If Mort Divine ruled the world

[Oblivious Maximus]

Back up with an explanation of what happened to the first video.

 

[CiG]

#JustWokeTwitterThings

 

[jimmy101]

Hahaha

 

[CiG]

It's like these fuckwits forget they're also white and implicate themselves in their bizarre theories.

 

[HamburgerBoy]

I was disappointed to check her history and find that she wasn't Jewish, simply adopted into a black family apparently. Most of those fuckwits aren't white.

 

[CiG]

Wasn't trying to sound confrontational--I think you're right, if we're being specific and taking the terminology to task. I'm going to assume that Bray understands the distinctions between variants and simply elides them (either for sake of ease or obfuscation), but it's still true that his vocabulary leads to some apparent contradictions.

I think they elide them because these so-called anarchists (the entire AntiFa spectrum) are fellow travelers.

 

[CiG]

This is a dumpster fire.

 

[Dak]

But the city as such doesn't prevent one from going running. You talk as though an urban environment makes running unappealing. It's just a matter of finding a route and spaces conducive to physical activity.

NYC has Central Park and other public spaces, Boston has the Common, Houston has Memorial Park. These places don't charge admission, and if people want to see greenery they can run from their neighborhoods to the parks. If they live too far away to do that, then chances are they can already see green spaces.

Being a pedestrian is increasingly dangerous since the introduction of the smartphone. Running along and across busy urban streets is an issue even if one doesn't care about dodging other pedestrians, bikes, dogs, etc., or doesn't care about the scenery or lack thereof. I know when I was in DC, the Mall was a popular place for runners after business hours. Not only is that a bit of an exception in terms of the appeal of the area and the lack of road crossings, but many of those people also sleep in their offices.

As far as running to the parks: Probably for some. But are people in the slums running to the parks? Conversely, the people far enough away to have other greenery lose time they could use for running sitting in a subway, car, etc.

Really an aside, but Houston's Memorial Park isn't exactly a great inclusion. It has historically had a crime problem that's probably worse than Central Park's notoriety.

The two photos you pasted below are snapshots of commercial and residential locations that by no means capture the fluidity and heterogeneity that cities offer.

I'm sure they do have different effects, but I'm unwilling to say that the second two environments are de facto better for mental health than the first two. A lot of it depends on the person. The effects each environment has will differ from person to person, and there's nothing convincing (in my opinion) that suggests exposure to greenery is, on average, better for mental health.

I agree that there are people who will not be adversely affected mentally. I agree that there will be people who will not be adversely affected physically. I agree that there will even be a not insignificant overlap between both groups of people. I'm just arguing that that group is and will be small relative to the total population.

I'll likely be in a large city next year. I'll keep doing fine and finding the benefits (like hobby stores that are way better than what I have access to) and exercising etc. But there are tradeoffs for everything. I know you've commented recently on the graduate student aspect and have commented on it before on how I don't "claim" the status, or identify with it or something to that effect. It's true to some aspect but it's not unique to graduate students. I typically don't identify with most things I'm involved in because they aren't my identity, and I usually lack many commonalities with respective populations across the different things I'm engaged in. In talking about tradeoffs, this reality provides tradeoffs: it's a lonelier position to be in, but allows me to make more detached observations about the positives and negatives of whatever it is might be under discussion that I have first-hand knowledge of. This is often misinterpreted as a lack of "solidarity," because I don't share in the groupthink of whichever particular group is in question.

 

[Dak]

This isn't going to end well for anyone.

 

[Dak]

https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fnhum.2017.00528/full

Pubertal suppression with gonadotropin releasing hormone analogs (GnRHa) has been proposed for these individuals as a reversible treatment for postponing the pubertal development and attenuating psychological suffering. Recently, increased interest has been observed on the impact of this treatment on brain maturation, cognition and psychological performance.
.........................

During the follow-up, white matter fractional anisotropy did not increase, compared to normal male puberty effects on the brain. After 22 months of pubertal suppression, operational memory dropped 9 points and remained stable after 28 months of follow-up. The fundamental frequency of voice varied during the first year; however, it remained in the female range.

 

[Dak]

https://www.thecut.com/2019/06/babe-net-aziz-ansari-date-rise-and-fall.html

Craziness.

 

[Dak]

In line with my assertion about the eventual flipping of rates of medical diseases from higher in rural to higher in urban areas:

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/07/where-have-all-the-children-gone/594133/

In high-density cities like San Francisco, Seattle, and Washington, D.C., no group is growing faster than rich college-educated whites without children, according to Census analysis by the economist Jed Kolko. By contrast, families with children older than 6 are in outright decline in these places. In the biggest picture, it turns out that America’s urban rebirth is missing a key element: births.
........
Today’s cities, however, are decidedly not for children, or for families who want children. As the sociologists Richard Lloyd and Terry Nichols Clark put it, they are “entertainment machines” for the young, rich, and mostly childless. And this development has crucial implications—not only for the future of American cities, but also for the future of the U.S. economy and American politics.
........
College graduates descend into cities, inhale fast-casual meals, emit the fumes of overwork, get washed, and bounce to smaller cities or the suburbs by the time their kids are old enough to spell.

Along with the death of the rural elderly - the absence of the urban young.

Edit:

For those young and middle-aged Americans who are having sex and having children, the smaller cities and suburbs might simply be a better place to live—and not just for the obvious reason that they’re more cost-friendly for the non-rich. Perhaps parents are clustering in suburbs today for the same reason that companies cluster in rich cities: Doing so is more efficient. Suburbs have more “schools, parks, stroller-friendly areas, restaurants with high chairs, babysitters, [and] large parking spaces for SUV’s,” wrote Conor Sen, an investor and columnist for Bloomberg. It’s akin to a division of labor: America’s rich cities specialize in the young, rich, and childless; America’s suburbs specialize in parents. The childless city may be inescapable.

 

[Einherjar86]

In line with my assertion about the eventual flipping of rates of medical diseases from higher in rural to higher in urban areas:

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/07/where-have-all-the-children-gone/594133/



Along with the death of the rural elderly - the absence of the urban young.

Edit:

I agree with this, but don't follow why declining birth rates in cities (i.e. the absence of children) translates into an increase in medical diseases.

Being a pedestrian is increasingly dangerous since the introduction of the smartphone. Running along and across busy urban streets is an issue even if one doesn't care about dodging other pedestrians, bikes, dogs, etc., or doesn't care about the scenery or lack thereof.

I think this is less of an issue than you make it out to be. Cars move slowly in cities, and most drivers are overly cautious about runners and cyclists (sometimes to an annoying degree).

As far as running to the parks: Probably for some. But are people in the slums running to the parks? Conversely, the people far enough away to have other greenery lose time they could use for running sitting in a subway, car, etc.

The time for exercise declines among the working poor, I agree; I just don't see why rural areas negate this factor. You still have people working multiple jobs, or long hours, plus you have the lack of motivation as a result of isolation and immobility.

 

[Dak]

I agree with this, but don't follow why declining birth rates in cities (i.e. the absence of children) translates into an increase in medical diseases.

Because children typically don't have diabetes, cardiopulmonary diseases, or cancer. The middle-aged and elderly do. As your population skews towards the latter, so will these disease rates.

I think this is less of an issue than you make it out to be. Cars move slowly in cities, and most drivers are overly cautious about runners and cyclists (sometimes to an annoying degree).

https://www.npr.org/2019/02/28/6991...hs-reach-highest-level-in-decades-report-says

Attempting to get to work on foot, walk the dog or enjoy a simple after-dinner stroll is becoming an increasingly risky activity, according to new estimates by the Governors Highway Safety Association, which found the number of pedestrian deaths in the U.S. has reached a 28-year high.

A new report by the GHSA determined about 6,227 pedestrians were killed in motor vehicle crashes in 2018 — a 4 percent increase over 2017 and the highest mortality rate since 1990.

"While we have made progress reducing fatalities among many other road users in the past decade, pedestrian deaths have risen 35 percent" since 2008, Executive Director Jonathan Adkins said in a statement.

35% increase since 2008, which is incidentally approximately when smartphones emerged.
https://www.outsideonline.com/2390525/bike-commuter-deaths

The relative %s are low, but trending in the wrong direction. I've been nearly hit on three separate occasions over the last 3 years when trying to run in a relatively busy more suburban area by female college students overshooting stops because they were looking at their cellphones (I avoided being hit because I stopped before they hit me). Since the third occasion I've shifted to almost strictly trail running and indoor track.

The time for exercise declines among the working poor, I agree; I just don't see why rural areas negate this factor. You still have people working multiple jobs, or long hours, plus you have the lack of motivation as a result of isolation and immobility.

This is true. I don't think that's something that's alleviated by rural areas. The mechanisms for physical health and mental health are different hear, I don't want to suggest that simply being in a rural or suburban type area is going to improve physical health. That stats are going to flip because of demographic reasons, not because suburban or rural people are going to be exercising more.

 

[Dak]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/worl...uplifting-stories-then-terrorists-killed-her/

A Somali-Canadian journalist returned to Somalia to tell ‘uplifting’ stories. Then terrorists killed her.

Can't make this stuff up.

 

[Einherjar86]

Because children typically don't have diabetes, cardiopulmonary diseases, or cancer. The middle-aged and elderly do. As your population skews towards the latter, so will these disease rates.

I'm not sure I see this as urban populations skewing toward middle-age/elderly. Unless the rate of young people flocking to cities goes down, they will still comprise the majority of the population--provided the young people who arrived before them leave the city when they're ready to have children.

I'll admit that only now is the real point of your argument becoming clear to me, i.e. that the middle-age/elderly population of cities is increasing and old people tend to be sicker than young people. To be fair, your earlier posts insinuated (to me) that urban areas are bad for mental and physical health--that a causal relationship existed. Maybe you are partly saying that; but anyway, that's what I take issue with (maybe I'm imposing a perspective due to what I know to be your aversion to urban living). It certainly makes sense that if the population rate of elderly people rises in urban areas then the rate of medical issues will also rise.

https://www.npr.org/2019/02/28/699195211/pedestrian-deaths-reach-highest-level-in-decades-report-says

35% increase since 2008, which is incidentally approximately when smartphones emerged.
https://www.outsideonline.com/2390525/bike-commuter-deaths

The relative %s are low, but trending in the wrong direction. I've been nearly hit on three separate occasions over the last 3 years when trying to run in a relatively busy more suburban area by female college students overshooting stops because they were looking at their cellphones (I avoided being hit because I stopped before they hit me). Since the third occasion I've shifted to almost strictly trail running and indoor track.

This doesn't specify where these accidents are occurring. I'm not denying that accidents happen in cities, but I would venture that suburban and rural areas might be worse for cyclists given the lack of cycling infrastructure. Here's an article from citylab pertaining to cycling incidents in Boston:

https://www.citylab.com/transportat...re-suburban-bikers-are-getting-struck/381440/

As you'll see, accidents tend to happen in the "greater Boston" area, not in the city center where bike lanes and infrastructure are common. It's where drivers don't expect to see cyclists as much that accidents occur.

 

[Dak]

I'm not sure I see this as urban populations skewing toward middle-age/elderly. Unless the rate of young people flocking to cities goes down, they will still comprise the majority of the population--provided the young people who arrived before them leave the city when they're ready to have children.

I'll admit that only now is the real point of your argument becoming clear to me, i.e. that the middle-age/elderly population of cities is increasing and old people tend to be sicker than young people. To be fair, your earlier posts insinuated (to me) that urban areas are bad for mental and physical health--that a causal relationship existed. Maybe you are partly saying that; but anyway, that's what I take issue with (maybe I'm imposing a perspective due to what I know to be your aversion to urban living). It certainly makes sense that if the population rate of elderly people rises in urban areas then the rate of medical issues will also rise.

Well I believe the latter as well: It's at least if not more unhealthy physically, outside of a particular cohort of low time preference, high IQ, well positioned people (like yourself) who can navigate it. But the reason I said the 20 years timeframe is purely demographical in nature. Push it to 30 if we must just to be sure to catch all by the near-centennial boomers (who would most likely be in larger cities due to advanced care needs and the centralizing of medicine).

This doesn't specify where these accidents are occurring. I'm not denying that accidents happen in cities, but I would venture that suburban and rural areas might be worse for cyclists given the lack of cycling infrastructure. Here's an article from citylab pertaining to cycling incidents in Boston:

https://www.citylab.com/transportat...re-suburban-bikers-are-getting-struck/381440/

As you'll see, accidents tend to happen in the "greater Boston" area, not in the city center where bike lanes and infrastructure are common. It's where drivers don't expect to see cyclists as much that accidents occur.

This is a fair point to which I know of no data to dispute this. There is also likely a rise immediately after the addition of things like bike lanes when drivers haven't become accustomed to them yet. My concern really is more on the distracted-by-smartphone phenomenon. I see it all the time here, overwhelmingly due to the high numbers of collegiate females and female faculty/staff and nursing staff etc. Not that males aren't doing it too, but anecdotally I see a far higher number of females driving or sitting at lights on their phone (full disclaimer, I regularly use my phone at stoplights, but I keep it high enough so I can see the light or the car in front of me).

 

[CiG]

 

[CiG]

Majority of Mexicans favor deporting migrants waiting to enter US.

More than half of Mexican nationals are not sympathetic to migrants traveling through the country on their journey to the United States and support the deportation of unauthorized persons waiting to gain entry to America, according to a new study.

The study, conducted by the Washington Post and Mexican newspaper Reforma, found “more than 6 in 10 Mexicans say migrants are a burden on their country because they take jobs and benefits that should belong to Mexicans.”

Additionally, more than half of the those same Mexican citizens are in favor of deporting migrants living in the country illegally.

Shocked and stunned by this.

 

[Dak]

Broke: Mexicans
Woke: Duterte

https://www.newsweek.com/duterte-philippines-answer-white-people-human-rights-1449684

"I will not answer a Caucasian… You must be stupid. Who are you? I am a Filipino.