naomi

Cea Weaver believes private property ownership is immoral. So, the alternative to it is collective property ownership. When market incentives become null, because there is no market, quality decreases. It may not be immediate, as there is a pool of redistributed (coercively taken) funds at hand to manage the resources initially. But the trend is necessarily the same. Central planners don't have the ability to effectively incorporate insight that exists at the level of those impacted by their plans. They do sometimes try, but it's always pitiful in comparison to a truly free market at work, where people engage in exchange exclusively voluntarily. In this realm, both sides discern a benefit to the exchange, or it would never happen. All those mutually beneficial exchanges illustrate the needs and desires of people/communities amazingly well. Step in to manage that human activity and you distort critical signals. You dis-serve people. In final stages, those running these experiments inhabit the plundered nice places for themselves, despite their class conscious rhetoric. They have parasitic mentalities. At the root, their opposites are not selfish and greedy people. Their opposites are productive people who add value. Some might think, Well, what's the harm, really? At best her directions will serve as a useful and good counterbalance to predatory landlords. The harm is putting someone who seriously believes private property ownership is immoral into a place of authority within the system. Even if she can't make her ultimate wishes comes true, her guidance is not going to be fit to purpose, within the system. To the extent the system has flaws, it's where people harness government (which is a toolshed of coercion, fundamentally) to serve their interests. It's not the market on its own that leaves people in the cold. The defining factor of leverage that allows for abuses is policy wielded in a manner that arbitrarily determines winners and losers. This is some kind of 101 type analysis I realize. But it seems like some people really need it?

She's mental: https://x.com/michelletandler/status/2008300007049380049/photo/1

Excellent post from NYC councilmember Vickie Paladino: Notice how they never talk about NYCHA being poorly maintained. The worst slums in the city are run by the government. But you never hear them talk about that. Because they don't actually care about improving anything at all, they're interested in developing a pretense for seizing private property. That's all ANY of this is about. If they REALLY were interested in building some kind of good faith and trust around their plans for housing socialization, the FIRST thing they'd be doing is getting NYCHA into shape. They'd be focused like a laser on it, in fact. Fixing NYCHA by making it livable, safe, and efficiently managed would go a very long way towards the argument that the city can be trusted with expanding public housing. There would be some credibility behind their performative outrage about 'slumlords' if our city government wasn't the biggest slumlord itself. But they're not doing that. Because they don't care. And they're not capable even if they did care. NYCHA can rot, because it's already in public hands so there's no more power to be extracted from it. Instead they're simply constructing a rationale to go after private property for no other reason than the fact that they don't think private property should exist. That's it, that's all. And once they've seized the private property and 'socialized' it? Well, then it can rot too, just like NYCHA. Because the point was always the seizure, not improving conditions for anyone. And magically, the outrage over poor living conditions for these properties will vanish too.

She straight up said she wants to see the white middle class impoverished. She's not just a radical ideologue (which she clearly is), but she has open malice. I'm glad Michelle Tandler had a hunch that Mamdani would give her a role and the foresight to screenshot her X posts before she deleted her account.

Yeah, Trump's post was absolute trash. He squandered a moment that could have served him well, and even most of his base cringed. I hope he realizes and comes back with something much more dignified.

Getaway with husband. So mildly romantic

Airbnb booked well in advance in the rural Sierras and it turns out Northern Cali is going to be drenched over the next few days. So we're probably going to mostly stay in and watch movies, which we both rarely do. I'm kind of feeling classics post 50s, like The Graduate (havent seen it). Need a list of more than one though. Recs appreciated!

Yay! I don't say any of those 5 things. The only one I've been tempted to express (though not in these specific words) is "other men would do this for me"...in thinking about my dad most often. For example: last night I asked my husband to finish off refried black beans that were in a bowl—a bowl that everyone dished out of. He ate a couple spoonfuls and then handed it over to be washed, but in my mind there was still a lot of food substance. My dad would have had it looking pre-washed. It is a dumb temptation, as he does other things "other men" wouldn't have. And I know I'd be offended if he let me know "other women would have.."

The power in the last part of what he says here actually makes me happy for him. Bittersweet. https://x.com/CHRISsW0RLD/status/1967206127894253663?t=VCjbmx33BXndBH9kgYSxuA&s=19

Even though I'm conservative, I think there's a lot of quasi-sincere personalities on the right. People who are ultimately more fueled by making a name for themselves and/or making bank. I had an intimate conversation with a public figure who is (or was) agnostic but searching out the Christian faith. He told me Charlie Kirk was having in-depth discussions about biblical passages over text with him. That gave me a lot of respect for CK. Very busy but cared enough about this man's soul to do that with him.

I watched the longer video to get an understanding of how the bystanders operated. The hardest part to watch (aside from her last conscious moments) was the desperation of those who did ultimately attempt to render her aid. It was heartbreaking. Makes me want to take some first aid, gun shot wound, advanced bleeding, etc., classes.

Insightful thread. I worked in a public HS for a little while and can attest that this mentality abounds. https://x.com/CBHeresy/status/1964415435002052634?t=VilUezdKMFR8N9qP7GD6_g&s=19

What he's talking about reminds me of the political spats at this place. There is a caveat though, people who would otherwise be stupid in this manner, but they have solid (relatively speaking) intuition.

She's easy to dislike, but the producer (or at least his son) is scape-goating her. Her crime was being too loud about the woke elements of the plot, but she isn't why it's woke, or why the dwarf debacle and crappy CGI happened. She truly seems like a narcissist, so it's weird to defend her on one hand, but the failure is on Disney fundamentally, and they're just happy to let her be piled on.

I'm going to be 40 later this year and just recently got married (5 months in). I'm really on the fence about having kids, haven't had the ticking biological clock feeling, but I am feeling like it would be time to try if we're going to do it. And I lean toward going for two if we commit to it. My husband has a 14-year-old son with his ex-wife. He's great with kids and would be happy with more, but he's also baseline content now. He feels like he'd be happy either way. Curious to hear from you guys, if any geeks had kids around this age.