stareblinkstare's comments

You say "but" as if Orthodox Christians are contrary to this. Put another way, there is a greater overlap between the thinking (and feeling, and believing) embedded in religions than we can garner just from reading.

>China peaked about two years ago.

You can't make this shit up.

Ah, so this is what privilege and luxury of time looks like. Thanks Seth - I'm sure the 99% will heed your wisdom to go surfing.

> "you civil libertarian types are all going to lose. We are going to steamroll you." And dismissed any and all concerns related to the technology.

That's pretty spot on, matches with my experience as well as every historical record ever written. We have a country right now that has installed labor/concentration camps and the rest of the world is dancing to their fiddle. Steamroll is an understatement. I don't want to know what is going on at those camps, but it wouldn't surprise me if many wish they could be steamrolled to end it all.

"Civil Libertarian Types" are abound on HN. They forget human nature and think that change is right around the corner. Sometimes I wonder if they're playing the devil's advocate or if they're really that stupid. It's bread and circuses of a very amusing and gullible sort.

These sort of people have no incentive whatsoever to change what they're doing. So yes, they're laughing at you as they fuck you over and profit from it. They know you're powerless, and they know you know it too.

What are you going to do about it? I'd genuinely like to see more than keyboard warring from you CLTs, but you're pretty useless about the whole thing.

> but if a side effect of your life is to chew up the biosphere

The biosphere will be chewed up with or without human activities.

You've answered your own question.

> [Just rich people saying rich shit, OP feigning shock and awe]

> Animal Farm is truly an important read .

Doesn't sound like it taught you much.

This is yet another social signal. You've created a group D by harping about Groups A, B and C.

Why does this read like a penance?

Edmund Burke covers this sentiment very well, and yet did not live to see it here:

"They would soon see, that criminal means once tolerated are soon preferred. They present a shorter cut to the object than through the highway of the moral virtues. Justifying perfidy and murder for public benefit, public benefit would soon becomethe pretext, and perfidy and murder the end; until rapacity, malice, revenge, and fear more dreadful than revenge, could satiate their insatiable appetites. Such must be the consequences of losing in the splendour of these triumphs of the rights of men, all natural sense of wrong and right."

>There's a reason why in scientific discussion anecdotal evidence is dismissed.

You just read a blog post of a personal anecdote. What were you expecting? A dissertation?

> Children who quietly got to go to foreign universities, while their parents talked about the need for the lower classes to sacrifice their children for the revolution. Those same children who now run very successful businesses thanks to their family connections.

You just described the situation everywhere, Communist or Capitalist or Whateverist system.

Who do you think writes these pieces then? What's in it for them?

A large portion of the grow ops are owned by Chinese groups. This is "common knowledge" in circles where people want to grow weed as a business, at scale, and scope out their competitors. This is their competition. The small local growers are not a competition anymore than your mom and pop business is competition to Amazon.

People find this surprising, but they've never stopped to ask themselves where did all that weed and infrastructure to grow it suddenly spring up from the moment it was legalized.

> not funding drug lords. I avoid illegal drugs for this reason.

I hate to break it to you...

[Edit: it's best if I expand this comment. The people who currently sell "legal" weed whitewashed illegal operations and coordinated it with lawmakers to put them at the top. Chinese, oddly enough, play a big part at this, since we're on an anti-China bend right now it might be useful to know. This whole legal drug thing... no, it doesn't exist. Anyone thinking otherwise needs to get a wake up call. You're supporting massive drug lords that wear suits and work alongside law enforcement.]

>Do we want people to be able to use whatever drugs they want, including opiates, or do we not?

Why look to HN for this?

For ref: https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/rh7anj/pelosi_rej...

Congratulations to Aaron Swartz and the team.

Some of us gladly would.

>Bly therefore saw today's men as half-adults, trapped between boyhood and maturity, in a state where they find it hard to become responsible in their work as well as leaders in their communities. Eventually they might become weak or absent fathers themselves which will cause this behaviour to be passed down to their children. In his book The Sibling Society (1997), Bly argues that a society formed of such men is inherently problematic as it lacks creativity and a deep sense of empathy. The image of half-adults is further reinforced by popular culture which often portrays fathers as naive, overweight and almost always emotionally co-dependent.

>Historically this represents a recent shift from a traditional patriarchal model and Bly believes that women rushed to fill the gap that was formed through the various youth movements during the 1960s,[21] enhancing men's emotional capacities and helping them to connect with women's age-old pain of repression. It has however also led to the creation of "soft males" who lacked the outwardly directed strength to revitalize the community with assertiveness and a certain warrior strength.