Reputation based economies are dystopian hellholes

[Ghostmaker]

Thankfully, despite inflammatory rhetoric, we've seen less violence in recent years than in the 1960s, but the trend has been going up.

That's because the West is becoming older and fatter. Violence is for 20 year old slim people, not 40 year old fat people.

*laughs in .45 and 9mm*

[Kyle Aaron]

Anonymous macho posturing aside, calibres are irrelevant to this. Firearms are the means, but the offender - or rebel - needs opportunity and motive, too. Let's set aside opportunity for the moment and consider motive: age and physique indicate motive, or lack thereof.

Slimness, as was pointed out in Julius Caesar, indicates hunger - ambition and discontent. Fatness indicates contentedness and a lack of ambition.

Youth, too, are naturally rebellious and want to change things, and of course have no wealth or family to lose. Older people are naturally conservative, not wanting things to change, and have wealth and family to protect. The jobless unmarried 20 year old renting a house may riot; the 40 year old in secure employment with a spouse and two kids will probably not riot.

Thus: Violence is for 20 year old slim people, not 40 year old fat people. Now, old fat people may order slim young people to fight, but they will in general not themselves fight. And so as the number of slim young people declines and the number of old fat people increases, you get a lot of people talking about fighting, but not as many people actually fighting.

Which is why Kim's observation is correct, that the general trend of the last half-century in the West has been less violence, not more. There will occasionally be rises, but we are interested in the trend.

[oggsmash]

Thankfully, despite inflammatory rhetoric, we've seen less violence in recent years than in the 1960s, but the trend has been going up.

That's because the West is becoming older and fatter. Violence is for 20 year old slim people, not 40 year old fat people.

  There are lots of 20 year old fat people who are interested in "violence" and plenty of 40 year old fit people not interested, moreso because of what you stated later.  Older married people (which trend conservative) have something to lose.  Any person tends to have to have more to gain than to lose via action.  I think feeling less or more to lose is the reason we do not see more violent organized movements.  Also right leaning people are individualists by nature, and leftists are very, very collective.  It takes a plenty of jackals to kill lions, but enough jackals can kill a lion.   Personally, I understand the folks who feel they want to fight lefties.  I also feel lots of them have not felt any violence recently (the real kind, where you feel stuff on your body breaking or the other person's) or maybe never.   

   Bringing up the 60's to constantly yap less violent means jack shit.  People, especially westerners are MUCH more compliant now than in the 60's.  Whether they are left or right.  I personally have reached a point where I think whatever the USA is and is becoming is untenable and plan to just leave.   There are always ebbs and flows of power and places where people appreciate you more if you are productive.  I made a list, and though I like to think of myself as "loyal" to my country, I take a look at how loyal my country is to me as an average productive tax paying citizen.   We are the least safe 1st world country in the world, and have some crime stats in some cities that make rio look like a park.   We are heavily taxed.  We are CONSTANTLY in foreign engagements and wars "spreading democracy".  Massive corporations have controlled our government for a very long time.   The slide to less freedom has been a consistent one for the past 25 years.

   Almost everyone in the country came from somewhere else that was treating them worse.  I think the time has come for more productive americans to drop the rhetoric and jingoism and just move to a place that treats them personally, and their situation better.  I am pretty tired of watching my tax money (well not really, our government runs on fucking debt, not actual revenue collected) go towards paying for people who are useless to society, fucking its citizens over with shipping jobs everywhere but the USA, prop up dictators or "champions of democracy" in foreign lands, or bomb the fudge out of folks who probably have never seen the USA even on a globe.  The woke stuff is annoying, and the anti white rhetoric that seems to be in the heart of it makes me think my kids are going to have one hell of a time with that (i guess they could leverage that 1/4 arab dna in some sort of oppression olympics, but its feeding into bullshit) so it looks a whole lot like time to leave.  America came to be because of people unsatisfied with where they were, so I think its time for the folks who clamor for a return to what they think America was or should be, need to do as their forefathers did and roll off to a new land and make their way in a new place.

    Just remember to pay the exit taxes and high fee for renouncing your citizenship.....A country so amazing they make you pay a shitload to leave....LOL.

[Ghostmaker]

Anonymous macho posturing aside, calibres are irrelevant to this. Firearms are the means, but the offender - or rebel - needs opportunity and motive, too. Let's set aside opportunity for the moment and consider motive: age and physique indicate motive, or lack thereof.

Slimness, as was pointed out in Julius Caesar, indicates hunger - ambition and discontent. Fatness indicates contentedness and a lack of ambition.

Youth, too, are naturally rebellious and want to change things, and of course have no wealth or family to lose. Older people are naturally conservative, not wanting things to change, and have wealth and family to protect. The jobless unmarried 20 year old renting a house may riot; the 40 year old in secure employment with a spouse and two kids will probably not riot.

Thus: Violence is for 20 year old slim people, not 40 year old fat people. Now, old fat people may order slim young people to fight, but they will in general not themselves fight. And so as the number of slim young people declines and the number of old fat people increases, you get a lot of people talking about fighting, but not as many people actually fighting.

Which is why Kim's observation is correct, that the general trend of the last half-century in the West has been less violence, not more. There will occasionally be rises, but we are interested in the trend.

I really do hope you are speaking metaphorically in regards to fat vs slim vs ambition, because otherwise you are being more than a bit foolish. There are plenty of fat, ambitious bastards in history.

In any case, you're not wrong about the will to act -- so far. The whole game has been bringing the water temperature up, slowly, until the frog boils, trying not to do it too fast lest the frog jump out of the pot and flip that switch Larry Correia talked about -- the one that's marked 'Do nothing' and 'Kill every motherfucker'.

Now, older people may be less inclined to -start- fights, but are far more likely to end them sharply. Melee is a young man's game, yes; but the introduction of firearms to the zeitgeist means a 45 year old man can -end- a 22 year old attacker with a single trigger pull. Yes, the 45 year old man needs the will to do so. However, that's very much a game of three card monte where pulling the wrong card means someone goes home in a bag.

[oggsmash]

Anonymous macho posturing aside, calibres are irrelevant to this. Firearms are the means, but the offender - or rebel - needs opportunity and motive, too. Let's set aside opportunity for the moment and consider motive: age and physique indicate motive, or lack thereof.

Slimness, as was pointed out in Julius Caesar, indicates hunger - ambition and discontent. Fatness indicates contentedness and a lack of ambition.

Youth, too, are naturally rebellious and want to change things, and of course have no wealth or family to lose. Older people are naturally conservative, not wanting things to change, and have wealth and family to protect. The jobless unmarried 20 year old renting a house may riot; the 40 year old in secure employment with a spouse and two kids will probably not riot.

Thus: Violence is for 20 year old slim people, not 40 year old fat people. Now, old fat people may order slim young people to fight, but they will in general not themselves fight. And so as the number of slim young people declines and the number of old fat people increases, you get a lot of people talking about fighting, but not as many people actually fighting.

Which is why Kim's observation is correct, that the general trend of the last half-century in the West has been less violence, not more. There will occasionally be rises, but we are interested in the trend.

I really do hope you are speaking metaphorically in regards to fat vs slim vs ambition, because otherwise you are being more than a bit foolish. There are plenty of fat, ambitious bastards in history.

In any case, you're not wrong about the will to act -- so far. The whole game has been bringing the water temperature up, slowly, until the frog boils, trying not to do it too fast lest the frog jump out of the pot and flip that switch Larry Correia talked about -- the one that's marked 'Do nothing' and 'Kill every motherfucker'.

Now, older people may be less inclined to -start- fights, but are far more likely to end them sharply. Melee is a young man's game, yes; but the introduction of firearms to the zeitgeist means a 45 year old man can -end- a 22 year old attacker with a single trigger pull. Yes, the 45 year old man needs the will to do so. However, that's very much a game of three card monte where pulling the wrong card means someone goes home in a bag.

  I think you are correct, but I also think the average American 45 year old is 25 years plus from having their heart rate at target level.  I also think it is a much better use of time to be in as good a shape as you can be even if just to shoot, as the stress of such an encounter is going to be insanely high.  I guess the good news is the average 22 year old attacker is going to be a doughy mess and probably never had their target heart rate level reached, as video games only go so far. 

    The really bad news is the 45 year old needs to be in top shape and able to fight unarmed.  Because melee he may not get on the streets, but I have a feeling he will get in prison when the Soros DA has his ass locked up for shooting an attacker who meant to kill him.

[Ghostmaker]

    The really bad news is the 45 year old needs to be in top shape and able to fight unarmed.  Because melee he may not get on the streets, but I have a feeling he will get in prison when the Soros DA has his ass locked up for shooting an attacker who meant to kill him.

"In Jersey everything's legal, as long as you don't get caught."

[oggsmash]

    The really bad news is the 45 year old needs to be in top shape and able to fight unarmed.  Because melee he may not get on the streets, but I have a feeling he will get in prison when the Soros DA has his ass locked up for shooting an attacker who meant to kill him.

"In Jersey everything's legal, as long as you don't get caught."

  I agree, but nowadays people pull out cameras to archive their shit they took in the toilet.  I can not imagine a scenario where some dipshit drives me to introduce him to unconsciousness or worse where at least one nimrod was not filming it.

[Ghostmaker]

    The really bad news is the 45 year old needs to be in top shape and able to fight unarmed.  Because melee he may not get on the streets, but I have a feeling he will get in prison when the Soros DA has his ass locked up for shooting an attacker who meant to kill him.

"In Jersey everything's legal, as long as you don't get caught."

  I agree, but nowadays people pull out cameras to archive their shit they took in the toilet.  I can not imagine a scenario where some dipshit drives me to introduce him to unconsciousness or worse where at least one nimrod was not filming it.

That's true. And while I was being a bit flip, this is a good rule of thumb:

Don't go to stupid places. Don't associate with stupid people.

Kyle notes over in the guns and granularity thread about AD&D1E's advice to 'avoid unnecessary encounters'. That should be everyone's watchwords right now.

And if trouble comes to your doorstep, make sure you have plenty of friends to help pile the bodies in the backyard. You DID rent out the backhoe, right?

[oggsmash]

    The really bad news is the 45 year old needs to be in top shape and able to fight unarmed.  Because melee he may not get on the streets, but I have a feeling he will get in prison when the Soros DA has his ass locked up for shooting an attacker who meant to kill him.

"In Jersey everything's legal, as long as you don't get caught."

  I agree, but nowadays people pull out cameras to archive their shit they took in the toilet.  I can not imagine a scenario where some dipshit drives me to introduce him to unconsciousness or worse where at least one nimrod was not filming it.

That's true. And while I was being a bit flip, this is a good rule of thumb:

Don't go to stupid places. Don't associate with stupid people.

Kyle notes over in the guns and granularity thread about AD&D1E's advice to 'avoid unnecessary encounters'. That should be everyone's watchwords right now.

And if trouble comes to your doorstep, make sure you have plenty of friends to help pile the bodies in the backyard. You DID rent out the backhoe, right?

  Oh I agree, there will be ZERO support from anyone if you are in the streets where these fuckers get together and you have to off one.  Just punching them is going to be a felony in NYC.  Of course, peaceful protesting from the other direction ends up in a release and no record.  I think the writing is on the wall, thus why I am interested in just leaving it altogether.

[jhkim]

Both sides have a point.

It's very hard to disappear, today. Too much is tied to central databases, and too many things in life, from jobs to apartments to loans, require proving who you are. To disappear, you either need official help (like battered women or witness protection), or to be hiding from just a few people with limited resources (like your parents).

A thousand years ago, it was very hard to escape your village. You had to uproot yourself from everything and everyone you know, and you had no money because subsistence living. Travel was very hard.

A hundred years is in the middle of a transition. Travel was easier, there was more discretionary money to facilitate escape, and social ties had weakened. But while passports had started to be a thing and the government was getting ready to track people with magic numbers, databases and social media and omnipresent surveillance didn't yet exist. It was still rough, going out on your own, but it was easier to escape than either the earlier period, or the later period.

I generally agree - it was easier in 1920 than in 1020, but the main point is that in all three cases, it was really damn difficult. Social ties might be less important in 1920 than 1020, but they were still really strong, both for career and life. Notably, GeekyBugle said the greatest ostacle in the past was a bit of money. But I think historically and now, the greatest obstacle is giving up all your family, friends, and connections. Throwing those away is a huge sacrifice.

My most recent ex had her ex-husband disappear on her, stopping alimony payments and apparently dropping off the grid. I think that was a huge step, but it is evidently within possibility. I'm sure he was findable if the federal government really wanted to, but it was good enough that the local court and her couldn't find him.

A 100 years ago your greatest obstacle on moving and starting over was a bit of money.

Today people search your name in the web, think once you have been branded as a wazi people are going to want to hire you?

Back in the 1920s, it's not like one's past didn't matter. Social connections were if anything even more vital to career than today. Getting a decent job required education and references that would be checked on. It wasn't through the web - but it was through word of mouth or letter writing and similar. If you didn't give references from your past, you wouldn't get anything above a menial job.

[oggsmash]

  I think it is possible to move and be lost.  You will have to move to another country, not be a social media type, and maybe change your name though.  I think doing those things is easier right now than it has ever been.  Now, if you have to work for other people it can be tricky, but if you are able to live off of what you have now, it has never been easier.  It has also never been easier to live as a "digital nomad" and just live where ever you want and provide service to those who need it who may live half a world away. 

   Perhaps the woke are everywhere, but I have a pretty strong feeling there are a whole lot of places where it does not get tolerated too well.  There are a wave of digital nomad types all over now because they have finally decided all the talk about the USA being horrible and racist, or having an unredeemable past is true enough they just rather leave and let the folks who stay deal with it.  I think I understand their point of view.

  I think jhkim is right, the  hardest part would be leaving some family behind.  Or maybe even harder, convincing the family moving is the best option.  Most external issues are removed, well for the USA of course, they will make you pay to renounce citizenship, which I find odd there is a fee connected to such a thing.

[Zelen]

  I think it is possible to move and be lost.  You will have to move to another country, not be a social media type, and maybe change your name though.  I think doing those things is easier right now than it has ever been.  Now, if you have to work for other people it can be tricky, but if you are able to live off of what you have now, it has never been easier.  It has also never been easier to live as a "digital nomad" and just live where ever you want and provide service to those who need it who may live half a world away.

If you keep a bank account, that's an easy paper trail. If you change your name you leave an easy paper trail. If you fly somewhere, it's an easy paper trail. Living or visiting any urban environment is out of the question because almost all urban environments are heavily monitored by cameras, which are now capable of being monitored 24/7 by machines using facial recognition (as well as body and gait recognition, for anyone who thinks a mask will protect their identity).

It's absolutely way harder, if not impossible, to completely disappear today compared to even 20 or 30 years ago. Sure, some areas are less actually populated by woke people. If you live in San Francisco and publicly object to sexualizing children, you will have an angry mob outside your house, but if you live in Idaho they (probably) aren't going to drive hundreds of miles to harass you. But they can still harass you online and ruin your reputation. If you're doing the remote worker thing then do you think your employer will stick with you if you get targeted by the mob, when they can easily hire FacelessRemoteWorker29 from anywhere in the world?

[GeekyBugle]

Both sides have a point.

It's very hard to disappear, today. Too much is tied to central databases, and too many things in life, from jobs to apartments to loans, require proving who you are. To disappear, you either need official help (like battered women or witness protection), or to be hiding from just a few people with limited resources (like your parents).

A thousand years ago, it was very hard to escape your village. You had to uproot yourself from everything and everyone you know, and you had no money because subsistence living. Travel was very hard.

A hundred years is in the middle of a transition. Travel was easier, there was more discretionary money to facilitate escape, and social ties had weakened. But while passports had started to be a thing and the government was getting ready to track people with magic numbers, databases and social media and omnipresent surveillance didn't yet exist. It was still rough, going out on your own, but it was easier to escape than either the earlier period, or the later period.

I generally agree - it was easier in 1920 than in 1020, but the main point is that in all three cases, it was really damn difficult. Social ties might be less important in 1920 than 1020, but they were still really strong, both for career and life. Notably, GeekyBugle said the greatest ostacle in the past was a bit of money. But I think historically and now, the greatest obstacle is giving up all your family, friends, and connections. Throwing those away is a huge sacrifice.

My most recent ex had her ex-husband disappear on her, stopping alimony payments and apparently dropping off the grid. I think that was a huge step, but it is evidently within possibility. I'm sure he was findable if the federal government really wanted to, but it was good enough that the local court and her couldn't find him.

A 100 years ago your greatest obstacle on moving and starting over was a bit of money.

Today people search your name in the web, think once you have been branded as a wazi people are going to want to hire you?

Back in the 1920s, it's not like one's past didn't matter. Social connections were if anything even more vital to career than today. Getting a decent job required education and references that would be checked on. It wasn't through the web - but it was through word of mouth or letter writing and similar. If you didn't give references from your past, you wouldn't get anything above a menial job.

Aja, and it was way easier still to get a job without your employer searching your name in the web and finding you've got the woke mob chasing you.

You think if you try it today you'll be able to get ANY job?

After you've been branded an istophobe?

Stop lying to yourself, you're not fooling anyone, I doubt you're fooling yourself.

[oggsmash]

  I think it is possible to move and be lost.  You will have to move to another country, not be a social media type, and maybe change your name though.  I think doing those things is easier right now than it has ever been.  Now, if you have to work for other people it can be tricky, but if you are able to live off of what you have now, it has never been easier.  It has also never been easier to live as a "digital nomad" and just live where ever you want and provide service to those who need it who may live half a world away.

If you keep a bank account, that's an easy paper trail. If you change your name you leave an easy paper trail. If you fly somewhere, it's an easy paper trail. Living or visiting any urban environment is out of the question because almost all urban environments are heavily monitored by cameras, which are now capable of being monitored 24/7 by machines using facial recognition (as well as body and gait recognition, for anyone who thinks a mask will protect their identity).

It's absolutely way harder, if not impossible, to completely disappear today compared to even 20 or 30 years ago. Sure, some areas are less actually populated by woke people. If you live in San Francisco and publicly object to sexualizing children, you will have an angry mob outside your house, but if you live in Idaho they (probably) aren't going to drive hundreds of miles to harass you. But they can still harass you online and ruin your reputation. If you're doing the remote worker thing then do you think your employer will stick with you if you get targeted by the mob, when they can easily hire FacelessRemoteWorker29 from anywhere in the world?

  If you are fleeing from having been a terrorist, there is a paper trail.  If some oddball on the interwebz is trying that hard to ruin your life to follow you to another country, that sounds less like a problem that involves moving, and more a problem that involves a face to face with your online harrasser.

[Ghostmaker]

  I think it is possible to move and be lost.  You will have to move to another country, not be a social media type, and maybe change your name though.  I think doing those things is easier right now than it has ever been.  Now, if you have to work for other people it can be tricky, but if you are able to live off of what you have now, it has never been easier.  It has also never been easier to live as a "digital nomad" and just live where ever you want and provide service to those who need it who may live half a world away.

If you keep a bank account, that's an easy paper trail. If you change your name you leave an easy paper trail. If you fly somewhere, it's an easy paper trail. Living or visiting any urban environment is out of the question because almost all urban environments are heavily monitored by cameras, which are now capable of being monitored 24/7 by machines using facial recognition (as well as body and gait recognition, for anyone who thinks a mask will protect their identity).

It's absolutely way harder, if not impossible, to completely disappear today compared to even 20 or 30 years ago. Sure, some areas are less actually populated by woke people. If you live in San Francisco and publicly object to sexualizing children, you will have an angry mob outside your house, but if you live in Idaho they (probably) aren't going to drive hundreds of miles to harass you. But they can still harass you online and ruin your reputation. If you're doing the remote worker thing then do you think your employer will stick with you if you get targeted by the mob, when they can easily hire FacelessRemoteWorker29 from anywhere in the world?

  If you are fleeing from having been a terrorist, there is a paper trail.  If some oddball on the interwebz is trying that hard to ruin your life to follow you to another country, that sounds less like a problem that involves moving, and more a problem that involves a face to face with your online harrasser.

Still a gamble. There have been times when it's worked out well, and times when it really hasn't.

And that assumes you can -find- your online harasser. Remember, a lot of these slugs use online harassment because it insulates them from the prospect of legal action, police visits, restraining orders, and angry significant others interested in kicking the living fuck out of them. So they take great pains to avoid being identified, and it usually takes something drastic to push authorities into actually doing something (like a swatting that results in injury or death).