house, kids, child support, and alimony while the other is renting an apartment and working--note this applies with either arrangement of the sexes!) then I think something is wrong. And I think that happens too often now.

    Let’s estimate conservatively that, at the time, 66.6% of White children lived with married parents. IMO, when you reach a ratio of 2:1, you’re in “overwhelming majority” territory.
     
    I would say more like 3:1, but disagreement on that is reasonable. Note that 75% was mentioned at that Quora link I gave.

    One important clarification (and you have already made it elsewhere) is that you tend to only care about white women. Fair enough. Just be clear that is what you mean rather than skipping the qualifier when you give numbers or strong rhetoric (e.g. "overwhelming").


    How much risk are women at of being shafted by divorce (probably much lower since they are initiating 70%, right?)?
     
    This is the essential point you fail miserably to appreciate, as it divorce is the only or even main risk of marriage.
    ...
    When you make it impossible for a woman to leave a marriage with her children, a fair share of the marital property, and a child support order, you are effectively leaving her without a means to escape these kinds of situations. Would you want that for your daughter?

     

    You assume a lot about what I think. Especially in a conversation where "good faith" and "benefit of the doubt" are being flung around as if the people who demand them are extending the same courtesy to others.

    I don't think anyone is arguing that women should tolerate outright abuse. And fault divorce can do a decent job of covering that IMO.

    I think two things would be worth doing.

    1. Make no fault divorce much harder to get.

    2. Take some time to evaluate divorce outcomes for fairness. I am sure there are plenty of examples of both men and women being shafted. One thing which outrages me about biased family courts is that they still somehow manage not to deal effectively with the really bad actors (usually male IMO). The guys who play by the rules tend to get shafted though.

    If you were truly interested in sincere and rational debate, you would make it a point to be as charitable as possible to me given that, without me, this place would be an echo chamber.
     
    I tried that a long time ago for exactly that reason. It was not productive (I think I talked about that at the time). One of my basic principles is I tend to respond to people in the fashion they respond to me. If you know anything about game theory see this and in particular look for "tit for tat with forgiveness."
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tit_for_tat

    I’ll tell you what. Hit me with your best shot. Of the barage of articles you have shown me, find the data point that you believe most powerfully refutes me, overcoming the fatal causation problem that you, to your credit, acknowledged above.
     
    It was right up front in my earlier comment. You know, the part you did not reply to. If you are ever curious about which were my strongest points a good starting point is to look at your responses and note the substantive points where you failed to reply.

    2. Women initiate something like 70% of divorces.
    https://bestlifeonline.com/women-initiate-divorce-more-than-men/

    3. The rate of divorce in the US has increased. Do you think men’s behavior towards women has gotten worse over that period? If not, that seems evidence divorces are happening for lesser reasons than in the past.

    4. Let’s leave “no reason” as the strawman it is and talk about increasingly frivolous reasons. Below you talk about no fault divorce. Is the rise of no fault divorce not sufficient evidence of the lesser reasons? If not, then take a closer look at the link I gave in 1. They state: ‘Women are less likely to tolerate “bad behavior” today.’ which I think it is hard to disagree with. Looked at another way it is hard to see that as anything other than affirming that divorce is happening for lesser reasons than in the past.

    Frivolous is a very loaded term. Do you disagree with “women are divorcing men for lesser reasons than in the past”?

    How can you claim with a straight face that is “unwarranted by the evidence” given 1-4?
     
    I repeat those final two questions and note that you did not answer them before. Again, that was the start of my comment.

    I would break that into these points to wrap this up.

    1. Can we agree on “women are divorcing men for lesser reasons than in the past”?

    2. Can we agree that there are cases where that has gone too far?

    3. Can we agree that there are cases where both men and women are shafted by divorce?

    I will note, I pretty much agree with you about the truly dysfunctional marriages which are your focus. It's just that those are not what I have been focusing on.

    Replies: @Rosie, @ScarletNumber

  283. @Paperback Writer
    @res

    I don't get paid for being here. Quite the contrary. Your verbosity is a form of narcissism. Do you think I'm going to read all the shit you write, especially since it's obvious that you're on the lookout for every little lapse, and don't engage in good faith arguing, which gives the other guy the benefit of the doubt?

    I'm here the reason everyone else is: to vent and be around other people who are of like mind in this clown world, so no, I'm not going to peruse Rosie's comment history. My memory is fine. For someone as fact-oriented as you are, that's a weird thing I don't have emotional attitudes that I carry over from previous comments. I disagree w/Rosie on some things but I don't dislike her. I agreed with her here, so I stuck up for her. She was being attacked by bad faith, nasty arguers, so I stuck up for her. I'm not going to fall for your schoolyard hijinks, "res."

    PS I did look up that link you provided though. I thought it was funny, and in this case, I am again on her side. Not only do I not blame American women for the lowered fertility rates, I salute them. The nostalgia for big families is insane. But if you're disappointed with American women, import some Koreans.

    PS & LOL: Another Dad responded to Rosie thus:


    This “how dare you! …you’re hurting my feelings! … you’re evil!” is the battle whine of our minoritarian age. You hear it from the entire fringe–blacks, muzzies, Jews, Asians, immigrants, homos, trannies … but yes the “my feelings matter!” thing is very femininine"
     
    And somehow Rosie is the bad guy here?

    LOL again.

    Replies: @res

    I don’t get paid for being here. Quite the contrary.

    Nor do I. Nor do most commenters here. The exceptions are the ones I worry about FWIW.

    Your verbosity is a form of narcissism.

    Perhaps, but much of it is an attempt to communicate (and are anyone’s comments here not narcissistic?). If other people don’t want to make the effort to do the same and consistently assign positions to me which are not mine. THAT IS NOT MY FAULT.

    don’t engage in good faith arguing, which gives the other guy the benefit of the doubt?

    Calling out untrue statements (including exaggeration and strawmen) is part of good faith argument (and an attempt to counter bad faith argument). I support my positions.

    And it sure seems to me failure to give the benefit of the doubt is endemic to all parties in this conversation.

    I’m not going to peruse Rosie’s comment history. My memory is fine.

    You have been commenting here a year, Rosie and I have both been commenting here for more than five years. So even if your memory is flawless it is far from sufficient to understand the full context.

    I don’t have emotional attitudes that I carry over from previous comments

    Understanding someone’s comment history helps understand how to communicate with them. And how to assess their “poor me” and similar stories. Context is important.

    So you are saying your comments to me and Jack D in this thread are only related to the comments you were replying to? Or is within the same thread (or week, month, ?) OK?

    BTW, when people pretend to be more than human (e.g. immediately forget hostile past interactions) they seriously undermine their own credibility. It’s especially ironic when you bring AnotherDad’s comments in as a seeming accusation against me (and note how Rosie did something similar by bringing up Thomm and calling out comments she thinks I should have made, LOL!). That is much worse than referring to the past history of the person you are replying to.

    I’m not going to fall for your schoolyard hijinks, “res.”

    Speaking of bad faith, how about you support that assertion? Or is baseless innuendo just how you roll (like the Jack D special dispensation comment). And the more I reread your comment, the more that reads as projection.

    And somehow Rosie is the bad guy here?

    How about sticking to what I have said when replying to ME. I don’t have responsibility for AnotherDad’s comments.

    P.S. Do you have any response of substance to my comment(s) or is it just all ad hominems all the way down?

    • Replies: @Paperback Writer
    @res

    Anticipating that you or someone else would challenge my link, I supplied another link in another comment, here:

    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4012696/

    , @Paperback Writer
    @res


    Do you have any response of substance to my comment(s) or is it just all ad hominems all the way down?
     
    Do you think that women as a class have a defective character, which is responsible for divorce? A simple yes or no answer is sufficient.

    Replies: @res

  284. @Rosie
    @res


    Are you honestly claiming that divorce does not harm children?
     
    Something like that, yes. In my own case, as I explained, the damage was already long done by the time the divorce was filed. My mother had so little bargaining power in the relationship that he would basically come and go as he pleased. Towards the end, the family home was nothing nor than a place to SS&S as you men say. It would have been far more harmful to me if she had stayed in that fucked-up relationship. I already told you that I don’t know how typical my experience was. That would require further research. Until I see such research, I remain agnostic, though I am as entitled to my suspicions as you are.

    Women initiate something like 70% of divorces.
     
    For the billionth time, filing the paperwork does not mean that a woman is fault in the breakdown of a marriage. Consider my own case, did my mom "initiate" that divorce? In a technical sense, I suppose she did. That creep didn't want a divorce necessarily. He just didn't care enough to show my mom even the most basic level of respect.

    The rate of divorce in the US has increased. Do you think men’s behavior towards women has gotten worse over that period? If not, that seems evidence divorces are happening for lesser reasons than in the past.
     
    "Lesser" does not mean "frivolous."

    Frivolous is a very loaded term. Do you disagree with “women are divorcing men for lesser reasons than in the past”?
     
    Yes, but we're still left the question of whether it would be better if those divorces hadn't happened. My maternal grandfather was such a son-of-a-bitch that I consider my late Grandma a Saint for not taking revenge on him while he lay dying and helpless, and I have no doubt that he contributed to my mother's situation.

    Enough with the exaggeration. 60-40 is hardly overwhelming.
     
    Here is what I said:


    If, as of 2009, 60% of children were living with married biological parents, then that figure for White children was certainly higher.
     
    Can you see your mistake now? Let's estimate conservatively that, at the time, 66.6% of White children lived with married parents. IMO, when you reach a ratio of 2:1, you're in "overwhelming majority" territory.

    One thing which is important is to specify time frames for claims of change. I prefer to look at the long term from say the 1960s to present while your comments seem focused on the last 10-20 years. I suspect that is because you realize the longer time frame view is devastating to your argument.
     
    Not in the least. You assume that the 1960s divorce rate should be the measuring stick. I have explained to you already why I believe that is wrong.

    That you reduce what happens to that small proportion of men to “temper tantrums” and think a 10% chance of getting shafted like that is something to dismiss says a great deal about you.
     
    I would be glad to hear any ideas you have to reduce it. And, I note, that anyone thinks that a 10, or what the heck let's say it's 15% chance of having to pay child support is intolerable compared to a 100% chance of not having a family at all reveals that they really don't consider having children all that important. Their money is their chief concern. Let them take it to the grave.

    How much risk are women at of being shafted by divorce (probably much lower since they are initiating 70%, right?)?
     
    This is the essential point you fail miserably to appreciate, as it divorce is the only or even main risk of marriage. How about being forced to live your whole adult life with a man who is so mean that he locks you out of the house naked to "discipline" you without leaving any evidence. For a less extreme example, consider the husband who says he is going out for a pack of cigarettes and comes back three days later having spent every penny you both had on a meth binge. Or how about the guy who just doesn't like you and makes no effort to conceal that fact? For a woman, a marriage without tenderness is like a marriage without sex for men. Would you require a man to put up with that?

    When you make it impossible for a woman to leave a marriage with her children, a fair share of the marital property, and a child support order, you are effectively leaving her without a means to escape these kinds of situations. Would you want that for your daughter?

    That’s lame. If you are going to argue with references then it is your burden to see they are valid. If you don’t have time for that maybe be less extreme and argumentative.

    ***

    Nice whataboutism. I notice you and Triteleia Laxa have both seized on that as a way of attacking me. Since this one is such a softball over the middle of the plate….

    1. Thomm makes no pretense at trying to have a rational debate. (BTW, I take my share of shots at his stupidity, check my comment history) Me ignoring his nonsense at a given time is no compliment to him.
     
    Nice excuse-making for selective outrage. If you were truly interested in sincere and rational debate, you would make it a point to be as charitable as possible to me given that, without me, this place would be an echo chamber. That's why I post info graphics. It shows proper respect for other people's time.

    In any event, I guess I'll take it as a compliment, albeit unintended, that you spend so much time responding to me here.

    While we are on that topic I would still like to know why you so seldom respond to the good points in my comments or acknowledge when I supply links which demolish points you assert.
     
    I'll tell you what. Hit me with your best shot. Of the barage of articles you have shown me, find the data point that you believe most powerfully refutes me, overcoming the fatal causation problem that you, to your credit, acknowledged above.

    Replies: @res

    Something like that, yes. In my own case, as I explained, the damage was already long done by the time the divorce was filed. My mother had so little bargaining power in the relationship that he would basically come and go as he pleased. Towards the end, the family home was nothing nor than a place to SS&S as you men say. It would have been far more harmful to me if she had stayed in that fucked-up relationship. I already told you that I don’t know how typical my experience was. That would require further research. Until I see such research, I remain agnostic, though I am as entitled to my suspicions as you are.

    Thanks for elaborating. I will note that you expect me to remember our past history, while Paperback Writer thinks I should ignore it. I am more with you on that one, though unlike Paperback Writer I appreciate reminders because my memory is not flawless.

    Here your point reads to me that divorce might not be worse than the marriage for children. In your case that sounds like the case (and is probably true for a non-trivial portion of cases). I do think that is less true for some non-trivial quantity of the “lesser reason” divorces (more on that below). I also think the balance between those two circumstances has changed dramatically with the rise of no fault divorce. I think you taking your experience as the norm in the current year is difficult to support. But good data is hard to find.

    Since your take on that is so intensely personal how about you extend as much good faith to the men here that their personal takes are at least somewhat justified as you expect us to extend to you?

    Women initiate something like 70% of divorces.

    For the billionth time, filing the paperwork does not mean that a woman is fault in the breakdown of a marriage. Consider my own case, did my mom “initiate” that divorce? In a technical sense, I suppose she did. That creep didn’t want a divorce necessarily. He just didn’t care enough to show my mom even the most basic level of respect.

    Women aren’t necessarily responsible for the majority of bad marriages (both parties tend to carry a heavy load there). But they are responsible for the majority of divorces (that is what filing the paperwork does).

    The rate of divorce in the US has increased. Do you think men’s behavior towards women has gotten worse over that period? If not, that seems evidence divorces are happening for lesser reasons than in the past.

    “Lesser” does not mean “frivolous.”

    Frivolous is a very loaded term. Do you disagree with “women are divorcing men for lesser reasons than in the past”?

    Yes, but we’re still left the question of whether it would be better if those divorces hadn’t happened. My maternal grandfather was such a son-of-a-bitch that I consider my late Grandma a Saint for not taking revenge on him while he lay dying and helpless, and I have no doubt that he contributed to my mother’s situation.

    Agreed lesser does not mean frivolous, but both are useful points on the continuum. The question is which words best describe what everyone is arguing? The first usage of “frivolous” in this thread is your comment 229. I would say it was justified in response to Jack’s “perfectly nice guy” statement. Though I would suspect those cases occur, they are rare (as are homicidal maniacs of either sex). So not worth focusing on except to note they should not happen.

    Does your yes mean you agree (I phrased my question as do you disagree) with “women are divorcing men for lesser reasons than in the past”?

    If so I think there is much room for agreement here though I doubt any two of us will agree on the exact optimum point. For myself, I think we are better off with women having more opportunity to get out of bad marriages than they had in the 1960s, but I think the pendulum has swung too far the other way.

    Let’s put it this way. If a no fault divorce ends with one party being markedly better off than the other (e.g. has the house, kids, child support, and alimony while the other is renting an apartment and working–note this applies with either arrangement of the sexes!) then I think something is wrong. And I think that happens too often now.

    Let’s estimate conservatively that, at the time, 66.6% of White children lived with married parents. IMO, when you reach a ratio of 2:1, you’re in “overwhelming majority” territory.

    I would say more like 3:1, but disagreement on that is reasonable. Note that 75% was mentioned at that Quora link I gave.

    One important clarification (and you have already made it elsewhere) is that you tend to only care about white women. Fair enough. Just be clear that is what you mean rather than skipping the qualifier when you give numbers or strong rhetoric (e.g. “overwhelming”).

    How much risk are women at of being shafted by divorce (probably much lower since they are initiating 70%, right?)?

    This is the essential point you fail miserably to appreciate, as it divorce is the only or even main risk of marriage.

    When you make it impossible for a woman to leave a marriage with her children, a fair share of the marital property, and a child support order, you are effectively leaving her without a means to escape these kinds of situations. Would you want that for your daughter?

    You assume a lot about what I think. Especially in a conversation where “good faith” and “benefit of the doubt” are being flung around as if the people who demand them are extending the same courtesy to others.

    I don’t think anyone is arguing that women should tolerate outright abuse. And fault divorce can do a decent job of covering that IMO.

    I think two things would be worth doing.

    1. Make no fault divorce much harder to get.

    2. Take some time to evaluate divorce outcomes for fairness. I am sure there are plenty of examples of both men and women being shafted. One thing which outrages me about biased family courts is that they still somehow manage not to deal effectively with the really bad actors (usually male IMO). The guys who play by the rules tend to get shafted though.

    If you were truly interested in sincere and rational debate, you would make it a point to be as charitable as possible to me given that, without me, this place would be an echo chamber.

    I tried that a long time ago for exactly that reason. It was not productive (I think I talked about that at the time). One of my basic principles is I tend to respond to people in the fashion they respond to me. If you know anything about game theory see this and in particular look for “tit for tat with forgiveness.”
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tit_for_tat

    I’ll tell you what. Hit me with your best shot. Of the barage of articles you have shown me, find the data point that you believe most powerfully refutes me, overcoming the fatal causation problem that you, to your credit, acknowledged above.

    It was right up front in my earlier comment. You know, the part you did not reply to. If you are ever curious about which were my strongest points a good starting point is to look at your responses and note the substantive points where you failed to reply.

    2. Women initiate something like 70% of divorces.
    https://bestlifeonline.com/women-initiate-divorce-more-than-men/

    3. The rate of divorce in the US has increased. Do you think men’s behavior towards women has gotten worse over that period? If not, that seems evidence divorces are happening for lesser reasons than in the past.

    4. Let’s leave “no reason” as the strawman it is and talk about increasingly frivolous reasons. Below you talk about no fault divorce. Is the rise of no fault divorce not sufficient evidence of the lesser reasons? If not, then take a closer look at the link I gave in 1. They state: ‘Women are less likely to tolerate “bad behavior” today.’ which I think it is hard to disagree with. Looked at another way it is hard to see that as anything other than affirming that divorce is happening for lesser reasons than in the past.

    Frivolous is a very loaded term. Do you disagree with “women are divorcing men for lesser reasons than in the past”?

    How can you claim with a straight face that is “unwarranted by the evidence” given 1-4?

    I repeat those final two questions and note that you did not answer them before. Again, that was the start of my comment.

    I would break that into these points to wrap this up.

    1. Can we agree on “women are divorcing men for lesser reasons than in the past”?

    2. Can we agree that there are cases where that has gone too far?

    3. Can we agree that there are cases where both men and women are shafted by divorce?

    I will note, I pretty much agree with you about the truly dysfunctional marriages which are your focus. It’s just that those are not what I have been focusing on.

    • Replies: @Rosie
    @res


    Since your take on that is so intensely personal how about you extend as much good faith to the men here that their personal takes are at least somewhat justified as you expect us to extend to you?
     
    I believe that I have done that. I acknowledge that my own personal experience may well color my views. I don't see many men doing that here.

    Does your yes mean you agree (I phrased my question as do you disagree) with “women are divorcing men for lesser reasons than in the past”?
     
    Yes. That was my intention. I do agree that women are divorcing men for lesser reasons than in the past. Indeed, I have said elsewhere that I think it quite possible that young women are trigger happy when it comes to divorce, possibly to a fault, because they do not have the luxury of time. In the early years of a marriage, i.e. before kids, I think it is natural for women to hold men to a much higher standard. After all, if a husband is inattentive when there are no children in the picture, that is not a good sign. On the other hand, I expect relatively little from Mr. Rosie nowadays. That he cherishes the kids is more important right now. They will be gone all too soon.

    I note in passing that one major risk factor in divorce is the woman wanting children and the man not wanting children. I haven't closely examined the data as you suggested, but it appears that this increases divorce risk by 50%. Among the saddest tales I have heard is the one where men say they don't want kids until their first wife is too old to have them, whereupon the man decides he does want children after all and abandons his aging wife, marries a younger woman, and has children with her instead. How common this is I obviously don't know.

    One important clarification (and you have already made it elsewhere) is that you tend to only care about white women. Fair enough. Just be clear that is what you mean rather than skipping the qualifier when you give numbers or strong rhetoric (e.g. “overwhelming”).
     
    It's not so much that I don't care about non-White women. It's just that I think it is disingenuous for White men to refuse to marry White women on the grounds that the risk of divorce is intolerably high when they fail to take account of these racial differences.

    1. Make no fault divorce much harder to get.

    2. Take some time to evaluate divorce outcomes for fairness. I am sure there are plenty of examples of both men and women being shafted. One thing which outrages me about biased family courts is that they still somehow manage not to deal effectively with the really bad actors (usually male IMO). The guys who play by the rules tend to get shafted though.
     
    One of the problems with no-fault divorce is, precisely, that it leaves people in the dark concerning their own risk. Suppose there is a court order giving the wife the kids, the house, etc., with visits with Dad limited to one afternoon a month, but citing nothing in the way of wrongdoing by either party. In truth, the husband was a serial adulterer who had been forgiven any number of times and his own kids hate his guts for his atrocious behavior and would really rather never see him again. The reason this information is not in the court order is because the innocent spouse doesn't bargain for it, being far more concerned with bread and butter issues than setting the record straight.

    This will leave men feeling exposed and powerless. Whereas a complete record would be reassuring, as a man might say to himself, "Oh, I see. If I'm a total asshole, this might happen to me, too." Requiring a finding of fault, on the record, would, if nothing else, provide useful information to individuals and society as a whole as to the why's and wherefores of divorce. Of course, one must bear in mind that fault-based systems are not without their ... faults.

    2. Can we agree that there are cases where that has gone too far?
     
    I'm sure there are. Where the difficulty comes in is trying to remedy this without making matters worse. As I said, I think the benefits of a return to a fault-based system would outweigh the advantages, and indeed I wonder if technology wouldn't obviate some of the proof problems of the past. Now that everyone has a smartphone, I suspect that evidence of marital misconduct would be easier to come by than it was before the no-fault revolution.

    As to the rules of good-faith debate, my impression is that most of the men around here consider me a hysterical, man-hating feminist. Since believing is seeing, they see evidence that I am such every time I post. If they paid attention to what I actually write, they would more likely find that the substance of my positions is usually quite moderate.

    Replies: @res

    , @ScarletNumber
    @res


    One of my basic principles is I tend to respond to people in the fashion they respond to me
     
    This is a bug, not a feature, as you are implying you have no agency.

    Replies: @res

  285. @res
    @Paperback Writer


    I don’t get paid for being here. Quite the contrary.
     
    Nor do I. Nor do most commenters here. The exceptions are the ones I worry about FWIW.

    Your verbosity is a form of narcissism.
     
    Perhaps, but much of it is an attempt to communicate (and are anyone's comments here not narcissistic?). If other people don't want to make the effort to do the same and consistently assign positions to me which are not mine. THAT IS NOT MY FAULT.

    don’t engage in good faith arguing, which gives the other guy the benefit of the doubt?
     
    Calling out untrue statements (including exaggeration and strawmen) is part of good faith argument (and an attempt to counter bad faith argument). I support my positions.

    And it sure seems to me failure to give the benefit of the doubt is endemic to all parties in this conversation.

    I’m not going to peruse Rosie’s comment history. My memory is fine.
     
    You have been commenting here a year, Rosie and I have both been commenting here for more than five years. So even if your memory is flawless it is far from sufficient to understand the full context.

    I don’t have emotional attitudes that I carry over from previous comments
     
    Understanding someone's comment history helps understand how to communicate with them. And how to assess their "poor me" and similar stories. Context is important.

    So you are saying your comments to me and Jack D in this thread are only related to the comments you were replying to? Or is within the same thread (or week, month, ?) OK?

    BTW, when people pretend to be more than human (e.g. immediately forget hostile past interactions) they seriously undermine their own credibility. It's especially ironic when you bring AnotherDad's comments in as a seeming accusation against me (and note how Rosie did something similar by bringing up Thomm and calling out comments she thinks I should have made, LOL!). That is much worse than referring to the past history of the person you are replying to.

    I’m not going to fall for your schoolyard hijinks, “res.”
     
    Speaking of bad faith, how about you support that assertion? Or is baseless innuendo just how you roll (like the Jack D special dispensation comment). And the more I reread your comment, the more that reads as projection.

    And somehow Rosie is the bad guy here?
     
    How about sticking to what I have said when replying to ME. I don't have responsibility for AnotherDad's comments.

    P.S. Do you have any response of substance to my comment(s) or is it just all ad hominems all the way down?

    Replies: @Paperback Writer, @Paperback Writer

    Anticipating that you or someone else would challenge my link, I supplied another link in another comment, here:

    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4012696/

  286. @res
    @Rosie


    Something like that, yes. In my own case, as I explained, the damage was already long done by the time the divorce was filed. My mother had so little bargaining power in the relationship that he would basically come and go as he pleased. Towards the end, the family home was nothing nor than a place to SS&S as you men say. It would have been far more harmful to me if she had stayed in that fucked-up relationship. I already told you that I don’t know how typical my experience was. That would require further research. Until I see such research, I remain agnostic, though I am as entitled to my suspicions as you are.
     
    Thanks for elaborating. I will note that you expect me to remember our past history, while Paperback Writer thinks I should ignore it. I am more with you on that one, though unlike Paperback Writer I appreciate reminders because my memory is not flawless.

    Here your point reads to me that divorce might not be worse than the marriage for children. In your case that sounds like the case (and is probably true for a non-trivial portion of cases). I do think that is less true for some non-trivial quantity of the "lesser reason" divorces (more on that below). I also think the balance between those two circumstances has changed dramatically with the rise of no fault divorce. I think you taking your experience as the norm in the current year is difficult to support. But good data is hard to find.

    Since your take on that is so intensely personal how about you extend as much good faith to the men here that their personal takes are at least somewhat justified as you expect us to extend to you?


    Women initiate something like 70% of divorces.
     
    For the billionth time, filing the paperwork does not mean that a woman is fault in the breakdown of a marriage. Consider my own case, did my mom “initiate” that divorce? In a technical sense, I suppose she did. That creep didn’t want a divorce necessarily. He just didn’t care enough to show my mom even the most basic level of respect.
     
    Women aren't necessarily responsible for the majority of bad marriages (both parties tend to carry a heavy load there). But they are responsible for the majority of divorces (that is what filing the paperwork does).


    The rate of divorce in the US has increased. Do you think men’s behavior towards women has gotten worse over that period? If not, that seems evidence divorces are happening for lesser reasons than in the past.
     
    “Lesser” does not mean “frivolous.”

    Frivolous is a very loaded term. Do you disagree with “women are divorcing men for lesser reasons than in the past”?
     
    Yes, but we’re still left the question of whether it would be better if those divorces hadn’t happened. My maternal grandfather was such a son-of-a-bitch that I consider my late Grandma a Saint for not taking revenge on him while he lay dying and helpless, and I have no doubt that he contributed to my mother’s situation.

     

    Agreed lesser does not mean frivolous, but both are useful points on the continuum. The question is which words best describe what everyone is arguing? The first usage of "frivolous" in this thread is your comment 229. I would say it was justified in response to Jack's "perfectly nice guy" statement. Though I would suspect those cases occur, they are rare (as are homicidal maniacs of either sex). So not worth focusing on except to note they should not happen.

    Does your yes mean you agree (I phrased my question as do you disagree) with "women are divorcing men for lesser reasons than in the past"?

    If so I think there is much room for agreement here though I doubt any two of us will agree on the exact optimum point. For myself, I think we are better off with women having more opportunity to get out of bad marriages than they had in the 1960s, but I think the pendulum has swung too far the other way.

    Let's put it this way. If a no fault divorce ends with one party being markedly better off than the other (e.g. has the house, kids, child support, and alimony while the other is renting an apartment and working--note this applies with either arrangement of the sexes!) then I think something is wrong. And I think that happens too often now.

    Let’s estimate conservatively that, at the time, 66.6% of White children lived with married parents. IMO, when you reach a ratio of 2:1, you’re in “overwhelming majority” territory.
     
    I would say more like 3:1, but disagreement on that is reasonable. Note that 75% was mentioned at that Quora link I gave.

    One important clarification (and you have already made it elsewhere) is that you tend to only care about white women. Fair enough. Just be clear that is what you mean rather than skipping the qualifier when you give numbers or strong rhetoric (e.g. "overwhelming").


    How much risk are women at of being shafted by divorce (probably much lower since they are initiating 70%, right?)?
     
    This is the essential point you fail miserably to appreciate, as it divorce is the only or even main risk of marriage.
    ...
    When you make it impossible for a woman to leave a marriage with her children, a fair share of the marital property, and a child support order, you are effectively leaving her without a means to escape these kinds of situations. Would you want that for your daughter?

     

    You assume a lot about what I think. Especially in a conversation where "good faith" and "benefit of the doubt" are being flung around as if the people who demand them are extending the same courtesy to others.

    I don't think anyone is arguing that women should tolerate outright abuse. And fault divorce can do a decent job of covering that IMO.

    I think two things would be worth doing.

    1. Make no fault divorce much harder to get.

    2. Take some time to evaluate divorce outcomes for fairness. I am sure there are plenty of examples of both men and women being shafted. One thing which outrages me about biased family courts is that they still somehow manage not to deal effectively with the really bad actors (usually male IMO). The guys who play by the rules tend to get shafted though.

    If you were truly interested in sincere and rational debate, you would make it a point to be as charitable as possible to me given that, without me, this place would be an echo chamber.
     
    I tried that a long time ago for exactly that reason. It was not productive (I think I talked about that at the time). One of my basic principles is I tend to respond to people in the fashion they respond to me. If you know anything about game theory see this and in particular look for "tit for tat with forgiveness."
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tit_for_tat

    I’ll tell you what. Hit me with your best shot. Of the barage of articles you have shown me, find the data point that you believe most powerfully refutes me, overcoming the fatal causation problem that you, to your credit, acknowledged above.
     
    It was right up front in my earlier comment. You know, the part you did not reply to. If you are ever curious about which were my strongest points a good starting point is to look at your responses and note the substantive points where you failed to reply.

    2. Women initiate something like 70% of divorces.
    https://bestlifeonline.com/women-initiate-divorce-more-than-men/

    3. The rate of divorce in the US has increased. Do you think men’s behavior towards women has gotten worse over that period? If not, that seems evidence divorces are happening for lesser reasons than in the past.

    4. Let’s leave “no reason” as the strawman it is and talk about increasingly frivolous reasons. Below you talk about no fault divorce. Is the rise of no fault divorce not sufficient evidence of the lesser reasons? If not, then take a closer look at the link I gave in 1. They state: ‘Women are less likely to tolerate “bad behavior” today.’ which I think it is hard to disagree with. Looked at another way it is hard to see that as anything other than affirming that divorce is happening for lesser reasons than in the past.

    Frivolous is a very loaded term. Do you disagree with “women are divorcing men for lesser reasons than in the past”?

    How can you claim with a straight face that is “unwarranted by the evidence” given 1-4?
     
    I repeat those final two questions and note that you did not answer them before. Again, that was the start of my comment.

    I would break that into these points to wrap this up.

    1. Can we agree on “women are divorcing men for lesser reasons than in the past”?

    2. Can we agree that there are cases where that has gone too far?

    3. Can we agree that there are cases where both men and women are shafted by divorce?

    I will note, I pretty much agree with you about the truly dysfunctional marriages which are your focus. It's just that those are not what I have been focusing on.

    Replies: @Rosie, @ScarletNumber

    Since your take on that is so intensely personal how about you extend as much good faith to the men here that their personal takes are at least somewhat justified as you expect us to extend to you?

    I believe that I have done that. I acknowledge that my own personal experience may well color my views. I don’t see many men doing that here.

    Does your yes mean you agree (I phrased my question as do you disagree) with “women are divorcing men for lesser reasons than in the past”?

    Yes. That was my intention. I do agree that women are divorcing men for lesser reasons than in the past. Indeed, I have said elsewhere that I think it quite possible that young women are trigger happy when it comes to divorce, possibly to a fault, because they do not have the luxury of time. In the early years of a marriage, i.e. before kids, I think it is natural for women to hold men to a much higher standard. After all, if a husband is inattentive when there are no children in the picture, that is not a good sign. On the other hand, I expect relatively little from Mr. Rosie nowadays. That he cherishes the kids is more important right now. They will be gone all too soon.

    I note in passing that one major risk factor in divorce is the woman wanting children and the man not wanting children. I haven’t closely examined the data as you suggested, but it appears that this increases divorce risk by 50%. Among the saddest tales I have heard is the one where men say they don’t want kids until their first wife is too old to have them, whereupon the man decides he does want children after all and abandons his aging wife, marries a younger woman, and has children with her instead. How common this is I obviously don’t know.

    One important clarification (and you have already made it elsewhere) is that you tend to only care about white women. Fair enough. Just be clear that is what you mean rather than skipping the qualifier when you give numbers or strong rhetoric (e.g. “overwhelming”).

    It’s not so much that I don’t care about non-White women. It’s just that I think it is disingenuous for White men to refuse to marry White women on the grounds that the risk of divorce is intolerably high when they fail to take account of these racial differences.

    1. Make no fault divorce much harder to get.

    2. Take some time to evaluate divorce outcomes for fairness. I am sure there are plenty of examples of both men and women being shafted. One thing which outrages me about biased family courts is that they still somehow manage not to deal effectively with the really bad actors (usually male IMO). The guys who play by the rules tend to get shafted though.

    One of the problems with no-fault divorce is, precisely, that it leaves people in the dark concerning their own risk. Suppose there is a court order giving the wife the kids, the house, etc., with visits with Dad limited to one afternoon a month, but citing nothing in the way of wrongdoing by either party. In truth, the husband was a serial adulterer who had been forgiven any number of times and his own kids hate his guts for his atrocious behavior and would really rather never see him again. The reason this information is not in the court order is because the innocent spouse doesn’t bargain for it, being far more concerned with bread and butter issues than setting the record straight.

    This will leave men feeling exposed and powerless. Whereas a complete record would be reassuring, as a man might say to himself, “Oh, I see. If I’m a total asshole, this might happen to me, too.” Requiring a finding of fault, on the record, would, if nothing else, provide useful information to individuals and society as a whole as to the why’s and wherefores of divorce. Of course, one must bear in mind that fault-based systems are not without their … faults.

    2. Can we agree that there are cases where that has gone too far?

    I’m sure there are. Where the difficulty comes in is trying to remedy this without making matters worse. As I said, I think the benefits of a return to a fault-based system would outweigh the advantages, and indeed I wonder if technology wouldn’t obviate some of the proof problems of the past. Now that everyone has a smartphone, I suspect that evidence of marital misconduct would be easier to come by than it was before the no-fault revolution.

    As to the rules of good-faith debate, my impression is that most of the men around here consider me a hysterical, man-hating feminist. Since believing is seeing, they see evidence that I am such every time I post. If they paid attention to what I actually write, they would more likely find that the substance of my positions is usually quite moderate.

    • Replies: @res
    @Rosie

    Thank you for the thoughtful response, Rosie.



    Since your take on that is so intensely personal how about you extend as much good faith to the men here that their personal takes are at least somewhat justified as you expect us to extend to you?
     
    I believe that I have done that. I acknowledge that my own personal experience may well color my views. I don’t see many men doing that here.
     
    To your credit you acknowledge that your own personal experience may well color your views. I haven't done a rigorous check, but suspect the men here do it less often (for myself, I consider it implicit, we all have our views colored like that, the key question is can we get past that to understand both other views and the available data). But what you also do all too frequently is devalue the personal experience of everyone else (by no means are you the only guilty party here). If you want others to respect your personal experience it helps to reciprocate. (it also helps to recognize the difference between personal views and data and respond in kind to arguments from the other party)

    Reread the final paragraph of your comment 229 to see a good example.
    https://www.unz.com/isteve/predictions-from-1900/#comment-5083822

    Indeed, I have said elsewhere that I think it quite possible that young women are trigger happy when it comes to divorce, possibly to a fault, because they do not have the luxury of time. In the early years of a marriage, i.e. before kids, I think it is natural for women to hold men to a much higher standard.
     
    I think this trigger happiness is what much of the reaction in this thread is based on. IMHO acknowledging that earlier might have helped (we don't all have flawless recall of the comments of others, one of the hardest things about communication is remembering others are not thinking the same things within the same mental framework--much of my verbosity is an attempt to deal with that, I have particular difficulty because I tend to think differently from most people).

    I suspect traditionalists might argue that the higher standard period should occur before marriage. I think that aligns with much of the agency rhetoric here.

    I note in passing that one major risk factor in divorce is the woman wanting children and the man not wanting children.
     
    Variations in desires here is a big problem. One might argue this is something which should be sorted out to some degree before the marriage. There is a reason I included the "change" quote at the end of comment 264.

    It’s just that I