All of mayonesa's Comments + Replies

"NRx" vs. "Prog" Assumptions: Locating the Sources of Disagreement Between Neoreactionaries and Progressives (Part 1)

By improving working conditions and monetary value so that a home needs only one working parent.

2RichardKennaway7yTime was when a home did need only one working parent (that is, working to bring in money). If things are always getting better, and they seem to be (in the developed world, e.g. the Internet, etc.), what changed?
1skeptical_lurker7yWell, that's certainly ambitious...
"NRx" vs. "Prog" Assumptions: Locating the Sources of Disagreement Between Neoreactionaries and Progressives (Part 1)

The best financial incentives for childrearing are ones that remove the financial deficits caused by having a stay at home mom.

4RichardKennaway7yI can only think of two general ways of removing the financial difference between the mother not working and the mother working: a subsidy for the former or laws against the latter. Do you favour either of these, or some other incentive?
6Azathoth1237yAnd yet fertility is inversely correlated with income. So it appears that the "people are too poor to raise a family" theory doesn't hold up.
1skeptical_lurker7yBy providing free childcare, or by paying people to be stay at home moms, or both or something else?
"NRx" vs. "Prog" Assumptions: Locating the Sources of Disagreement Between Neoreactionaries and Progressives (Part 1)

I seem to recall defending monarchy back in '12:

The point of reaction is thus:

Conservatism and liberalism are each spectrums of political ideas: conservatism is based on correspondence to the logic underlying reality, liberalism is based on projection of the logic of the human mind and its desires.

Thus liberalism clusters all of its ideas around the notion of "equality" where conservatism focuses on consequences; this is why we might draw a line between preference-based ut... (read more)

1TheAncientGeek7yThat is the falsest of dichotomies,since you need both facts and values to make decisions.
Tell Your Rationalist Origin Story

When I was a child, I read the classics of literature and philosophy and quickly became a realist.

I don't say I'm a rationalist because rationalism implies a universal quality to human judgment, when empirical evidence convinces me no such thing exists.

Since then, I've left behind liberalism (pure emotion, defensiveness) and become a conservative realist, monarchist, conservationist and idealist (in the Kant/Schopenhauer sense).

-4Peterdjones9yMonarchist? There's a rational justification for Monarchy? Tom Paine must be doing 1000rpm!
Book Recommendations

I agree.

GG&S has crossed the line from "exploring possibility" to "fanatical propaganda."

I realize he just wanted to rebut The Global Bell Curve, but it's poorly done.

Collapse, on the other hand is great, especially if you read it in conjunction with its clear inspiration, Garrett Hardin's "Tragedy of the Commons"

2Randaly10yWith regards to Collapse: Err, really? A fair number of Diamond's points are outright false; for example, his timing of the colonization or (and therefore the arrival of rats to) Easter Island is completely wrong [,%20Hunt,%20et%20al%202011%20PNAS.pdf] - and, if I recall correctly (it's been a few years since I read Collapse), Diamond explicitly pointed out that the age of the (single, unique) site he was relying on to date the arrival was in question, before dismissing the critics without an argument.
Fight Zero-Sum Bias

Not to be a cynic, but:

Zero-sum is not an illusion.

Every single thing has opportunity cost.

It may not be another person that pays if I pick up my toys, and go found my own community elsewhere.

It may be fewer trees and less open land.

We're all in this together, on the same planet, sharing the same air and water. Nothing is positive-sum if it involves using physical resources.

1Oligopsony11yI have water, but no air. You have air, but no water. I give you water in exchange for air. Presto! Everybody wins.