Youtube comments of Snack Plissken (@snackplissken8192).

  1. 2200
  2. 1000
  3. 746
  4. 389
  5. 363
  6. 327
  7. 302
  8. 177
  9. 148
  10. 113
  11. 99
  12. 89
  13. 86
  14. 75
  15. 67
  16. 66
  17. 63
  18. 63
  19. 52
  20. 50
  21. 44
  22. 43
  23. 43
  24. 41
  25. 39
  26. 37
  27. 37
  28. 35
  29. 35
  30. 33
  31. 32
  32. 27
  33. 26
  34. 25
  35. 23
  36. 23
  37. 22
  38. 21
  39. 19
  40. 19
  41. 18
  42. 18
  43. 17
  44. 17
  45. 17
  46. 17
  47. 15
  48. 15
  49. 14
  50. 14
  51. 13
  52. 12
  53. 12
  54. 10
  55. 10
  56. 10
  57. 10
  58. 10
  59. 10
  60. 9
  61. 9
  62. 9
  63. 7
  64. 6
  65. 6
  66. 6
  67. 6
  68. 5
  69. 5
  70. 5
  71. Considering that the only industrialized country that breeds above the replacement rate is Israel and mostly because of the orthodox community, which VisualPolitik takes such a dim view of, it's probably fair to say that nobody has a solution that works to end demographic collapse in wealthy countries. In the industrialized world, only the more right wing communities of orthodox Jews, Muslims, Catholics, Protestants, and Mormons have higher birthrates. They view it as a religious imperative and tend to orient their communities towards having women employed in parenting. But these communities also tend to live outside of major metropolitan areas, where rising costs of living make the financial stability necessary for modern parenting increasingly difficult. The video suggests single motherhood as the solution to demographic collapse, but in the communities where single motherhood is most socially acceptable, it tends to increase the relative poverty of women in those communities and decrease social cohesion without having that great of an increase in birth rates. Most of Asia tends to have less equality between men and women than the west, and that definitely does not play well with well-educated and financially independent women who have choices their mothers didn't, but if improving equality between the sexes could improve birth rates, why are the Nordic countries also dying out? As VisualPolitik pointed out in an earlier video, the only place where early evidence suggests that falling infant mortality and rising standards of living have not caused the typical decrease in birth rates is in Africa. Whether this is Religion, Culture, or something else is hard to say. We also do not know that the trends will continue as development increases there. But it would seem that more questions should be asked about why the difference exists.
    5
  72. 5
  73. 5
  74. 5
  75. 5
  76. 5
  77. 4
  78. 4
  79. 4
  80. 4
  81. 4
  82. 4
  83. 4
  84. 4
  85. 4
  86. 3
  87. 3
  88. 3
  89. 3
  90. 3
  91. 3
  92. 3
  93. 3
  94. 3
  95. 3
  96. 3
  97. 3
  98. 3
  99. 3
  100. 3
  101. 3
  102. 3
  103. 3
  104. 3
  105. 3
  106. 2
  107. 2
  108. 2
  109. 2
  110. 2
  111. 2
  112. 2
  113. 2
  114. 2
  115. 2
  116. 2
  117. 2
  118. 2
  119. 2
  120. 2
  121. 2
  122. 2
  123. 2
  124. 2
  125. 2
  126. 2
  127. 2
  128. 2
  129. 2
  130. 2
  131. 2
  132. 2
  133. 2
  134. 2
  135. 2
  136. 2
  137. 2
  138. It's basic biology among all animal species capable of controlling access to resources and requiring heavy parental investment that females choose partners almost as soon as they are able to produce offspring to get access to the highest value males where males generally have to wait till they have secured access to vast resources before they can secure a mate. This is why, male elephants typically have their first offspring at 50 years old where females are closer to 15 years. Women holding out till the end of their childbearing years to get the highest value mate fail to understand the basic biology driving mate selection among species like their own. It is much better to find a man while you are young who seems relatively competent and driven than to hold out for the perfect sugar daddy. This is particularly true in eastern countries where having a male offspring to carry on the family name is still of paramount importance. Rich guys aren't gonna gamble on an older woman giving him an heir on the first and possibly only try. The CCP's real fear isn't unmarried women, it's the unmarried men who are their inevitable counterparts. In lions, horses, and many other species, low resource single males have nothing to do but to rove in groups trying to get stronger to overthrow the existing order and the males who control the resources and thus the most desirable females. In humans, these people would be the men who lash out against the government and seek radical reforms that married men would be disinterested in. China fears leftover women because the leftover men have nothing to lose risking their lives against the CCP.
    2
  139. 2
  140. 2
  141. 2
  142. 2
  143. 2
  144. Interesting. Sexual relationships are inherently of greater risk and cost to a woman (due to pregnancy and child-rearing) than to a man. While there are limitations on both partners in a marriage contract, the focus seems to be more on defining inheritance rights for children and limiting the behavior of the partner with more physical and social power over the one with less (i.e. the man to the woman). In the case of same-sex couples, neither is capable of impregnating the other and any differences in standing would be the effect of social status rather than gender differences. Since males are more likely to seek variety in partners due to their low investment in reproduction and females are more likely to seek security due to their high investment, it would not be unreasonable to assume that female-female couples would be more likely to agree to be monogamous and male-male couples would be more likely to agree to be polyamorous. In that case, it could well be that same-sex couples have historically had less reason to seek a formalized relationship, even in a society where such a pairing was considered acceptable. If true, I think the reason why you see such arrangements with powerful people like Nero is probably due to the difference in social status more than the sort of reasons why people seek to have same-sex relationships recognized by the state today. I think Metatron is right that it's difficult to parse the status of same-sex relationships in the ancient world, and I think the presence or absence of formalized marriage may not have meant to the ancients what it means to us today. Still, interesting food for thought.
    2
  145. 2
  146. 2
  147. 2
  148. 2
  149. 2
  150. 2
  151. 2
  152. 2
  153. 2
  154. 2
  155. 2
  156. 2
  157. 2
  158. 2
  159. 2
  160. 2
  161. 2
  162. 1
  163. 1
  164. 1
  165. 1
  166. 1
  167. I grew up on the Adam West and Michael Keaton Batmen but The Batman is probably the best version I've seen. The opening scene that established how the Batman works is incredible, and the reveal of the Batmobile is brilliant film making. Red and Blue are absolutely right that most fight choreography is completely generic. This is why Jackie Chan and his friend Sammo Hung are so beloved, the fights they choreographed told you something about the characters. Everybody remembers scenes from Jackie Chan movies where he is trying to protect some background object from being broken, for example. In books, fights almost have to be written to tell you about a character because the author can't count on your imagination to give you spectacle. As a narrative device, there really shouldn't ever be a fight that does not in some way inform either the central conflict of the plot, or a conflict with a character. If the hero feels conflicted about the use of violence, they may try to disarm or entangle opponents. Maybe rivals demonstrate the values of planning and flexibility respectively as part of their conflict over which is better. Fights should be an external metaphor for an internal conflict. Barring that, even just having combatants display their own individual qualities (i.e. your smart guy is really precise, your strong guy tends to cause collateral damage, your hero prioritizes protection over destruction, your lancer toys with opponents, your heart is careful to take enemies out of the fight out of the way, etc.) is a way to make a fight memorable. Ask people about the Battle for New York in the Avengers and the only thing people remember is the Hulk saying, "Puny god" and smashing Loki like a rag doll.
    1
  168. 1
  169. 1
  170. 1
  171. 1
  172. 1
  173. 1
  174. 1
  175. 1
  176. 1
  177. 1
  178. He made a very interesting point on the value of the ruble and the Russian stock market, since both have limited exposure to the international markets they reflect more the government controlled sentiment within the country more than the views of the international trading community. He makes a good point that Russia has to import a lot of technology for manufacturing (i.e. semiconductors) which Russia (unlike China) has no domestic capacity to produce. I had been hearing that with high oil and natural gas prices, and neutral countries laundering Russian petrochemicals, that sanctions had not significantly hurt Russian government revenues. But they make the point that transporting gas outside of pipelines requires liquification capacity in the export country and gasification capacity in the import country which take time and capital to set up. Oil, on the other hand, can still be transported in tankers and those can be shifted to different destinations but he points out that Russian oil tankers only take 1-5 days to get oil to Europe but take several weeks to reach Asia which significantly decreases the profit margins for Moscow. Another interesting point was that while Russia is being cut off from Euros and US dollars due to both export restrictions from the west, and also from it's own policy of cutting off energy exports to Europe while selling more oil to China; it's imports from China have also been dwindling. If the Russian economy were doing as well as Putin claims you would expect Russia to spend all those extra incoming Yuan to buy Chinese imports to make up for the economic inputs they cannot get from Europe. In order to build up domestic production to make up for lost imports the would need both large quantities of capital and an influx of skilled workers rather than the brain drain that has been reported since the start of the war. I'm not entirely sold on the idea that the western sanctions have been as effective as the guest suggests but this long form interview lays out a case for a weakening Russia that seems much more compelling and honest than the talking points that American government officials and media have put out on the subject. I guess time will tell if sanctions hurt more than just the world's consumers in the long run. Still, it was an excellent and thought provoking interview.
    1
  179. 1
  180. The thing is, no country has ever been or will ever be rich enough to bring in impoverished immigrants equal to a significant percentage of their population in a short period of time without lowering the standard of living for the poor in their own society and providing significantly less resources to the immigrants than promised. It is also impossible to integrate vast swaths of people in short periods of time culturally and economically. The humane thing is to bring in only limited numbers of refugees with a fully funded plan for integration that does not divert significant funds from impoverished natives, and to set up temporary programs in poorer countries near the refugees with similar cultures that people will not want to stay in once conditions at home improve. While this means that relatively few refugees will find permanent asylum in wealthy countries and many people will find their new temporary home small improvement over the ones they fled, importing millions of people with no plan is going to lead to civil war. It's even worse when you have a country with ethnic minorities and regions who are already impoverished and who see the new immigrants as competing for the scraps of "charity" that the majority leaves them. This is why you see black Chicago residents demanding immigrants be thrown out and insisting that their Thanksgiving dinners were given to foreigners by white people who treat their fellow Americans worse than outsiders. Resources are limited and people with less are going to be particularly offended by having their share given to strangers, especially by rich people who would never dein to take the strangers in themselves and give their resources to them.
    1
  181. 1
  182. 1
  183. 1
  184. 1
  185. 1
  186. 1
  187. 1
  188. 1
  189. 1
  190. 1
  191. 1
  192. 1
  193. 1
  194. 1
  195. 1
  196. 1
  197. 1
  198. 1
  199. 1
  200. 1
  201. 1
  202. 1
  203. 1
  204. 1
  205. 1
  206. 1
  207. 1
  208. 1
  209. 1
  210. 1
  211. 1
  212. 1
  213. 1
  214. 1
  215. 1
  216. 1
  217. 1
  218. 1
  219. 1
  220. 1
  221. 1
  222. 1
  223. 1
  224. 1
  225. 1
  226. 1
  227. 1
  228. 1
  229. 1
  230. 1
  231. 1
  232. 1
  233. 1
  234. 1
  235. 1
  236. 1
  237. 1
  238. 1
  239. 1
  240. 1
  241. 1
  242. 1
  243. 1
  244. 1
  245. 1
  246. The problem is not that socialism needs more data to work, but that it needs to be Laplace's Demon, knowing the position and momentum of every particle in the universe to predict the future and no amount of AI will be able to calculate the information it does not have. The free market, on the other hand, works like the balance of animals in nature. It incentivizes individuals to exploit imbalances for personal benefit and thus rebalance the system. It allows some level of inefficiency and impractical novelty because shocks to the system may cause such an anomaly to survive where more efficient organisms might fail. The push and pull of extinction and mutation cull the impractical while allowing for innovation and redundancy to protect from unpredictable future events. A top-down system, even with an unethical amount of data and the most perfect calculation, cannot know that a lab worker might accidentally spread a virus, or that a hurricane might hit an unprepared community. It cannot predict the accidental discovery of a new battery technology or a breakthrough in a stalled energy science. We should learn from the Gros Michel Banana. They were all one single plant with no genetic diversity and no variation in biological defense mechanism. The Panama Disease hit them, and the Gros Michel went from ubiquitous to nearly extinct worldwide within a decade. Companies and cities can use separate AI to help with central planning, but doing so on a state or country wide basis is asking to turn a small disaster into a gigantic one, just like the bananas.
    1
  247. 1
  248. 1
  249. 1
  250. 1
  251. 1
  252. 1
  253. 1
  254. 1
  255. 1
  256. 1
  257. 1
  258. 1
  259. 1
  260. 1
  261. 1
  262. 1
  263. 1
  264. 1
  265. 1
  266. 1
  267. 1
  268. 1
  269. It might be less a question of priority than a question of what can be accomplished for the resource expenditure. Israel can absolutely beat Hamas. They are vastly more powerful than their adversary and international patience for their self-defense is limited so that conflict will have the quickest resolution with the least expenditure. If Taiwan can be kept out of a war, it is probably the second-cheapest conflict for Washington to achieve its goals in. If America has to fight a proxy war with China over Taiwan, China has vastly more resources and military power than any of America's other geopolitical rivals, so maintaining the status quo in Taiwan is paramount. Ukraine is a bit more tricky, since Russia has the stronger war machine than Ukraine, and it's already a hot war. Washington either has to ramp spending up to give Ukraine the resources to win, threaten to cut support to get Ukraine to the bargaining table, or publically do the first and quietly threaten the second to pressure both sides into a compromise, but Uncle Sam has hedged his bets and has put only limited pressure on Putin to avoid Russian threats of escalation and no pressure on Zelenskyy to avoid giving its allies excuses to moderate their positions on Russia. The administration would probably have an easier time getting the hawks on the right to fight with their populist wing if they seemed to have a plan to end the conflict or if Ukraine was making visible progress. The sad truth is that, right or left, American politicians have a long tradition of declaring any perceived stalemate as an intractable quagmire that must be abandoned when the conflict belongs to a president of the opposing party.
    1
  270. 1
  271. 1
  272. This is the price you pay for trying to develop weapons powerful enough to allow you to draw down troop levels and save money on war matériel. The US gambled on nukes as a way to avoid committing unpopular levels of funding and manpower to fighting the Soviets after WWII. The fact that Russia just kidnapped more German scientists than we did and paid traitors for weapons technology ensured that the benefits were short-lived. The Cold War only ended when America used a combination of military spending and outright bluffs about space based weapons to tip the Soviet Union into bankruptcy. Evolutionarily, weapons are a hard-to-spoof show of the relative health and strength of an organism. In nature, an organism with a smaller weapon will yield to a similar organism with a larger weapon rather than risk death fighting. Modern weaponry has proven to be a poor proxy of strength, since the countries that display weapons now are mostly free riders from countries that paid for the research and development and many modern armies are like bucks with hollow horns that will shatter on impact. This is bad because it is an honest measurement of relative strength that keeps fights between unequal opponents from happening. WWII happened because the Axis Powers underestimated the industrial power of the Allies, and a similar argument could be made of the Cold War. They thought they legitimately had much bigger horns and picked what they thought would be an easy fight that ended up costing everybody dearly.
    1
  273. 1
  274. 1
  275. 1
  276. 1
  277. 1
  278. 1
  279. 1
  280. 1
  281. 1
  282. 1
  283. 1
  284. 1
  285. 1
  286. 1
  287. 1
  288. You guys are insane for thinking the guy who brags about threatening Putin that he would bomb the s out of Moscow if he invaded Ukraine is going to give Putin everything he wants. If you had listened to Trump when he told you to do your job and contribute your NATO minimums to defense, Russia wouldn't have invaded Ukraine. If you had listened to Trump when he warned you not to complete the Nord Stream 2 pipeline that Russia needed so they could invade Ukraine without the Ukrainians being able to bomb the Nord Stream 1 and cut off Europe from all Russian energy, you could have avoided the invasion. He even threatened to leave NATO to warn you to protect yourselves in case the next US president was somebody whom Putin would not respect, but you were too smart for that. You can't count on America to always have cowboys at the Resolute Desk, especially since American presidents haven't sent treaties to the Senate for Ratification since the middle of the last century, which means they have zero binding legal authority. If Europe intends to seize the position of global reserve currency, it had better be prepared to take the responsibility as world police that comes with it. The British Pound was the Global Reserve Currency during the Pax Britannia, when the UK could forcibly end the global slave trade with military and economic pressure. They lost this in the 30s, and America took over and got stuck with the obligation to protect global free trade. Europe won't even take the lead to protect Europe from Russia, let alone provide military escorts in the Bab-El-Mandeb Strait. Americans resent having to protect you as much as you resent us for having to protecting you. If you want a better position from which to push even more protectionist tariffs on America, pay for your own territorial defense for a change.
    1
  289. 1
  290. 1
  291. 1
  292. 1
  293. 1
  294. 1
  295. 1
  296. The fact that America's medical system tries to save premature babies at a much earlier age than in countries with socialized medicine, which simultaneously increases the number of premies who live while necessarily converting those who can't be saved from uncounted "stillbirths" into "infant deaths," is never taken into account. Also, you do realize that if you let people who are guaranteed to cost more than they pay in insurance avoid paying any premiums until they need a payout, that no reasonable person would ever pay an insurance premium while they are healthy. The entire point of insurance is to convince enough healthy people to spend years paying into the system to cover the costs of the ones who end up unhealthy, to collectivize risk. The biggest problem with abandoning a user pays system is that the person who pays is the sole arbiter of what treatment the patient is allowed to have. This is why Canada now recommends assisted suicide for anybody who wants expensive treatments, and Britain bans people from coming to America to seek treatment for conditions that are deemed terminal across the pond. In America, we let insurers kill people instead because employer-sponsored health insurance was created to allow employers to hire workers at an effectively competitive wage despite Richard Nixon's mandating maximum wage levels, which he created to try to stop the free market. Since Obamacare, most employers I have worked for had changed their policies every year and offered new policies with less coverage for more money. I keep losing my plans and regularly have to change doctors to stay in network. Before Obamacare, I had never seen my employer change their plans in the 2–4 years I worked for them.
    1
  297. 1
  298. 1
  299. 1
  300. 1
  301. 1
  302. 1
  303. 1
  304. 1
  305. 1
  306. 1
  307. 1
  308. 1
  309. 1
  310. 1
  311. 1
  312. Such a good topic. The accreditation system is pretty bad in the US. With few exceptions (i.e. STEM, Medical, or Law), you can't really make rational educational decisions based on value. I think the best system would be one in which the schools were judged based on how successful their average graduates were, that students and lenders had a good idea how much various majors were worth in terms of expected income, and where universities could only charge what people could afford. In other words, if you know that your premed is worth a lot of money because most of your graduates get into good med schools and make high incomes, you could afford to charge more for it and would thus put more of those resources into improving your premed program. If your communications department mostly just churned out minimum wage employees, lenders would not lend for it, students would not want it, and you would either have to improve your program or drop it to focus on what your school was good at. This way, low value programs would be picked up by schools whose specialty was low cost education, and high value programs would be kept by the schools that gave students the best financial prospects. This means that worthless programs would largely disappear because they cost borrowers money in the long run, low value programs would become cheaper because no big money will chase them, and high value programs would be more expensive but have the best access to loans which even poor students could pay back when they became rich tax payers.
    1
  313. 1
  314. 1
  315. 1
  316. 1
  317. 1
  318. 1
  319. 1
  320. 1
  321. 1
  322. 1
  323. 1
  324. 1
  325. 1
  326. 1
  327. 1
  328. 1
  329. 1
  330. 1
  331. 1
  332. 1
  333. 1
  334. 1
  335. 1
  336. 1
  337. 1
  338. 1
  339. 1
  340. 1
  341. 1
  342. 1
  343. 1
  344. 1
  345. 1
  346. 1
  347. 1
  348. 1
  349. 1
  350. 1
  351. 1
  352. 1
  353. 1
  354. 1
  355. 1
  356. 1
  357. 1
  358. 1
  359. 1
  360. 1
  361. 1
  362. 1
  363. 1
  364. 1
  365. 1
  366. 1
  367. 1
  368. 1
  369. 1
  370. 1
  371. 1
  372. 1
  373. 1
  374. 1
  375. Biden already demonstrated that the president can refuse to spend money allocated by congress with impunity. He did that with military aid passed on a bipartisan basis to replenish Israel's Iron Dome missile defense system. Not that Trump, a lifelong New York Democrat, is going to touch Great Society social spending programs, which will turn the middle class and poor against him. Even if you had enough political power to pass constitutional amendments, the only method of paying for government spending that any politician could survive advocating is growth. The only way to actually fix the budget is to sell off vast swaths of government owned property, return most of the federal government's unconstitutional power grabs back to the state and local governments, and restructure and or cut most of the New Deal and Great Society social welfare programs, and the opposition party would control all three branches the very next presidential election to try to roll it back. The best Trump can do is to grow out the tax base, make some regulatory cuts to encourage growth, and slow the growth of government. The voters would have to be afraid of a full governmental collapse to authorize any actual fixes like Javier Meilei is doing. Fears about DOGE are a joke. Politicians already take money from wealthy billionaires like Mark Zuckerberg, George Soros, Jeff Bezos, the Koch brothers etc. to push their political goals, not to mention money from foreign countries including the Chinese, Russians, Iranians, and Qataris who have agendas hostile to America. There is already a revolving door between government employees, multinational companies, and advocacy groups funded by the world's richest people. Even if Musk uses DOGE to benefit himself, this is just business as usual in Washington, and one could argue that at least we the press would be looking for him to corruptly benefit himself in a way they won't do with the current entrenched special interests.
    1
  376. 1
  377. 1
  378. 1
  379. 1
  380. 1
  381. 1
  382. 1
  383. 1
  384. 1
  385. 1
  386. 1
  387. 1
  388. 1
  389. 1
  390. 1
  391. 1
  392. 1
  393. 1
  394. 1
  395. 1
  396. 1
  397. 1
  398. 1
  399. I have never been able to understand the notion that you can only identify with, like, or try to be like individuals who look exactly like yourself. As a sino/semetic hybrid, nobody ever looks like me anywhere (though if Keanu Reeves puts on some weight and you squint really hard...). I have always identified with characters based on what they think, or feel, or represent in a story. It never occurred to me that a character should look like me. And when characters are made Asian (for example) when it does not fit the story it kills my suspension of disbelief. When I saw an Asian Asgardian in Thor I was angered to have my suspension of disbelief yeeted out the theater and wondered if I should be insulted that they thought Asians can only watch movies with Asians in it. I loved Creed not because the character looked like me but because I could empathize with the protagonist feeling like he had to prove himself and walking in a long shadow. I could empathize with the female protagonist of the Babbadook because I could understand feeling out of control and being afraid that you might be a bad person inside. I am all for mainstream stories humanizing people from all walks of life and showing us their experience so we can see our shared humanity. I want to see stories about the trickster god Anansi, Iranian Muslim Women, or Filipino street food. But if you put token Han Chinese in there I can't take the story seriously. I can forgive Bollywood or Hong Kong Cinema for not being able to scrounge up a cast that looks anything like the characters in their stories, but in America we really have no excuse. I think we should have more stories with minority characters but those should be stories written for and (even better by) such people. I would happily take another Black Panther movie over a Captain America movie where Steve Rogers is made black. I just find the notion of tokening for the sake of representation to be insulting as a non white person and as an audience member whose suspension of disbelief has been harmed because the creators assumed that I can't handle experiencing somebody else's story.
    1
  400. 1
  401. 1
  402. 1
  403. 1
  404. 1
  405. 1
  406. 1