blackstampede @ blackstampede @sh.itjust.works

Posts

2

Comments

289

Joined

2 yr. ago

Fucking hell.

AsCrack

Well, there were probably more originally, but there are only so many graves and so much piss.

Other people in the comments are mentioning incentives, low pay, crappy management, etc. I don't want to work, but it's not really about any of this, or it's about all of this a little, sort of.

I want to do good work.

I want to make software that helps people, that does what it's supposed to do, that is fast, non-predatory, and doesn't succumb to endless feature creep or artificially rushed scheduling. Pay me enough to live comfortably, and I'll do this basically on my own. I don't even need all of these things.

I've found that most businesses prioritize between 0-1 of these things.

That, to me, seems like an ideal use case. My only reservation is that I think it would be bungled in implementation, then pushed without enough testing and validation, then hacked due to the bungled implementation, and then rejected forever because it was hacked once lol

This is not correct.

The word "woke" as a political term predates that group- York started trying to found a group in 1967, and "woke" was first used to warn black men of threats from racially motivated whites in 1931, by a singer named Lead Belly, then even more directly as a political term in 1971 in a play called "Garvey Lives!"

Whether York used it that way or not, it's clear that he didn't invent the usage.

I'm pulling most of this info from Wikipedia and Google to save anyone else reading the effort.

I find the actual technology very interesting. At one point I wanted to create a distributed research journal, and I spent some time trying to develop a trustless, immutable ledger that didn't have the high overhead that most blockchains have for proof of work. It was extremely cool, but nobody gives a shit unless it has coins lol

I look forward to 20 years from now when it gets resurrected and used for interesting things that don't involve cryptocurrency.

It's not an acronym.

It originally meant "awake" in English, kept that meaning in the American black community after it fell out of use among whites (e.g. "I was having trouble staying woke on the drive"), and was repurposed as slang. The slang meaning was "to be aware of prejudice or racism", with the implication that many blacks were "asleep", i.e. accepted excuses for racist systems, believed that racism wasn't a big deal anymore etc.

I'm not sure whether the word was adopted seriously by leftists generally before the right, or immediately became a catch-all label on the right, but either way, it's become the latter.

Conservatives and some left-critical leftists now use it as a broad term that refers to things like DEI initiatives, anything trans, etc.

Even better, save specific search engines with shortcut codes: type 'w' +

<Space>

The face you make when all your interests are detrimental to humanity.

No, we're not.

There have been recent challenges to freedom of speech, bodily autonomy, and privacy, along with other developments that both of us disagree with and find to be dangerous. But there is a vast distance between where we currently are and a society in which women are considered property. Women hold roughly 30% of public offices (varying between about 25% and 35% depending on type of office), are about 20% of the US military, and as I said before, fill almost half the working and management positions in the country.

It is not possible to make women property or force them to be subservient at scale. They may not be equally represented everywhere, and there is certainly room for improvement, but they hold too much power for this to happen.

Sorry, I was in the middle of doing something else when I wrote that, and not thinking clearly.

Either way, polyamory is the biggest example of large scale, voluntary, non-religious, polygamy-like relationships that we have, and it's stabilized at +12% women, which is a far cry from the harems you've described. We've also been assuming that they're straight, which they are not. Some estimates put the prevalence of bisexuality at 50% among poly women, much higher than in the broader population.

Most examples of broadly polygamous societies were a long time ago, highly religious, and had no access to modern technology, transportation, or media. Women at the time could be kept as property because they were taught by their religion and culture that it was right, because they didn't have the ability to travel quickly to get away, because they often didn't have money or property, and because their society didn't recognize them as legal people.

None of this is true now.

47% of workers, 42% of managers, and roughly 62% of people engaged in polyamorous relationships are women. Women are financially, socially, and politically more powerful than at any time in the past, and if polyamorous relationships are anything to go by, then we should expect polygamous marriages to be skewed toward multiple men to each woman, rather than the other way around.

Abusive relationships aren't unique to polygamy. Assuming that they occur in polygamous relationships at roughly the same rate that they do in monogamous relationships, and that polygamous relationships are less common over all, I think it's unlikely that highly lopsided marriages would occur often enough that the number of single men would rise drastically and increase the likelihood of violence or civil unrest.

Even assuming that wealthy men, specifically, would acquire and maintain large harems of women who are dependent financially or otherwise, there's nothing stopping them from doing that now. All a marriage gets them is a higher risk of losing their wealth when one of their wives decides to leave.

Meandering about and pestering people with questions while having an internal dialogue with personified concepts.

When it’s been legal on a country- or society-wide basis, the tendency has been for a relatively small number of very, very wealthy men to have a large number of wives...

I'm not sure that this would hold true if you made polygamy legal nationally today. While I agree that this has been the historical trend, it's also almost always been tied to high levels of religious fervency and few protections for women. While we can argue about whether the current situation on both fronts is trending one way or another, I think we can agree that it's certainly improved in the last century.

I doubt that a woman who wasn't living in a close-knit, isolated, religious community, would tolerate being in an exclusive relationship with a man who has 85 other wives.

I can see how that would be a problem for a smaller, more insular religious community, but on a national scale you would have much more variation in relationships. Most people would probably still be monogamous, some would lean towards multiple wives, others multiple husbands, some more complex arrangements. The impact of any particular relationship pattern would be diluted by the size of the population.

Why does a man with multiple wives have a destabilizing effect on society?

If you're that worried about it, then make it a form that people can fill out themselves. While we're at it, roll marriage agreements into contract law and remove the two-person cap.

Might want to add River Tam from Serenity as well.