• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About XYZ

  • Rank
    - - -

Personal Information

  • Location
    Los Angeles County, CA
  • Gender
  1. I have yet to watch Yang's Q&A livestream, and once I do will have better understanding of his strategy. But one important difference is that he does not see improving technology or globalization as a problem, realizing that it actually improves quality of life for Americans and the rest of the world. These things are only a problem when individual survival still depends upon maintaining employment or running a profitable business. In this sense it is the opposite of Bernie Sanders' vision of jobs for everyone. Embracing technology, including automation, and passing on the decrease in labor needs to the general population, not just the owners of the technology. This increases freedom both in the form of receiving guaranteed income, and the freedom of time that this would provide. I didn't hear either one mention working hours yet, but an obvious consequence of UBI is that people who still need to work can afford to work less hours, not forced to conform to the 40 hour work week. As it is, Americans work the most of any developed country, and neither wages nor time off has kept up with the average increase in worker productivity. Basically this. Andrew Yang wants to re-define work, as I mentioned above and he repeats in every appearance. This isn't just empty virtue signaling, but would actually be a metric to observe how people actually spend their time. There would be less formal employment after UBI, which there would be anyway due to increased productivity/efficiency, companies needing less and less human labor. But the expectation is that it would empower Americans to "work" more than ever before, and create a net increase in human capital, a more accurate representation of national prosperity than GDP.
  2. Bernie Sanders' position is that a "federal jobs guarantee" is "superior" to UBI because it would put people to work and create a productive society, he believes that the American populace generally does want to work, in the traditional sense, and that University level education should be free and all past student loan debt cancelled. The obvious self-bias being that he himself has worked in government for decades and has been surrounded by employees of the federal government doing their jobs, and so he proposes that anyone in need of work can be put into one of those roles, and expand the government to create enough jobs for anyone who needs/wants them. If the federal minimum wage is raised to $15 as well, as he advocates, even less non-government jobs would exist, and even more people would depend on government work. Another thing left out of this national employment plan would be housing and transportation, as many who lack stable home environments and a means to get places reliably are "too poor to work." Yang argues that not everyone would be willing to just work for the government, nor that the government can simply make enough work. This point is often followed by re-defining "work" to not just mean having a job or running a business, but to also include the other ways in which people spend their time productively, such as caring for family members, serving their communities directly and passion projects that create human value. He also seems to embrace technological advancements that contribute to higher quality of life in the US, but also mean that less people are needed as traditional employees. He does not think that UBI will incentivise laziness and work-avoidance, since Americans want more than just $1000/month income, and working families would keep working while meeting more of their basic needs. What UBI does is allow people to depend less on private employers or the government for their survival, which results in better working conditions and pay, a more progressive economy than capitalism as usual. Both visions would have many advantages and disadvantages, helping to correct present known problems, but producing plenty negative consequences along with it. Either way would be very radical and unpredictable, but I would take such a radical plan to address poverty and homelessness in the US. A hybrid of both strategies along with many other nuances would be better than either extreme, and if neither becomes president, Bernie as chairman of the SEC and Yang as head of the treasury would be ideal. Nevertheless, I forsee that Andrew Yang will only become more popular. Campaigning on a thousand dollars a month for every American sounded like a joke at first, but he has made clear by now that could seriously happen, and argued strongly for it, addressed many of my own initial doubts and criticisms. Because that UBI could be the difference between life and death for some, or between uncomfortably poor and comfortably poor for a great many, anyone concerned primarily with their own survival would go for him regardless. Another strong argument for UBI is that it can be started right away, offering immediate relief. Fixing healthcare, job market, housing market, etc. could take years, or get blocked perpetually by political gridlock.
  3. Speaking of comic book villainy: This is the actual packaging on Uralasbest shipments of asbestos. I'm not a believer in the Trump-Russia collusion narrative, but found Trump's comments on asbestos quite similar to what Putin has said about using Asbestos in Russia, and since it is the top exporter, de-regulating asbestos in the US is big business for Russia.
  4. After my father died I found a report from a child psychology clinic I went to at 10 that recommended an Apergers' diagnosis. But I was never made aware of this before then, and had no idea what autism was until my mid 20s. A few years ago when I last saw a therapist, he had his supervisor sign off on a diagnosis of ASD for a bus pass application, the first official recognition. No record of it though, and I'm trying to get a formal diagnosis now at 30. I would seem perfectly normal in an office setting, hence my fear that I won't get accurately diagnosed- and then able to qualify for resources under the guise of having the "disability." They don't see me trying to walk around in public places like stores and busy sidewalks, and talking to people organically (other than doctors/psychologists), the situations when my autism is most obvious.
  5. I used to be like this and am on the autism spectrum. Lean to explain your point of view without reacting emotionally, or attacking the other person for being they way they are. Let go of the need to be right, and know even if you know you are, it isn't that important that you need to correct people. Because as you can readily observe, people tend to take things personally, and just like you, don't like being told what to do, leave them to their own dogmatism and other unconscious behavior. Even if you can't engage with other peoples' emotions directly, you can use cognitive empathy to imagine how you would feel if someone said to you the same things, and think before you speak.
  6. I speculate that people become complacent and content to live that way their whole lives by using distractions, and having an externalized sense of self-worth tied to doing rather than being. I could never accept this, managed to spend most of my twenties not working, for a variety of reasons, but I don't have any clear alternative plan going forward. Can be happy and enjoy life so long as basic needs are met, like healthy food, place to live, fresh air and sunshine. But being happy doesn't make me at all willing to work, quite the opposite it seems, since emotional resiliency allows me to say I'd just risk facing death if necessary rather than work to live. I'm too selfish to want to kill myself, so if worst comes to worst, I can imagine using the threat of suicide to get my survival needs met. How I actually spend my time (ideally) is going for 3 hours of walking outside every day, at least, sometimes twice as much. When inside I take care of the chores of existence, like laundry, food preparation, cleaning the bathroom regularly, eating, shitting, showering, sleeping. That takes up a lot of time, especially for me since I need lots of wind down time before going to bed, and often wake up after 5 hours and needing a nap in another hour or 2. And there's stretching and self-massage to clear accumulated physical tension in the body, and deep breathing and meditating. Beyond all this, then in short periods I would engage in conscious deliberate activity at the computer, like reading, working on my writing project, watching some useful videos, and occasionally going on the forum. Considering this is how I'd use freedom of time, not to play video games, jerk off, eat chips and smoke weed like the typical NEET does, I do believe there are people of means who would gladly let me live at their house, so long as I keep it clean and don't leech off them, like use benefits or small earnings to buy my own food and stuff. Hence it's useful for me not to hate or envy rich people, since some would be very helpful to me if we meet under favorable circumstances. Place I'm in now is paid rent by my mother and I have no property or major wealth to inherit. Can't relate directly to the OP situation though, since I never had a career to begin with, and managed to survive 9 years since I was fired form my last job at 21. But still, doesn't matter what it is or how much it pays I don't want to work, I can't work. Living life just takes up too much time, especially since sleep is more difficult for me. Unfathomable to spend 8 hours + unpaid lunch and commute at a job any day. My memories of that were feeling like an empty husk with no freedom, only tolerating it due to low self-esteem and fear. Seems like successful people were conditioned by the education system to wake up early sit at a desk 10 hours a day while being productive. That didn't work for me, I was dragged through grade school kicking and screaming, always tired and miserable, fidgeting and twitching and yawning out of my seat. You hear constantly now how sitting is the new smoking, sedentary lifestyles are killing us, and work is the place white collar people sit the most (nor are standing desks any better, still sedentary), yet it's still considered normal, even most desirable to have a career that involves parking your ass all day. So I say fuck it, I wanna exercise, keep body moving, go outside walk around, spend time in the sun every day. I'm too small and otherwise physically challenged to do physical labor jobs, and too autistic to work hands on with people either. The biggest hypocrisy here is that I've done more than 2 lifetimes of sitting it seems, but instead of being industrious, I was melting what was left of my attention span and work ethic with internet addiction, just reading and watching things, fapping and porn also being a big part of it. So to cut that stuff out I limit sedentary time to just specific activities (like reading and posting in the thread). I feel mentally sharp and think clearly when walking and moving about, but when sedentary feel a lot stupider, so when I write most of it is recalling realizations I had at other times and explaining them coherently. Computer brain melt is also probably why I never learned and technical skills my whole life other than google-fu and using system restore.
  7. I'm starting to think politicians or their advisers have been reading my posts on here. Trump just proposed using vacant federal facilities as temporary containment camps for homeless living on the street in Los Angeles. And today Bernie Sanders announced a plan to make housing a right, including a major expansion of public housing and guaranteed federal assistance, also going after real estate developers who contribute to the housing crisis.
  8. Super deep belly breathing is best done seated or standing, so you can focus the breathing deep down as much as possible. Or as Elliot Hulse liked to say, imagine like you are trying to breathe into your balls. I still do it lying down sometimes, but gentler and more controlled, mostly to get the diaphragm to rise fully, rather than taking in as much air as I can hold. There is also a kriya where you stand up with feet together, breathe deep into the upper chest, hold the breath and push it downward, making your belly expand. It feels quite unusual if you never done anything like that, like squeezing a balloon pushing air from one end to another. I sometimes go directly into part 2 by breathing down into the belly directly, which can get you really high on oxygen while also stimulating the vagus nerve. Very easy to get lightheaded doing it, sometimes people pass out in my yoga class during the exercise so they say be careful, start with expanding the belly a little first and holding it a few seconds. And you can always go deeper, more breath, push it down deeper, push the belly out more and hold it longer. Sometimes when I push my limits I lose consciousness a brief moment as I collapse forward down to the floor gently on my hands, and more recently when about to lose balance I just exhale and separate feet, and am able to stay conscious through the intense vagus nerve stimulation that used to be overwhelming.
  9. Can't always tell what someone means through text only, whether something is mean to be just hypothetical or sarcastic. I'm thinking in terms of actual policy recommendations I wouldn't mind saying publicly, writing articles or talking to politicians about. And of course I am heavily self-biased since my own survival is obviously a factor in my reasoning.
  10. @Zigzag Idiot Population control is a whole different problem, deserving of it's own thread. Can't just stop people from fucking or forcibly sterilize everyone. Effective anti-natalist policies often would negatively affect children as if punishing them for being born, not just discouraging irresponsible procreation. For now I'd say the best we could do is make easy contraception and access to abortion widely available, and most radically, require anyone receiving benefits to take birth control (with rare exceptions for self-proclaimed celibates). But to tie it back to the original topic, unmarried and childless individuals are often left out of public benefits and low income housing programs, which give preference to families with children. Forthcoming basic income and public programs should acknowledge that childless adults receiving public assistance are actually doing them a favor by not creating more dependents, and be entitled to equal provisions as low income families.
  11. If the Soviets built these things all over their territory to recover from WW2 and rapidly industrialize and urbanize, why can't "first world countries" with massive homeless and renting-poor (low income earners spending most of their paychecks or benefits on rent) populations have publicly owned complexes built similarly. 2 main obstacles would be finding the company to construct it, since there is no state owned construction firm as there are in real socialist countries, and the space- much easier to build massively when everything was farms or buildings destroyed during a war. Nevertheless, it could be possible for the government to contract with or merge multiple engineering/construction operations that can become large enough to build public housing complexes all over the country. And while I would maintain that steps should be taken to build them in urban centers where those who need them are located, most could be built on undeveloped land, like master-planned communities in the deserts of California and Arizona for example. What I do see firsthand here in LA is that "luxury apartments" are being built in formerly commercial and industrial areas, often literally right next to homeless encampments. Certainly local governments could legislate to stop this kind of development through zoning laws and reserve such spaces for public housing. Only letting residents of the county live there, not just any bum on the street who came from elsewhere, would soften resistance to these projects, which would be seen as helping their community not importing more poor and needy.
  12. There is currently much talk in politics about making healthcare a basic human right and giving out basic income, but no one has mentioned addressing the housing crisis, having a place to live be a basic right as well. I have yet to read through Andrew Yang's entire explanations of UBI, but it seems to overlook the issue of "rent-slavery," that housing is unaffordable in many places even with $1000 a month, and I'd expect property owners to raise rents as soon as basic income rolls out. I have thought a lot about this nuanced concept recently and want to get other opinions on it, particularly if you've actually lived in a former communist country where they had such things. Basically: The government constructs residence towers everywhere. On government land, in open space, land grants form cities and philanthropists, seized properties, and purchasing private land. On VA land to house veterans who need housing. In cities the availability of space would be aided by enacting a ban on new residence towers other than the public complexes, forcing owners of land or existing buildings in poor condition to sell it to the government. The ban would be in effect until the native homeless population and others living in the city below the specifically poverty line are provided public housing. -Each unit would have 2 or 3 small rooms, 2 for individuals, 3 for families with children. -Would have sufficient soundproofing, climate control and indoor air quality. Also it's own appliances and toilets. -People would be qualified to live in these if they are below a certain income and wealth threshold, or meet other criteria such as having a disability or working in the public sector. -The system is managed at the county level, and only people born in the same county or having lived in a residence in that county before becoming homeless or incarcerated would be allowed in it's public housing complexes. This encourages local responsibility for taking care of their own population and prevents and open free-for-all, where the needy flood into and overwhelm resources in certain places. Homeless would need to be returned to where they came from to be housed and new immigrants are excluded from this program. -Complexes would be designed and assigned based on needs and preferences. For example, some specifically for elderly, some for homeless taken right off the street, some for those getting out of prison with no home to go to, some for families only, some for individual childless non-smokers with no pets who want it quiet.... If this were to become a reality, I would predict that: -The housing bubble would pop hard. Prices of average homes would fall down to a more accurate reflection of their value as places for people to live, not as investment assets. Private apartment rents would drop, and fewer luxury properties would be built. This would fuck Wall Street in the ass no doubt, but that fucking would have come anyway due to shrinking of the middle class, un-sellable homes and mortgage/loan defaults. -Homelessness could be eliminated, if everyone homeless is either provided housing or institutionalized. -Would have many positive ripple effects for real social justice and human potential if everyone is guaranteed a place to live: People would demand better working conditions and shorter hours, crime would drop way down, freedom to work on creative projects and risk starting a business, pursue things they are passionate about and talented in rather than worrying about making the rent... overall positive effects when people are no longer in desperate survival mode at the mercy of private property owners. Overall, in an ideal setup the government would provide a form of safe and modern housing for those who need it, and complexes would . It would be sufficient for meeting basic survival needs, while still incentivizing people to pursue financial success and move someplace better, and afford more than just rudimentary existence. What do you think? And do you think that Bernie Sanders or Elizabeth Warren would be on board for this if either became president? Since both express strong passion to tax the shit out of millionaires and billionaires to create a more equal society.
  13. While it may not be realistically possible for straight males with high sex drives to stop wanting to experience physical intimacy with women we find desirable: It is possible for us to stop caring about wanting intimacy. I think that it is pointless to argue about whether or not sex or other forms of physical intimacy are a genuine human need or just a want, because it varies by individual and one's perspective on it can be changed. You undoubtedly would feel much happier if you see lack of intimacy as no big deal rather than something you desperately need and are starving for. And I would also caution against thinking in extremes, like believing you will never kiss, cuddle, fuck..., or that you absolutely must get to do those things. Admit that you have these unsatisfied desires, but without constructing an identity around that acknowledgement. This would help you stop obsessing over it, and let go of fear, both the fear of experiencing intimacy and not experiencing it. Genuine non-neediness (not suppressing emotions) is a win-win. Because you can be relaxed around women since you're not angling to get something from them, making you automatically more likable, but you are still in a good mood even if interactions don't go well.
  14. Why is it harder for autistic men to realize love?
  15. This is an important thread topic I didn't see posted in the new forum yet: How might we progress towards making some of these tools to expand consciousness readily available for those who wish to use them responsibly? It's understood that such tools are used to raise consciousness and diminish ego to levels which cannot be accessed any other way, and there are many threads on other forums about users' experiences and research. But the fact is these are banned substances in most first world countries, and for those without the right social connections, chemistry expertise, means to go on retreats abroad, nor willing to risk ordering contraband, they're basically off limits. I do think this is a realistic goal, since we are already seeing a trend towards decriminalization of psychedelics in certain parts of the US, and despite their illegality there is growing research into their therapeutic benefits, and even scientific acknowledgement that substances like 5-meo-DMT, LSD and psilocybin are far safe than alcohol, which in most states people are free to buy in unlimited quantities. Not just musing, here in California for example it could actually happen within the next few years, and would like to accelerate that process.