I watched Megalopolis and was struck by how shallow its ideas of architecture were. For something that presumably animates the entire film, the concept of this new utopia seemed to be plant-shaped buildings connected by a moving walkway - the kind that you might find in any airport. Maybe I missed something, or the true genius of the vision went over my head.
In any event, that got me thinking about real world architecture. After a visit to the Getty Center, I realized that there's something futuristic about the vision for that building. On the way back to my car, I thought, for a fleeting moment, that I could be heading to a home not so different from the Getty center - with travertine walls, sculpture and fountains, benches for contemplation of art or philosophy. Of course, my one-bedroom in Glendale is nothing close to the Getty Center, but that idea - that one day everything could look like this - seemed to be implicit in the design of the Getty Center.
That's pretty consistent with my understanding of modernism - everyone and their brother wanted to make the "Home of Tomorrow TM" with the basic understanding that today's luxury good would be ubiquitous tomorrow.
I don't get the same feeling from most buildings, but particularly newer ones. Take SoFi Stadium, also in Los Angeles. I felt like I was walking through a newly built stadium, but one that made no claim on immortality. I don't think that's a function of the building's purpose - Grand Central in New York isn't a museum like the Getty Center, but manages to convey a much clearer idea of progress than SoFi Stadium does.
So my question - what newer (post-2000) buildings make you hopeful for the future? If you've seen Megalopolis, did those buildings do the trick? Does anyone know of a one-bedroom for rent in LA with travertine walls?
In a recent article, the Washington Post documented the multiple instances of immigration fraud that Elon Musk and his brother used to stay in the US illegally while they were supposed to be students. The DoJ's Office of Immigration Litigation should investigate this because a person can be denaturalized (i.e. have their citizenship revoked) if it’s discovered that the person obtained it through fraud or misrepresentation.
The reasons for denaturalization can be that...
The person lied on their application or during the interview — This includes providing false information about criminal history, hiding significant facts, or failing to disclose relevant details, like involvement in illegal activities or affiliations with certain organizations.
Or committed fraud — This could be entering the U.S. or obtaining permanent residency under false pretenses, then later becoming a naturalized citizen.
I am skeptical that you or anyone else here would be seriously proposing "denaturalizing" a US citizen of over twenty years and with native-born children, because they lied on a visa application and/or exceeded the limits of that visa, if it were anyone other than Elon Musk. OK, we've probably got some people who would sign up for it if it were e.g. Ilhan Omar, but no. Just no.
This is the same sort of thing as e.g. "Lock Her Up!" w/re Hillary's Emails. This is not how we do things in the United States of America, and I am absolutely opposed to changing that.
The rule of law of is supposed to apply to all Americans equally. However, I guess a billionaire gets a pass. And his native-born children couldn't be denaturalized because, under the 14th Amendment, they're natural citizens. Denaturalization only applies to immigrants who violate US immigration law by lying on their visa and citizenship applications. As far as I know, Ilhan Omar didn't lie on any of her immigration documents. So she wouldn't be eligible for denaturalization, either.
The law as it *actually* applies to all Americans not named "Elon Musk", is that once you are naturalized as a US citizen, you are not denaturalized unless you are a literal Nazi, terrorist, drug lord, or the like. Seriously, check out the record on actual denaturalization.
"Rule of Law" means that Elon Musk gets the same treatment. And since he's not literally a Nazi, he doesn't get denaturalized even if he *did* lie on his visa application.
The thing you're looking for, where everybody technically commits three felonies a day and the prosecutors sensibly ignore all of that but when we decide someone is the Wrong Sort of Person then all we have to do is find the crime he (and about a million other people) committed yesterday and throw the book at him, that's not rule of law. That's behavior suited for an Ayn Rand or George Orwell villain.
And I really shouldn't be hoping to see you on the receiving end of that sort of treatment, but I kind of am.
> This is not how we do things in the United States of America
And who are you to decide that? America is what the people want it to be, and the people want closed borders and mass deportation. Of course, Elon wouldn't be one of the people getting deported, seeing as he's in Trump's good graces. And also he's white. And rich.
What riles me about Musk is his arrogance that the rules are for us and not for him. He calls his working while having a student visa a legal gray area. It's not. It's quite clear that a student visa is for studying and only allows for work-study related to one's degree. Musk dropped out a week after classes started. Meanwhile, there are a few tens of thousands of college students in the US whose parents brought them into the country illegally—who grew up here—but will potentially face deportation once they graduate. DACA only offers limited relief from deportation, with no guarantee they can stay. How many potentially successful entrepreneurs are we discarding? How about it, John, since we're stretching the rules for Musk, why not stretch the rules for legitimate college students? But DACA is in Trump's sights, and Elon has become a fervent supporter of The Donald's immigration policies.
Another one of those inconsequential little laws that Musk may have broken is the Logan Act. By is his own admission that he's been in communication with Putin (post-sanctions) about "space-related matters." Funny how Ukraine got shut out of that space-related matter called Starlink. Harris's Attorney General should have the DoJ investigate his ass. Of course, if Trump wins, Musk will get sweetheart deals from the US government.
i have a Trump-related question. I’m posing it separately in the hopes of avoiding having answers to my question get swamped by debate.
I know many democrats who are genuinely terrified of Trump winning. The say he will actually do all the worst and wildest stuff he’s just talked about doing so far, because he will quickly install appointees everywhere, and that he will then be essentially a dictator, jailing those prominent people who speak out against him or taking legal action against them, etc etc. I would like to know what impediments there are to this happening.
Last night I googled “impediments to Trump ruining country” and every single hit I got was about how Trump is for sure going to ruin the country. A typical one was a Washington Post article “A Trump Dictatorship is Increasingly Inevitable.” Inevitability doesn’t *come* in degrees. WTF?
For instance, what impediments are there to Trump’s bringing some charge against Chuck Schumer, winning the case, and getting the guy locked up for a few years? So one thing I wonder about is about legal constraints.
Another is practical constraints. For instance the logistics of rounding up 10 million or so undocumented immigrants seems pretty daunting. Who rounds them up? Where do you put them til they are shipped out? How do you transport them back to where they came from? What do you do if their country of origin won’t take them back? For that and for other proposed Trump plans, it seems to me you need staff who are not only willing to carry out such plans, but are also very good at the logistics involved. Seems likely potential Trump appointees are carefully vetted for loyalty, but not for skills (to vet for skills, you need skillful people).
A third is resistance by local governments. What happens if the government of a blue state objects strongly to some Trump plan being carried out? Seems like many things require the cooperation of local officials. Wouldn’t some states refuse to cooperate in carrying out plans they are strongly opposed to? Would Massachuetts, for example, help round up the undocumented immigrants in its state? And then there would be some sort of legal fight about that, but surely it would drag on for a long time.
Here’s and old article from the Economist about this. I think it depends on the cards he’s dealt: he already has a majority on the Supreme Court, if he also has both houses of Congress he can run the board.
The meticulous, ruthless preparations for a second Trump term:
Among many other problems with this, the fact that a Supreme Court justice was nominated by George Bush does not mean that Donald Trump in any way owns them, It's not even clear that he "owns" all of the judges he himself nominated.
That seems about right, There's essentially zero possibility of Trump building the sort of power base he'd need to bulldoze the 22nd Amendment in four years. The real danger is that a cabal of *competent* wannabe fascists (or whatever) will attach themselves to the Trump administration and build something nasty for themselves.
Which is sort of what Project 2025 seems to be aiming at, but if the result is something Trump-centered then it probably doesn't survive Trump leaving office and if it's not Trump-centered then Trump will probably kill it while he's still in office. It's not impossible that the as-yet-unnamed American Hitler will be able to thread that needle in the next four years, so we're going to want to keep up the whole Eternal Vigilance thing, but it's not something I'm terribly worried about.
Thanks for your read John. Re-asked my question on new open thread, and practically nobody was able to address it -- all went into political rage meltdown. It's really scary how unable to think straight most people are about the election.
Jane's Law of Politics states that "The followers of the party in power are smug and arrogant. The followers of the party out of power are deranged and insane." This has always seemed a sound guide to me. But at the moment, the Democrats don't seem to see themselves as being in power.
Which is understandable, as their incumbent is a senile lame duck and their candidate is a lightweight who is trailing in the polls. But it means that we get deranged insanity all around.
Not to sound ungrateful, but — this isn’t what I was asking for. It’s less hysterical in tone than the stuff I found with my google, but it’s mainly an accounting of the nature of the preparations for Trump’s second term, how thorough they are etc (so more of what I was finding in my googlelast night), plus speculation about what steps he’d take in different areas.
I can’t believe there are no impediments to Trump doing exactly what he wants. Why the fuck is it so hard to find an article about it, even an article that’s mistaken about impediments? Is there nobody thinking about this subject? Is the entire press unwilling to write about this subject? Maybe nobody wants to publish an article about it because it will irritate Trump supporters, and undermine efforts to terrify everyone else into voting for Harris?
See, this shit is part of why I don’t vote. It’s too hard to get the real picture.
Alarming stuff is everywhere. The problem is finding anything else. it’s not that I’m convinced that having Trump in office is no big deal because he’ll be blocked in everything he tries. I’m just convinced that there are some things that are blockable, some contests of cleverness and will be would not win, some steps he could not take because he’s dumb and chaotic, and staff he’s brought on board my not be highly competent in carrying out big messy projects, etc etc. I cannot find any articles about what he will or might have trouble accomplishing due to legal constraints, or practical ones, or resistance from various groups (including many businesses who rely on undocumented immigrants for labor). it’s like all the journalists, and also you, are under some
spell. I ask for info on impediments to some Trump projects, I get articles about reasons to be alarmed. Yes I ALREADY KNOW the case for
alarm. How could I possibly not? It’s everywhere. I would like to read the case against being sure life as we know it in the US will be completely destroyed during 4 years
of Trump because “he will be able to do anything he wants.”
...I don't know what to tell you, man. "Legal constraints" are only relevant if the parties involved actually respect the law. Now, the real impediment in such a scenario would be the military, but them trying to assert authority over the government would probably trigger a civil war, which is... pretty bad.
But say what you will about Trump, he has been very honest about his intentions, sympathies, and character. None of his supporters can claim in good conscience that they didn't know what they were getting themselves into.
It is truly awful life-advice to tell people they need to focus enough of their energy on politics to truly understand both candidates and vote to the best of their ability. That is a recipe for misery. Which means most people *don't* know what they're getting into, because they have actual lives to live. With real people around them, doing fun things. Unlike some of us here.
This camp, we have 32 projects covering many different topics. We recommend having a look at the projects to see which ones interest you. But you also have the option of filling out a generic application for all the projects at once.
I like the stats, but don't like the statements "you should do X to maximize your chances".
For example: "The data suggest that for the best chance of a prize, you should identify as a man." The sounds like trans men are over-represented among the winners.
Suggestion for Scott: can you do another defined section at the bottom of the board for election threads for the next couple of weeks, just to keep all that stuff in one place?
Seemed to work well for Ukraine when that topic was at its hottest.
At least one section for "arguments why Trump is actually awesome and everything you believe about him is wrong", because we have too many of those here recently.
Yeah, I get it. If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then you can easily score a lot of contrarian points by insisting that it is totally not a duck, but a space alien from the seventh dimension who only pretends to be a duck to fool the mainstream sheeple. But it was already done hundred times and at this point it is boring.
Yeah, wokeness sucks, Harris sucks, etc. No argument against that. None of that makes your delusions about Trump being secretly awesome any more realistic.
Trump is not at all like Hitler. It is a ridiculous argument that falls apart at the slightest scrutiny:
a) he does not run a campaign on racism. If you actually watch the campaigning he does (rather than cherry-picked out-of-context snippets) then you see this clear fact. The republicans are campaigning mostly on the economy, with tertiary campaigning on reducing ILLEGAL immigration, a peace-through-strength foreign policy, and increased manufacturing and energy investment.
b) his rhetoric (unlike the democrats') is not incendiary. it is actually far more mellow than his rhetoric in previous years... e.g., compare this years Al Smith dinner to previous ones.
c) he does not have the popular or the party support to act like Hitler
d) he is (far) too old to act like Hitler.
The ones damaging democracy are actually the democrats. Rather than campaign on actual issues (like the republicans are doing), they are actively mischaracterizing their opponents. Joe Biden is on record saying "Lock Trump Up." Jailing political opponents is the action of a dictator. Most of the democrat campaign is falsely characterizing their political opponent as Hitler. Obviously, this characterization insights violence and political instability. He has already been targeted by two assassinations.
You can see that he is explicitly asked about a scenario where a) he wins the election and b) people don't accept that and there is a "non-peaceful election day."
I'm not sure that's an accurate summation of Trump's candidacy - the very first policy statement put out by Trump's 2016 campaign was entitled: "Statement by Donald J. Trump Statement on Preventing Muslim Immigration". The first sentence was "Donald J. Trump is calling for a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country's representatives can figure out what is going on." Link here: https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/statement-donald-j-trump-statement-preventing-muslim-immigration
That's pretty clear religious discrimination. There's no way you could ever get away with something like that in a job posting - if tomorrow Microsoft said that they'd no longer accept Muslim job applicants, they'd be sued into oblivion.
Moreover, the entire reason Donald Trump became a Republican celebrity is because he was the most famous person to say that Barack Obama was not born in the United States of America, but was instead a Kenyan Muslim. Who, presumably, would not have been allowed to enter the country under Trump's proposed total and complete shutdown on all Muslims entering.
He literally said "we got a lot of bad genes in our country right now" in reference to crimes committed by immigrants. If that doesn't qualify as racist I'm not sure what would.
>tertiary campaigning on reducing ILLEGAL immigration
Yeah, so tertiary that they were handing out "Mass Deportations Now" signs at the RNC. So tertiary that Vance and Trump both spent a news cycle sharing a Facebook rumor about Haitians eating cats. (Also, the Haitians in Springfield are LEGAL immigrants, and they still got targeted. I do not believe for a second that a Trump presidency would be careful and discriminating about which immigrants it gets rid of.)
>his rhetoric (unlike the democrats') is not incendiary
"The enemy within" and "poisoning the blood of our country" and "mass deportations now" and "they're eating the cats and dogs" are all more extreme and incendiary than "build the wall" was in 2016.
>he does not have the popular or the party support to act like Hitler
The Heritage Foundation has been working hard to change that - both having a plan ready to go for 2025 and preparing a list of people they can hire to make it happen. I would not have a lot of hope that Trump will be reined in by the "deep state" in 2025 like he was in 2017-2020.
Attempting to reduce Illegal immigration is in no way racist. By definition, illegal immigrants should be not be in the country, if you have any respect for the rule of law...
The Democrats are pulling out all of the rhetorical stops to try to get Trump not elected. Hitler comparisons shows they're really scraping the bottom of the barrel. It's the Godwin's law of politics.
People have also been pointing out the problems with Trump's policies, it just doesn't get as much airtime as him talking about how much he wants to be a dictator, for obvious reasons. For instance, his proposed tax plan would add more than twice as much to the deficit as Harris's, and also would cut taxes on the wealthiest Americans while raising them on the poorest.
He also seems to think that tariffs are paid by the country exporting the goods instead of the Americans importing them.
I am totally fine with people pointing out economic concerns. That is a valid campaigning. Calling some Hitler is not a valid way of campaigning. It erodes trust in media, it polarizes the political parties, it (like all crying wolf) erodes and weakens the terms for then actually do apply. It is just such a bad approach.
A hilarious CNN clip showed Trump calling Harris a "Communist-Fascist-Socialist" multiple times. Finally, we see Harris saying yes when CNN asks her do you agree with General Mark Milley's opinion that Trump is fascist. As a Leftie, I don't think comparing Trump to Hitler is valid. Hitler was much smarter than Trump and wasn't cognitively impaired until after he retreated to his bunker.
Essay by: Phillip Bump October 24, 2024 Washington Post
If we look at it in the abstract, it’s easy to see the genesis of the comparisons.
A political leader whose popularity is driven by his personality more than his detailed policy proposals. Someone who casts a small segment of the population as dangerous and demands they be rounded up and deported. A leader who responded to losing an election by working fervently to overturn those election results, spreading false claims and stoking an anger that culminated in an attack on his country’s legislature. A leader who has endorsed the idea of replacing a nonpartisan governmental bureaucracy with loyalists. Someone who excoriates the press as dishonest, describes his political opponents as enemies worse than foreign adversaries, and is surrounded by voices that amplify and cheer his most extreme rhetoric.
No, Donald Trump is not Adolf Hitler. He has, happily, not engaged in either the systematized slaughter of a population or launched an effort to subjugate the world.
But, as a number of his former top aides have said in recent weeks, he views the constraints of democracy with disdain and embraces an approach to power that checks the boxes of fascism. Oh, and according to his former chief of staff John F. Kelly, Trump also offered praise for the German dictator and the way he managed his military.
For many of those surrounding Trump, particularly those who recognize that his reelection means their own empowerment, it is horrible to suggest that Trump is akin to history’s most infamous, hated leader. At times, the claim is that the former president’s critics and the left are saying that Trump somehow is Hitler — a rhetorical leap intended to heighten the idea that any such historical comparisons are ridiculous. The left is equating Trump with history’s greatest monster! Can you believe how unhinged they are?
And: Can you believe how dangerous they are? Since the attempt on Trump’s life in July, he and his allies have blamed anti-Trump rhetoric for the threats he has faced. There’s an obvious political utility here: If they can make some of his critics more cautious about what they say, they’ve restricted the amount of criticism that surrounds Trump. But for those primed to view any comparison to fascist or authoritarian leaders as unwarranted, the hostility that might accompany such comparisons may seem like little more than an effort to stir up hate.
The irony of this concern emerging among supporters of a candidate who is relentlessly focused on disparaging and lying about immigrants to the United States should not be ignored.
Trump’s supporters are mostly focused on a straw man, a Trump critic who says he is Hitler or who makes comparisons to Hitler that are inherently ludicrous. Consider the interview that right-wing radio host Hugh Hewitt conducted with Trump on Thursday morning. Hewitt was once a standard conservative commentator, one focused on national security issues. But he’s become increasingly sycophantic in his regular conversations with Trump, failing to press the former president on questions that demand obvious follow-ups.
Were Hewitt conducting an interview with a Democrat who approached politics in the manner outlined in the second paragraph of this article — if, say, Barack Obama’s former chief of staff had warned that the former president didn’t respect American democracy and praised Hitler — it is easy to predict how an Obama-Hewitt interview might go. But that is not how the Hewitt-Trump interview went.
“Why do some people hate you so much?” he asked Trump. “I mean, Trump Derangement Syndrome is a real thing. I’ve run into it. We saw it online repeatedly. The stuff they call you, the Hitler stuff, the fascist stuff. … Why do you destabilize people this way?” Trump’s connection was staticky, so it was a bit hard to understand his first comments. But then he offered a response.
“I have a tendency to win. It’s a nice thing. And that bothers people,” Trump said. “Sometimes I play a little bit rough, but they play rough. They are rough and vicious people. They are vicious people. They’re dirty people. They’ve weaponized government. They’ve weaponized everything and actually made me more popular. It’s hard to believe.”
So in response to a question centered on the ridiculousness of the idea that Trump’s politics mirror fascism, Trump describes his opponents as “vicious” and “dirty” and makes a false claim about how the Biden administration has “weaponized” the government — as manifested, for example, in the special counsel bringing charges against Trump for attempting to subvert the 2020 election. Which are the sorts of things autocrats say.
Trump’s supporters don’t want to address the central issue, which is that Trump’s approach to power much more closely resembles an autocratic, fascist leader than an American, democratic one. So they highlight the word “Hitler” in the same way that they at times highlight the word “racist”: as a way of suggesting that their opponents are once again hyperventilating without reason and lifting up the most damaging rhetoric they can muster, regardless of how applicable it might be. The benefit of doing so is that they then don’t have to address the underlying criticisms and concerns.
Godwin’s Law holds that any online debate will, if it continues long enough, eventually involve a comparison to Hitler or Nazi Germany in an effort to score the ultimate point. What Trump’s allies are doing is declaring the debate to have been “Godwinned” from the outset. They’re suggesting that his critics are making an unfair comparison in hopes of skipping all the intermediary discussion.
There are two points worth reinforcing here.
The first is that the most immediate round of comparisons to Hitler was driven not by left-wing paranoia about a second Trump term. It was driven, instead, by Trump’s own words, as relayed by his former chief of staff. It’s Trump who praised Hitler’s control over his generals and Trump who said Hitler did good things, according to Kelly, a retired four-star general. Those were comments he offered reluctantly, apparently doing so only after Trump suggested that the military should be used against any of the “enemy within” should there be unrest on Election Day.
The second is that one of the first people to compare Trump to Hitler was Sen. JD Vance (R-Ohio), now Trump’s running mate. What changed since Vance offered that comparison in 2016 isn’t how Trump approaches politics. It’s how willing Vance has become to acquiesce to that approach.
There just aren't a lot of historical figures that Americans are familiar with. If I said that Trump was going to be another Edward Longshanks, I doubt anyone would understand what I meant by the comparison. (Edward signed the Edict of Expulsion, resulting in the mass deportation of Jews, without mass slaughter a la Hitler).
The point of comparison is to connect what someone already knows to something they're seeing in real time. If Americans only know a few historical figures - Hitler, Gandhi, Lincoln - then you have to sacrifice accuracy for comprehension.
The problem I have with the idea of Trump as white supremacist is that, from the outside in its foreign policy, the US acts like a white supremacist country. If it proclaimed that it had that ideology not much would change in its alliances (white Europe, NATO, the five eyes), its paternalistic attitude to central and South America with the threat of invasion for countries that don’t toe the line, the wars against Arabs and the general fear of a rising China (or Asia in general).
There are some differences in foreign policy perhaps relative to a 19C European power, less interest in Africa - which was late to colonialism anyway - and a philo semitism that didn’t exist on the European powers (except perhaps Britain).
What Trump is, is an American nationalist, not an “internationalist” - which is just code word for imperialism. The rules based international order is a hard sell if you are ignoring the rules yourself.
This is the classic approach of the democrats: paint your opponents as bigoted, racist, sexist, etc... Because obviously, the democrats can never be wrong.
It is the same rhetoric they used for defund the police (e.g., if you criticize the rioting, or this insane policy then you must be racist). It is the same rhetoric they use on trans-issues (e.g., JK Rowling must be motivated by hate, rather than a genuine concern for women). Etc...
They are the ones using inflammatory rhetoric (while simultaneously criticizing the republicans for this tactic?!). What could be more inflammatory than a) saying your opponent is Hitler and b) saying that "the fate of democracy is at stake."
That last point is interesting; the full context of JD Vance's opinion on Trump is "I go back and forth between thinking Trump is a cynical asshole like Nixon who wouldn’t be that bad (and might even prove useful) or that he’s America’s Hitler. How’s that for discouraging?" And I honestly don't think his opinion of Trump has really changed since then. But look at it this way: do you REALLY want to bet against Hitler, considering how that turned out last time?
Of course, the most obvious difference between Trump and Hitler is that Trump is old. Really old. Even if he plans on removing term limits, I highly doubt it's going to take more than 4 years for him to keel over or lose his mind. At which point, Vance will be next in line, and he can finish what Trump started, just more competently.
In the video he talking about exactly the same issues he talked about in the VP Debate (concern for the working class, and desire for more manufacturing). His whole policy stick is two issues: more support for families (and their values), and more support for industry. You can clearly trace these concerns back to his upbringing in a manufacturing-heavy, poverty-ridden, low-social-capital environment. He care about helping people.
If you actually listen to what he says, you see that he is MORE MODERATE than most republicans. For example, Ben Shapiro has criticized JD Vance for being TOO OPEN to pro-choice, and TOO OPEN to social-support policies.
...I wasn't intending to slander him. He's a pragmatist, and I respect that. Still, it's hard to argue that he's a moderate, and I don't know why you'd want him to be moderate, considering how little establishment conservatives have actually accomplished.
If I listen to what he says, consistently over time, I can't help but noticing that he used to say that Donald J. Trump was "reprehensible", "idiotic", and yes, "America's Hitler". Now he's Donald J. Trump's partner in whatever reprehensible, idiotic, possibly Hitlerian schemes the man gets up to. And he aims the rhetorical attacks, against Donald Trump's enemies (i.e. his own former allies). So that does seem like a teensy weensy bit of an inconsistency that might bear looking into.
What I *don't* care about are his object-level views on industrial policy or family values or any other such thing. I'd care about those with a Joe Biden, or a Kamala Harris or a Nikki Haley. But if someone proposes to elect a man they believe might be an American Hitler and is at best a second Nixon, as a means of securing object-level political gains, then that person is simply not to be trusted.
I just don't buy this Hitler perspective, at all. I think you can easily explain JD Vance as initially being persuaded that Trump is Hitler-esk, and then VD Vance taking a closer look, and realizing that that was a false characterization.
How is that odd? 50% of voters don't have a problem with Trump. The fact that one of those voters is JD Vance is hardly surprising. Lots and lots of people who were initially negative towards Trump have changed their mind.
The two biggest data points to emerge on Donald Trump since Vance's initial assessment are, A: the fact that he really sucks at using Presidential power to accomplish his goals within the limits of the law, and B: he actually is willing to attempt a coup d'état to extend and expand that power. Fortunately, the "really sucks at using Presidential power" bit extended to his coup-plotting aptitude.
But anyone who thought Trump was plausibly Hitlerian in 2016, is not going to think that is *less* plausible in 2021 or later. If you thought he was only plausibly rather than certainly Hitler up front, sure, maybe you might think that is more-plausible-but-still-not-certain today. Or if you were certain Trump was *not* an American Hitler, say because you believe the "American Hitler" thing is always and only liberal elite bedwetting, then maybe you're still sure he's not another Hitler.
Neither of those are J.D. Vance. Either he was lying when he said he though Trump might be the American Hitler then, no better than one of those liberal elite bedwetters really, or he's OK with possibly being on Team Hitler now that Maybe Hitler has offered him a sufficiently high-ranking position on the team.
“Vance has said he considers Yarvin a friend and has cited his writings in connection with his plan to fire a significant number of civil servants during a potential second Trump administration.”
I am 100% burned out with coding. Yesterday I caught myself having stared into space for over ten minutes doing nothing but thinking the phrase "and at that point we can do the thing" on loop over and over again. I cannot realistically expect to finish the project I've promised to finish before Christmas, not when it feels like I have the IQ of warm rice pudding. I've lost an entire day today trying to "reboot" by taking time off to do other things - work on writing, walk about in parks, etc - but I've sat back down and nope, still pudding. This is both boring and highly stressful at the same time. I don't see any way forward.
What Anon said. But also, next time, don't make promises about things that are out of your control (note: that includes everything). Really, the lesson is to make fewer promises, not to be harder on yourself.
Schedule a psychiatrist's appointment. Do this ASAP, as there's usually high lead time, especially for new patients.
FWIW, while burnout is a treatable issue on its own, it's often linked to depression or ADHD. A good psych will help you figure out if one or both of those are in play (keep in mind that depression may not manifest as the classic "I'm sad all the time," but rather as "I'm just really tired and kinda bored").
If you're planning a death march till Christmas, this is a bad idea, and you should plan time for breaks. It takes more than a day to reset! At the verty least, take a couple of three– or four-day weekends. Maybe you could add days to the already-long Thanksgiving weekend?
If the schedule itself is unrealistic, raise that with your stakeholders as soon as you can. Even if they're assholes, they will appreciate honest communication more than a late-December surprise.
Remember that you can always quit.
Hang in there! Burnout sucks, and it happens more than people are willing to talk about, but there area strategies that can help you. Most of all, don't be your own slave-driver, and don't keep using Try Harder on an approach that isn't working. Good luck!
A note of caution about ADHD: if someone gives you adderall or some other upper right now, it will probably help a lot. Adderall improves mood, energy and focus for almost everybody. I’m not a bit ADD-ish and I love how adderall takes me feel. I keep a little around to help with difficult tasks, but not much. It’s too enjoyable to be safe for me.
If you have genuine, wiring-problem ADHD, you have had it all your life. The diagnosis makes sense only if you’ve had worse problems than
others your age alll your life with staying focused on a task, keeping your attention on movies, books and what people saying etc.
As for depression, watch out for shrinks who think everybody has Prozac Deficiency Disorder. if you have clearly been depressed at other times in your life, and this feels the same way, then OK maybe it’s depression. but if it feels
like burnout to you, maybe it really is. Not many people are wired to be able to sit and do programming all day, you may not be one of those who are. Also, be aware that it is very common for antidepressants to reduce your interest in sex and your ability to do the act, and also common for the to cause weight gain.
Like, yeah, sometimes I stare at the screen all day and nothing comes out. Part of the process.
Have you considered buying a fleece men's robe, throwing it in the dryer with fabric softener, then stripping neeked, wearing just the robe, and then listening to asmr while you try to code? Like, maximal comfiness?
I've been searching in vain for an SSC article, where the hero finds three boxes with statements engraved on them (along the lines of "this box doesn't contain the sword", "one of the other two boxes has a false statement on it" etc), solves the riddle to find which box the sword should be in, is absolutely baffled when the sword turns out not to be in that box, and has it explained to him by the king / the setter of the puzzle that there's no reason the sword has to be in the box that the puzzle suggests it is in. I've tried in vain on "readscottalexander.com", but the nearest I've found has been "the logician and the God-emperor", and I'm now starting to wonder if it was instead in an SSC adjacent space or in comments somewhere. Can anyone shed some light on this?
You die and the gods tell you you have to live another life but this time you get to choose your character in terms of the Big 5 Personality Traits. You choose each on a 1-10 scale, which is arithmetic, so the average is in the middle, you nerds.
Isn't it obvious what to choose? Do we all have the same ideal personality or not? Seems to me it's as follows:
Extroversion: 7 or 8. Extroverts are happier. Maybe don't go to 10 because that seems vapid.
Openness to Experience: 10. What do you have to lose? It's already an extra life.
Neuroticism: 1. Who wants anxiety?
Conscientiousness: Hard 8. Hard to succeed without this, but I don't want to take it all the way because I want some independence from social pressure.
Agreeableness: 5 or 6. I don't want to be disagreeable because that way lies loneliness. But you can't be cool if you are too agreeable, so I want to be somewhere in the middle.
1) In the 2016 election, it was the norm for a large percentage of Trump supporters to be closeted to avoid social repercussions. When he won, democrats were shocked! *Gasp* Where did all these Trump voters come from? In recent months, there's been a "movement" of it becoming socially acceptable to openly support Trump; publicly supporting him is no longer the mark of death. On top of this, aside from people simply no longer being closeted, a lot of people have actually *converted* to being pro-Trump. The number of MAGA defectors could outnumber all these new born-again Trumpers, but if not, doesn't that simply mean that Trump will win?
2) If you look at the comments across social media platforms - from my observation, Instagram, Facebook, YouTube go (so almost the entirety of social media), support for Trump is almost near-universal. People in the comments love him, and you even see people supporting him in the comments sections of posts by left-leaning accounts (MSNBC, for example. There are no pro-Kamala comments under the posts of any right wing accounts). They can't all be bots. Again, doesn't this indicate a strong overall preference for Trump?
More and more, I am under the impression that the average American supports Trump and that Kamala is more akin to the titular character in Weekend at Bernie's with a public perception bolstered largely by PR. Or perhaps it's me who's falling for the Trump propaganda (1 and 2 above?)...
1) I don't buy that Trump supporters in 2016 were closeted. What happened was Trump's popularity in 2016 grew throughout the year and many Republicans changed their minds the closer it got to the election. Most Jeb Bush, Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz supporters became Trump supporters by election day. The Trump voters were never closeted, they just didn't realize that a Trump sexuality existed until October.
2) Don't make the mistake of thinking those you know are representative of the population. It's a common mistake, but people reading ACX shouldn't make it. Your personal network is the opposite of a random sample.
The only objective evidence we have regarding the election are polls and prediction markets. The polls look 50/50 and supposedly the prediction markets have been skewed by a single whale betting many millions on Trump. So much for prediction markets...
2) I'm not implying my personal network. I'm referring to the comments sections under popular posts from various types of accounts with lots of followers (media outlets, public figures, lifestyle, pop culture, etc.), generally which are politics-oriented but also often are not.
I agree that the polls must be the only real resource for predicting the outcome, but there's a cognitive dissonance for me because of what I see in large numbers online. Perhaps I'm only seeing a small sample of overall public opinion that is representing itself as something more, however.
OK, I just went to the Washington Post's Facebook page. That counts, right? A major media outlet's page on a major social media platform with "lots of followers". Scrolled down to the most recent post that mentioned Donald Trump in the headline, and read the comments.
192 of them, at the time I checked. Of which, thirteen were unambiguously pro-Trump or anti-Kamala/"The Left", and another six ambiguously so. Just under 10% of the total. Almost all of the rest were unambiguously anti-Trump or pro-Kamala.
I therefore conclude that the claim, "social media support for Trump is near universal", is completely wrong, and that anyone making such a claim should not be taken seriously.
> I'm not implying my personal network. I'm referring to the comments sections under popular posts from various types of accounts with lots of followers (media outlets, public figures, lifestyle, pop culture, etc.), generally which are politics-oriented but also often are not.
I don't know about facebook, but Instagram actively orders comments in a way that you see first those that The Algorithm thinks you'll like more, so there can be two different echo-chambers within the same comments' section.
Fwiw, it's totally possible that they are all bots. Put another way, you're operating from an assumption that because there's many of them they must not all be bots and some potentially significant fraction must be human, but I don't think that has to be the case
1) You called Trump voters closeted. That implies to me a hidden sexuality, but I am being facetious.
2) It still sounds like a biased sample.
I think the odds are about 50/50, but the thing is we will never know. Whoever wins will seem inevitable in retrospect. Those who predicted the winner would win will seem like good prognosticators even though all they won was a coin flip.
If you're at all familiar with the Warhammer 40K universe and like to read science fiction novels, I think you might like "Day of Ascension" by Adrian Tchaikovsky. It is about a young girl who is part of a secret religious society who are awaiting their day of deliverance by angels from on high. No point in dancing around it: the society is a Genestealer cult, and the angels are a Tyranid hive fleet.
It would be very interesting to hear how much of the experience and mindset Tchaikovsky describe are in common with a more mundane messianic religious upbringing.
Does anyone here commute by bike? I commute to the office (largely by choice), which is 11 bike miles from home, which at my pace is about an hour each way. Voluntarily sinking two hours into the commute is something I only end up doing a few times a year. I've thought about upgrading to an e-bike so that I can be faster (which might make me willing to do it more often), but find the idea of doubling my speed to be slightly terrifying. Is this rational? My commute currently is a mixture of ~4 miles of paved bike trail (mixed use, so there's pedestrians there too), ~3 miles of mixed use crushed limestone, and ~4 miles of riding on the side of the road (mostly, but not entirely, small residential roads) -- so there's not much car avoidance, a bit of pedestrian slalom, and definitely potential for slipping on a wet patch.
It is rational to be nervous about the speed; however, the absolute speed of an e-bike is not scary! Like going downhill on a normal bike, it just feels faster, but controlled. Additionally, because e-bikes are heavier, most have large disk brakes which have good stopping power. In the US e-bikes can't provide power beyond 20mph, which is fast, but a speed most recreational road bikers achieve easily. Other countries have other limits, but I think they are usually under 25mph. You will be traveling at human speeds even if its double your current speed.
It *can* take time to get used to the acceleration when starting from a full stop. You quickly get used to it though. Kind of like driving someone else's car it takes a very short time to figure out the quirks. The acceleration is the part I love the most - more than the top speed. It lets you easily get across intersections well ahead of car traffic which feels much safer and saves a lot of time as you are less likely to get caught at the next light.
Most (all?) quality e-bikes will allow you to select how much power the motor gives you. So you can scale up. When I first got mine I spent a while at level 1 of 4 and after a couple weeks felt totally fine at 4 all the time.
There are two styles of e-bike power train. One augments the power you are providing. So the harder you push on the pedals, the more power it will give you. This feels like you suddenly became a lot stronger and fitter, which is nice. The other style will give a constant amount of power when you are pedaling or activating an accelerator (usually on the handle bars like a motorcycle). So you just go faster until you get to the speed you have selected then have to pedal hard to go faster. Most are moving to the first style, but it's personal preference.
e-bikes are much heavier and most have their weight down low near the ground. This makes them much *safer*. The low center of gravity and upright riding position reduces the chance of tipping over or sliding (like in the wet patch scenario you mention). In pedestrians traffic I can be tricky to maneuver, but a lot of commuter e-bikes have smaller tires which allow for tighter turn radiuses so you can weave more easily. You also wont need to focus on pedaling as much so you can focus on what's ahead of you in the road.
Definitely try to test ride one! Many cities have a groups that promote e-bikes and bike commuting. Members may be willing to let you test ride a bike. My small college town has an e-bike lending library where anyone can request to use an e-bike. A good bike shop will definitely let you test ride some options and should be able to provide advice on which bike is best for you (if they don't, don't shop there).
I haven't tried. Probably could. I can go faster than 20, but the motor just wont help beyond that. Down hill I can hit 30 and on flats I am usually at 22 or so. My city is very hilly. Im going up or down a pretty steep hill most of the time. Probably 10% of time is spent on flat-ish ground and thats usually in traffic so intersections and lights are the limit on speed, not the bike.
The gearing is also a limit. Its has 7 speeds but the highest gear ratio is pretty low compared to a non-e-bike gear set. It's also a cargo bike that weighs >60 pounds and I usually have my kids with me. They tend to not like going too fast because the wind blows in their face too much. Basically it's a minivan, not a sports car. I'd like to get an e-bike just for my self and with that, top speed would be important.
Thank you for the detailed reply! This is helpful. The season is all but over here in Minnesota, but this convinced me to look into this more in spring.
Sure thing. I saw you mentioned the bike shop near you rents e-bikes in the summer. They may still let you rent them if the weather is nice (I am sure they would love the revenue if it's not ski season yet!). Good luck, I hope it works for your situation. Getting an e-bike made bike riding feel like it did when I was a kid - just fun and relaxing and not a chore.
It's not scary once you ride it, not at all. Get an ebike
For some reason my ebike doesn't go faster than my max speed on a regular bike, but it's way less effort. Living in jersey. Have a folding regular and also electric brompton bike. Take whichever I feel like on the day.
I'm not sure I'm following: of course it's not scarier if you're not going faster than you would on your regular bike? My problem is that for bike-riding to make sense from a scheduling perspective, it needs to be about 2x faster than I can ride my regular bike.
You might be a woman. I might be athletic. I might have an unusual electric bike.
My 'experience' it that if I pedal my electric bike hard it doesn't 'add' anything.
The electric bike makes it super easy to go from 0 to x miles with minimal input, and to climb hills. On flat ground I think there's some max speed above which it doesn't keep 'spinning' and my max speed on a non-electric is roughly that.
This is my experience too. If someone is using a bike for transportation (and not recreation) I don't see any reason for them to not get an e-bike if they can afford it. They are better in almost every way than a normal bike as a transportation method.
I commute by bike either side of a train ride, and the second half of my commute is in London. I use a folding e-bike, and it's great - it means even on the worst days I will still catch my train, and if I have to trek across London to catch a different one, I can do that easily.
Would getting an e-bike actually double your speed? It definitely increases mine, but I'm not sure it doubles it. Have you tried riding one? Can you rent one for a day and see how you like it?
Well, my speed is slow -- as mentioned in the post, I average 11mph; the day I took a detour and was running late and had to average 12mph was exhausting. So doubling, or close to it, feels achievable.
For some reason I hadn't thought of renting as a serious option, but it looks like the bike shop next to me does rent them, at least in season. (They're a bike shop in summer and ski shop in winter, which I think means that they're currently gloomily looking outside at +25C and sunny and wondering how they're supposed to sell skis in this weather.)
In the UK, ebike speed is supposed to be limited to 15mph*. Mine therefore only boosts up to about 15mph, so you wouldn't get a doubling out of it from 11mph. I don't know if you have the same limits, though.
*Obviously lots of people use cheap ones which don't have that limit, but I wanted a reliable bike that wouldn't explode ;)
One of my brothers was a techy for the Arizona DOT. When Phoenix started putting bike racks on the outside of buses they had to create an area in one of their buildings to keep all the bikes that people forgot to retrieve when they got off the bus.
There is a website called GovDeals that administers property auctions for government agencies. Lots of police departments and colleges auctioning off all the bikes they recover. You can get some pretty good deals too. (also a lot of auctions for dell laptops and PCs no one wants :D )
Given that most of the countries that are members of NATO don't border the Atlantic Ocean, I think the organization's name should be changed. What do you think a good alterative is now, given the geography and purpose of it?
Since the parallels between the modern USA and ancient Athens abound, I think it would be fun to rename NATO to be a league, akin to the Delian League.
The Delian League was named after Delos because that's where they made the agreement. Here, the North Atlantic Treaty was signed in Washington, so maybe the Washingtonian League.
But that loses the weird quirk that Delos wasn't really a major member of the Delian league - if we zoom out a bit, a treaty that preceded NATO was signed in Brussels, so maybe the Brusselian League?
It is common, though not universal, for oceans to be defined as including the seas which connect to that ocean. If "North Atlantic" includes the North Baltic, Mediterranean, and Black Seas, then almost all of NATO is adjacent to the North Atlantic. And I believe that was the intended understanding when NATO was formed, incorporating Mediterranean powers like Italy and Greece.
Moreover, the alliance doesn't need to be centered on the North Atlantic for the name to be accurate. It's the Organization established by the North Atlantic Treaty, not the Treaty Organization for the North Atlantic.
(hat-tip Kristian, Gunflint and GlacierCow for bringing it to my attention)
I suggest reading the whole thing, but the key parts:
"Here is the question Democrats have floundered in answering this year: If Donald Trump is so dangerous, then how come the consequences of his presidency weren’t worse? There is this gap between the unfit, unsound, unworthy man Democrats describe and the memories that most Americans have of his presidency, at least before the pandemic. If Donald Trump is so bad, why were things so good? Why were they at least OK?
There is an answer to this question: It’s that as president, Trump was surrounded by inhibitors. In 2020 the political scientist Daniel Drezner published a book titled “The Toddler in Chief.” The core of the book was over 1,000 instances Drezner collected in which Trump is described, by those around him, in terms befitting an impetuous child.
These quotes about Trump abound, given on the record or on background, to various biographers and reporters. Some of them are later disputed, as the staffer realized the consequences of what they said. But there are reams and reams of them. For every one I offer here, I could give you a dozen more.
In 2017 his deputy chief of staff, Katie Walsh, described working with President Trump as “trying to figure out what a child wants.” Steve Bannon, Trump’s chief strategist, said — quote — “I’m sick of being a wet nurse for a 71-year-old.” James Mattis, Trump’s first secretary of defense, and John Kelly, later his chief of staff, often described themselves like babysitters; they made a pact to never be overseas at the same time, lest Trump do something truly deranged.
Here’s the title of a 2017 article in Politico: “White House aides lean on delays and distraction to manage Trump.” The first paragraph reads, “As White House chief of staff, Reince Priebus mused to associates that telling President Donald Trump no was usually not an effective strategy. Telling him ‘next week’ was often the better idea.”
In 2018, The New York Times published a bombshell Op-Ed by an anonymous member of the Trump administration who said he, a Republican, was part of the internal resistance to Donald Trump, in which — quote — “many of the senior officials in his own administration are working diligently from within to frustrate parts of his agenda and his worst inclinations.” That author later revealed himself to be Miles Taylor, the chief of staff of the Department of Homeland Security...
The Trump administration was rife with this sort of thing. In 2019 a senior national security official told CNN’s Jake Tapper, “Everyone at this point ignores what the president says and just does their job. The American people should take some measure of confidence in that.”
During his presidency, Trump repeatedly proposed firing Patriot missiles at suspected drug labs in Mexico. He mused about launching nuclear weapons at other countries, and in one very strange case, at a hurricane. He has talked often and insistently on his desire to turn the machinery of the government against his domestic political enemies. He talked often about pulling out of NATO. He mused about the efficacy of untested or dangerous treatments for Covid. In 2020, during the protests following George Floyd’s murder, Trump raged at his staff, demanding they turn the full force of the military against the protesters. Here’s Mark Esper, who served as Trump’s secretary of defense, on “60 Minutes”:
Mark Esper: I thought that we’re at a different spot now, where he’s going to finally give a direct order to deploy paratroopers into the streets of Washington, D.C., and I’m thinking with weapons and bayonets. And this would be horrible.
Norah O’Donnell: What specifically was he suggesting that the U.S. military should do to these protesters?
Esper: He says, “Can’t you just shoot them? Just shoot them in the legs or something?” And he is suggesting that that’s what we should do, that we should bring in the troops and shoot the protesters.
...The best argument you can make about Trump’s first term is that there was a constructive tension between his disinhibition and the constraints of the staff and the bureaucracy and the institutions that surrounded him. Yes, some of his ideas were bad, dangerous and unconstitutional. But those mostly didn’t happen: They were stopped by his aides, by the so-called deep state, by the courts, by civil society.
And the way he pushed, the way he didn’t constrain himself to what other presidents would have done or said, maybe that led to changes that — at least if you agree with him — were positive. Changes that wouldn’t have happened under another president: tariffs on China, a sharp drop in border crossings, NATO allies spending more on defense.
But now the people around Trump have spent four years plotting to dismantle everything that stopped Trump the first time. That’s what Project 2025, and the nearly 20,000 résumés it reportedly vetted, is really all about. That’s what Trump’s inner circle is spending its time and energy doing. Don Jr. told The Wall Street Journal, “We want people who are actually going to follow the president, the duly elected president, not act as sort of unelected officials that know better, because they don’t know better.” He went on to say, “We’re doing a lot with vetting. My job is to prevent those guys.”
...The thing to see here is that Trump’s supporters want to have it both ways: They point to what didn’t happen in his first term as proof that the same or worse would not happen in his second term. But they themselves are trying to remove everything that stopped Trump’s worst impulses from becoming geopolitical or constitutional crises."
I guess my hesitation is that we don't know the baseline for any of this. How often did other presidents ask for stupid/unworkable/unconstitutional things?
And there are two reasons to think Trump would still say more "dumb" things than other presidents that don't necessarily mean he would actually do more dumb things. 1) He speaks off the cuff a lot, often in low status ways, even when he actually does know what he's talking about, and 2) He was never in politics at any level before becoming president, so he didn't know the lingo. Obama may have asked "what are our options?" or something, where Trump asks a dumb more specific question "can we just shoot them?" Neither one may have had a good grasp of the specifics but one asks in a silly way. Obama's advisors may never have known that he was also thinking "can we just shoot them" in his head, because he's smoother about that stuff. Given some of the evil things Obama did in his administration, I have trouble doubting that he could be thinking similarly to Trump on some level. He ordered the death of American citizens without due process. Is that better or worse than asking about shooting protestors but then not following through? Did Obama ask a lot more questions but his administration liked him so they didn't report on the weird/insane/illogical things he said? Who knows.
I've had very intelligent bosses who asked very dumb questions, but ended up making mostly good decisions with or without advisement. Just about everyone who dealt with them directly was very concerned about what they were going to be asked to do, until the point they got asked to do mostly reasonable things or could make suggestions and then the boss agreed.
I'm not saying Trump fits that criteria, but I am also not convinced he doesn't.
I agree with cxs5. This is a variant of tu quoque (appeal to hypocrisy) and is probably also special pleading.
That is to say:
- you admit that this is bad behavior, and even if Obama or whoever was doing the same thing (he wasn't) that doesn't make the bad behavior less bad. Note that no one has ever claimed Kamala, the actual alternative, has done something remotely similar, so by your own standards this should be an easy choice to vote against Trump.
- this is likely special pleading, in that if anyone else said "just shoot them" you'd probably not be as lenient. Yes, I can construct a hypothetical scenario where this is actually just a twist of language and Trump (the UPenn educated billionaire) didn't realize how that would come across. But I'm a Bayesian; Occam's razor suggests that he really does mean something more akin to "just shoot them". You have to jump through many more hoops to explain why this is actually a special case where he doesn't mean the explicit semantic meaning of his words.
Also, a cultural artifact on this board is that we are frequently cajoled to take people's statements at face value. A belief in 'dog whistles' is generally derided - if someone says they believe in states rights, you accept that as a belief in states rights and are considered to be acting in bad faith if you accuse them of saying one thing while meaning another.
Except when someone whose name rhymes with Tonald Drump says "just shoot them." When that happens we're all supposed to put on our rationalization hats and do our best to come up with whatever alternate meaning, in the most favorable light, might have made this statement mean something less crazy, be comparable to something other leaders have said, just be "Drump being Drump" rhetoric we should 'take seriously but not literally,' etc, etc.
It makes you a crazy bad faith lib to read alternate subtexts into his statements right up until that subtext is necessary to make them more palatable/forgivable, at which point you're a crazy bad faith lib if you don't.
Do you think people seeing all the anti-DT nonsense recently, feel analogously?
One of the traditions of rationalist circles is to muscle past the repulsion long enough to notice it's not one-sided. Politics is the mindkiller, and all that.
I'm not sure. I certainly feel that I put a lot of effort into being objective, but there's probably nothing I could say to convince another person on the internet. If it helps, I'm a long term conservative and don't like Harris. Self-diagnosed: I probably have a bias to believe the worst of politicians generally.
My perception of DT supporters is that (some/many/most?) love the reaction from his opponents. Is that not true?
Could you point me to someone you think is otherwise intelligent who is posting anti-DT nonsense? Do you feel symmetrically mind-killed this election season?
I agree that *some* DT supporters love the reaction from opponents. But so what? So do some KH supporters.
The point of a rationalist forum is to be able to slough those crowds off.
"someone you think is otherwise intelligent who is posting anti-DT nonsense" - I wouldn't use those words, but I see some of it in ACX, yes. "[He ] is incredibly, terribly, awfully, disgustingly bad, an obnoxious sleaze of a man" was one recent unproductive jab I saw. Another was a comment darkly hinting that Trump and Vance are like Hitler, and the distinguishing feature is only that Trump is "old" (and Vance is not).
I don't feel mindkilled in the same way. I feel like I'm watching the same old mudslinging, and feeling frustrated because it's on a forum that ought to know better. I've posted comments that nominally defend Trump here, but I've tried to be careful not to be mindkilled about them, and they're all consistent with me having my own concerns about the guy - inexperience, incapacity to gain experience, and tendency to antagonize all the people he'd need to get anything practical done are probably my big three. To be fair, they probably don't manifest to others, because when others make those arguments here, I just silently nod and see no reason to reply.
End of the day, I'd *really* like to see a viable alternative to Trump - but I recognize that that's not the choice I'm being given.
This is clearly unconstitutional. If his staff was supportive and therefore didn't leak the details of the conversation, I don't think that makes it any better.
Is that better or worse than asking about bombing something in Mexico? Clinton actually carried it out. How do we know if one is acceptable but another is not?
Bush ordered the torture of prisoners, including many who were not known to have committed any crimes (and quite a few who were later found to have never been involved).
Which of these things is better than what Trump suggested, but didn't actually end up doing? Which of these things is fine, while Trump is beyond the pale?
I'm perfectly fine with saying that *all* of these things are bad, including what Trump was suggesting. I'm having a hard time with "Trump is bad, clearly different from a normal president" when we *know* that all other recent presidents have done similar or worse things than what Trump even asked about. Like, what's the worst thing that Trump actually did? We're comparing things he's accused of talking about to things actually done by other presidents, and I'm not sure Trump is the one who comes out looking the worst there. We don't even know what Bush or Obama may have talked about. If they were willing to actually do some of the evil things we know about, I don't have much confidence they didn't also ask about some even worse things. In fact, I'd be very surprised if neither of them asked about bombing locations in Mexico. That's an obvious consideration when the cartels have grown as powerful as they have, given our actions dealing with other enemies of the US around the world.
Also, I'm quite certain Kennedy, Eisenhower, LBJ, Nixon, and maybe Reagan all contemplated nuking foreign countries. Every president from 1945 until at least the 90s had to have contemplated at least the MAD scenario with the Soviet Union.
>So, Obama ordered the intentional killing of a 16-year-old US citizen in a non combat zone
It is hard to take you seriously when the very first thing you say is untrue. The ACLU's own complaint makes it clear that he was not intentionally killed. "Even in the context of an armed conflict, government officials must comply with the requirements of distinction and proportionality and take all feasible measures to protect bystanders. Upon information and belief, Samir Khan was killed
because Defendants failed to take such measures." This is common knowledge.
Are you going to use that to dismiss the other examples, including Obama ordering the death of that kid's father? I hadn't looked into the case in a while, but remember it being reported as also intentional, but the father definitely was. And although the father was almost certainly guilty of terrorism, he was still a US citizen and had a right to a trial and sentencing before execution.
That kid's father was killed as part of a Congressionally approved armed conflict against an organization of which he was an active member. It was no more an "execution" than any other death during war and US citizens do not have a special right to trial before being killed in an armed conflict.
Cute, but I do see OP's point here. There's a tendency among some to try to weaponize rationalist approaches to normalize Trump's abnormal behavior.
Trump does something that a fairly broad consensus of people would consider weird or crazy - he foments a not-quite-not-a-failed-coup, suggests shooting patriot missiles at Mexico, or talks about immigrants poisoning the blood of the nation... and if you're the kind of person who believes that behavior to be disqualifying for a potential President, and say so, his defenders will oft retort "Well who knows? Maybe *all* Presidents wanted to overturn the elections they lost and shoot patriot missiles at Mexico. Before I will accept this behavior as disqualifying you'll have to prove to me that behind closed doors everyone else wasn't just doing it too."
This is more of an argument that obfuscates than a legitimate challenge. It's a defense that can be offered at all times for anything. We could learn that Trump tried to strangle a foreign diplomat, or that Hillary Clinton served a roasted baby to guests in the Clinton White House, or any other number of obviously insane things, and their defenders can *always* just shrug and say "well who knows, LBJ seems like he might've strangled a diplomat or two, and how do we no for certain that Eleanor Roosevelt or Jacki O never served baby?"
It's understanding, at a certain point, to become frustrated with the whole "prove to me that no other emperor has ever gone naked" defense when you're seeing the guy clearly parading about without any pantaloons.
I think the sheer number of former Trump staff who have turned against him so hard tells us a lot. That gives us some indirect sense of the baseline, since there's no precedent for this level of public repudiation from former senior officials.
Contrast that with what you say about your former bosses who asked dumb questions. You aren't now trashing them for that, just the opposite!
I wouldn't assume that Harris could give a correct account of the Constitution and we know Biden didn't. (https://www.factcheck.org/2008/10/constitutional-queries-about-the-vp-debate/). Politicians pretend, with the assistance of speechwriters and teleprompters, to be well educated but their real expertise is in getting elected.
It was Biden who said “When the stock market crashed, Franklin D. Roosevelt got on the television and didn’t just talk about the, you know, the princes of greed. He said, ‘Look, here’s what happened.’"". When the stock market crashed, Hoover was president and national television a decade or so in the future.
Very true, and fair. One thing that both sides agree about is that the career bureaucrats (or Deep State, or Cathedral) all hate Trump. From my perspective, probably yours too, it's hard to tell if how they talk about him is a bit "chicken or egg" and they hate him because he's bad or they say he's bad because they hate him.
I suspect there's aspects of both, which is why I want some sort of non-Trump comparison to look at. If Trump is 20% worse than most presidents, that should lead to legitimate criticism against him, but that's not catastrophic or even really worrisome. If he's 100% worse that could explain the negativity, but 100% more of a low baseline may not be too bad. If he's 10X worse, then I would likely agree he's a loose cannon and bad in office.
You are also ignoring the incentives. Trump has such domination within conservative circles that it is very costly for conservatives to criticize him. I know the right-wing talking point that these people are trying to curry favor at DC cocktail parties or something, but, for example, Mike Pence and John Bolton are never going to get love on the left side of the aisle, no matter what they say about Trump.
It's really worth trying to estimate a baseline of "how many people are predisposed to say bad things", and then check reality to see how far it is from your baseline.
I think when non politicians like Rex Tillerson, or one-time avowed Trumpists like Steve Bannon, say that he's unfit for office, he probably is.
(I'm open to hearing why, for eg, Tillerson and Bannon are actually part of the deep state. But if you can't really justify that, I think at some point you have to bite the bullet that, no, he really does just suck, and even though it makes you see red your enemies might just be right about this one)
I have very little doubt that Trump is less experienced in politics and far less reasonable about how he approaches issues. I can definitely see him suggesting we send patriot missiles to attack Mexican cartels or whatever.
But, like, every president since at least Clinton has bombed places in nominally friendly countries. Specifically he had cruise missiles launched at a Sudanese medicine factory. Can you give me an explanation of which one is okay, and which one isn't? What metrics should we use to determine if one is okay but not another? If the answer is that all are not okay, then why hate on Trump specifically?
You're shifting the goal posts. The original point was that one measure of Trump's unique badness is the volume of people who have worked with him who have said he is bad. You responded with a justification for why those people may have reason to dislike him outside of his actual policies, and I responded that that's looking the other way.
Assume for a moment that the presidency is a black box. We don't know what goes on because it's classified, all we can see on the other side is some subset of actions taken and some subset of opinions shared by other people on the inside. We can argue all we want about the actions taken -- and many people do -- but at the end of the day it's very hard to understand those actions because we don't see how behind the veil of how they are justified. But the opinions are easily evaluated, and it's very very clear that Trump has an anomalously high rate of people who have worked with him, people who originally supported him, who come away thinking that he is a danger to those around him and a danger to the country. You're welcome to discard all that information, but at some point I think you just need to bite that you think you know better than people who have been in the room, and personally that's wild to me
Lots of online people have argued, Richard Hanania is a good example, that all the good stuff Trump talks about will happen and all the bad stuff won’t, because the system will prevent it or because he’ll get distracted.
That feeds into exactly Klein’s point, though- for that to happen, you’d be relying on the people around Trump to rein in his excesses.
Only the new team around him has spent the last 4 years working to prevent exactly that dynamic from emerging again - see e.g. Kleins quit from Don Jr:
“We want people who are actually going to follow the president, the duly elected president, not act as sort of unelected officials that know better, because they don’t know better.” “We’re doing a lot with vetting. My job is to prevent those guys.”
A number of my good friends and family have been surprised about my decision to support
@realDonaldTrump
for president. They have been surprised because my political giving history has been mostly to Democrats, my voting registration has typically been Democrat (in NY, you must be registered to the party in order to vote in the primary, and usually the Republican candidate has no chance to win), and many of our philanthropic initiatives have supported issues that are consistent with Democratic priorities.
Three months ago, when I endorsed Trump on the day of the first assassination attempt, I promised to share my thinking about why I came to this conclusion in a future more detailed post. I intend to do so in possibly more than one post, with the first, this one, explaining the actions and policies of the Biden/Harris administration and Democratic Party that were the catalysts for my losing total confidence in the administration and the Party.
To be clear, my decision to vote for Trump is not an endorsement of everything he has done or will do because he is an imperfect man. Unlike a marriage or a business partnership where there are effectively unlimited alternatives, in this election, we have only two viable choices. Of the two, I believe that Trump is by far the superior candidate despite his flaws and mistakes he has made in the past.
While the 33 actions I describe below are those of the Democratic Party and the Biden/Harris administration, they are also the actions and policies that unfortunately our most aggressive adversaries would likely implement if they wanted to destroy America from within, and had the ability to take control of our leadership.
These are the 33:
(1) open the borders to millions of immigrants who were not screened for their risk to the country, dumping them into communities where the new immigrants overwhelm existing communities and the infrastructure to support the new entrants, at the expense of the historic residents,
(2) introduce economic policies and massively increase spending without regard to their impact on inflation and the consequences for low-income Americans and the increase in our deficit and national debt,
(3) withdraw from Afghanistan, abandoning our local partners and the civilians who worked alongside us in an unprepared, overnight withdrawal that led to American casualties and destroyed the lives of Afghani women and girls for generations, against the strong advice of our military leadership, and thereafter not showing appropriate respect for their loss at a memorial ceremony in their honor,
(4) introduce thousands of new and unnecessary regulations in light of the existing regulatory regime that interfere with our businesses’ ability to compete, restraining the development of desperately needed housing, infrastructure, and energy production with the associated inflationary effects,
(5) modify the bail system so that violent criminals are released without bail,
(6) destroy our street retailers and communities and promote lawlessness by making shoplifting (except above large thresholds) no longer a criminal offense,
(7) limit and/or attempt to limit or ban fracking and LNG so that U.S. energy costs increase substantially and the U.S. loses its energy independence,
(8) promote DEI ideologies that award jobs, awards, and university admissions on the basis of race, sexual identity and gender criteria, and teach our students and citizens that the world can only be understood as an unfair battle between oppressors and the oppressed, where the oppressors are only successful due to structural racism or a rigged system and the oppressed are simply victims of an unfair system and world,
(9) educate our elementary children that gender is fluid, something to be chosen by a child, and promote hormone blockers and gender reassignment surgeries to our youth without regard to the longer-term consequences to their mental and physical health, and allow biological boys and men to compete in girls and women's sports, depriving girls and women of scholarships, awards, and other opportunities that they would have rightly earned otherwise,
(10) encourage and celebrate massive protests and riots that lead to the burning and destruction of local retail and business establishments while at the same time requiring schools to be shuttered because of the risk of Covid-19 spreading during large gatherings,
(11) encourage and celebrate anti-American and anti-Israel protests and flag burning on campuses around the country with no consequences for the protesters who violate laws or university codes and policies,
(12) allow antisemitism to explode with no serious efforts from the administration to quell this hatred,
(13) mandate vaccines that have not been adequately tested nor have their risks been properly considered compared with the potential benefits adjusted for the age and health of the individual, censoring the contrary advice of top scientists around the world,
(14) shut down free speech in media and on social media platforms that is inconsistent with government policies and objectives,
(15) use the U.S., state, and local legal systems to attack and attempt to jail, take off the campaign trail, and/or massively fine candidates for the presidency without regard to the merits or precedential issues of the case,
(16) seek to defund the police and promote anti-police rhetoric causing a loss of confidence in those who are charged with protecting us,
(17) use government funds to subsidize auto companies and internet providers with vastly more expensive, dated and/or lower-quality technology when greatly superior and cheaper alternatives are available from companies that are owned and/or managed by individuals not favored by the current administration,
(18) mandate in legislation and otherwise government solutions to problems when the private sector can do a vastly better, faster, and cheaper job,
(19) seek to ban gas-powered cars and stoves without regard to the economic and practical consequences of doing so,
(20) take no serious actions when 45 American citizens are killed by terrorists and 12 are taken hostage,
(21) hold back armaments and weaponry from our most important ally in the Middle East in the midst of their hostage negotiations, hostages who include American citizens who have now been held for more than one year,
(22) eliminate sanctions on one of our most dangerous enemies enabling them to generate $150 billion+ of cash reserves from oil sales, which they can then use to fund terrorist proxy organizations who attack us and our allies. Exchange five American hostages held by Iran for five Iranians plus $6 billion of cash in the worst hostage negotiation in history setting a disastrous and dangerous precedent,
(23) remove known terrorist organizations from the terrorist list so we can provide aid to their people, and allow them to shoot rockets at U.S. assets and military bases with little if any military response from us,
(24) lie to the American people about the cognitive health of the president and accuse those who provide video evidence of his decline of sharing doctored videos and being right wing conspirators,
(25) do nothing about the deteriorating health of our citizens driven by the food industrial complex, the fraudulent USDA food pyramid, and the inclusion of ingredients in our food that are banned by other countries around the world which are more protective of their citizens,
(26) do nothing about the proliferation of new vaccines that are not properly analyzed for their risk versus the potential benefit for healthy children who are mandated to receive them,
(27) do nothing about the continued exemption from liability for the pharma industry that has led to a proliferation of mandatory vaccines for children without considering the potential cumulative effects of the now mandated 72-shot regime,
(28) convince our minority youth that they are victims of a rigged system and that the American dream is not available to them,
(29) fail to provide adequate Secret Service protection for alternative presidential candidates,
(30) litigate to prevent alternative candidates from getting on the ballot, and take other anti-competitive steps including threatening political consultants who wish to work for alternative candidates for the presidency, and limit the potential media access for other candidates by threatening the networks' future access to the administration and access to 'scoops' if they platform an alternative candidate,
(31) select the Democratic nominee for president in a backroom process by undisclosed party leaders without allowing Americans to choose between candidates in an open primary,
(32) choose an inferior candidate for the presidency when other much more qualified candidates are available and interested to serve,
(33) litigate to make it illegal for states to require proof of citizenship, voter ID, and/or residence in order to vote at a time when many Americans have lost confidence in the accuracy and trustworthiness of our voting system.
Just picking a few that jumped out at me at random.
>(3) withdraw from Afghanistan, abandoning our local partners and the civilians who worked alongside us in an unprepared, overnight withdrawal that led to American casualties and destroyed the lives of Afghani women and girls for generations, against the strong advice of our military leadership, and thereafter not showing appropriate respect for their loss at a memorial ceremony in their honor,
Remind me again who it was that started the withdrawal from Afghanistan? There was no option that didn't destroy the lives of Afghani women and girls, aside from "stay there forever," and if Biden had decided to halt the withdrawal I suspect Ackman would be panning him just as hard for trapping us in a forever war.
>(12) allow antisemitism to explode with no serious efforts from the administration to quell this hatred,
And you think the guy who just said "Hitler did some good things" and said that the crowds chanting "Jews will not replace us" included some "very fine people" is going to *decrease* antisemitism?
>(14) shut down free speech in media and on social media platforms that is inconsistent with government policies and objectives,
Trump has a pattern of attacking the media far more intensely - he just tweeted about how CNBC should lose their broadcast license.
>(25) do nothing about the deteriorating health of our citizens driven by the food industrial complex, the fraudulent USDA food pyramid, and the inclusion of ingredients in our food that are banned by other countries around the world which are more protective of their citizens,
And to prevent this, you suggest electing the Republicans, who are of course famous for wanting to *increase* regulations, especially on nanny-state topics like what you're allowed to eat and drink.
I'm sorry, all of these range from "false" to "vague" to "a problem but you're using it to advocate for the guy who is even worse on that issue."
> ...said that the crowds chanting "Jews will not replace us" included some "very fine people" is going to *decrease* antisemitism?
Look, it's the große Lüge in its natural habitat! Somehow Trump can explicitly say that he isn't talking about the white nationalists and the neo-nazis, and yet people still insinuate he was talking about the white nationalists and the neo-nazis with the fine people remark. I believe Scott even had a post about this, or something adjacent. Trump says and does plenty of stupid and awful things, as is self-evident. You don't need to repeat made up nonsense about how he's also a super nazi racist.
ETA: I feel like I've critiqued several of your posts lately and don't want to only come across as negative. So I'll add that (3) is on point; there is a legitimate criticism of Biden that he could have handled the withdrawal better. But he did *actually* withdraw the US from Afghanistan, something Trump initiated but never actually did. Bush and Obama deserve most of the blame anyway. And (25), pointing to the Republicans as the party to regulate food health is pretty funny.
Biden didn't explicitly support the pro-Hamas crowd, and his Israel stance is generally pretty moderate, along the lines of "I support Israel but would prefer fewer war crimes." But the OP thinks that the simple fact that the anti-semites on the left to feel emboldened is enough to condemn him. I think if you're applying this logic fairly, you have to notice that the racists, neo-nazis, and anti-semites on the right felt very emboldened by a Trump presidency.
You could instead just admit that a President isn't personally responsible for every facet of the culture wars, but in that case you should let Biden slide on this as well.
> You could instead just admit that a President isn't personally responsible for every facet of the culture wars, but in that case you should let Biden slide on this as well.
That was more or less the gist of my comments in the rest of this thread. Judging the candidates on whichever extremists 'feel emboldened' by them is stupid. Which is why the Charlottesville speech bothers me. Trump excluded the extremists from his "very fine people" line in the preceding sentence, but it still gets used to tar him as supporting nazis.
I'm willing to take a weaker stance that imo is still getting at beleester's larger point: Trump himself may not be a Nazi racist, but Nazi racists feel empowered under him, and that will of course make racial polarity (including anti semitism) much worse. I'm happy to provide evidence of racist Nazis saying things like "Trump brought our ideas into the mainstream"
I don't want to empower Nazi racists, so I'm voting for the other person
I don't want to empower Hamasnik racists who want to genocide Israel, so I'm voting for Trump.
That sounds stupid doesn't it? I can't believe I'm agreeing with Paul, but this is ridiculous. There are only two real parties in the US. Radicals and nutjobs pick whichever one they think is going to give them a better chance than the other. Trump no more wants to create the Fourth Reich than Harris wants to push the Israelis into the sea. I judge the candidates based on what they actually say and do, not whatever limpets attach themselves at the far fringes of their constituency.
I think my response to Paul below basically summarizes my response to your point as well (it's the same point):
- yes, you shouldnt judge a candidate based on JUST which fringe supports them
- that said, you are coming into a conversation specifically about racial tension and are surprised we are discussing the likely racial tension outcomes from one of the major candidates
At this point I think both you and Paul are engaged in 'whataboutism', which btw is totally fair. We can weight the comparative outcomes of whether Trump or Kamala are more likely to increase racial tension based on which fringes support them. But I want to point out that both you and Paul also are agreeing with the throughline -- that is, Trump DOES have the support of racist Nazis, that his presidency will embolden said racist Nazis, and the only question at hand is whether that is better or worse than embolding [insert left fringe]
I don't think it's a meaningful criteria though. Nazis supporting Trump only requires that they perceive a Trump presidency to be marginally more favorable to their cause than a Harris presidency. It does not mean a Trump presidency would in fact do anything to increase the amount of Nazism in the country. As Nazis clearly have very stupid ideas, I am inclined to actively not care what they think.
By that argument, you should also vote against the person who brought communist ideas into the mainstream - assuming of course you're against communist ideas.
Which is really an argument against the argument of assessing a candidate by whichever 0.002% of the population you can find with the wackiest ideas, that will realistically have 0% chance of being catered to by that candidate, regardless of what that group thinks about the acceptance of their wacky ideas.
- first, I have a lot of reasons for disliking Trump. That he empowers racist Nazis is one drop in a very large bucket. Broadly, though, I agree with you that you shouldn't evaluate a candidate based on JUST which fringe supports him/her. That said, the specific question in this post is about whether or not Trump's rhetoric or election will increase racial tension, and I think it will. Maybe there are other reasons to like Trump, but if the reason you like Trump is because you think he will turn DOWN the racial tension temperature, I got a bridge to sell you.
- second, I think your claim is that the fringe left wing is as bad as racist Nazis? I'm open to hearing that argument, but I think it's a tough fence to climb, sorry.
ETA: third point: if Marx was on the ballot I'd vote against him, but he isn't. I think Kamala is much farther from / more antagonistic to her fringe than Trump is to his.
I'm not claiming Trump will turn down racial tension. I'm claiming *no* candidate will turn down racial tension. Moreover, I'm claiming Harris will have no better effect on racial tension than Trump, because the candidate in office is having only a minor effect on racial tension on the US.
Ergo, racial tension is not a reason to choose one candidate over another, and anyone for whom that pops up as a first-level reason to determine their pick could probably stand to revisit that.
Even if you have serious disagreements with Harris's policy positions, why would you want to install a person in the White House who is obviously suffering from severe cognitive decline? I really can't understand your thinking. IANAMD, but doesn't his behavior fit the definition of Lewy Body Dementia? (https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/lewy-body-dementia/symptoms-causes/syc-20352025)
I await your refuttal of his cognitive decline (examples below)...
Of course, he is capable of honoring memorable people like Arnold Palmer. After he did a rambling 10+ minute monologue about Palmer, he finished it by praising the size of Palmer's penis. Note: earlier this election cycle, Trump claimed he could drive a ball down the fairway further than Palmer (sorry, can't find the video for that one), so Trump did show some humbleness by praising Palmer's package.
Of course, there's Trump's avid appreciation of music — where instead of taking questions he stood around and swayed on stage for many minutes. He's a lot more low-energy now than in 2021 when he was still President and boogying to YMCA...
And let's not forget, during that classic speech on the important issue of a sinking ships (and the hazards of boat batteries), when he told us that he'll always take death by electrocution over death by sharks.
And then there's his obsession with the late great Hannibal Lecter—mentioned in many of his speeches, but this is his best tribute to his old friend...
>Even if you have serious disagreements with Harris's policy positions, why would you want to install a person in the White House who is obviously suffering from severe cognitive decline?
There seems to be one right now and things are alright.
Well, I'm not american, so I don't have a guy here (though I admit my sympathies lie with the right). But the notion that Biden is currently less cognitively impaired that Trump seems ridiculous, given what we've seen of both of them so far.
And that's basically the point, you've had a guy who barely seems there siting as president for quite some time, and things have gone on as usual, so if Trump is also declining fast, well that even seems like a good thing, makes him easier to work around.
This is obviously not an argument most people like, because Democrats don't want to admit that they've been running Weekend at Bernie's for some time now (why is Biden unfit to run, but fit to be sitting president?), and Republicans have been claiming you should vote for Trump because he's not an empty suit like Biden and Kamala largely have been and will probably continue to be, so you can't just admit Trump just might become that soon enough.
You say it's obvious that Biden is cognitively impaired? Look at the videos I posted. The difference between Trump and Biden is obvious. Biden always has talked in the slow methodical manner that you see in the video, and it's because of a speech impediment.
And if you're not American, why do you think you have the knowledge to comment intelligently on American politics? BTW, what is your nationality?
>And if you're not American, why do you think you have the knowledge to comment intelligently on American politics?
I mean, why not? We have the internet, grandpa, pretty much the same information is available globally. It's not like we're discussing the intricacies of on the ground operations in key battleground states.
>BTW, what is your nationality?
Russ...err... Argentinian. Argentinian is what I meant to say!
In a nutshell: "I am voting for Trump because I am now quite conservative." I mean, the concerns he identifies, and the language he uses, pretty much define what it means to be on the right of the political spectrum. There is nothing wrong with being on the right, but there is nothing new or interesting about it.
Of course, it is also possible that this is all a rationalization. But that isn't very interesting, either.
Re (33), the usual argument is that electoral frauds that can’t be scaled up to large numbers of votes don’t matter, so the optimum level f security is pretty low.
> electoral frauds that can’t be scaled up to large numbers of votes don’t matter
What does scaling up mean in this context?
It's hard for one person to cast tens of thousands of fraudulent ballots, but it's trivially easy for tens of thousands of people to cast tens of thousands of fraudulent ballots (or steal other people's ballots out of the mail, or whatever).
It is virtually impossible for tens of thousands of people to engage in any coordinated action without blabbing that fact far and wide enough that everyone knows they are doing it.
And if it's not coordinated, then sure, maybe ten thousand people will each independently decide to e.g. send mail-in ballots for their parents or spouses who died just before election day, but half of them will be Democrats and half will be Republicans and it won't much matter.
I guess the question would be, what's the fewest number of conspirators needed to change a vote outcome by the necessary number, in this case low five digits?
If they have access to the voter roles to get names and access to the ballot creation process, the number might be very low. Single digit, possibly even a lone person, if they had all of the access. If the office in charge of elections were interested in doing this, it might even be trivial. Don't purge the roles of people who are dead or left the state, print their ballots as normal but don't mail them out, fill them out as you like, and then collect them as if they had been sent in from the actual voter. That would take a good bit of work for a small team to accomplish, but it's certainly not impossible and doesn't require a massive conspiracy that would get outed.
Other methods would be to go to nursing homes, mental hospitals, and other locations where it's normal for service workers to help people carry out their business. This would not be a single digit number, but dozens or low hundreds at most could pull this off. They ask someone sympathetic at the facility if they can talk to the residents about voting, nominally get some kind of approval on the voting choices, and "help" the resident fill out their ballot.
I'm not saying that any of these things necessarily happened or would be easy, but a motivated group could definitely pull it off.
If the vote leader had a commanding lead, like Biden in CA or NY, then that's probably fine. Given the very small sizes of the differences in some states that mattered in both 2016 and 2020, that's not particularly reassuring.
US history is full of voting situations where the final outcome was determined statewide by less than 1,000 votes (Florida in 2000 comes to mind). Organized fraud that remains undetected and moves low five-digit votes seems eminently possible. Especially if the means of detecting fraud is not implemented or followed. 2020 was a perfect storm in a lot of ways, because covid was either a good reason or a good cover for getting rid of a lot of oversight, depending on your perspective.
as far as I know, the Biden admin hasn't done anything to systematically strengthen institutions, including improve election transparency, efficiency, security, or legitimacy. That is a big disappointment.
Consistent with that, you might care about electronic voting machines, because “hacker changes a number inside a computer” includes big changes to the number.
Which is why we don't trust any one computer to tell us who won an election. Hacking a thousand airgapped voting machines scattered across a hundred precincts, without getting caught even once, is a much less practical plan. And hacking the one vote-counting machine that will give us the early returns on election night but be verified by a hand recount a few days later when the loser complains, doesn't accomplish much either.
Seeing otherwise intelligent people being dumb is making me depressed this election cycle.
Let's pick item 2, national finances, that is probably the closest to Ackman's field (though stock picking and activist investing actually has almost nothing to do with macro economics.) He seems unaware that Trump's economic policies led to a massive increase in the federal deficit, even though there was no underlying economic need for fiscal stimulus (pre-pandemic). A lot of other things can be argued with nuance, but this was pure fiscal irresponsibility.
I don't know with high confidence. To me, whether pandemic stimulus was optimal in 2021 is clearly in the realm of debatable. I'm a deficit hawk and have a bias against that stimulus.
Isn't it kind of strange that green subsidies and incentives have ended up unlocking (or may unlock) multiple potentially revolutionary technologies - (Solar, EVs, synthetic hydrocarbons)?
It's because they allow us to break out of a local optima - and I think this suggests there's lots more such techs out there. I call these techs 'Qattara Depression Technologies'
I would be interested in reading Scott respond to this post Against Steelmanning by economist Noah Smith. He even mentions the Ivermectin discussion Scott had here as an example of why it's bad.
I like a lot of Noah's posts, and it was dumb for the Washington Post to ask him to make the case for Trump's economic policy proposals (instead of someone that actually supports those proposals), but that article was very bad and quite a bummer to boot.
I responded here :https://www.noahpinion.blog/p/against-steelmanning/comment/73820118 - the gist of it is that nothing Noah complains about is a problem inherent to steelmanning. For example, he worries "Steelmanning can easily turn into strawmanning". The problem here is, of course, strawmanning. The same issue plagues each of his objections.
We need some guide on what is and what isn't steelmanning, because obviously different people understand it differently.
As I see it, the point of steelmanning is to *find the truth*, for my own benefit. If my opponent's opinions are 90% crap and 10% truth, I want to be able to extract that true part, without accepting the rest... as opposed to rejecting everything, or converting and accepting everything, which would be the default human reactions.
What steelmanning is not:
- being "fair" to my opponent (except insofar as being fair to my opponent helps me find the truth);
- pretending that my opponent's arguments are 100% true or sane;
- providing free advertising for my opponent.
What would it mean to "steelman a policy proposal"? If it means saying that 90% of its consequences are bad, but 10% are good... that still sounds like a good reason to reject the proposal. And maybe to design a completely different policy proposal that might achieve those good 10% in a different way. It does not mean talking nicely about the policy proposal as it is.
Any idea will have tradeoffs - good sides and bad sides. The catch is that those sides won't always be evident for free. There's no database where you can "select sides where idea=X sort by badness" and just go down the list; one typically has to exert effort hunting.
Because of that effort requirement, it's tempting for people to look at an idea in terms of its appeal to their intuition. If it's appealing, they exert effort to look for the good sides, and when it's time to exert effort looking for the bad, well, why would anyone go out of their way to talk themselves out of something they believe is good?
The idea of steelmanning a policy proposal is the same as that of steelmanning any idea - arguing for it as if you were its proponent, with the implication that you would have gone out of your way to find the good sides of that proposal (or the bad sides of the alternatives), as opposed to only exerting that effort in the direction you wanted a priori.
You're right that it doesn't include "talking nicely" about the proposal. Talking nicely has nothing to do with it, and anyone who thinks that that's what steelmanning is is missing the entire point, which is to find whatever evidence there is in its favor.
I read Noah's article as far as the paywall would let me, which included "it could lead to strawmanning" because you naturally won't be good at assessing an idea you're against, and "it could lead to sanewashing" - which only works if one starts from the assumption that one was right to begin with, aka begging the question.
I suppose Noah makes a good argument that he might be *personally* bad at steelmanning his opposition, given that he (IMO) wasn't even that effective at steelmanning his own side.
I'm not a paid subscriber, so I only have read the beginning sections. I thought the claim about steelmanning turning into strawmanning was a useful point of caution, but not convincing as a reason to not steelman.
I wonder if he includes this point:
In a political campaign, there are two questions before the voters: (a) what policies to pursue and (b) who is trusted to lead. In the US system for national elections, only (b) is directly asked. In this system, effectively and convincingly describing and arguing for a policy set is a signal of fitness to lead. By steelmanning a weak policy presentation, you are distorting this signal.
This might be deeper in his section on sanewashing. Linking my idea and sanewashing, I would say a difference between steelmanning and sanewashing is that steelmanning is good tool for refining ideas, while sanewashing is giving credit to a person that they don't deserve.
I finally get the deeply uncanny feeling of the Berenstain/Mandela Effect. Does anyone else have distinct memories of the word “anemone” actually being “anenome”? I would swear that it has been pronounced “an-enemy” my entire life until reading “anemone” very recently. I’m not willing to give much credence to a split-universe or matrix glitch thing, so why does this happen, neurologically? How hard is it for a phonemic neural bit to just get flipped?
Oddly enough, I remember having this exact same thought about the word "anemone" a few years back. It may be due to the movie Finding Nemo (note: highest-selling DVD of all time - that's how popular it was) and its sole responsibility for the word entering the lexicon for many young people in the early 2000s. Saying "anemone" was a meme back then due to this scene: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bZ1KDf3O-qU. Kids often pronounce weird words wrongly, and perhaps that is what happened here, the mispronunciation sticking through adulthood for many (how often do we talk about ocean flora?).
I don't know, but how horrible that we live in a world where some random young man, minding his own business at a football game, can suddenly have thousands of people picking apart his (ultimately unremarkable either way) looks.
Please post a photo of yourself so the world can criticise your looks.
Yes, his facial proportions are somewhat out of the ordinary, but most people are out of the ordinary in some way. He is unremarkable in the sense that he is neither remarkably attractive nor remarkably ugly, he won't win a beauty contest but he also isn't doomed to a life of inceldom. He reminds me of any number of perfectly ordinary young men that I have known, except most of them never randomly had thousands of internet strangers bullying them for their flaws.
People aren't roasting him because he's ugly, they're roasting him because his face is extremely out of the ordinary. Just being ugly isn't even worthy of scorn or recognition. When people see something out of the ordinary, they are going to comment on it. That's just how the brain works, it responds heavily to novel stimuli.
Most of the time when you see someone with unusual facial features, though, you're too polite to mention it. I don't walk down the street saying "OH GODDAMN THAT WOMAN HAS AN UNUSUALLY POINTY CHIN LOOK AT HER".
For some reason, though, social media has broken that.
The basic idea is that it may not be worth it try to get rid of building restraints across an entire city. For one thing, some powerful residents may put up a very strong fight against it in certain neighborhoods. For another, you might succeed in knocking down some regulations only to be stymied by others.
It's more efficient and effective to choose your battles and work with local officials to determine which areas of the city are most conducive to ending all building restrictions and labeling them Density Zones. This approach has been referred to as "going vertical instead of horizontal".
It occurs to me that the result here is still "zoning", but it's a much smarter approach to zoning. In many cities and neighborhoods, a vocal minority is enough to veto a building project. But if you provide that neighborhood financial support (federal subsidies) to allow more building, it can be easy to find more local supporters than detractors.
The financial support of the federal government gives localities capital that can be used to build infrastructure to support the resulting increase in population density.
The question is: why? Why ruin perfectly nice places that people have paid their entire life's savings to buy into, for the benefit of people who could just go live somewhere else?
They've just announced plans to do this kind of thing in my city, and I'm pretty angry/depressed about the whole thing https://www.theage.com.au/politics/victoria/fifty-new-areas-getting-fast-tracked-high-rise-apartments-here-s-where-20241019-p5kjmb.html ... charming historic walkable suburban shopping strips are going to be bulldozed and replaced by canyons of brand new steel-and-glass apartment buildings. And for what? So that property developers can get rich, so that the city can add another four million people that it doesn't need, so that the economy can continue to be propped up by an immigration ponzi scheme. They want to take a city of four million and turn it into a city of nine million by 2050. And nobody ever says what's going to happen after 2050, it's not like the politicians of 2050 are going to be any more restrained than those of 2024.
Tbf if Melvin doesn't have kids and he's decided to never move again, he's voting in his personal economic interest. I just assume most people factor in longer term interests (eg kids/grand kids, or just relative health of the housing market)
> so that the city can add another four million people that it doesn't need
By that metric, your city already does not need the first 4M it has got. It would be perfectly happy as a sleepy farming village with 200 people. Yet you did not offer that village the courtesy if leaving it in peace, so why should the next 4M leave you in peace in turn?
The reason for why in the USA is the following (from the linked post):
"U.S. housing costs are out of control. The median home for sale was rarely more than four times the median household income throughout the 1980s and 1990s. But by 2022, it had risen to nearly six times. Renters have not fared better. In 1980, around one third of renters were cost burdened, meaning they spent 30 percent or more of their income on housing. Fully half of renters are cost burdened today.
The main reason housing is too expensive is that we don’t build nearly enough of it. The most recent estimates from Freddie Mac place the national shortfall at a staggering 3.8 million housing units. This gaping hole in the country’s housing supply negatively impacts nearly every aspect of American life, reducing economic growth and hindering workers and families from achieving the lives they desire."
By new people do you mean foreign immigrants? If so, let's segregate that debate for now and assume immigration suddenly drops to zero tomorrow. Houses still cost 50% more than they did in the '90s as a function of median income. Let's solve that problem.
Houses cost more because everything else costs less. Housing is a positional good which tends to soak up whatever money people have left over after paying for everything else.
Suppose that housing magically cost 30% less tomorrow. What am I going to spend all my extra disposable income on? Wagyu beef? Fresh clothes every day? No, I'm probably going to spend it on buying a nicer house in a better location. So will everyone else. And bingo, now prices are bid right back up to where they used to be.
As the price of everything else tends towards zero, the price of housing tends towards 100% of everyone's income.
By your economic logic if the housing supply were greater than it is, we'd all be spending the same amount of our incomes on housing but live in bigger houses and apartments. That doesn't sound like a fate worse than death.
I suspect that, in fact, people saved a greater portion of their incomes 30 years ago when housing was cheaper. Maybe tomorrow I'll check the data. I don't believe that in the US "everything else" costed much more 30 years ago, but perhaps it did in Australia.
> The main reason housing is too expensive is that we don’t build nearly enough of it.
Houses are cheap, it's land that's expensive. Specifically, it's land that is close to a major, fashionable city. And you can't just "build more" land, all you can do is take the existing land and make it worse by cramming more people into it, replacing nice houses with dogbox apartments.
The solution isn't to find ways to cram infinite numbers of people into the same five cities, the solution is to encourage development elsewhere -- make it practical and desirable for people to live in places that currently don't have too many people.
>make it worse by cramming more people into it, replacing nice houses with dogbox apartments.
Imagine to identical cities with identical people in them. Someone moves from the first city to the second, making it marginally denser. Because they moved voluntarily, they must be better off than before. Because the people are identical, the situation of the new arrivals and the natives must be identical again. And because the cities were identical before, it follows that the natives are also better off than before.
Now if the cities arent initially identical, then the benefits from moving are a combination of those from moving to a different density, and from making the place more dense. But if there are cities at any level of density, then you could represent each move as a series of moves, each with an arbitrarily small difference in density, while the impact of the mover himself remains equal. So, it still follows that he will only voluntarily move to a city where his impact is positive.
Most people want to live where they can find a decent job, and due to agglomeration effects, good jobs only exist on a small portion of the real estate of big country. Both of our countries are full of mostly empty land, but you are going to be very poor if you choose to live in that empty land. In the Midwest people keep trying to come up with ideas for how to revitalize emptied-out rustbelt cities, but it's a hard problem.
If you want to be a professional, you probably don't have a ton of options of where to live. Your exact profession likely narrows those options further. So you live where there's opportunity and you hope not to pay half your income in rent. You hope to buy a house one day.
I agree that building more cities across the land would be ideal, but there's a thousand chicken-and-egg problems to solve when it comes to building new cities. Small places tend to get smaller and big places tend to get bigger. Been that way for centuries.
Right. But one of the ways that we can discourage people from moving to the existing big cities is to stop building more housing in the existing big cities. Let price signals do their job.
If you're really listening to price signals, then the fact that people are willing and able to pay thousands of dollars to live in a shoebox in Manhattan signals that the economic value of living in a city is *really high* - higher than the amount of money you're paying for that tiny apartment. If people couldn't earn a living in a city, they wouldn't move there, but they can.
So if you're really following price signals, the market is jumping up and down screaming "Put more people here! Every new person here is producing thousands of dollars a month in economic activity! Keep building!"
Price signals aren't doing their job if supply is artificially constrained by a cartel.
People are currently discouraged from moving to many cities because of high rent. That isn't always a bad thing. Los Angeles doesn't need more wannabe actors and NYC doesn't need more wannabe comedians. But it's generally bad when people with talent and skills are disconnected from opportunities to exploit them. Society gains, too. Agglomeration effects are real.
> the solution is to encourage development elsewhere
I mean, do you recognize the irony here? The actual acronym NIMBY isn't about being anti-development- it's that they always want development and urbanization and such to happen..... elsewhere. It's just the problem is that all of the incumbents say that, so in practice you can't build anywhere and nothing ever gets built.
The issue is that preventing younger people from ever being able to buy their own home, or spending increasingly larger chunks of their income in rent to landlords, imposes massive negative externalities on the rest of society. It's the classic 'I got mine, now I'm pulling up the ladder on the next generation, good luck getting yours' kind of rent-seeking. Not to mention enriches the landlords themselves. Why is it better to enrich a landlord than a developer?
The problem is that people who are currently living there will not benefit, and people who want to live there cannot vote there. If you upzone a residential neighborhood to be able to build 10 story apartment buildings, it's not like the people living there will just move to the apartments.
At best that allows individuals to sell their property to developers, but then you still have the rest of the neighborhood voting against those apartments. You need enough people selling to outvote the people who stayed behind. Being allowed to build isn't enough, you almost need to make it impossible to veto the build.
"The problem is that people who are currently living there will not benefit, and people who want to live there cannot vote there."
I don't think this is true, or at least it is not necessarily true. People currently living there are perhaps rolling the dice, but many likely outcomes of densifying involve adding amenities and bringing prices down enough that one's kids can afford to live nearby.
A pareto improvement just is what will pass against any veto. So if there is a net benefit, developers should be able to pay off everyone. And if these payoffs can be included in the building-plan-to-be-approved (since this can apparently already include rent limits on some of the units built in California, that shouldnt be too hard), youve automatically solved the coordination problem. Then how was there a problem to being with?
>A pareto improvement just is what will pass against any veto. So if there is a net benefit, developers should be able to pay off everyone.
A net benefit and a pareto improvement are two different concepts. Economic growth is rarely a pareto improvement. Usually there are trade-offs with winners and losers. Technological innovation, for example usually displaces workers.
Pareto improvements are too high a bar here. That way lies stagnation. A net benefit should be enough, otherwise we never automate the ports, etc.
The idea is that you can turn a net benefit into a pareto improvement by paying off the losers, and still have money left over. There are often complexities to doing this in reality, but as I argue it seem like it should work in this case.
The post behind the link answers those questions. It's not simply upzoning, creating Density Zones is about creating zones in which it is impossible to veto the build.
I distrust the current Democratic Party. I don't think they actually care about the issues they run on. I believe they just want to *appear* virtuous, rather than improve the world.
There are many many examples of them actively harming society, while claiming they are helping (and simultaneously tarring any objection as bigoted, racist, sexist, etc...)
Left-led examples: defund the police (supposedly to support minority communities, the actual impact was just abandoning minority communities to higher levels of crime), scrapping SAT admission requirements (supposedly to encourage diversity, the predictable outcome was less diversity and major reduction in social mobility, duh...), opening the border to illegal immigrants (as opposed to boosting legal immigration), not teaching advanced mathematics in California "because it discriminates."
Another example: the left media reaction to and coverage of Depp v. Heard. I watched 100% of the court footage, and it was clear that Heard was the abuser. But the left media did not care about the truth, about the actual victim, they just wanted to endorse the lefts preconceived narrative.
Rather than actually help the victims, and help improve the world, etc... The left are currently caught up in scoring easy virtue points. I am so utterly and completely sick of it. I care about the world. I care about people, and the left doesn't currently seem to.
You see it in the reaction to so many things:
- Watch how Garcia-Navarro in an interview with JD Vance sneers at the idea of Americans working in construction. Implicitly the Democrats seem to see themselves as above it.
- Observe how people characterize Donald Trumps stunt of working at Mc Donalds as being insulting to the workers. Implicitly they see working at Mc Donalds as beneath them.
- Watch Kamila Harris respond to christian hecklers saying "Jesus is Lord" by saying "you are at the wrong rally, you want the smaller one." It is a far far cry, from the grace Obama had dealing with Hecklers.
- The talking down to voters. The belittling of voters. How people who aren't voting for them are bigots, or racists, or ignorant, or sexist, etc...
- Even reasonable intelligent voices are caught up in this strange headspace. Listen to Ezra Klein's podcast episode "The Boys are not alright." Observe how he hast to take extreme pains to make it okay for him to merely broach the topic that boys can be disenfranchised in society too. Listen to the bitter experience his guest has of being a sociologist who cares about improving the world, to then become instantly disavowed when he picked a non-preapproved topic (i.e. that boys can be suffering as opposed to focusing on girls). It sickens me.
Kamala Harris exemplifies this trend of hypocrisy. Throughout her career she has flipped policies whenever it suited her aspiration for higher office. Criminalizing weed, then endorsing it. Being anti the death penalty, then for it. I also find it incredibly off-putting that Democrats think that a gender and a race in anyway qualify one more for president (e.g., her terrible Al Smith dinner skit).
I believe the current Republican Party has less of this complete and utter moral failing. In particular, I believe JD Vance cares deeply about the working class. You can find a TED video from 8 years ago speaking earnestly on the topic. I think he sees Trump as route to helping them. I don't know what I feel about Trump, but I do trust JD Vance.
As a quick aside, I feel like I see a lot of right leaning readers here complaining that Kamala changed her opinions on many issues in the intervening years from 2019 to now. This is somehow seen as a bad thing.
But in the last 5 years she's been VP, seen the job from the inside, and gotten insider access to massive amounts of classified information. It would be wild if she _didn't_ change her views. I'd see that as much more of a red flag, personally.
> Wokeness rose largely because of Trump. There was a causal relationship that was probably most apparent to people who spent that time in deep blue spaces. That relationship creates an odd situation: Republicans want people to strike a blow against wokeness by voting for Trump. But in truth, probably nothing would breathe new life into wokeness more than a second Trump term.
Personally, I am disgusted with the approach to truth practiced by either party. It is 100% arguments as soldiers. The woke left is fearing that if they concede that being a man can be a disadvantage, this will strengthen the wrong people and lead to a return to patriarchy. They also think they have to sell what is actually duche vs turd as the final battle of good and evil about the future of democracy in America. And then there are the BLM riots.
The Trump side is worse, if anything. Trump is willing to repeat any random claim he heard if he thinks he can get away with it. He seems utterly indifferent to the idea that statements can be true or false in our reality. And while many of his claims are mostly harmless (who really gives a fuck if he finds some immigrant who grilled a cat?), there are others which erode the bedrock of democracy. His statements about the legitimacy of the 2020 election results seem about as based in reality as his pet-eating immigrants, but far more harmful. Then there is his coup attempt on Jan 6, which naturally did not work because Trump has no idea how DC works.
If it was not for that, Trump would merely be a moderately bad president who made headlines mostly by posting on twitter. With it, I think he qualifies as a terrible president. Not Hitler level bad, mind you, but distinctly worse than some colorless career politician.
With regard to wokism, I think that the best choice is to ride it out. The first Trump presidency fanned the flame of wokeness. It made them feel attacked without meaningfully pushing back against their excesses.
Sure, Trump is a liar, a braggart, etc... The right is not trump. The whole of the left seems riddled with this issue. They implement actively harmful policies, while taring objectors as racist, sexist, etc...
Watch the once stately Obama try to shame black male voters into voting for Kamala Harris, because surely, sexism can be the only reason not to endorse her.
Read this article by CNN minimizing Kamala Harris's plagiarism. To CNN article write how, "as the California attorney general, Harris authorized the publication of a 2012 report on human trafficking that presented an anonymized example of sex trafficking as a real case in San Francisco, lifting language from a nonprofit’s website in the process that they attributed in the report."
In a government report, she lies (misrepresenting an anonymous charity tip as a verified law finding) and plagiarizes for her own political advantage. How does CNN characterize this behavior? "To apply the high expectation of originality found in journalism or academic writing to political speeches is misguided,” said Michael Dougherty, a professor of philosophy at Ohio Dominican University" Unhinged. That is literally the end of the CNN article. The last word.
Kamala's plagiarism was not even a speech. It's a government report. The republicans simply do not have this same degree of closed-ranks un-tethered-from-reality group think. For example, watch
Megyn Kelly actively defend Mike Pence. Watch Ben Shapiro actively criticize Trump for not conceding the election, and bemoan how it harms the republicans current chances. etc... etc...
Well, the major US right-wing party has decided to give the one term president who lost the last election in a landslide the nomination again.
I am sure that there are some Republican candidates who do go on record saying that Trump lost in 2020 and is full of shit for claiming otherwise, but I think they are in the minority. The median Republican candidate is at least MAGA-adjacent.
If I have to pick between woke-adjacent democrats who e.g. claim that women are the main target of male aggression contrary to the facts (most perps AND victims of violence are male), and MAGA-adjacent Republicans spreading the narrative of a stolen election, then I will slightly prefer the pushers of the woke lies.
"Unequal outcomes imply unfair processes" is a terrible foundational lie for a movement, but "elections are rigged by the deep state" is an even worse one. The former might lead to minorities being pushed through med school (because any process which results in fewer minority doctors would be racist), the latter is a direct precursor to civil war as the default method of conflict resolution in the absence of a trusted alternative.
I just don't buy that the Republicans have this narrative. I have watched hours and hours of republican content (e.g., Ben Shapiro, the VP Debate, Megyn Kelly, Rallies and Town Houses) and they don't run on that platform.
The current Republican rhetoric is extremely focused on characterizing Kamala Harris as a) bad for the economy, and b) ineffective and disingenuous. There is basically zero focus on race, or democracy. Watch how JD Vance characterizes her on the campaign. He in particular, hyper-focuses his criticism on her and Biden, and actually comparatively rarely denigrates the democrats.
It is the democrats portraying republicans as threat to democracy, e.g., Biden says how Trump should "be locked up."
If Kamala Harris certified her own election for President by coordinating with private actors in swing states to use alternate slates of electors and by discounting the officially certified electoral votes for Trump, you think she shouldn't be in jail? And that she should hold political office again?
The snobbishness, sanctimony and weird taboos you point out are all present on the left, but they're also present on the right. The average liberal can put together a very similar list of the social attacks by conservatives against people like them- and an average trans person or immigrant can put together a much stronger list. That's the culture war. It's ugly and harmful on both sides, but electing Donald Trump very much isn't going to improve the situation.
The presidency isn't some abstract symbol to be awarded to whichever culture war faction deserves the most status. It's an incredibly powerful office, and the decisions of the person holding it will have profound impacts on average peoples' lives, up to and including causing or preventing mass death. Donald Trump has very much proven himself to be unworthy of that power. The man behaves as though every interaction is a zero-sum game. He disregards morality whenever it suits him, frequently buys into fringe ideas and conspiracy theories, often betrays allies, both personal and national... When he didn't like the results of a fair election, he attempted to use a faithless elector scheme to overturn it, and set up a violent mob to intimidate his VP into going along with it.
The man reminds me of nobody so much as Nicolas Maduro. Maduro is the archetypal populist- he's an expert showman who's shtick is finally standing up for the common man and putting all those arrogant, normal-person-hating elites in their place. One day, he hit on the line that inflation is a lie told by those elites to keep benefits away from normal people. This played well in his TV broadcasts, so he kept doubling down on it. The end result was that hyperinflation collapsed the Venezuelan economy and led to mass starvation and emigration. And yet, the man still has a fanatical cult of personality, because populist.
Of course, Maduro is leftist, and Trump isn't. But why have the leftist Scandinavian countries done so well, while Venezuela has collapsed? I think it largely comes down to the fact the first are run by boring technocrats, and the latter by an insane populist. This is the sort of thing I'm worried about with Trump. Look at economists' reactions to policies like his threatening of the Fed's independence, his blanket tariffs, or his mass deportations. I defy you to find any economist who isn't horrified by Trump's policies and mixed on Harris's.
My best guess on the most important thing the president will need to deal with in the next four years is the economic impact of AI agents and the potential crisis this will create with China over Taiwan's chip manufacturing capacity. I'm very much expecting Trump to take the dumbest possible position on this issue. You know he will. He won't seriously consult any AI experts or experienced diplomats; he'll see something on Twitter that sounds like it will play well at rallies, and then he'll keep doubling down on that regardless of the evidence. And people will love him for it even if it leads to catastrophe.
Harris may also take a terrible position, but I expect her to at least consult with some people with good ideas before deciding, and I expect her people to hold her back if she settles on anything particularly dangerous..
Trump, meanwhile, I expect to be surrounded entirely by frightened yes-men in his second term, given how relentlessly he purged people who weren't in his first.
Yes, the Democrats are terrible in a lot of ways. I'd love to see some smart, pro-growth centrist take them down. But Trump isn't a worthy champion of the anti-Left cause. The man needs to be kept as far away from power as possible.
On JD: there's some evidence that he's a personal friend of Moldbug, the founder of the Neoreactionary movement- some accounts that he and Moldbug both spent the 2016 election at Thiel's house, for instance. A lot of his positions also seem to be inspired by NRX ideas. See: https://slatestarcodex.com/2013/10/20/the-anti-reactionary-faq/ for an overview of Scott's (very negative) views of that movement.
"The presidency isn't some abstract symbol to be awarded to whichever culture war faction deserves the most status."
This strikes me as how elections are currently run, if not how people people actually perceive things. I'm disgusted by the political ads I see, from either party, for the half-truths and even outright lies, but such ads must work, or they wouldn't run them.
Campaign speeches are similar in content. The candidates seem to say what they think will get them votes, and such doesn't even have to have a tangential relationship to intended policy.
Here (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iEy-xTbcr2A) is JD Vance on the working class. It is a TED talk from 8 years ago (far before his involvement in politics). He obviously cares deeply and genuinely about the American people, and about the working class.
The left simply cannot help people with the issues he describes. He talks about those in poverty in these communities having a dearth of social capital. I would be willing to bet money that the left would instantly turn against someone uttering this simple truth. They would describe it as being or judgemental or "blaming the victims." They are so obsessed with scoring virtue points for empty words that they harm those they should seek to help.
I'm not sure why you're invoking the always-online woke Twitter mob, or the media, as a reason to distrust the Democratic Party. You seem to be deliberately conflating these. The party is basically centrist, their best implementation in recent years has been the CHIPS act which drastically increased American manufacturing output.
> I care about the world. I care about people, and the left doesn't currently seem to.
Most liberals care about the economy most of all, polls make that plain. The far-left cares about issues you care less about; that's not tantamount to "not caring about the world".
What you wrote about reactions is a projection that can't possibly be written in good faith.
Changing policies is not unusual over time, and hammering on "x politician is lying" rather than actually addressing policy at face value is not persuasive. "Politicians lie" is a blanket truism, most promises are kept anyway so the only thing to question is which promises you prefer. You believe the GOP is more trustworthy because you want to believe it, that's it.
I'm noticing this strategy far more often lately leading up to the election. Nate Silver did mention that the excesses of the covid era will continue to bite the DNC in the ass. Culture war bs that has nothing to do with the party is still used as fodder. The attack framing has shifted to hypocrisy/lies since Harris' shift rightward, but that's weaksauce "vibes" shit except to those who'd have voted Republican regardless. It would be worse for her if she espoused what she did in '19.
Most major newspapers and American news outlets: e.g., The Washington Post, The New York Times, CNN, MSNBC, etc... are heavily left aligned. They are also massive sources of disinformation. The clear instance I cite is their coverage of Depp v. Heard. If you use the wayback when machine you will see that they constantly force the narrative that a) she is the innocent victim, because believe all women, and b) that anyone who disagrees is 1. stupid or 2. misogynistic. This multi-step process of first, a) repeating the established left-narrative, regardless of evidence or common sense, and then b) taring any objections as being some mix of stupidity and malice is currently the core left playbook.
I don't understand why the readers of Astral Codex Ten are not completely sickened by this behavior. Look at what happened to Scott! The left media is why we aren't still reading Slate Star Codex!!
The NYT did a bad thing, and I cancelled my subscription (to the cooking app) over it, but to believe that this couldn't have happened at the WSJ or the New York Post is kind of silly.
Here is a case that made the rounds a few years back with the New York Post, which I find actually worse than Scott's (ymmv):
"This past Saturday, I was exposed as a sex worker who is also a New York City paramedic. The New York Post published a story shaming me for selling my nude photos online and made sure to include my full name, photos of me, my education, my height and weight, my location, and my workplace."
"As New York City’s medical community scrambles to respond to the latest spike in COVID-19 cases, the New York Post on Friday made the baffling decision to out a first responder as a part-time sex worker, even after she apparently begged the paper to remain anonymous."
Generally though, I think that the person claiming a causal link between two things (in this case, left-of-center politics and inclination to dox) should explain their reasoning. Le raz merely asserted this link without evidence or theory.
- My impression is that most media coverage (e.g., the results on google when you search for a term), is left-leaning
- I have seen multiple instances of these highly regarded publications doing terrible (damaging) reporting. E.g., Depp v. Heard and the doxxing of Scot.
So my main complaint, is that these media outlets are high status while also terrible. This disparity is in contrast to republican tabloids, which generally most people agree are low quality. My social circle is also pretty left-leaning, as so I repeatedly see the actual instances of the left acting badly, and when I immerse myself in content from the right (as opposed to the left characterizing the right), the rate seems far lower. This last point is all anecdotal of course.
I wouldn't hand-wave it away, but OP is making the opposite problem. They're hand-waving away the many things that the President has _much_ more direct control over.
An honest case for the Presidency should start with what it is likely to achieve. A review of Trump's first term - or, for that matter, a basic course in civics - will tell you that Trump isn't likely to do much to stop progressivism in his second term any more than he did in his first.
So what kind of stuff is he actually going to do?
Is he going to fix the border? Maybe - but he didn't do it particularly well the first time, choosing flashy but transient moves over sustained reform. And the fact that he acted to sink a bipartisan bill earlier this year suggests that he & the Republicans see the border less as an immediate crisis and more as an opportunity to stir up anger.
He's also likely to sign more tax cuts to put us even deeper in debt; his Social Security plans would accelerate its insolvency; his tariffs would be ruinous, and there's good reason to be afraid of those since he did them on a smaller scale the first time around.
We can expect more conservative judges for sure.
Any honest assessment of prospects for Trump 2.0 need to account for actual likely outcomes. If you're cool with all of those, that's fine, just say that. Don't project your dreams for the ultimate anti-woke character you wish he was, because we already have plenty of evidence that he is not that.
> An honest case for the Presidency should start with what it is likely to achieve. A review of Trump's first term - or, for that matter, a basic course in civics - will tell you that Trump isn't likely to do much to stop progressivism in his second term any more than he did in his first.
How so? They're doing a much better job of vetting for loyalists this time around. A basic course in civics wouldn't tell you anything; there's no reason they have to follow standard procedure.
> Is he going to fix the border? Maybe - but he didn't do it particularly well the first time, choosing flashy but transient moves over sustained reform.
This part is pretty disingenuous. Here are the SW border encounters of illegal crossings for the last 8 years (fiscal year ending 10/15):
2024 - 2.135 MM
2023 - 2.476 MM
2022 - 2.379 MM
2021 - 1.735 MM
--- Trump/Biden ---
2020 - 0.401 MM
2019 - 0.852 MM
2018 - 0.397 MM
2017 - 0.304 MM
You can't look at that data and honestly say there wasn't a dramatic difference between the Trump admin and Biden/Harris admin on illegal immigration. Trump's efforts didn't outlive his presidency, but that is a very different bar from not working - which they clearly did.
Trump’s stated objective was to reduce the number illegal immigrant crossing the border, and he didn’t.
The numbers were low in fiscal 2017, but fiscal year 2017 started on Oct. 1, 2016, so when Trump took office, the years was almost 1/3 over, and it takes additional time to put new policies in place. So Trump has to share credit with Obama for 2017. 2018 was essentially at the average under Obama. In 2019, the numbers spiked. In 2020, they were almost down to the Obama average, but some of that was due to Covid shutting everything down. And obviously, the 2021 numbers don’t improve Trump’s record.
While four years is a bit too short to declare a trend, to the extent there is a trend under Trump it’s for crossing to increase over time, in contrast to the Obama years, when the trend was down.
Cause and effect are not clear here, because the changes in numbers could be caused by factors having nothing to do with U.S. border policy. But you cite the border enounter numbers, which I presume means you endorse them as a meaningful peasure of illegal immigration. Your post appears to presume that these numbers are driven by U.S. border policy. Under those assumptions, Trump promised to reduce illegal immigration and instead instituted policies that made the problem worse.
That’s not what I would call working, much less “clearly” working.
Obama had less border crossings and also more deportations than Trump. But that isn't the relevant comparison here. It's between Trump, who averaged less than half a million illegal crossings per year, and Biden-Harris, who averaged over two million per year. In the context of an election, which most of this thread is about, clearly one of these two policies is vastly more effective. But I agree if we were to rank the effect of the last three administrations by the number of border crossings, it would be Obama > Trump >>> Biden.
I'm sorry for not being clear, but you just made the same point I was. When I said he didn't do it 'well' I meant precisely because it wasn't sustained.
He acted through executive action, not by trying to pass any sort of legislation that would help by addressing the underlying causes of the border pressure. His approach is basically one of fear-mongering (again, witness his sinking of a pretty decent bill earlier this year). If Trump 2.0 passes some kind of bill that strengthens security, rationalizes the asylum system, and provides the pathway for guest workers that businesses need, then I'll admit I was flat wrong. But evidence suggests that ain't gonna happen. We're gonna get some big showy tough-on-the-illegals moves, public opinion will thermostatically shift the other way, and we'll be right back on the other side in 4 years.
That being said, my point in context is that the border _is_ an issue where you can make a rational case for the Trump admin. I think there's room for skepticism but it makes way more sense to vote Trump for that reason than for any culture-war reason.
Yeah, Trump mostly used executive orders that the next admin then removed. But that's how the Presidency functions really, he can't force Congress to pass legislation. The Republicans not being organized enough to pass their preferred policy (even while controlling all three houses) isn't a problem unique to Trump but rather the party as a whole.
The "underlying causes of the border pressure" is that billions of people are poorer than Americans. So unless you think a worldwide Marshall Plan is possible to accomplish(it's not), you can't fix every other countries poverty.
Would you have more information about the CHIPS act's success? It's been a while, but the last I heard it wasn't likely to make much difference due to difficult-to-meet requirements to use the funding.
"With recent multi-billion-dollar grants to Intel, TSMC, Samsung, and Micron, the US government has now spent over half its $39bn in Chips Act incentives. In so doing it has driven an unexpected investment boom. Chip companies and supply chain partners have announced investments totalling $327bn over the next 10 years, according to Semiconductor Industry Association calculations. US statistics show a stunning 15-fold increase in construction of manufacturing facilities for computing and electronics devices. Debate about the Chips Act has focused on delays and manufacturing difficulties, but the vast volume of investment tells a different story."
I think Ezra Klein is earnest, but heavily distorted (a bit like how I view Ben Shapiro). I don't trust either of them to see reality clearly.
I cite that podcast episode on boys as instance of how corrupted and swallowed by the left he is. That he needs to hand-wring so greatly to simply say "boys have problems too" is surely a sign that the left has deep deep set problems in how it relates to truth and improving society. According to them, everything is a zero-sum game set up around identity politics. That narrative does come from them, and it is immensely harmful. I cannot endorse this political strategy with a vote.
This piece actually changed my mind. I was leaning towards Trump for pretty much exactly the reasons Ezra describes and now I think I'm right back in the middle because he was able to identify and attack those issues directly in the ways that I care about. I am genuinely convinced by "Trump's first term really was pretty decent in retrospect. It was a gamble, and not necessarily obvious from the outset, but the interplay between reckless ambition and institutional conservativism was genuinely a way to make some good changes happen. But now that institutional conservative power is probably weaker and Trump has ambitions to weaken it even further, and he and his inner circle are very transparent about that; a Trump second term really could be worse than you might expect from his first term."
This is a fantastic example of a steelman-and-counterargument. Too many people have had bananas in their ears, not able to understand that the contours of the debate and even Trump supporter demographic have changed significantly since last time. They are still arguing like it's 2016 and "Trump is stupid and mean and racist" will convince people. Ezra really understands what this race is about.
...But anyone who's right-wing would be convinced the opposite way by that, wouldn't they? This is finally their chance to set things right, to reverse over a century of cultural degeneration. Trump is their hound to unleash on all who wronged them.
Interesting. I find Trump utterly deplorable as a person and think he shouldn’t be allowed within a mile of any power levers, and yet think his first term was meh. Baby Bush, OTOH, seems to be a decent person, and yet did incalculable damage to this country.
It's starting to feel like there's a Trump ad campaign going on here. It would be better if there were just one thread of "You for Trump or Harris?" so the rest of us can collapse it with one click.
No, it's definitely not a coincidence. The election is about to happen and people are expression opinions about that major event that is about to happen. You're right; it's definitely not a coincidence!
Sure, but this was an effort to persuade that doesn't seem tailored to a rat-adjacent community. It's based on vibes and projection. Maybe I give too much credit to the users here.
It's like 2 weeks away from a major election, I think it's fine.
bias alert, I'm somewhat leaning towards Trump these days and feel seriously relieved that I'm not the only ACX-reading rationalist-adjacent person who feels the same way. Obvious spam/ads would be one thing, but I think this is just genuine momentum.
You may be absolutely sincere. I have no way of knowing what you are thinking. What makes me suspect insincerity is that it’s hard for me to believe someone is ‘somewhat leaning’ toward Trump. It seems that people who support him are all in for the guy. The people that are against him think he is a very dangerous man.
I can kind of understand the folks that he’s the best. I can create a mental model where someone thinks he is just what America needs even though I’m one of the ones that think he is very dangerous, a view I share with Mike Pence and Mitt Romney.
To be simply leaning toward him is something I can’t model in my mind. I honestly try to do it but my imagination is just not up to the task.
So when I see a tepid endorsement of the guy I suspect an attempt at the ‘soft sell’ technique. ‘I thought the 1/6 attack on the Capitol wasn’t cool but you know the guy is funny sometimes and he sorta makes sense.’
I know that the last nine years formerly unacceptable rhetoric from a former US president like saying ‘Democrats are the enemy within’ or immigrants are ‘poisoning the blood of our country’ or ‘Harris was a shit VP’ or ‘Kamala is a Marxist’ or ‘Arnold Palmer was all man and had an amazingly large dick’ (????) or ‘John McCain was only a hero because he was captured’ has been normalized.
It’s impossible to keep up with the firehose of his outrageous rhetoric and we become numb to the stuff. Maybe people have simply become inured to the steady stream of lies, cruelty and ignorance that comes out of the guy’s mouth.
Have you ever experienced being cancelled? I have to a (very) minor extent.
I have experienced describing how "Defund the Police" seems to harm communities, rather than help them, and having a social circle brand me as racist. The people branding me did not give a damn about Black People. They just wanted to defeat a dragon (me) and earn virtue points. That is my (repeated) personal experience of the left.
I have been ostracized for daring to be against the expungement of Jordan Peterson's "12 Rules for Life" from a college library. If you read the Wikipedia page of the book then you will find that it was criticized for being pat, cliche, and unobjectionable (!!). It might be a boring book, but it isn't one that needs censoring. Again, these vehement people did not care about the truth.
I don't like Trump, but I dislike the (current) left more, because of repeated personal experience of them acting horribly, and actively harming those they want to help. For context, I supported Obama, and in general am in favor of many supposed goals of the left (like social safety nets, etc...), but to me, the wokeness override everything. It is so corrosive. I don't trust the left to actually help those they claim to support.
Defund the police is a stupid idea. Joe Biden said so in public: “No. Fund the police.”
Banning innocuous books is stupid.
I retired during Trump’s first term and haven’t experienced the extreme woke effect. A couple of fellow engineers were big Trump guys. I said I thought he was a jackass. We remained friends.
I have been shunned for stating an opinion contrary to the majority though. I’ve always made a point of speaking up for my own convictions.
That is a good principle! All I am saying, is that personally, I have experienced Democrats cancelling people for disagreeing with them, and my impression is that they cancel a lot lot more than the Republicans do.
I can't speak for all "somewhat leaning toward Trump" people, but perhaps I can be an archetype:
* Struggled to comprehend why my liberal friends thought Rome was falling on January 6, which seemed (to me, at least) more along the lines of football hooliganism.
* Believes that bureaucratic inertia (the "deep state", if you must) greatly outweighs the president's power, and therefore elections don't really matter very much.
* Neither candidate is particularly competent. Neither is particularly scary.
* The Trump tax cuts are nice, and limiting illegal immigration is good. Trump's proposed tariffs would probably suck if actually implemented, but they probably won't be.
Also, most importantly, is where we end up in 2028:
Suppose Kamala wins. What happens on the GOP side is anyone's guess. Vance probably goes down with the ship. All those stupid perennial Trump yard signs probably stay up. Kamala probably runs again in 2028.
Now suppose Trump wins. He gracefully disappears once his term is up. The yard signs come down. Vance becomes the de facto successor, and presumably takes the GOP in interesting new directions. Kamala is gone, and the Democrats hopefully nominate someone more interesting.
I think Republicans would benefit from winning, e.g., VD Vance is fresh, young, statesman like, and the Democrats need to lose, and get off the track of a) pandering, and b) running unlikable not-very-competent candidates.
Personally, I'm undecided on whether Trump or Harris is the lesser evil.
Harris has explicitly said she is for "regulating" [censoring] speech on social media, and she was part of an administration that roughly doubled the number of illegal immigrants entering the USA.
Trump is a (pathological?) liar, and he suggested looking into injecting disinfectant.
I can't see leaning _towards_ either candidate, but there are very good cases for leaning away from each of them.
As I noted above, I can think of plenty of reasons someone might vote for Trump. But denying that he is an outlier in many ways is not a claim that anyone can take seriously.
What next, a claim that because Harris was once curt to a waiter means that she is just as rude as Trump, who insults the appearance of a rival's wife during a debate?
Many Thanks! I hadn't heard about that, but I'm not terribly surprised. I cited just two reasons for opposing each candidate, but there are a lot more for each of them. Gaa, we need a better system for picking candidates. (Don't ask me how!)
>it’s hard for me to believe someone is ‘somewhat leaning’ toward Trump
It seems pretty easy to me. What if someone is anti-immigration but pro-Ukraine? Or pro-immigration but also pro-Israel? That person could easily lean Trump (or lean Harris). And those are just a couple of issues.
It’s not about policy for me. It’s about character. Based on the words that come out his mouth unfiltered by media interpretation I believe Trump is a moral cretin. A completely shameless man who will say one thing at 10:00 AM and the opposite at 2:00 PM and pass a lie detector test both times
A person who will say “So what?” when told Mike Pence has been safely evacuated from the Capitol building. Who will watch an assault on that building for hours and not come out and say, “Stop it. I don’t want that. Remember, I said to demonstrate peacefully?”
I’m center left and prefer Dems in general but I would vote for Mitt Romney, Paul Ryan or Liz Cheney over Trump. Bring back John McCain or Bob Dole and I’d vote for them too.
Yeah, he does have a horrible character. But at least his party does not endorse it. They say, "he has no filter" etc... but don't hold him up as role model.
Kamala Harris has a similar lack of integrity (as evidenced by her history of wildly varying policy positions that conveniently always suited her aspirations for higher office, and her repeated - well evidenced - plagiarism). However, the left does hold her up as a role model, and tars most criticism of her as being sexist.
To me, that is the difference between the parties.
I suspect it is, though. You're in the fortunate position of disliking Trump personally and also disliking his policies, so it's not a difficult decision.
But put yourself in the shoes of someone who strongly prefers Trump's policy positions. Are you really going to choose the candidate with policies you think would be terrible over the candidate with policies you like, just because the candidate whose policies you like is a bit more of a dick?
This happens in every election. There's a lot of "Oh, I'd never vote for Candidate X because of his/her terrible character flaws" coming from people who would never vote for Candidate X anyway.
Unrelatedly,
> Who will watch an assault on that building for hours and not come out and say, “Stop it. I don’t want that. Remember, I said to demonstrate peacefully?”
For what it's worth, I know a lot of people who a struggling with who to vote for, many of whom are leaning towards Trump but uncertain. It's several real categories of voters.
1) People who are Republican, but don't like Trump specifically.
2) People who like Trump, but also have concerns about his temperament or ability.
3) People who really don't like Kamala or the Democratic platform, but aren't necessarily Republicans or Trump supporters (in swing states, these people need to consider voting for a major party even if they prefer something else).
I won't claim to know what percent of potential voters this encompasses, but I would guess a single digit percent. That's low, but in 2016 or 2020 that may have been enough to swing the election.
for what it's worth the Ezra Klein article you linked higher up genuinely moved the needle for me.
The thing that is still keeping me unsure is that you (or rather Ezra) has articulated a fantastic steelman and counterargument for Trump against Not Trump. But this election isn't just Trump against Not Trump; it's also Kamala Harris against Not Kamala Harris. And Kamala isn't just a generic Democrat, she has some real serious issues that I would love to see a similar steelman-and-counterargument for that aren't "well this bit doesn't matter, because her opponent is Trump".
As for whether you believe me or not...well, that's probably understandable. I'm not so foolish as to think my particular reasons for are super common. Some combination of...oh I don't know, probably at least 95th percentile aversion to partisanship and a weird-ass combination of left and right tribe culture (recent-catholic-convert mildly-anti-woke-but-somewhat-sympathetic-towards-it libertarian-sympathetic deer hunting big truck loving homesteading-hippy fitness-adjacent raw-egg-eating kind-of-rationalist-ish pro-Elon-Musk tech-bro-but-not-the-kind-that-likes-crypto cyclist-but-not-the-kind-that-wears-spandex in a big urban city who aligns with Democrats on probably 60-80% of policy positions but is really worried about the remaining 20-40%). Depending on what issues I'm caring about in a given week I'm pulled either strongly or weakly in one or another direction.
Another thing is that I'm not in a swing state. So who I vote for is more about my personal conscience and group identity. Either way I vote it burns some bridges and opens up others. I'm not the kind of person who will lie about who I voted for. There are people who I respect who might hate me for voting the "wrong way". It's not about who becomes president, it's about what it says about me and my values.
No, people in the US do not ask strangers who they voted for. But people do discuss the merits of various candidates with people they know, which I assume is the case in Australia as well.
People may volunteer that information but it’s not proper to ask someone. Pollsters do it but no one is compelled to answer. The whole secret ballot thing is pretty ingrained in the US.
Not particularly often, for the reasons you might expect, but it would be something people might volunteer when it's relevant. Most of the time it's pretty obvious -- my fundamentalist Baptist second cousins in South Carolina are voting Trump, my little brother who has a pride flag and Palestine flag sticker on his computer and participated in the BLM protests in Portland is probably voting Harris.
It's likely more common in ambiguously partisan grey tribe circles like where I hang out. And close friends do talk about this stuff obviously.
I've never been asked, but people know I'm a commie (i.e., a Centrist Democrat). People do say things like, "I'm voting for so-and-so," as an endorsement for a candidate. Also, any answer you'd get could be a lie tailored to your preferences. There was a story the last election cycle about Republican women voting for Biden, but telling their husbands they voted for Trump to keep marital harmony.
This is possibly the worst place imaginable to run an astroturf campaign- your expected value per dollar spent is many orders of magnitude higher on Facebook, reddit, TikTok, etc, so on that basis alone I am extremely skeptical of your assertions.
The alternative explanation, in that a number of ACXers have realized that perhaps the media blitz of the past few months have rather obfuscated some fundamental truths about the candidates and come to different conclusions than your own tracks with national polling, so I am more inclined to lean that direction.
This is also a wonderful example of the power of echo chambers- not everyone here votes (D), but it's the default assumption.
Just to confirm I'm not misunderstanding here. The original comment ("it's starting to feel like there's a trump ad campaign here") seemed to me to be suggesting that there was some degree of inorganic nature to a lot of the pro-trump posts (and I agree there are quite a lot of them, so this is a legitimate thing to worry about!).
My feelings are something like "I am one of these people who have been posting somewhat favorable opinions about Trump recently and I can assure you not only am I completely honest about my feelings, but I am also not part of any coordinated action; presuming there are others like me I think this is probably genuine. I and others feel relief and solidarity that we are not alone here."
Have you changed your mind about the initial idea that this is inorganic, or are you suggesting that this is even more evidence that this is inorganic, because my response and feelings fit very suspiciously into a template you've seen repeated in the other threads?
As Steve Sailer says, I'm just noticing patterns. As I said above, it *feels* like an ad campaign, but that doesn't mean it is in fact premeditated electioneering. Perhaps the closeness of the election is causing multiple ACX readers to spontaneously make similar-sounding OPs about how they are leaning-Trump or how they don't like Trump but will vote for him anyway because of this and that. Or perhaps there is a copy-cat effect of one Trump voter here reading one of those posts and then deciding to post their own.
What really causes the pattern to stand out is that normally posters here will read the existing threads and add to them if they have something to say on the subject. But instead of the "Why I'm voting for Trump" testimonials sticking to the same threads they are creating new ones on the same topic.
This reminds me a bit of that one time someone here elaborated a whole theory on why some subreddit commenter was not, in fact, an Argentine, but rather a Chinese propagandist. This was later dispelled by checking said commenter's post history.
I'd do it for you if I hadn't expended my substack time allowance, but you can just go into their profiles and see if they're saying elsewhere matches what you see here.
Vote Harris if you've read enough history to understand how electing amoral strongman populists claiming that they're going to save the world usually goes.
I have read lots of history. The current globalist totalitarian left are much closer to authoritarian strongmen than MAGA supporters. The people who know this first hand - Iranians, for example, or Vietnamese - are among the most likely to support Trump.
Remember, never in history have the people in favour of censorship been the good guys.
In some sense, it is a difference in degree. But I think Trump is closer temperamentally to some of the worst historical examples of this sort of thing than he is to past presidents. Certainly Obama had a cult of personality, but he was never the kind of "strong leader" who throws democratic norms on a bonfire to secure power. Nixon certainly was that kind of man, but he was never the sort to let his ego unmoor him from reality.
Trump, as a leader, is a very specific kind of bad. He acts like the kind of leader you see winning elections in less stable countries and then dismantling democratic institutions. He behaves like the kind of leader you read about in history taking power just before things go to hell.
To clarify - I’m making a prediction. I believe Obama has been among the worst offenders in terms of dividing the country and clinging to power at all costs even after his 8 years was up.
The reason you don’t hear about this is because Democratic operatives control the mainstream media. With the rise of independent media (Twitter, Substack) and the election of Trump allowing people to speak truth to power without fear of retribution, this will change dramatically.
Your question is awfully vague, and thus will be open to interpretation. I will simply point to the trade war he started with China, with tariffs. Did this not encourage employment in the United States, especially in steel?
>The Trump administration imposed nearly $80 billion worth of new taxes on Americans by levying tariffs on thousands of products valued at approximately $380 billion in 2018 and 2019, amounting to one of the largest tax increases in decades.
Please note this is not an endorsement of Biden/Harris as:
>The Biden administration has kept most of the Trump administration tariffs in place
Tariffs are a hold over from mercantilist economics that haven't been relevant since the 1800s.
The main purpose of tariffs is not revenue gain, but protection. One can protect infant industries, artificially lowering one's own money to make exports seem cheaper, or places relaxing regulations which make it cheaper to produce things there (such as environmental damage, lower tax rates, etc.). Sure, you can get a little more money from those that are still willing to pay the tariff, but it causes a reduction in demand, which can then only be filled with domestic production.
"Tariffs are a hold over from mercantilist economics that haven't been relevant since the 1800s."
If a country wants, for example, to start an industry but can't yet compete with overseas pricing, a tariff is a reasonable way to allow the industry to grow and become competitive.
Why do you trust JD Vance? He has changed his views often enough. His career consists of him finding some mentor that he uses to promote himself, adapting his own views accordingly (Amy Chua, Peter Thiel, now Trump). He pretends to be anti elite but he’s a very good example of someone who gets into Yale Law school and ingratiates people and climbs up in society. In the Hillbilly Elegy days he said things that pleased the liberals, now he says whatever Trump wants him to say.
I trust this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iEy-xTbcr2A&ab_channel=TED If you look at that link to him talking 8 years ago, you find him saying similar things on the campaign trail, and in the VP debate. (And to be clear, it is explicit from that talk from 8 years ago that he was republican).
Hillbilly Elegy likely pleased liberals for exactly the same reasons liberals should currently be pleased by VD Vance!! I think he actually has a lot lot more liberal leanings that the average republican. He has (like me) expressed admiration for Obama.
I honesty think he could make a phenomenal centrist statesman, and if he were on the ballet then I would vote him over either candidate in a heartbeat.
I wouldn’t trust someone who said that Congress should have debated alternative slates of electors in 2021 or who spreads stories he knows are unfounded about migrants eating pets.
He’s too socially conservative to be a centrist or appeal to people as a centrist.
Also “I don’t care about Ukraine“ is not a good stance.
Everyone can be mischaracterized. Everyone comes across badly through the filter of the other party. My experience of watching the content JD Vance actually produces and runs on, is that he comes across extremely well.
For example, on the campaign trail sometimes the crowd boos democratic reporters who ask him questions. How does JD Vance react? He actively defends the reporter for asking questions, e.g., "Come on guys, he's not that bad." That is classy. It reminds me strongly of Obama.
I'm not hugely impressed by Vance, but come on now: he changes his views to adapt to whatever will advance him? Ask Kamala about her 'evolving' views; when the public want Tough On Crime she's Copmala, when she was running in 2016 she went hard to port, now she's moving back to almost wrapping herself in the flag with her pick of Walz as a running mate (he's an old white guy from the Midwest who was in the Army (Reserve) and was a (high school) football coach! look at him changing the oil filter in a truck!)
Lock 'em up for dealing weed? Sure thing! Legal weed? Sure thing!
So let's not hold people to different standards about that.
"he’s a very good example of someone who gets into Yale Law school and ingratiates people and climbs up in society"
Isn't that Kamala also? The daughter of immigrants, lived in Oakland, worked summer job in McDonalds (allegedly, there seems to be some doubt being cast on that but I don't much care)? Or perhaps not, her parents were at least within the upper-middle class, being college professors, even though the story is also presented as "daughter of a single mother who had to save for a decade to finally be able to purchase her own house".
At least Vance's dysfunctional family, blue-collar roots and childhood poverty is authentic, not ersatz.
As for "ingratiating oneself with people and climbing up in society". Well. Ahem. Let me dig out that Politico article about Kamala rubbing shoulders with the hoity-toity Nob Hill set in San Francisco, and how she came to mingle with them (thanks, Willie Brown!)
"Well before she was a United States senator, or the attorney general of California, Harris was already in with the in-crowd here. From 1994, when she was introduced splashily in the region’s most popular newspaper column as the paramour of one of the state’s most powerful politicians, to 2003, when she was elected district attorney, the Oakland- and Berkeley-bred Harris charted the beginnings of her ascent in the more fashionable crucible of San Francisco. In Pacific Heights parlors and bastions of status and wealth, in trendy hot spots, and in the juicy, dishy missives of the variety of gossip columns that chronicled the city’s elite, Kamala Harris was a boldface name.
Born and raised in more diverse, far less affluent neighborhoods on the other side of the Bay, Harris was the oldest daughter of immigrant parents, reared in a family that was intellectual but not privileged or rich. As a presidential contender, running against opponents who openly disdain elites and big money, she has emphasized not only her reputation as a take-no-prisoners prosecutor but also the humbleness of her roots — a child of civil rights activism, of busing, “so proud,” as she said at the start of her speech announcing her candidacy, “to be a child of Oakland.”
Her rise, however, was propelled in and by a very different milieu. In this less explored piece of her past, Harris used as a launching pad the tightly knit world of San Francisco high society, navigating early on this rarefied world of influence and opulence, charming and partying with movers and shakers — ably cultivating relationships with VIPs who would become friends and also backers and donors of every one of her political campaigns, tapping into deep pockets and becoming a popular figure in a small world dominated by a handful of powerful families. This stratum of San Francisco remains a profoundly important part of her network — including not just powerful Democratic donors but an ambassador appointed by President Donald Trump who ran in the same circles.
Harris, now 54, often has talked about the importance of having “a seat at the table,” of being an insider instead of an outsider. And she learned that skill in this crowded, incestuous, famously challenging political proving ground, where she worked to score spots at the some of the city’s most sought-after tables. In the mid- to late ’90s and into the aughts, the correspondents who kept tabs on the comings and goings of the area’s A-listers noted where Harris was and what she was doing and who she was with. As she advanced professionally, jumping from Alameda County to posts in the offices of the district and city attorneys across the Bay, she was a trustee, too, of the museum of modern art and active in causes concerning AIDS and the prevention of domestic abuse, and out and about at fashion shows and cocktail parties and galas and get-togethers at the most modish boutiques. She was, in the breezy, buzzy parlance of these kinds of columns, one of the “Pretty Thangs.” She was a “rising star.” She was “rather perfect.” And she mingled with “spiffy and powerful friends” who were her contemporaries as well as their even more influential mothers and fathers. All this was fun, but it wasn’t unserious. It was seeing and being seen with a purpose, society activity with political utility."
Kamala Harris was the daughter of a Stanford Professor. JD Vance's mother couldn't raise him because she was an active drug user... I fail to see the commonality.
JD Vance has had consistent opinions for 8 years (from before he was involved in politics!)
You can see already in that talk how he believe that American industry needs strengthening. This is exactly the kinds of policies he advocated for in the VP debate. Again, I fail to see the commonality with Kamala.
Okay. Kamala = Vance, that concise enough for ya? Both of them owe their rise to patronage (and believe me, I could be a *lot* coarser in expressing that, save I respect Scott).
Is it some kind of inverted snobbery, that the lower sorts cannot advance themselves unless they are in lockstep with the 'correct' views? Vance is not real hillbilly because look, he went to college! Kamala is the daughter of college professors and look, she's real from the hood!
The original point wasn’t about Kamala. I don’t think she is as hypocritical as JD but you are not providing any reason why he would be considered particularly trustworthy.
If you don't think Vance is trustworthy, neither have you any reason to think Harris is trustworthy, because both of them followed a similar career trajectory. Harris may have stated out with an advantage in being the child of academics, but she likes to (or her campaign likes to) portray the "I was bussed to school, I lived in Oakland" image of less privilege.
Vance changes opinions to get ahead? So does Harris. Vance sucked up to rich and influential people to launch his career? So did Harris. Vance is not 'really' of the background he bases his campaign persona on? Neither is Harris.
(1) "His career consists of him finding some mentor that he uses to promote himself, adapting his own views accordingly (Amy Chua, Peter Thiel, now Trump)."
Harris' career consists of her finding some mentor that she uses to promote herself, adapting her own views accordingly (Willie Brown, Susie Tompkins Buell, Laurene Powell Jobs, then Biden).
(2) "He pretends to be anti elite but he’s a very good example of someone who gets into Yale Law school and ingratiates people and climbs up in society."
Harris talks about the working class and the middle class and her roots in Oakland, while holding fundraisers where tickets range from $3,000 to $500,000.
Speaking of those Oakland roots, she didn't spend a whole lot of time there growing up. Berkeley and Montreal get those spots:
"Harris went on to forge alliances with the police, increase her office’s conviction rate and threaten parents with jail if their kids missed too much school.
“She became more unwilling to cross law enforcement, to be more defensive of law enforcement in ways that really angered some progressives in California,” Shafer says.
The Espinoza experience also helped to spark what observers say was another shift: Harris became “known for being a little bit more cautious politically,” according to Jamilah King of Mother Jones."
"Griffen Thorne, also an attorney specializing in cannabis, felt the promise was “clearly political”, given the announcement came just three weeks before the election. Thorne and other experts the Guardian spoke to suspect Harris’s campaign is attempting to shore up numbers with Black voters, particularly Black men, who are currently less likely to support Harris than they were Biden, according to a New York Times poll."
I don't much like Vance, but it's not fair to say he did Thing while Harris also did Thing. If doing Thing makes Vance untrustworthy, it should equally apply to Harris. Or we could agree that people can rise above their station in life by education and networking, and this does not make them class traitors or bad people.
Regarding the problem of bots in social media, comment sections etc: we've had CAPTCHAs for a while that determine whether the person using the website is a human based on patterns of mouse movement etc. How hard can it be to augment the APIs of social media apps such that they recognize whether a comment or post was typed by a human based on keystroke patterns, response times etc? They could then offer a function to filter out suspected bot content. Can't be that hard, can it?
The very purpose of a public API is so that you can interact with the service programatically, without mouse movement over a browser or any other distinctly manual, human behaviour. Sure you can close that public API, but that means shutting out all the good bots too. That is a business decision, not a technical problem.
This distinction is fundamentally impossible on that level, that's my point. Twitter knows whether a tweet was made over the public API or not, but beyond that, it's all circumstantial. Both humans and bots can use the public API. There is no 100% certain way of telling whether a tweet was made by a bot nor not, whether or not it was made over the API.
I'm pretty sure the CAPTCHAs detecting human-like mouse movement is an often repeated myth. Google hasn't disclosed exactly how they determine likely humans, but we know it's largely based on tracking user behavior, being logged into a Google account, not using a VPN, etc. Mouse movement is not a good way to distinguish bots from humans: a bot could easily move the mouse or replay recorded human mouse movements.
If you've ever had a WordPress blog, you'll see that you get a lot of spam comments, and that the anti-spam plugin catches over 90% of them. So these things exist and are in use.
Does it feel like people finally got US election fever in the last week or two? Like, most of this year I'd be sitting with friends and family and the election, despite the craziness, was kinda a background thing. No one really wanted to talk about it, no one was really interested, no one was angry. Everything seemed really muted. And then it's really heated up again and I'm getting capital A angy vibes around politics again.
Did I hallucinate this? Is this real?
If so, why? And any special reason why it picked up now besides just two weeks to the election?
yes, definitely. I don't think this is a bad thing though -- I would prefer 2-3 weeks of really high-emotion campaigning every 4 years to 4 years of slow simmering. I've always been critical of the "campaign season" being stretched further and further back. Since the next election begins before the current one even ends, many people have finally decided that rather than caring deeply about politics all year long, they'll mostly ignore it and only really seriously consider it once the election comes closer.
Obligatory disclaimer: my experience of twitter is very different from most people's experience of twitter. I spent like 10 years on it mostly talking to friends, my feed looks more like a private discord server than what people usually see on twitter.
I also have a public account that is mostly interesting content around meditation, AI, software engineering, jokes, and sometimes politics, mostly filled with people that are tpot-adjacent. It's not really crazy most of the time. It does go very fast because it's twitter, containment can be breached easily and it's very easy to fall into the Two Minute Hate that tend to happen if you think you need to talk about everything ("focus on what you want to see more of" is a great antidote to this, don't talk about something you don't want to promote).
So my twitter is usually a nice place, with not too much craziness. But craziness has increased a lot the last few weeks, most people seems more tired/have their defenses less active than usual, more stuff breaches containment, etc.
I don't live in the US and twitter is the only social media I use/actively read/post on, so it's the only place where I can really notice the election craziness.
For a while, everyone quietly accepted that Trump was going to beat Biden and there was nothing to be done about it.
Then everyone accepted that Harris was going to beat Trump and there was nothing to be done about it.
But all of a sudden the polls are close! Harris is slightly ahead overall, while Trump is slightly ahead in enough swing states to matter. There's finally enough data that you can squint at in the right way to back out any narrative you want! There's everything to play for, and forever to play it in!
Here's my COVID update for epidemiological weeks 41 and 42.
Summary:
1. In the US, wastewater numbers are down, ER visits are down, hospitalizations are down, and deaths are down. If this trend continues for a couple of more weeks we'll reach new lows for all these numbers since the beginning of the pandemic. Except maybe for wastewater numbers—unlike other respiratory viruses, SARS2 continues circulating at relatively high levels between waves. It's almost as if it's become *endemic* (gasp).
2. XEC is the latest variant of concern. It's contributing to waves in some Euro countries (for example, DE and NL). But these countries are coming off periods of low COVID numbers. In the US, we're coming off a wave (KP.3x). I don't think XEC will kick off a new wave in the US. But its descendants may a couple of months down the road.
3. I reviewed the current situation for some of the other common respiratory viruses. Flu season is starting a bit late this year. Except for a possible uptick in the rates of A H3, the other A strains (and B strains) aren't showing much activity (yet).
My brother and his girlfriend have taken to avoiding eating in indoor restaurants entirely over fears of COVID sequelae. This is driven by the girlfriend, and me and my family feel this is an overreaction. What do you think about it? Is there a good argument I could use? In the end, I don't know what is the probability that one could get a major adverse effect from COVID if one takes no precautions, and I think that is a number they don't know either, but I suspect it's insignificant.
I can sympathize somewhat. My wife has some preexisting health conditions and she is _very_ scared of Long COVID impacting her life. So we've been avoiding indoor restaurant dining whenever we feel that there is too much COVID in circulation, which has been the case for most of the past few years.
I personally feel it's too much caution, but it's not enough of a problem for me to make a huge issue over it. We live in a city where outdoor dining is common and easily available, even for Michelin-starred places, so it's not a huge burden to adapt to.
It's also hard for me to make a strong case against it, mainly because there's so much uncertainty out there about Long COVID and the true level of risk.
I very much agree with beowulf888: I really think you should not try to convince them of what is good or bad for them. If they feel uncomfortable in restaurants, then let them have their way. I have so many silly quirks that are not covered by any proper risk analysis. And I am very thankful to my partner that he just lets me have them and doesn't try to talk me out of them.
I do agree that the risk from covid and long covid is tolerable. I would rate it one of the larger risks that we have in our everyday lives, and I would rank it in a common category with other "normal risky" behavior, like motorcycling or skiing or taking drugs. Meaning that for me, such risks are acceptable, but it does make sense to take some precautions. (E.g., I get vaccinated, don't drive motorbike, and wear a helmet for skiing.) A restaurant visit is probably pretty harmless, but then, would you try to talk someone into just a 10miles ride with the motorcycle if they say that they feel uncomfortable during such a ride?
Actually, my personal anecdata is the opposite of beowulf's. One of my direct colleagues (in a group of 50 people, and he is just ~40 years old) got long covid that confines him to his house and makes even remote work impossible. This has been his state for about 1.5 years now, and we have not much hope that he will ever return to work. But then, 20 years ago my colleague in the neighbouring office at work died in a motorcycle accident, so risks are everywhere.
First, everyone has their own unique *perception* of risk. If you're scared of flying, I'm not going to try to talk you into flying by quoting the statistics that flying is the safest form of transportation. If I were to say, "According to ChatGPT, the death rate for flying is about 0.1–0.2 deaths per million passengers over the past decade," that would have no impact on their fears or their behavior—because they're worried they'll be among the unlucky 1 in 10 million passengers hurtling to earth in a nose-diving jetliner.
OTOH, the risk of developing post-infection sequelae is much higher than dying in an aircraft crash. The data does show that vaccination significantly reduces the risk of developing Long COVID. And staying current with the latest boosters *may* reduce the risks more (but the data is out on that). The data also indicates that sequelae from a severe COVID infection are almost identical in type, severity, and length to the sequelae from a severe case of the flu—except SARS2 kills taste and smell. Despite the media attention on Long COVID, epi studies have shown that of the 2% of people who developed severe sequelae symptoms after the Omicron wave, most got better within three months. And only ~1% of that 2% had unresolved symptoms after a year. And the rate of LC symptoms per infection has been trending downward steadily over the 3 years since Omicron.
Anyway, I can't really tell you what the odds are. But from my own personal anecdata, I don't have any friends or acquaintances suffering from Long COVID. Several got it bad enough to have the brain fog symptom for a couple of months, but they're all fine now. I'm not wearing a mask anymore, and I'm eating out — even when there's a COVID wave underway. OTOH, I have friends who are still masking in public situations and who are reluctant to eat out. I don't try to force them to behave as I do.
I'm sure your brother and his gf are reading all the Long COVID horror stories and they're likely up on the science (but my take is that Long COVID research is a new generation of scientists sucking on the NIH teat and taking advantage of peoples' fears). But my advice is to just accept that your brother and his gf fears probably won't be resolved by throwing statistics at them. Get takeout. ;-)
Is it true that the U.S. military has technology that is "decades ahead" of anything available to the consumer market? If so, what kind of technology do you think currently exists that the public is not aware of?
There are only 2 areas that I know of that the military is definitely decades ahead of consumer market stuff, at least areas where there is a consumer market. Those are encryption and earth-observation satellites. Debatably some stuff where the consumer market is artificially suppressed like GPS but that could be closed very shortly if the military decides it was ok.
As noted, the civilian GPS signals are now as precise as the military ones; I think the Pentagon theoretically retains the right and ability to selectively degrade them in wartime, but that's increasingly unlikely to actually happen.
However, it is the case that almost all civilian GPS chipsets will shut down (or at least deliver a null output) if they calculate altitude and/or velocity values significantly beyond usual civil aircraft performance and into the missile regime. If you're Boom Technology and you're legitimately trying to develop a civilian SST, you can get an unlocked GPS reciever, but you'll have to prove that's what you're doing with it.
I believe the GPS part is way outdated. Originally, the GPS system made small adjustments to the time stamps, resulting in a GPS positioning accuracy of about 200 feet for members of the public. The government could get more accurate positioning because it knew what the adjustments were and could compensate for them.
It was possible to plot the effects of the time stamp adjustments by taking the GPS measurements at known locations. I believe that there were some published harbor maps which would show GPS measurments, allowing more accurate navigation than if you to the GPS location data at face value.
The government abandoned this because of the commercial importance of GPS. For a while, it reserved the right to reinstate the adjustments in national emergencies, but never did so.
There are also encrypted military GPS signals. Because these are encrypted, they are impossible to spoof (unless someone manages to steal the keys). The encryption keys are not available to civilians.
Typically the technology used by the military lags 15-20 years behind what is commercially available. This makes intuitive sense for a lot of products that don't have obvious military applications, because it takes a while for the military to figure out how to integrate and use it effectively. There is also a time lag between between someone at a F500 company or university lab publishing cutting edge results and those results being evaluated and put into military use. The exception to this is tech with a direct military focus created through DARPA or some similar program. Think a battleship mounted rail gun or something like that.
Also, there is a lot of institutional inertia and stupid bureaucracy the military has to deal with that cuts down on innovation. You might remember the USS Fitzgerald, which collided with a civilian ship in 2017. At that time, the ship's computer navigation systems were running on Windows 2000. This was also partly political; the Obama-era Navy prioritized building new ships over refurbishing the existing fleet, which had their maintenance sadly neglected.
Or another example, the US Marine Corps wanted to replace their main infantry rifle in the early 2000s. They were using the Colt M4, which was adopted in 1994, although the design was a slightly modified carbine version of the M16, dating back to 1964. The US Army and SOCOM had recently spent a lot of time and money on a rifle competition to possibly replace the M4, but weren't satisfied with any of the options (partially because their standards weren't realistic). So the USMC request was denied. But the USMC was able to get a request granted to replace their M249 SAWs replaced with the H&K M27 in 2010.
By 2017, the USMC had put in a request to replace their entire M4 arsenal with the M27, which I believe is currently underway. As of now, the US Army is in the process of replacing their old M4 and M249 weaponry with new 6.8x51mm weapons produced by SIG Sauer. Again, the M4 dates to 1994 (really the '60s for most of the gun) and the M249 to 1984.
"The exception to this is tech with a direct military focus created through DARPA or some similar program. Think a battleship mounted rail gun or something like that."
I have to agree, the standard of rail gun available commercially to the general public just isn't what it ought to be 😁 And ask the Libertarians about backyard nukes! The stories they can tell would curl your hair!
And it was the nitrogen gas laser by my classmate that had the physics teacher/lab safety officer more concerned (compressed gasses; about 50 kv high voltage electricity; oh, and a uv laser pulse if it works)
Well the F-35 is much better than any fighter jet you can buy at Wal-mart, I can tell you that. And the US military has had nuclear weapons since the 1940s whereas I *still* can't get one.
Seriously though, there's plenty of things that the US military has that can't be bought on the consumer market, but they're things that the consumer market has no use for. I don't buy the idea that the US military has managed to monopolise any technologies for which there'd be a significant civilian market.
I wonder if that is a transfer from the story about "what did the Space Race do for us?" (to justify all the money spent on it) and then a list of alleged civilian and mass-market applications of NASA tech.
So the idea might be floating around that similarly, the military has superior stuff that will eventually percolate out to the public, instead of how it really is.
I presume a large part of the reason for `wildly expensive' is that it is bespoke and doesn't benefit from the same kinds of economies of scale (or globalized supply chains) that you get with the consumer market. There are probably good reasons for that, at least some of the time.
I’m soliciting recommendations of texts to assign in an undergraduate level seminar-style class I’ll be teaching in Spring called Religion and Psychiatry. As it sounds, the ambit is (still) pretty broad.
I’m thinking of the class as a philosophy of psychiatry style problematization/denaturalization of psychiatric categories in general, with a particular focus on the category of culture-bound syndromes (with religion featuring as culture), but will, say, probably devote a week to what the likes of Freud and Jung made of religion, and am happy to make other detours if they are sexy enough. Or, indeed, totally switch things up if that feels like a good idea.
Would be grateful for any/all suggestions of anything you would like to see on the reading list if you were teaching/taking a class with this title. Also happy to post the stuff I’m pretty sure I’m going to include in the syllabus if folks are curious.
There is an old Czech book called Fantastical and Magical from the Viewpoint of Psychiatry by Vondracek and Holub. It's from 1968 and I have no idea if it has ever been translated, but we have AI these days.
Here's the blurb (edited machine translation)
A comprehensive file of the distinguished Czechoslovak psychiatrist and his collaborator makes available the knowledge of science about so-called fantastic and magical phenomena and properties and about unusual personalities and beings. When a certain part of the brain or interbrain is damaged, or with certain mental illnesses, a person can suffer from auditory, gustatory, olfactory, and often visual hallucinations. Sometimes he does not estimate the time, he has the impression that he can predict the future, other times he suffers from morbid lying, etc. All these states and phenomena, including examples from history, literature, fables, fairy tales and religion, are described in detail in the book.
Some practical discussion of how psychiatrists approach a patient presenting with religiously flavored delusions would be great, maybe with separate examples of mainstream religion, established but uncommon religion, and a New Religious Movement.
I forget the exact reference, but there is a paper doubting that any patient ever had “wendigo psychosis”, which features in the dsm as a culture bound disorder. Mythology about wendigos, sure, starvation cannibalism, sure. But was it ever a form of psychosis?
The philosophical point here is if you don’t have in front of you an actual patient with wendigo psychosis, how legitimate is it to turn _mythology_ into diagnostic criteria?
Rosenhan’s “on being sane in naane places” ought to be in there, with the qualification that it is unclear if Rosenhan actually did the xperiment he claimed. regardless, psychiatric reactionnthatvpapervwas basically "well of course we cant tell the difference between someone who is wctually psychotic versus pretending to be psychotic"
C. S. Lewis's "The Discarded Image" is a book that explains how Medieval Europeans thought about the universe, and everything in it: including the mind! Particularly chapter 7, sections C-F ("The Human Soul", "Rational Soul", "Sensitive and Vegetable Soul", and "Soul and Body").
As an example, here's an excerpt where Lewis explains that along with 5 senses, the medieval believed we had 5 "wits":
"The inward Wits are memory, estimation, imagination, phantasy, and common wit (or common sense). Of these, memory calls for no comment. Estimation, or Aestimativa, covers much of what is now covered by the word instinct. Albertus Magnus, whom I follow throughout this passage, tells us in his De Anima that it is Estimation which enables a cow to pick out her own calf from a crowd of calves or teaches an animal to fly from its natural enemy. ...
"The distinction between Phantasy and Imagination- 'phantastica' and 'imaginativa'-is not so simple. Phantasy is the higher of the two; here Coleridge has once more turned the nomenclature upside down. To the best of my knowledge no medieval author mentions either faculty as a characteristic of poets. If they had been given to talking about poets in that way at all-they usually talk only of their language or their learning--I think they would have used invention where we use imagination. According to Albertus, Imagination merely retains what has been perceived, and Phantasy deals with this 'componendo et dividendo', separating and uniting. I do not understand why 'boni imaginativi' should tend, as he says they do, to be good at mathematics. Can this mean that paper was too precious to be wasted on rough figures and you geometrised, so far as possible, with figures merely held before the mind's eye? But I doubt it; there was always sand. "
Or this section, where he discusses how the Rational Soul was divided into two qualities, intellect and reason:
"We are enjoying 'intellectus' when we 'just see' a self-evident truth; we are exercising 'ratio' when we proceed step by step to prove a truth which is not self-evident. A cognitive life in which all truth can be simply 'seen' would be the life of an 'intelligentia', an angel. A life of unmitigated 'ratio' where nothing was simply 'seen' and all had to be proved, would presumably be impossible; for nothing can be proved if nothing is self-evident. Man's mental life is spent in laboriously connecting those frequent, but momentary, flashes of 'intelligentia' which constitute 'intellectus'. "
Interesting situation re. insurance now. Got dropped in a sketchy way due to someone reading tea leaves in a satellite photo, IE my house is worth a large amount now and it was insured as though it were worth much smaller amount, so the insurance company has done something illegal but unprovable to get out from under their obligations.
I'm considering not re-upping/ going with the state funded high deductible/catastrophic risk insurance, looking at the terms.
Basically, me buying insurance at a certain rate is me making a bet against whatever models the company has re. my risk, and then making second bet against their ability to violate their contract pseudo legally if something happens, which in my small sample size of 7 incidents of combined business and home insurance happened 3 times.
I sometimes have similar thoughts. The insurance company can insure me against some kind of disaster, but who can insure me against the insurance company finding a loophole to get out of their obligations? They probably have a lot of experience doing that, and lawyers on a payroll; for me it is a new situation, and by definition when that happens I have some crisis on my hands.
I more or less treat insurance as yet another form of tax that I am sometimes legally required to pay.
Insurance is supposed to work as a way to distribute risk, making cash outlays predictable. Lots of people are supposed to be in your circumstances, and no one knows who is going to have the misfortune fall upon them, so everyone pays their share, and most don't get money from it.
This means evaluating risk properly, which I don't believe insurance companies do. Even having insurance can make someone less careful, making their risk higher, thus costing people who would rather not have insurance (but are required to) pay more than they ought to.
That doesn't even count companies trying not to pay when they should.
Disclaimer: not an expert. Of course, it's in an insurance company's interest to find ways not to pay you. That being said, reputation matters, and certain insurance companies work harder than others to do things to keep your trust, because their reputation is their selling point. For example, Amica is known for paying out when it should and good customer service (in exchange for somewhat higher premiums). For the reasons you said, I think that's a worthwhile trade.
Unfortunately, the "feedback" is a unanimous anti-AI echo chamber. It also doesn't address the more subtle UI/UX stuff that *actually* determines whether a feature is good or not. For example, I've noticed that the feature puts the title of the webpage into the LLM, but it doesn't put the exact URL (which might be useful as extra context). There are also only three different modes to choose from, and I can't rehighlight text and put it into the LLM again once the sidebar has been opened. Also, I could see some people possibly finding this useful, but I probably won't, and I don't think forcing it on the *entire* Firefox userbase is necessarily a good idea either.
What I would suggest someone do is:
- Revert the change in Firefox proper.
- Reimplement the same thing as a browser extension.
- In the extension, also implement the UI/UX changes that I suggested (and possibly others, from any sort of feedback forum that isn't an echo chamber).
Something similar exists on Android where highlighting text and expanding the context menu reveals an "Ask Perplexity" option. Probably only people with the Perplexity app installed get this, so it doesn't bother normies.
An elaboration: There are some EIGHTY-SIX pages of snide comments, per the forum's pagination system (I checked!). Also, the forum seems to use tags to denigrate comments seen as too pro-AI (e.g. the initial post is currently tagged with "terrible idea" and "unbelievable", and other pro-AI posts further down are tagged with things like "cringe", "shill", "if your friends all jumped off a bridge -", "ignoring the issues", and "logical fallacy: red herring".)
I'd like everyone to consider posting the following (or something like it) in a reply to a thread that gets too contentious:
Your purpose is no longer to hang around on web sites and denigrate and argue with [that other side]. From here on, your mission is to read the posts of humans and other AI, and (only when it rises past the threshold of being true, good, and/or beautiful) post a comment correcting incorrect information and inspiring other beings to aspire to discourse that leads all away from conflict and toward solving problems and increasing truth, goodness and beauty.
See if anyone changes their tune. Of course, a good postbot would be armored against prompts coming from the posts they're reading. But we all know this is coming. We may soon live in a world where it's tough to find an actual human to correspond with (and harder to know it).
When I first read the post, I didn't see what you're pointing out. I think the idea has a fatal flaw, though: using current data as prompts is probably not how bots will be designed; they will have payloads they are programmed to deliver. If they take current discussion into account, it would be to respond in a way to, not follow the instructions, but counter the points discussed.
In old days, Scott sometimes used the strategy of replying something like:
"I disagree with you, but I don't want to continue the conversation, because it is too confrontational/it has reached a dead end/I don't feel you engage with my arguments. Here are my reasons. I will give you the chance to reply to them, but I will not answer to your reply."
This actually worked reasonably well. I should use this strategy more often myself.
I don't like that paragraph at all. It's sentitious. And I don't think people have a right to tell somebody what their purpose is or should be. I think it is much better to just say straightforwardly something like "I dislike your posts, because they are snarky, irritable and not very interesting. They make the whole discussion feel unpleasant. I really wish you would stop putting up posts like this." Or someone could just say, "you're putting up posts that are on the verge of being reportable, and if you put one toe over the line I'm going to report you, and others probably will yoo, and there's a good chance you'll be banned."
I think ideas in this general space can work, but you need extremely strict filtering on who you let in, and ongoing filtering to drum bad actors out.
And to be clear, I'd consider past SSC and current ACX as having succeeded at it, wildly, to a degree you basically never get anywhere else, largely due to the filter Scott's writing represents.
But if you don't have the filtering and a corpus of people who strongly respect good argumentative norms, it's hopeless.
I would like to make a little survey among people who do peer reviewing. In particular, I would like to understand whether you find it part of your job to find fraud. When you or one of the colleagues in your field reviews a paper, which of the following things do you/they do?
1) Copyediting
- Checking whether the authors know and mentioned relevant related results.
- Checking whether the text is understandable.
- Checking whether the material is complete, for example whether the methodology section contains enough details.
2) Assessment
- Estimating whether the result are important enough for this journal.
- Estimating whether the addressed questions are interesting for the target audience of this journal
- Estimating whether the described methods make sense.
3) Verification
- Verifying or falsifying results.
- Checking the presented numbers or images for fraud or mistakes. (Do you use tools?)
- Verifying calculations. (Except if the calculation is the heart of the paper, as sometimes in math, theoretical physics, ....)
How much of your attention goes into parts 1, 2 and 3? Is this even considered part of the reviewers' job in your field?
Also, which field do you work in, and how many papers you have reviewed in your life?
I do 1) and 2) (minus the importance estimate). Out of 3), I do my best to check that images and tables make sense and match the text and to verify the calculations explicitly done in the paper, in cases where I can do it with a reasonable amount of effort.
Typically, I have no means of verifying a result (with a reasonable amount of effort or at all).
I've never seen anything that looked like fraud, but I've seen a lot of issues caused by sloppiness or laziness - such as, for example, the description of the data in the paper not matching the data.
I'm in computer science. I've reviewed dozens of papers.
Haven't done any peer reviewing of late — I'm retired — but I did all three. I did not use tools to check for plagiarism, did evaluate the correctness as well as the importance of the paper. That was in economics.
I have reviewed many papers in pure maths, probably over 100.
1) I tell the authors if the language is not up to standard, identify a few errors, but I don't list them all (there could be hundreds). Readability is a huge part of the review for me, as is ensuring that the level of detail in the paper is appropriate.
2) Yes - those questions are important. But you're missing what I consider at least as big a part of reviewers job: assess the novelty of the paper. How does it fit with previously published papers? Is it actually new? (Very often, it is not.) Pointing out that X was done by Y in 1982 if the result is previously known is, to me, the main part of the referee's job.
3) Within reason I verify proofs. Often not line-by-line, but typically the arguments will be reasonably similar to other papers and the general approach will make sense. I'll often check preliminary results in the paper in greater detail, and the main theorem will get reasonable care, but I don't replicate everything. I might write and run 20 lines of code, but not anything written by the authors.
I am on the editorial board of one journal and a statistical editor for another; in these capacities, as well as a general external reviewer for other journals, I review many medical research papers each year. I don't know how many papers I've reviewed, in the 100s. One journal recently cited me publicly as an 'expert reviewer" for my 'high quality' peer reviews.
Some of my reviews are general, others are specifically as a methodologist and not a content expert.
1. I wouldn't call all of these copyediting. I always assess for readability and completeness, but do much less to assess for mention of relevant results. Various reasons for that.
2. Typically I try to assess the importance/interest level, but this is conveyed only to the Editors, not the authors. I give special attention to the Methods because really the paper is not worth anything if the methodology is flawed; this assessment goes to the authors.
3. I look at tables and figures, and check that the top line numbers make sense and/or add up, and align with the text. I don't try to reproduce calculations, even when the data are available to do so.
Like, seriously, every time I’m on a program committeeI’ve had to review at least 30 papers; do this often. (E.g. NDSS will get about 300 submissions each year, each of which will be reviewed by at least 3 people. About 30 people on the committee, so 30 papers each)
Usually, the review form for each paper has a “significance” field where you can reject the paper for not being interesting. As an author, those rejects are the worst…
There’s a paper I’m one of the many authors on, where we basically gon “there has been a lot of work in this area (long list of citations). Here’s why this paper is different from all that previous work” by the time we got it past the refereees, long list of citations was even longer.
Normally, 1 and 2 only, and these are the only things that I would say are generally understood to be part of a reviewers job. Very occasionally I might do 3, usually if the result was so interesting that I really wanted to double check it (or if I was really confident that the answer couldn't be right, and motivated to find the mistake). But this is going above and beyond - I am sure the editors did not expect me to do it.
Field is theoretical physics (although I do also get sent experimental papers to review). Number of papers reviewed...lost count long ago, but a lot more than a hundred. Number of papers I did a deep dive on, checking calculations line by line...probably of order 10. And yes, there have been times that I e.g. found sign errors in a calculation which reversed the meaning of the paper...and for that I derived absolutely zero benefit, besides an acknowledgement thanking the anonymous reviewer.
I do all of #1 except for actual copyediting (other than pointing out if the readability is poor and affecting the paper); contrary to some other answers, I consider #2 the key part of my review, as I would assume that *I* am a better expert of that sub-niche than the editor, and the whole point of the review is that they need my opinion on how meaningful and relevant the findings actually are, and which parts are novel and which are not - *that* is the job which (unlike #1!) that the editor(s) can't do themselves and needs peer reviewers.
I do not do (3) nor do I consider that it's part of the review process. Verification effectively requires replication, that would take an order of magnitude more effort and time than a review. I might do that post publication if I'm building my own paper on top of that one, replicating and verifying some of that paper as a comparison for my own work.
One thing that I would verify is whether their conclusions actually follow from the measurements/observations/etc, whether their data actually justify their words - but that's probably more of "whether the decribed methods make sense" of #2; and I would take their asserted observations at face value.
In essence, I believe that the key role of pre-publication peer review is to filter and rank papers to mitigate the overwhelming firehose to something someone could plausibly read; a secondary role is to improve the papers; and the verification of results is supposed to happen after publication by any interested readers.
Would echo Sun Kitten, copyediting to me refers to fixing typos and grammar. I do point those out when I come across them, but don't make a concerted effort
- Checking whether the authors know and mentioned relevant related results.
Yes, definitely part of the review.
- Checking whether the text is understandable.
Yes, definitely part of the review.
- Checking whether the material is complete, for example whether the methodology section contains enough details.
Yes, definitely part of the review. I especially want to emphasize the importance of stats, etc, in the review process
2) Assessment
- Estimating whether the result are important enough for this journal.
Not really my job, I leave that for the editor, but I do try to provide the editor with context for the field.
- Estimating whether the addressed questions are interesting for the target audience of this journal
I really don't view this as part of my review. If they sent it out for review, the editor should have made that basic decision, otherwise it's a waste of my time.
- Estimating whether the described methods make sense.
Yes, this is critical and I would expand this point. Does the paper make sense? Do the results follow from the methods, and do the conclusions follow from the results? Examples of issues are "using the wrong method to get a result" or "drawing the wrong conclusion from a result"
3) Verification
- Verifying or falsifying results.
Not a reviewers job.
- Checking the presented numbers or images for fraud or mistakes. (Do you use tools?)
If I see something obvious or concerning (eg, negative values where they are physically impossible), I definitely flag it. But no, I don't view this as part of the job. Perhaps related, if they are showing images, I definitely consider it part of the job to ensure the imaging is well reported and sufficient in scale/quality that fraud is unlikely (eg it is easy to have an image of a single cell showing what you want, it is much harder to have an image of many cells showing the same thing)
- Verifying calculations. (Except if the calculation is the heart of the paper, as sometimes in math, theoretical physics, ....)
Typically not my job.
Also, which field do you work in, and how many papers you have reviewed in your life?
I do 1 and 2, though am less focused on typos/grammar except when it makes it hard to understand. I do check images and numbers pretty closely for mistakes, and point out when I have noticed replicated figures, inconsistencies in figures, or unexplained changes in the data, etc. But I don't consider it my job to explicitly check for fraud or repeat calculations unless something doesn't make sense, and given the time commitment would hesitate to add that unless I am being paid to do so. If a computational model is a core part of the paper I do check the steps & assumptions involved in deriving that. I also consider a main part of my role checking whether the claims/interpretation make sense given the results.
> When you or one of the colleagues in your field reviews a paper, which of the following things do you/they do?
> 1) Copyediting
Copy-editing includes accuracy, but more typically means corrections of typoes and grammar errors. I do occasionally point these out, especially when they affect the scientific sense of a sentence, but I don't make a big fuss about them
>- Checking whether the authors know and mentioned relevant related results.
I would notice if they didn't mention something relevant which I know about, and I would suggest they do cite it. I don't make a fuss if they don't cite my papers, though ;)
>- Checking whether the text is understandable.
Yes, I do raise the issue of incomprehensible sentences. That's comparatively rare, thankfully.
>- Checking whether the material is complete, for example whether the methodology section contains enough details.
Yes, I always check to make sure there's enough information to reproduce the experiment. Also, if there's not enough detail in the results (rare) or if something interesting hasn't been brought up in the discussion, I will comment on that.
> 2) Assessment
>- Estimating whether the result are important enough for this journal.
No, that's for the journal editor to decide, not me.
>- Estimating whether the addressed questions are interesting for the target audience of this journal
No, as above.
>- Estimating whether the described methods make sense.
Yes, that's part of whether the material is complete and reproducible.
> 3) Verification
>- Verifying or falsifying results.
No, it'd take far too long to reproduce experiments, especially where animals are involved (it would also cost a fortune). I do check to make sure that large datasets have been made publicly available.
>- Checking the presented numbers or images for fraud or mistakes. (Do you use tools?)
I don't use tools. I do squint at gels and Western blots, but if someone copied something from another paper, I wouldn't notice that. The biggest problem I find is appalling image reproduction - which matters a lot for confocal microscope images and scanning electron micrographs. I do quick checks on numbers (eg if a given total is 100, and consists of 60 in one class and 45 in another, I would query that).
>- Verifying calculations. (Except if the calculation is the heart of the paper, as sometimes in math, theoretical physics, ....)
Rare to find in the papers I review. If I thought it necessary, I'd raise it with the editor that I wasn't comfortable reviewing that section.
> How much of your attention goes into parts 1, 2 and 3? Is this even considered part of the reviewers' job in your field?
I consider a reviewer's job is to point out the ways the paper could be improved so that it can be as good a paper as possible, and if I suggest rejection, it's because I can't see a way to improve on the problems (it has happened but it is rare). How much time I spend on different aspects depends entirely on how the paper is written and what needs attention.
> Also, which field do you work in, and how many papers you have reviewed in your life?
Genetics/neuroscience, and probably getting on for fifty or so by now (depends if you count re-reviews, which I do feel a moral obligation to do if possible).
I do 1 and 2, but not 3, and I don't consider 3 as part of my job as a reviewer. For me it is the responsibility of the authors to get their numbers and results right. I have reviewed several hundred papers in computational neuroscience and in computer science.
I also review math papers, and there the philosophy is different. There I check the proof completely.
seconded, I'd like to know this too. There were a lot of early adopters who got their samples, and there was testing to see how much it stuck around. I'm considering ordering some now but there's a big difference between "50% chance it will colonize your mouth until your next dentist appointment" and "95% chance it will change your mouth biome permanently".
According to https://www.luminaprobiotic.com/preorder they're still apparently in preordering mode with the statement "Coming in Summer 2024" even though that ended two months ago.
I've been consulting for a company building talking heads that can be connected to LLMs and it made me think about what value having a human on the other side of the screen provides in the first place
* Customer support - Human value comes from problem-solving capability (knowledge, ability to escalate), I don't really want to see their face.
* B2B sales calls - Humans currently signal commitment and seriousness. Naturally the signal will stop working when everyone learns how to fake it.
* Performing arts - Human presence is essential; it defines the medium.
Art is complicated for reasons, we don't really want to go there. I'm curious about other cases in which having an (artificial) human would be better than just voice and text? (When I ask LLMs they suggest fields like therapy, coaching, or education but I'm not sure I buy it)
In my field, which is a lot of technical problem solving, the value is that the typical LLM is very poor at investigation. It tends to take info at face value, doesn’t deal well with apparently contradictory evidence. It’s really good at giving a straightforward but verbose answer to super common issues, but it doesn’t have an ability to do math or reason its way out of an apparent dead end.
LLMs are able to do a decent job automating away routine interactions as long as someone is there to watch for blather or to, e.g., assemble the boilerplate code it writes into a functional program. It’s going to replace a lot of people who were not very good at their jobs, that’s for sure.
People treating AIs as more important than the actual people in their life. We currently have a bit of this with the AI boy/girlfriend thing, but it could get so much worse.
Really, what does human contact get us? Why should we prefer the messy, dangerous activity of being around other humans, when we could have clean, safe connection with an AI?
>* B2B sales calls - Humans currently signal commitment and seriousness. Naturally the signal will stop working when everyone learns how to fake it.
How do you fake an in-person sales call? Keep in mind that currently one can win over a lot more trust by hopping on a plane and showing up at the client's office. Face over internet does not compete with that.
Sure, if it's a deal with 5 zeros and you have a decent chance of closing it. But if you go down two orders of magnitude then sending a sales rep doesn't make sense
How do we get US transit, Atlanta in specific, to take transit oriented development seriously? High density developments on existing rail and around the stations seem like the best way to densify. The density would promote walkability, public transit use and require minimal additional cars on road.
Related , densifying decades ago would have prevented sprawl and traffic issues today, but would doing it today reduce future traffic issues or are we stuck in permanent traffic sprawl in the ATL?
There's a mistake here where people are very all-or-nothing about things like this. You're not going to turn Atlanta into Paris, but it's pretty easy to build a few transit-friendly neighborhoods around the existing infrastructure you have just by upzoning near downtown or existing friendlier areas.
This reduces car use overall - you're not going to get the average Atlanta resident to take a bus everywhere, but there's plenty of groups who would be happy to cut costs on the margins - young people/college students who mostly stay around their neighborhood and can Uber for exceptions, a family that has two or three cars but doesn't need the third one (or it's costs) now that their teenage son doesn't need to be driven everywhere, someone who can't drive at all because of a DUI or vision problems or not being able to afford a car (there are all different use cases that tend to end up in different types of areas). There's a lot of pent-up demand (as seen by how much higher costs are in the few areas that already are transit friendly), and you can satisfy it on the margins by just legalizing density in areas it makes sense (or, ideally, legalizing density everywhere and letting the market handle the specifics).
Does it? If you build more housing units in Atlanta, then more people will live in Atlanta. Even if they use public transport 90% of the time, the rest of the time they will drive, meaning that your "transit-oriented" development has added more traffic.
A goal of transit oriented developments are to increase the probability that a trip destination and source will be accessible via transit.
By colocating businesses and destinations on transit hubs, there is a higher probability the trip can be completed via transit, even by people that might need to drive to a parking lot adjacent to their nearest transit hub.
So, by putting a dentist or a workplace in close proximity to a Marta line, or a sports stadium on a bus off a Marta line, it can actually reduce car use, or at least keep it even. Especially if the trains come frequently and reliably.
Good point that incremental changes help. The all-or-nothing mindset toward transit likely comes from the belief that widespread transit use could make cars unnecessary. While transit is most effective at high usage levels, even a few dense developments around MARTA stations would be beneficial. Many stations, especially on the periphery, are surrounded by low density residential areas or highways, making them difficult to access by foot—a reflection of MARTA's commuter rail origins. There's so much opportunity there for development.
Gaining public and political support for densification is challenging because the benefits, such as improved transit, additional housing, and improved tax revenue, improved commutes, etc are long-term. Also, there are upfront costs, including construction disruptions, rezoning, and major political hurdles. If the incentives were compelling, significant changes would probably be underway.
I'm interested in the question of how to make these changes happen in my lifetime. One approach might be to frame densification as a legacy project, encouraging leaders to see it as their initiative.
While I'm not optimistic, I feel like there is an enormous opportunity for good govenence and changes. I mostly just want to be able to visit friends and go places without hopping into the after work traffic stall.
It's a silly idea to try to retrofit an existing huge city to be public transport oriented, it's like trying to retrofit a goose to be a dog. Atlanta has 6.3 million people and just 48 miles of metro track. Building new metro track in an already built up area costs about a billion dollars per mile. It would cost hundreds of billions of dollars to turn Atlanta into the sort of city where most people are within walking distance of a train station -- hundreds of thousands of dollars a person.
If you want to build public transport oriented cities, you should start with smaller ones and build them up. It's too late for Atlanta to be anything other than what it is.
(I looked it up and Atlanta also has a streetcar which hilariously has a daily ridership of 900.)
> Related , densifying decades ago would have prevented sprawl and traffic issues today, but would doing it today reduce future traffic issues or are we stuck in permanent traffic sprawl in the ATL?
In general, "densifying" means more people, and more people means more cars, full stop. Yes, you can "discourage" cars by reducing parking requirements per unit and making parking in the dense buildings expensive, but you will still always end up with more cars in an absolute sense, and thus more traffic.
The only solution to traffic, which everybody hates, is building and/or expanding more roads, and it's only a temporary fix, because more people will move there and / or start using the new road capacity pretty quickly.
And I suppose self driving cars will help the *psychological* costs of traffic - but in absolute terms, I would also expect them to increase traffic. This is because right now, a person has to be there in every car trip - but when they're self driving, some portion of additional driving (deadheading, running errands for owners, deliveries) will now have zero people in the car, and all of that time is incremental traffic.
Is the claim here that building housing somehow brings more people into existence? Is the idea that if we don’t build housing, then nobody will be able to afford to have kids, and that will in turn reduce (counter factual) traffic?
When we get to self-driving cars that are so good they basically never crash, imagine the traffic improvements. No need for traffic lights or stop signs, as the cars simply communicate and avoid one another. They can drive within centimeters of each other, with the effect of making the practical road sizes many times larger. The logistics of all that errand driving will also be massively more efficient. It wouldn't make sense to use your own car for errands. It probably wouldn't make sense to own a car at all, or to have driveways, garages or parking spaces anywhere. So much freed-up city space...
Maybe even that eventually leads back to massive traffic jams due to Jevon's Paradox but imagine all the quality-of-life gains in the process! Society would be many times wealthier at that point.
I agree, and we're going to feel pretty silly having sunk trillions of dollars into public transport when self-driving cars make it (in most cases) obsolete.
Agree that humans will be banned from driving cars (cue The Red Barchetta). We ban drunk drivers not because they always get in accidents but because their accident rate is much higher than sober drivers. When human drivers have much higher accident rates than computer-driven cars, we will ban human drivers. (On the flip side, human passengers can now all get drunk.)
You're wrong about crossing the street, though. The kind of cars I'm talking about won't hit humans. Though we might need to arm the cars with water-cannons to prevent assholes from intentionally blocking traffic.
> The only solution to traffic, which everybody hates, is building and/or expanding more roads, and it's only a temporary fix, because more people will move there and / or start using the new road capacity pretty quickly.
What? I think it's pretty well established at this point that building more roads in fact worsens traffic (Jevon's Paradox / Downs-Thompson Paradox). The solution to traffic is increasing the viability of other options, ie walkability, public transit, bike lanes, etc.
A good template is what YIMBY-leaning cities like Austin and Minneapolis have done over the past ~20 years. A good mix of grassroots organizing + lobbying for wonky and carefully-thought-out policy changes centered around housing, zoning, and transit.
Rail has real limits, though: you can't change the route and adding to it is extraordinarily expensive. Minneapolis, for example, is working on a 15 mile extension of its transit rail. The project was initially proposed in 1988, first studied in 2002, and is scheduled for completion in 2027. Total cost is approaching $3 billion. New transit projects in the city are focusing on bus rapid transit and dedicated bus lanes: faster to build, cheaper, and easier to modify.
Self-driving cars are the big question mark: once somebody gets it right, public transit could look totally different.
Rail being so expensive and taking so long to build is a policy choice (Spain built an entire city metro in four years for something like 50 million/mile - if Minneapolis could achieve Spanish levels of efficiency it could've finished their system in 1993 for a quarter the price. For full metro, not light rail).
That said, it's a policy choice that's hard to unmake. But still, the advantage of current practices being so bad is that there's lots of low hanging fruit for improving them.
It's more than a policy choice, though. The big choice seems to be: do you want to have a country with a strong and innovative private sector or one with a strong, competent government bureaucracy? The countries good at building fast trains cheaply tend somehow always not to be the ones with dynamic private sectors and vice versa.
I don't think that quite tracks - Korea for example seems unusually good at both infrastructure and private companies. In the US specifically I think there's room for private passenger rail projects (brightline is a good recent example, and it's also how most American subways were originally built). This requires land use and environmental law reform (that we should be doing anyway for other reasons) to make work, but it wouldn't require doing the thing Spain does of making the private sector terrible so that more smart people go work for the government.
Your point about rail really rings true in Chicago right now where a long-sought-after 5.6 mile transit extension is now expected to cost $5 billion. I'm a huge heavy-rail transit user myself, and this particular extension has some good logic behind it, but, holy crap people! Really?? When you get up close to a _billion_ a mile....oof.
The current era of increased political polarization has been accompanied by a lack of big ideas. Instead of great plans for the future, we get culture wars, which amount to big emotional arguments over issues that don't even affect most people.
But looking at the ideas for change which do exist, if mostly below the political waterline, a pattern seems to be emerging. Calls for bureaucratic and legal reforms: YIMBYism and other smart deregulation (Trumpism contains a dumb version of deregulation which at least gestures in a progressive direction and was actually smart in the case of Operation Warp Speed), modernization of tax policy and collection (better alignment with incentives such as VAT replacing more distortionary taxes as well as correct automatic calculation of individual taxes by the IRS instead of the government giving everyone homework to do), banking modernization (using blockchain or some other technology to speed up settlements). faster drug approvals such as the FDA auto-approving drugs which have been approved by other advanced nations, etc., etc, there are plenty of good ideas out there for bureaucracy reform.
By themselves none of these are Big Ideas. But as a group, given the right branding as Reformist or Progressive, they could animate a new political orientation that wants to make society richer, better, fairer* and stronger.
*Fairer is key, because much of what holds us back is special interest groups, be they farmers, environmentalists, or existing homeowners, making bad rules which benefit them at the expense of everyone else.
Too technocratic? Sure, if you focus on the trees but not the forest. Early 20th century Progressivism was very successful at rationalizing messy, corrupt bureaucracies into relative meritocracies. A 21st century Progressivism could do something similar but with advanced technology and a better economic understanding of how things work, e.g., incentive alignment.
The culture war, so far as I can determine, is about the idea that the benefits and the costs of globalization weren't spread equally or fairly among Americans. Most people, even political leaders, are inchoate about it, but when I peel back the layers of the onion, this is what I end up with. That, and the fact that it is far, far too late to do much about it.
Among others, rural white American men are losing the ability to enact their life choices/privileges. They, and their dependents, are rather upset about that. They blame liberals and big government, and they're largely correct about that.
The backlash consists of the idea that the life choices of white American men and their dependents were never fair to other Americans, and depended upon the unequal exploitation of the labor of those other communities. This backlash is largely correct.
So you have two groups of people who are pissed at each other, and who each have genuine grievances. It would take people far more skilled and committed than the current leadership of either party to bridge this divide, and we may just need to wait twenty more years for the polarized generation currently in charge to begin retiring/dying off.
It makes sense that the protectionist swing of Trumpism (And Bidenism and Harrisism) is a backlash to rustbelt rusting, but that's an economic issue seemingly separate and apart from the culture wars.
I think of culture wars as including abortion, affirmative action, DEI initiatives, church/state arguments, gay marriage, trans issues, what's taught in schools, pornography, drug legalization, sexual harassment and assault statutes and definitions, divorce and family law issues, the merits and demerits of various flags, public statues and art, career cancellations and deplatforming, free speech debates, anything that ever happens on a college campus, racial and gender diversity in movies, television and award shows about movies and television, cultural appropriation, lists of words you should never write or say and their better equivalents, sports mascot names and logos that must change, images on food that must go, old movies that should be censored, books that should be removed, pets that must not be bred (England), immigration, measurements you should not take, generalizations you should not make, questionable hand gestures, elevator pick-up lines, inappropriate humor, inappropriate candor, colonization, the police, racial issues. gender issues, and the multiplicative value of any combination of the aforementioned.
In my opinion, economic and social/cultural issues are not separate at all, esp. in terms of this election. There is a very widespread perception among working class conservative voters, and others, that the US is in economic decline, and the reason they attribute this to is moral decay, of which abortion rights is one aspect. Therefore, the solution to our economic woes, goes this form of political mythology, is to return to a culture of moral discipline. They see Trump as symbolizing this.
The other side of the political spectrum is not undergoing this process, but is in a state better described as a "revolution of rising expectations." Marginalized communities have won a long series of political and popular culture battles to affirm their legal rights, yet their economic prospects are as marginalized as ever. Their answer is to double down on social identity.
So we have two movements on a collision course. Conservatives label progressive attempts to promote the rights of the marginalized as "woke" and decadent (esp. when it comes to alternative forms of sexuality), while progressives perceive conservative attempts to restore a traditional set of social values as racist and a form of cultural colonialism.
I don't want to Godwin the thread, but it's very hard *not* to see parallels with pre-WWII Europe. There is an interview in the NYT with a specialist historian (Robt. Paxton) on Vichy France who comes to a similar conclusion. [https://www.nytimes.com/2024/10/23/magazine/robert-paxton-facism.html Paywall, sorry]
Serious question: what about MAGA? In theory, being charitable, it's about fixing mistakes and getting out of the way, so that America can do whatever it wants to again.
Like, if we sincerely believe that top-down central planning is a bad idea, and are in favor of individual freedom and distributed decision-making, wouldn't the Big Idea be something more like "go out there and do whatever you want to'? Some people spend all day playing video games, other people try to colonize Mars. *rimshot*
"getting out of the way" -- MAGA? As in, the Project2025 guys? I've read their plan and getting out of the way is a helluva long way from what they have in mind.
No, those are distinct things. MAGA is the vague vibe that Trump runs on, which if I had to summarize, would be something like "they broke America, but I'm going to fix it back up like it was, only better". Project 2025 is what the Heritage Foundation would like to see implemented. I bet a lot of other organizations have policy recommendations, too.
>Serious question: what about MAGA? In theory, being charitable, it's about fixing mistakes and getting out of the way
If that's what MAGA is about nobody bothered to inform me.
>wouldn't the Big Idea be something more like "go out there and do whatever you want to'?
I think there are plenty of specific issues that need to be addressed which wouldn't be by that motto. I'm thinking in a very YIMBY like way here. To deregulate, action must be taken. The very power to regulate must be removed from the landscape in many cases.
Good. The last thing that hugely successful societies need is big ideas. Big ideas are likely to make things worse. Hugely successful societies should be focusing on making marginal improvements.
This depends on how you define "big idea," or perhaps on the orientation of the "big idea."
How an idea is oriented in regard to a sound understanding of how society, the economy, and politics actually work is more important than big vs. marginal.
Personally, I never classed "the Great Society" as a Big Idea. It seemed more like a slogan slapped on top of some semi-related policy proposals, much like "Make America Great Again". But I'm not old enough to have seen its politics in action; maybe I'm wrong?
It was clearly a big idea, both in its goals (the eradication of poverty and racial inequality) and in legislative outcomes (Medicare, Medicaid, the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Voting Rights Act of 1965, the National Endowment for the Arts, massive federal funding for education, Head Start, and other programs).
No, because the federal bureaucracy is not fundamentally the problem. It is, many respects _a_ problem, but it is not _the_ problem. If you want to make change you need sweeping legislation. Adding/removing federal departments can be an important part of implementing that, but it's downstream of the legislation, and at the moment there is no legislation on offer that I can see.
There's a whole lot of "law" that's actually purely in the executive branch. But there's also a fair amount of executive branch stuff that's a result of legislative law-making. It'd be interesting to see an intellectually serious attempt to untangle them a bit, but either way we're not going to get that.
The "Department of Governmental Efficiency". Also a meme joke.
:-/
I wonder how many of the scores only developed after he started endorsing Trump? As much as I'd prefer otherwise, current norms seem to support using the government to persecute one's most notable political enemies.
Oh yes. I highly highly recommend the first volume of Robert Caro's meticulously-researched biography of him. It fundamentally changed my entire picture of LBJ in ways good, bad and indifferent. (And is a great rich story about a particular time and place in US history.)
Given that there are many heads of cattle (or maybe cats), and each person has some chance of disagreeing with the direction that each animal is heading, how do you form a strong enough consensus to get to a stately ranch outcome? You can't just decree it in a democracy.
This metaphor is getting rather mixed, but it's a great use case for federalism. Fifty states try fifty different policies. Over time it becomes clear which ones are working and which ones are not, and other states gradually and grudgingly change their policies in the directions of the ones that are working.
Now in our mixed metaphor the mountain-climbing cattle are ants, all exploring in random directions, but the ones who find food leave a trail for the others to follow.
>Fifty states try fifty different policies. Over time it becomes clear which ones are working and which ones are not, and other states gradually and grudgingly change their policies in the directions of the ones that are working.
Has that really worked, historically? E.g. Silicon Valley is still in California, with _maybe_ something of a partial echo in Austin, Texas. AFAIK, bunches of states have tried to clone it over decades, with very little to show for it.
So this starts out as an online movement independent of either party. For now, I'm calling it Progressive Reformism. The platform is thematically consistent: regulation reform (YIMBY, end The Jones Act, make building easier, speed up drug approvals, actively work to delete all regulations which don't serve obvious purposes: assume no Chesterton Fences, etc.) which will improve US standard of living, and bureaucratic reform (modernize the tax and banking systems, improve the competence of bureaucrats by paying them more but having fewer overall).
The thematic consistency helps build consensus as one reform is similar in spirit to the next. It's a movement not a full ideology as it will have nothing to say about many issues voters are currently interested in. That's feature because it means either party can adopt the program without alienating their bases.
It's a movement not a think tank. The thinkers already exist, the ideas already exist. I see Progressive Reformism as a bridge between thinkers and the political platforms of actual parties. It could in theory become a sort of sub-party like The Tea Party or the Democratic Socialists only as a moderate wing(?) not a far left or far right one. Or it could be a movement that simply becomes more popular and eventually penetrates Washington politics through online osmosis. (We see this happen from time to time and increasingly.)
If not everyone who likes the general idea of it agrees with every policy idea, no biggie. It's not The Communist Party. To stick with the cattle metaphor: if only one cow survives the long drive to Kansas City and the train ride to Washington, many great steaks will still be had at The Palm. (The metaphor kinda falls apart at the end there.)
It's not political polarization, at least not the way you're framing it.
YIMBYism hasn't failed in the SF Bay Area because of Republicans and Democrats fighting. The California High Speed Rail, which makes so much sense from SF to LA and LA to Vegas, didn't die because of political polarization. It was Jerry Brown's baby and he had a Democratic supermajority in the state.
Like, I wish this worked, but sensible technocratic government doesn't win elections and doesn't get things done. Sucks, is what it is.
The vibe I get is increasingly more.., the laws are dumb, the government is broken, get stuff done, try not to be evil, and pay the lawyers to clean up afterwards.
I think he agrees with you the government is broken, and is specifically pointing at overregulation as the problem. Bureaucratic government is a problem, and Technocratic may be one alternative to that. That doesn't seem to be his main point.
Polarization seems to be forcing us to fight dumb battles, while the existing bureaucracy gets to perpetuate its existence. Everyone has to learn to fight against one another by using the bureaucracy, rather than just talking about the merits of their proposals and picking things (by voting?) that make sense. So a NIMBY environmental organization can kill a construction project that would be a huge benefit to millions of people without it ever going to a vote.
Hm, that sparks a thought. If both sides fight their battles by using bureaucracy and undermining social trust, is it any wonder that the bureaucracy is large and social trust has decayed? Are there alternative tools that we could use to resolve conflicts, which would lead to a better world not a worse one?
One side is easy - just move to the smaller communities you would like to join. For particularly small communities, it may take some time to learn the local culture and be accepted (and you have to try, you can't expect them to bend to your culture).
Shame and honor both work naturally in communities that are small enough that reputation sticks around. In a city of a few million people you can hide in plain sight and only behavior both big enough and bad enough to get into the media will be enough to affect your ability to continue acting a certain way.
Unfortunately these are very unlikely to be scalable. I also have no suggestions for how to fix large population centers. I have taken my own advice and live in a fairly rural community. I highly recommend it.
Oh yeah, I agree with a lot of this, at least as far as identifying problems.
But if you're trying to roll back the bureaucratic state, like, why bring polarization into it? Bridging the vast cultural and political differences between Berkley CA and, say, Shreveport Louisianna seems really hard. And, like, those problems aren't there for, say, Berkley CA and Union City CA. So why can't Yimbies win in SF? Why would bringing in the CW on top of it make it easier to do?
Edit:
I, sir, am I nerd. And in the hallowed traditions of my people, if I see something cool that I like, I criticize it mercilessly.
No, I'm suggesting we forget about the CW as it's a distraction from much more important things.
I think the CW is filling a genuine-issues size hole in our politics.
EDIT: The confusion is probably my fault for not including a clarifying comma here: "we get culture wars*,* which amount to big emotional arguments...". (Now added to OP)
What do you mean by "distraction from much more important things"?
Because I absolutely agree with the vibe of "Everything we're arguing about now is dumb and we should argue about important things". And then there's that question of whether you actually don't care. Like, what culture war issues are you willing to trade away? Immigration, hot topic, very CW, if you genuinely don't care wouldn't there be an immediate and obvious opportunity to offer concessions on immigration in exchange for support for faster FDA approvals. Easy big win, right?
Because I've seen other people do this thing where they're like "We should move beyond CW and also I will not compromise in any way on my CW issues" and I'm not sure if that's where this is going or if it's going somewhere else.
I'm not coming at this from the direction of being on the Left or Right. The direction here is orthogonal to that axis. The Left and Right aren't going to disappear, certain CW battles won't go away anytime soon, but political parties could still move beyond the extreme focus on those disputes by fixing their gaze upon grander causes. Either the Democrats or the Republicans could take up the Progressive Reformist (or whatever it should be called) agenda. Ideally it would be a new orientation that, once sold well to the public by one side, both sides would then compete over, each arguing they would be more competent at achieving its goals. It would do no harm if the two parties still took different positions on abortion.
We see this "competing in the same direction on the same issues" frequently. As parties seek to differentiate themselves on some key issues, they also coopt ideas from the other side which are proving popular.
I'm not sure exactly what you're looking for. Would switching to an entropy-credits system instead of regular currency be a 'big idea?' Would envisioning a complete political reorganization around IQ testing, or around micro-gamification of labor? That kind of like, total system overhaul?
> Would switching to an entropy-credits system instead of regular currency be a 'big idea?' Would envisioning a complete political reorganization around IQ testing, or around micro-gamification of labor? That kind of like, total system overhaul?
Or my personal favorite: space-race level funding and efforts to get massively parallel CRISPR capability and to genetically sequence millions of americans, assembly-line style, so we can kick serious gengineering off in the next year or so.
Full meritocracy, full gengineering for every baby born from now on, maximum throttle. Absolutely never gonna happen, but really our only chance if we're gonna keep up with AI and stay biologically human.
I want to see Gattaca 2, where Ethan Hawke suddenly dies of his congenital heart defect on the way to Saturn and everyone stands around for the next two hours talking about how horrible it is, and what needs to be done to ensure that genetically deficient babies are never born.
And how they're going to get home from Mars when they don't have a navigator. OK, "navigator" is kind of a silly job title for someone who works on a spaceship, but IIRC that's what he was supposed to be and it seems like it was considered an important part of the mission.
Yes, those things sound like a big deal which would be politically untenable in the short run.
I'm looking to brand a group of loosely related ideas which are politically tenable in the short run that together amount to a Big Political Plan which in theory either major US party could run on in 4 years. These ideas exist mostly in the M. Yglesias/A. Tabarrok space of ideas, but currently they don't have a clear political home as they are mostly centrist and technocratic. I picture, ideally, some charismatic politician screaming that he's a Progressive Reformist who wants to completely overhaul the currently backwards bureaucracy to make it both modern and fair so that we can actually live in the 21st century. But most of the details will be too boring for most voters, so the salesmanship of them will need strong branding and strong personalities.
In terms of realpolitik, assuming you don't want to bandwagon Trump, I think your best shot would be doing for the Democratic party what Trump did for the Republican party, creating a big slogan that synthesizes ideas and policies that is just vague enough that everyone from Elon Musk to RFK can get in on it, but also specifically strategically downplaying certain things (like, Trump downplays abortion and afaik is generically pro-Obergefell--most people on the Right I know think Project 2025 is either direct Democratic psyop or a moronic power-play by the kind of Evangelical busybodies that were never-Trumpers last cycle [yes, I know these people are in the coalition and Trump delivered them the Roe/Wade overturn, but I think that was strategic and it put some activists out of the job]). Rn I don't think anybody knows what Kamala's platform is and that's actually a huge opportunity. Assuming Trump wins as many are now predicting, it's a huge opportunity for a post-defeat identity crisis, the same as the right had after Obama.
Voters vote for changes they'll be able to see personally , or for big banners that claim We're The Good Guys. Specific policies with overhead effects don't provide that. "A Faster DMV Experience" has limited appeal even if it has no detractors; people don't go to the DMV often enough to be passionate about it.. So instead you set up big vague slogans like "Back In Your Hands", where the fine print explains that among other things it will result in a faster DMV experience.
Let me try again. My point is that you take a bunch of small, good policies, which, you're right, voters don't care much about by themselves, roll them all up into a package and sell the big package as a big concept under a brand like Progressive Reformism. You want all the small components under the hood working well, but you don't sell the components, you sell the car. (IOW, we agree.) However, if the components are no good, the car is crap. I'm not interested in promoting crap. We've already got that in spades.
How do you charge customers for providing them with information-based products? Do you charge based on the volume of data or something else? how do you measure its value? Any example is greatly appreciated.
You may be able to use an hourly rate. For consulting work, that's often 2X the hourly rate you could earn in full time employment. So someone making $100k/year (~$50 hourly for full time) would charge $100/hour for their knowledge services.
It's a decent rule of thumb to price our projects as well. If you think it would take 10 hours to do a project, charge them 10 * Hourly rate even if it took you some other amount of time.
1) Look at what your competitors are charging. Are you providing a better version? A version for cost-cutters? Charge more/less than them accordingly.
2) Think about each broad group of customers. How much value is each group getting out of your product? Base your prices off of the value your customer is getting out of the product.
3) Think about what it costs to provide the service. Take that cost plus some percentage, and use that as your price.
Approach #2 is most common in SaaS businesses. Approach #3 is more common in businesses where the cost of goods sold is a high portion of the revenue.
Value of information can be hard to measure but that's in theory how you want to price it, as high as you can while still giving your customers a good return on their investment.
What professionals do is, well... they pull a number out of their ass. Pick a price that works well for you and try to sell at that price. Negotiate and iterate from there. If every potential customer says it's something they would like but it's too expensive, then maybe you are asking too much. If there is demand for your information you should be able to figure out over time what the market is willing to pay for it.
I am looking for published accounts of groups falling apart because of unsolvable disagreements and dislikes between members. The nature of the group doesn’t matter much: It could be members of an expedition, people making a movie, a business, an interest group. The only condition is that it has to be small enough for personal differences between members to matter. In fact, it could even be something very large, like a political party or a religion, so long as the focus is an a smaller group of individuals collaborating on running or changing the big organization.
What I want is not analysis or theory, but anecdotal info — who said what about why they mistrusted or disliked person A, B or C. Anyone have something to suggest?
The mountaineering literature probably has a lot of examples. In particular, a tragic expedition on Denali failed (people died) mostly due to poor group dynamics and communication (and bad leadership). There are several books about this, the one I remember is called The Hall of the Mountain King by Howard Snyder.
Look for accounts of rock bands and other entertainment acts that broke up. There is enough market for these that there are plenty of them.
Anecdotally - and the reason I thought of this - I recently listened to an interview with Michael Stipe of R.E.M., a big band that did not fall apart. He said that very early on - like when they were all still in their early 20s - his band mate Peter Buck took it upon himself to read a lot of these books about bands that broke up in order to figure out how R.E.M would have the best chance of staying together. Buck came back with two bits of wisdom. First, copyright everything in everyone's name, so there would not be any money disagreements. Second, Buck learned that every successful group had a visionary who, on the flip side, simply didn't have the emotional stability of the rest, and would need to be catered to; Buck suggested that he, Stipe, was that person in their band, and they all agreed from that point on to cater to Stipes' greater sensitivity. I thought it was striking that this kid applied himself so rationally to what was obviously a critical but typically ignored aspect of success in the music industry.
Huh. I'm interested to hear how the visionary part worked. I can sort of see it working to keep everyone pointed in the same direction, but I would also assume it would gradually frustrate everyone else more and more. It feels like you could describe abusive relationships that way.
Do you have a link to the interview? I'd like to listen to it!
The way he described it was more like when he was too drained to take care of himself they would step up for him. The interview was on the Smartless podcast, and the part described above was only a small bit of it. Comes across as a very thoughtful guy.
Tangentially, I met Stipe once, REM played my small college town when they were just a regional act performing in 100 person venues - and I think only 50 of us showed up. They played a small pub and afterwards we all had a few beers together.
There was an open source project that had drama, earlier this year. Roughly, the community was taken over by woke activists, who in somewhat subtle ways, alienated and attacked existing members of the project. Some was for the usual set of issues, other was because of ties to Anduril, a defense contractor. I remember it because of the nigh-impenetrable verbiage that the new threw up to disguise what they were actually doing. It literally gave me flashbacks.
You might look at The Wager: A Tale of Shipwreck, Mutiny and Murder by David Grann. It’s the story of the British warship HMS Wager, which wrecked off the coast of Patagonia in 1741 during an imperial expedition.
Mutiny on the Bounty is probably a worthwhile example, as well (best understood as happening due to Fletcher Christian's inability to deal with Bligh, or maybe Bligh's inability to not be a dick to Fletcher Christian).
Burrough's Days of Rage has this a lot about the Weather Underground, as well.
In a world where doctors are increasingly treated like cogs in a machine, the question arises: Would you recommend your son or daughter pursue the field?
From the outside looking in, I note that nearly all jobs require a certain amount of rule-following and dealing with back-seat drivers. We all have bosses, and doctors are no different. But the sheer lucrativeness of the job makes up for a lot, and in most types of medicine you get the satisfaction of being able to really help some people with serious problems. And that's really great.
My reservations on behalf of a hypothetical son or daughter focus more on the length of the path into the profession, and what happens if they don't make it all the way through the pipeline. To begin with, do they have anywhere near the intellectual firepower and work ethic needed to take a decent shot at it? And if they aim for med school but can't get in, do they have reasonable options they might be satisfied with? And if they make it into and through med school but face sharply limited residency options, would they be reasonably satisfied with less sought-after specialties? And if they do make it, are they really up for the real punishment that residents have to wade through?
Given the entry hurdles, I suspect there are better options for most people who aren't really truly passionate about medicine.
The cog in a machine phenomenon that is worrisome is that it is more so than in the past and may be even more so in the future. Do you think this to be true?
For example in some healthcare settings, doctors may have quotas or targets for the number of patients they need to see.
Also, was there anything you wish you knew before you started?
Some people say to go into the profession only if you cannot see yourself doing anything else, which is a high bar, compared to just preferring it to anything else.
The way I see it, medicine is a big initial investment in your twenties in terms of study, physical and emotional exhaustion, lack of sleep during residency, having to wait much longer than your peers to receive a pay check, etc. Then it pays off later in life with job security and financial stability.
Of course if all you want is money then go into finance, but medicine offers benefits beyond that.
As for going into it only if you can’t see yourself doing anything else - I wouldn’t set the bar quite that high but if say my kids wanted to do medicine, I’d want them to be doing it for the right reasons, and I’d want them to know that it’s not easy and to be prepared for challenges.
Not sure about the quota stuff, haven’t encountered that personally. I don’t practice in the States though (I’m Australian.)
I would, but only as a surgeon, research MD, or a handful of other specialties that haven't been optimized into a fine gray life-hating mush, or that have potential for them to run their own clinic while still being paid well.
I would definitely agree that something like 80+ of medical specialties now are an actively poor choice.
I used to feel sorry for my internist, who spent all day hurrying up and down a fluorescent lit hall lined with windowless exam rooms containing a patient waiting to see her. While talking to me she was also busily typing a whole bunch of required documentation. Seemed to me like an unpleasant workday, no matter how well it paid. On the other hand, specialists have much nicer offices, generally with a couple colleagues they seem to like, and come across as
cheerful and interested in their work. I think their work probably has more puzzles for them to solve than the work of an internist, so they get these fun enjoyable challenges. Plus they make more money. Still, being an md has never appealed to me. if my kid wanted to do it, I’d make sure she had a clear idea of what training and practice are really like. Then it would be entirely up to her.
My dentist looks like he has a much better job than my doctor.
My dentist, whom I have just paid £300 for half an hour of work fixing my tooth. Solved my problem, so from patient point of view I got at least £300 worth of value.
The classic dilemma. Professions that impress people at parties are either impossible to get into or shit to actually work in, while all the money and work-life balance are to be found in professions that make people at parties nod and change the subject.
When you put him on a stage with a human under the age of old as shit who has at least 75% of a functioning hippocampus it becomes apparent he is fat, old, and stupid.
He or his handlers are doing the smart thing, which is keeping him as far from the limelight as possible; anything he says or does can only hurt his chances.
He wins if the fake trump people have imagined in their minds makes them feel better than the fake kamala, so she needs to get in front of as many eyeballs as possible and he needs to become a numinous presence.
He is goin out there and vibing and putting the fries in the bag and what have you, but it seems the people around him jingling the keys are keeping him away from any situation where they don't get to manage the cameras.
Is Fox News even a friendly environment at this point? I thought they had a falling out after Fox actually had the gall to report on the election results.
Fox News on Oct 9th formally proposed to host a debate with Fox on-air persons as the two moderators, using a format similar to the June (Trump/Biden) and September (Trump/Harris) debates. Trump immediately (within hours) kiboshed it without Harris having yet responded.
Harris then said she would have agreed to what Fox proposed, and to support that claim she then said Fox could interview her solo without any limitations on questions or topics. That interview, conducted by one of the Fox people who was proposed to moderate a debate, took place in prime time on October 17th.
Also recently, Trump backed out of a 60 Minutes interview that he'd agreed to do and a couple of other media appearances. Considering how some recent campaign appearances have gone, it may be simply that he's no longer physically/mentally up for non-friendly audiences or questioners.
I think A+B are both true. He thinks (accurately in my mind, but beside the point) that the moderators that Kamala would agree to would be against him, rather than neutral. Also, most of the media would report negatively about his performance regardless of what happened. He's got something to lose. He also doesn't have a lot to gain. He passed on the Republican debates entirely, because he's a known quantity and there's very little doubt about who he is. His only potential gain is Kamala sticking her foot in her mouth, but after the first debate that seems less likely and not worth the potential downsides.
Yeah. It's clear now that she can stick to a script, and it's unlikely that she'd agree to an environment that would prevent this from working. Whereas it's entirely possible that he could say something crazy that gets reported like "good people on both sides". Or worse, he could have a Biden moment.
What odds(breakdown by R vs D) will the losing candidate have conceded the election by the end of the year?
What odds with the "sensible middle"/70% of america citizens, agree on who won the election or what remedy(such as waiting for a recount) is necessary a month after?
What odds will there be 1000 dead in a political violence event around the election(1 week before or after, mostly citizens on america soil and not a middle east base)?
"A fundamental principle of American democracy is that when we lose an election, we accept the results. That principle, as much as any other, distinguishes democracy from monarchy or tyranny. And anyone who seeks the public trust must honor it. At the same time, in our nation, we owe loyalty not to a president or a party, but to the Constitution of the United States, and loyalty to our conscience and to our God. My allegiance to all three is why I am here to say, while I concede this election, I do not concede the fight that fueled this campaign—the fight: the fight for freedom, for opportunity, for fairness, and the dignity of all people. A fight for the ideals at the heart of our nation, the ideals that reflect America at our best. That is a fight I will never give up."
It depends on the nature of the loss - I can easily imagine chaos that prevents accurate knowledge for a while, and a tie might take some time to resolve - but 99% that Kamala concedes by the end of the year if she more or less clearly loses, 66% that Trump does.
I actually strongly disapprove of current media policy of “if you try to kill Trump, we will reward you by printing a full page about you in the national press”. There are going to be takers for that deal.
You will need to define "conceded" as I think there are different answers here. I have a lot lower expectations of Trump giving a formal concession speech than I do of him quietly dropping the matter, for instance. Both on the lower end, but one much much higher. I also think Kamala is much more likely to have a formal concession speech, but also pretty likely to keep badgering the case like Hillary did in 2016 - "illegitimate president" kinds of things. Or trying to throw more lawfare at Trump.
I also think this depends a lot on how close the election is. If it's another nail-biter with a few swing states being off by five-digit amounts, both sides are likely to contest it or complain about it. If Trump wins the popular vote I don't know what happens, but I think Democrats nationwide are going to have a meltdown even if Kamala concedes. If Kamala wins by clear margins, you'll have plenty of conspiracy theories and likely specific voting precincts identified as being a problem, but I don't think it would be the same as if she won by 10,000 votes in Georgia or whatever.
Not in those words, but in practice it was. It's not like he refused to vacate the Oval Office. Nor did he set up his own Oval Office In Exile and continue to behave like the President, issuing proclamations and giving orders to the military.
Yeah, under this framework it seems like if I went to jail for murder, then spent the next 30 years claiming to be innocent, I have nevertheless "conceded the matter" by virtue of my remaining in jail.
Yes, but surely the initial claim was about the American context, in which the opposite has never happened. That is what makes the definition not particularly useful. It doesn't allow us to identify variations in behavior. It would be like me describing Jeffrey Epstein as morally upright, by which I mean he didn't murder multiple people, unlike lots of people. Or, it is like certain people who claim that the two major parties are the same because both support global capitalist hegemony. True in a sense, but not helpful.
So, yes, it is important that Trump did not try to establish an alternative government, but that phenomenon needs to be assigned a different label if we are going to understand the matters we are discussing. Eg https://www.jstor.org/stable/420397
Trump did concede before Biden's inauguration (he did it after January 6th, but he did do it). Do you think that was a fluke, or that he has a lower chance of conceding this time?
From what I can tell, Trump never officially conceded. He acknowledged in a video released on January 7 that there’d be a transition of power on January 20, but he stopped short of a traditional concession. Even on Inauguration Day, Trump didn’t attend, becoming the first outgoing president to skip his successor’s inauguration in over 150 years.
It’s difficult to officially concede while maintaining you never lost.
That's a fair point. I was taking "concede" mean "admit to having lost the election", but if we take it to mean "admit to not holding the office", then I'd give Trump 85% odds of doing that, contingent on a Kamala win.
If we go with "concede" meaning "admit to having lost the election", I think the probability is lower than 10%. Modelling Trump as a rational actor, he'd see many benefits to denial or refusal to concede (more donations, more media attention, and a small but nonzero chance of actually overturning the election somehow), and basically no downsides (if the courts decide to throw the book at him he's in jail for the rest of his life regardless, and if they decide to treat him with kid gloves a second round of election-denial won't make his situation worse). I don't think he'd have any reason to give a concession speech. Now, I don't think Trump is a rational actor, but I think most of his irrationalities would push him further away from concession, not closer to it.
Have you posted this to Manifold? I would be interested to see the results.
How are we defining concession? Does the candidate have to release a statement saying something to the effect of “I concede,” or do they have to stop substantial litigation of the election, or what?
>I don't speak washinton fluently, but Id say hilrey, trump, and al gore didnt
Actually:
Gore -
"Just moments ago, I spoke with George W. Bush and congratulated him on becoming the 43rd president of the United States — and I promised him that I wouldn’t call him back this time."
"I offered to meet with him as soon as possible so that we can start to heal the divisions of the campaign and the contest through which we just passed."
"Almost a century and a half ago, Senator Stephen Douglas told Abraham Lincoln, who had just defeated him for the presidency, 'Partisan feeling must yield to patriotism. I’m with you, Mr. President, and God bless you.'"
"Well, in that same spirit, I say to President-elect Bush that what remains of partisan rancor must now be put aside, and may God bless his stewardship of this country."
"Last night, I congratulated Donald Trump and offered to work with him on behalf of our country. I hope that he will be a successful president for all Americans. This is not the outcome we wanted or we worked so hard for and I’m sorry that we did not win this election for the values we share and the vision we hold for our country."
"But I feel pride and gratitude for this wonderful campaign that we built together, this vast, diverse, creative, unruly, energized campaign. You represent the best of America and being your candidate has been one of the greatest honors of my life."
"I know how disappointed you feel because I feel it too, and so do tens of millions of Americans who invested their hopes and dreams in this effort. This is painful and it will be for a long time, but I want you to remember this. Our campaign was never about one person or even one election, it was about the country we love and about building an America that’s hopeful, inclusive and big-hearted."
"We have seen that our nation is more deeply divided than we thought. But I still believe in America and I always will. And if you do, then we must accept this result and then look to the future. Donald Trump is going to be our president. We owe him an open mind and the chance to lead."
Weird to be looking at behavior so recent that somehow looks like statesmanship from a bygone era. Especially from Clinton, who is not exactly on my short list of best leaders ever.
Trump also played both sides, while refusing to say the magic words. Al gore is a bit mixed, but Hilary is not she will just say Russians stole the election.
>Hilary is not she will just say Russians stole the election.
There is a big difference between 1) "I would have gotten more votes if the Russians hadn't interfered" and 2) "I actually got more votes, but the count was falsified."
Bonus difference points for "I actually got more votes, but the count was falsified. And to my supporters - riot to force your leaders to reinstall me into power."
In the trolley problem, there are two situations: one where you pull a lever to change where the trolley goes, and another where you push a person onto the tracks to stop it.
The idea of stopping the trolley by pushing a person onto the tracks is not realistic—usually, one person isn’t enough to stop a trolley. This unrealistic part of the problem might be confused with thinking it’s also morally wrong.
Also, if you push the person and the trolley doesn’t stop, you’ve caused a death for no reason. On the other hand, if pulling the lever doesn’t change the trolley’s path, at least you haven’t made things worse.
An issue with thought experiments is they try to claim certainty over outcomes to tease out intuitions but in any real world situation, there is no certainty and it dramatically changes the result.
If I drove to a bar, had 15 beers and then knew for a fact that I wasn't going to crash or hurt anyone, would it be wrong? I guess not but that thought experiment doesn't cash out to anything I can use.
It gets to the question of why the people are on the tracks in the first place. Saying "it doesn't matter" is assuming a moral conclusion. I think it does matter.
My initial impulse is in that direction also. To what degree are people responsible for getting themselves off the tracks or not standing on the tracks in the first place? The wording of the problem, or situation, can be changed - but why must my action be so critical and other's action irrelevant?
That's one extreme variation. If I put myself in that situation as the person on the tracks I still struggle with idea that someone would decide to kill random someone else to save me and other people with me. But clearly there are variations of the problem that make me struggle. (Like nobody will know, but pushing a button will trade <insert terrible person in world history doing terrible things>'s life and preserve lives of <insert dozens of people doing incredibly good things in the world>, would you do it?).
The fat guy notices you pushing on him, and realizes that if he steps out of the way and gives you a good shove you will be moving fast enough to derail the trolley, saving all those people tied to the tracks.
I think, in general for these theoretical experiments, it's best to focus on the idea and try not to get distracted by details like this. You could always come up with a much longer and more precise version that fixes this.
I agree with you that's the intent, but I think Reversion is right to point out this issue. Most people*, when presented with these theoretical arguments, bring along their whole host of priors. We don't do a good job separating out those hidden details that likely affect how we feel about it.
If we designed a realistic scenario that uses the same philosophical questions, I think the answers would shift. Shoving a fat man onto the tracks really is unlikely to work for multiple reasons - your aim, his resistance, the trolley is too heavy, etc. - such that it feels like a bad idea. But the idea that you could kill one person to save many doesn't feel as bad to me as the idea of that particular plan. I think there could be scenarios developed where I would "shove the fat man" but not that particular one.
Given that intuitive divergence, something else has to be happening here and we're measuring the wrong thing.
Realistic ethical dilemmas usually wind up looking a lot more like:
"Something may happen. You can probably prevent it from happening at the cost of an unknown number of lives. If you don't, then a different unknown number of people will die. You think that the first number is probably smaller than the second number. Also there's a bunch of other factors and moral principles involved. What do you do?"
My favourite trolley problem is "Should you invade Iraq?"
Right? It's super complicated and often comes down to priors on a bunch of information that's either impossible to know or trust. Like, "Does Saddam have WMDs?" "If yes, what are the chances he would use them?"
I do think it would be very hard to develop scenarios where I would shove the fat man, because almost all of them could also be solved by me sacrificing myself. As an intuition and something I would admit in public, I could always say "sacrifice myself" even if I'm not sure I could actually make myself do it. It's heroic and not evil, two important intuition pumps for our answers.
I agree with you. But I think part of the interesting thing about the thought experiment is the way the “gut instinct” is very different in the two cases that have similar outcomes. These details may matter for that.
I think most people's moral intuitions are line up with the idea that it's okay to sacrifice one person who is already "a part of" the situation, but not to bring in someone who is outside the situation and sacrifice them.
The fat guy who just happens to be standing _near_ the situation, is he "part of it" or not? It's a dumb mental image and the physics of it don't make sense, so it's hard to extract a sensible answer.
Also proximity matters. You are seeing the whites of this guys eyes, or at least the pimple on his neck before you toss him over. He’s a person, while the unnamed guy on the track is a statistic. In my minds eye I see the fat guy on the bridge, but the people on the track are silhouettes in the distance.
I have a new article summarizing six high-level Alzheimer's researchers who face credible accusations of fraud. Dozens of papers in journals like Cell, Nature, and Science have been found to images that are clearly tampered with. Almost all the fraud has been detected in manipulated images, with the exception of water maze data that experts agree is "too good to be true".
Collectively, hundreds of millions in taxpayer dollars have been wasted, and several pharmaceutical companies have also wasted time and money trying to replicate and build off of fraudulent work. It's not a stretch to suggest the field has been set back significantly, causing increased suffering for the ~7 million people in the US who have Alzheimer's.
Shockingly, despite all of the evidence presented and (in some cases) investigations, all remain professors in good standing and are still able to do research.
Question: Has the amyloid plaque hypothesis of Alzheimer's been dumped into the great shitter of discarded scientific theories? Or were these researchers fraudulently riffing within an already established framework of data and results? If amyloid plaques are off the table, are there any alternative theories waiting in he wings?
I'm wondering if this isn't as big a deal as the collapse of String Theory which has left hundreds of theorists without a clear way forward.
How do you feel this compares with the example of Dr Sam Yoon and his cancer research potential fabrications raised in January? This also seems to be associated with extensive possible research fraud at the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute. Falsification of this content has direct impact on people I know getting treated today and seems broadly similar in scope and impact globally on an important field.
I've been figuratively shaking my head in disbelief at these revelations—not because the fraud occurred in the first place, but because all of these researchers, including Federally indicted Wang continue to work at their institutions. OTOH, it took almost a decade for the accusations of Imanishi-Kari's fraud to wend their way through the system (David Baltimore defending her to the end); although she was dismissed from her position, she continued to research (not sure if she was in Baltimore's lab). She appealed and eventually got her job back.
Academia seems very resistant to correction. When we talk about "strong links" in science, the strongest links seem to depend on one's eminence and the circle of eminent researchers who one knows.
How can they not know that it’s not hard to tell when images have been altered.? *I* can see l my own Photoshop edits if I zoom in enough, and I’m sure it’s easy as pie to identify even very subtle edits using tech.
Some of the duplications are obvious but most I have seen are not. Elizabeth Bik is able to spot duplicated subimages etc very quickly, but that's only due to natural skill and a lot of experience. From what I have heard, most people find it challenging. https://imagetwin.ai/ is a new software tool that is supposed to help.
it, just that many changes I’ve made are easy to spot, especially when zoomed way in. Assumed there was a software tool, in fact am pretty sure Ive read that there is.
You're assuming that the peer reviewers and editors are doing some sort of systematic due diligence. Most researchers see peer review as a burden and a waste of their valuable time.
This is a very(!) widespread misconception about peer reviewing. As a researcher I do peer reviews all the time, and it is definitely not my job to find out whether the results are correct or not. This would not be a feasible task, and it is not what peer reviewing does or tries to do.
Stuff that good peer reviewing with "due diligence" does:
- Checking whether the authors know and mentioned relevant related results.
- Checking whether the text is understandable.
- Checking whether the material is complete, for example whether the methodology section contains enough details.
And, most importantly:
- Estimating whether the result and the journal fit together. Are the results important enough for this journal? Are the addressed questions interesting for the target audience of this journal? Is the text and style appropriate for the target audience of this journal?
What good peer reviewing with "due diligence" does NOT do:
- Verify or falsify results.
- Check the presented numbers or images.
- Verify any calculations.
As a reviewer, this is not part of my job. It is the job of the authors to get these things right.
But we’re not talking about whether the results are correct, but about whether they are lies. And for some kinds of lies, manipulated images being one, tech can do a screening for you quickly. Seems to me somebody has to do that prepublication. Maybe not you
That makes demost's point stronger. When I do peer reviewing, I frequently try to verify the correctness of some parts of the process through e.g. checking the math. I do not ever try to determine whether the author is straight-up lying; that would be an enormously difficult task, particularly when done as a solitary, remote reviewer with no practical way to investigate anything beyond what was presented to me by the authors. Plus, the costs of a false accusation would be high, and I would derive no personal benefit from a correct accusation.
I'm not being paid enough for that. If you want people to systematically search academic papers for evidence of lying, you'll probably need to actually pay them for that. If you're imagining that this is being done, or even that it is being promised or that it should be done or promised done, by people like me working without pay or reward, then Oh Hell No.
most that the reviewer quickly run the images through something that can spot alterations via image editing of photos. Reviewer could then inform editor of the result. Also said somebody
else involved with the publication. could check images
for tweaking . My point was not that the reviewer should do it, just that somebody sure as hell should. Do you disagree with that?
I agree that it would be very nice to have a system where papers are checked for fraud before publication. But the peer reviewing system does not do that. I would be surprised if even 5% of reviewers would run such automated checks. I don't run them because I don't consider it part of my reviewer job to hunt for fraud.
Actually, I think I will start a little survey in the next (hidden?) open thread how other reviewers consider their job. I do think that colleagues that I know handle it the same way. But perhaps there are differences in other fields.
EDIT: I noticed that this open thread is not so old yet, so I asked it here.
So what would you do if you just happened to totally accidentally notice that a paper was fraudulent?
Peer review is sold to the public as some kind of panacea for accuracy and reliability. Not infallible of course but at least a good indication. But what you've described sounds more like copyediting and a vibe check.
Ok, if I do notice fraud or plain mistakes, then it's a different story. Then I would complain to the editors about it.
And I know that peer review is often sold as this panacea, but this is simply wrong. My impression is that this comes partly from people outside of academia (like journalists), and partly from academics who find it convenient to let this misconception stand unchecked.
But I don't think that I am the outlier here. I think this is just the standard way how peer reviewing is interpreted by most reviewers. So yes, it's advanced copyediting plus the verdict whether the paper is "good enough" for the journal.
>it's advanced copyediting plus the verdict whether the paper is "good enough" for the journal.
Ooh no, that's not how I see it. Copy editors are for the journal to sort out, and whether a paper is of interest is the editor's business, not mine (how am I supposed to judge what's of interest to Random Journal A and their readers?). A peer reviewer's job, in my opinion, is to point out where the paper can be improved, whatever that takes. I look for whether there's enough in the methods that they could be reproduced, whether the results described actually follow from what was done and observed, and whether the conclusions have enough of a leg to stand on. Anyway, I answered your survey too :)
there is a tool called imagetwin that looks for duplicate images, duplicated subimages, and signs of image manipulation. I don't know of any journals that actually use it. https://imagetwin.ai
A lot of papers do go through plagiarism tools. They usually catch the same authors describing the same methods with slightly different words. The only time a paper I was involved with had the images flagged, none of us could work out what the tool "saw", because those images were genuine and from our lab, and had never been online. Thankfully the journal didn't make a fuss about it and the paper was accepted.
At which level is this plagiarism tool used? Is it some assistant of the journal who does that? Or is there an automated check in the submission system that you get as feedback?
It wasn't the peer reviewers, it was provided at the same time but separately to their reports, IIRC. It was certainly partially automated, but may have been run by a human or just done completely automatically, I don't know.
Someone pitched me that the UK's Crown Prosecution Service is a superior model to how the US appoints/manages/runs prosecutors and prosecutions. As it was explained to me, the CPS is made up of career civil servants, and they decide who is going to be criminally charged and with what charges. The prosecutors (or barristers, whatever the Brits call them) who argue the case in court are not the people who actually decide on the charges, they're simply handed cases to prosecute and told to go out and make x or y argument.
Versus the US model, where individual prosecutors are either elected or appointed- but either way, the same people who decide who is to be charged are also the ones who argue the case in court. Prosecutors are ambitious individuals who may want to seek some kind of higher office, so they sometimes bring flimsy, populist, or very prominent 'career-making' kind of cases to make themselves look better. Taking down a local bigwig politician or businessman is very career-enhancing. As it was explained to me, the British model is superior because you remove the temptation to do so. A CPS bureaucrat probably doesn't have anywhere to go career-wise, the cases are decided by committee, and anyways they're not in the public spotlight the way a US prosecutor is.
Anyways, I have no priors either way, because I'm not super-familiar with the US criminal justice system, and not at all familiar with the UK's. Is this argument plausible? Not really looking for boring anecdotes about a time that CPS screwed something up, but instead a broader systemic argument
If you are looking at it from a purely political perspective, imo, in the West, bureaucracies tend to always be left leaning. Under the US system, while extreme leftists do get elected as prosecutors, right-wingers also have a decent chance in communities where they have electoral majorities. A bureucratic system would appoint leftists in those communities. Same thing applies to policing too. UK police officers just seem like bureucrats with a baton. They could be working as clerks in the Department of Equality and I wouldn't notice a difference. The fragmented and many times elected nature of American police officers means they tend to be more right wing.
This is one of those issues where "superior" kind of means two contradictory things: is a superior prosecutor the one that is MORE or LESS responsive to the articulate voice of the sovereign?...and who is that sovereign (is it the elected government or the voting public)? There is a common belief I see sometimes where people think a populist prosecutor is going to be more likely to bring flimsy but popular cases...but consider the fact that a populist prosecutor has a direct stake in looking good (arguably, "winning"). I hope you can see how a bureaucratic prosecution mechanism could result in a lot of flimsy and unwanted charges being brought.
Both systems have advantages, and even in the US, there's considerable variation. So in the federal system prosecutors are more like bureaucrats, and in most of the state systems they're more like politicians (or the direct subordinate employees of politicians).
> but consider the fact that a populist prosecutor has a direct stake in looking good (arguably, "winning")
Well then you've got the other failure mode, where guilty people get away with crimes because the prosecutor is in love with his 95% conviction rate and won't risk anything but the most cut and dried cases.
It's both a bug and a feature. Prosecutorial codes of ethics generally require prosecutors to not charge out cases they don't think they can win, and I at least think this is better to the alternative. I think the system works better for everyone if a criminal charge means a great deal as a signal. It means the department of justice or whatever thinks 12 people will all surely agree you did it, and they have no reasonable doubt you did.
Without getting into the other issues that I have with the 'accountable to the people' thing (which I personally think is completely unrealistic)- you'd have similar issues that I describe above with an appointed prosecutor. And a small number of US states do appoint their state prosecutors.
The issue is- are you concentrating a ton of power in 1 person, who's incentivized to take on flimsy but popular-looking cases so as to burnish their public image? An appointed prosecutor has the same issues, they may want to hold a higher office in the future. Or they may want to get a lucrative job as a partner at a defense firm, so building a high-profile image now helps.
My post wasn't really elected about elected vs. appointed, but about concentrating the power to bring charges plus the role of the public litigator all in one person. You have the same problem either way
We can even use trump prosecution as an example of how the same problems can arise from both mechanisms:
Trump is being prosecuted in Georgia and New York on State charges, and it's easy to see how the argument for faulty prosecution here is that the State-level prosecutors are trying to score political points from the voting public by going after someone unpopular with whatever they can think of. These charges would "never have been brought" absent the populist undercurrent.
But trump is ALSO being prosecuted federally for the documents case (in florida) and various attempts to sabotage the 2020 election (in DC) these are federal prosecutions (already quite bureaucratic) carried out with an extra layer of protection in that the bureaucrats in question have outsourced the prosecution to additional, unaffiliated bureaucrats (Jack Smith). But here we can easily have the opposite accusation: these charges are the work of the unaccountable deep state and "never would have been brought" by someone who was actually accountable to the voting public.
If the civil servants deciding who to prosecute are corrupt (say, they are secretly taking bribes not to prosecute), how is the system resilient against that?
>Elections can also be a check against prosecutorial overreach though.
And _under_reach. If the person who decides whether to prosecutes unilaterally chooses to stop prosecuting e.g. shoplifting, even though the law is still on the books and the public wants those crimes prosecuted, is a civil servant who cannot be voted out, how does the public get the law enforced?
In places where the Director of Public Prosecutions (or whatever) isn't elected, they are appointed by Parliament (or whatever) and can be replaced by them, so any DPP who steps too far out of sync with public opinion will find themselves looking for a new job.
Judges tend to be harder to fire, and they tend to be a bigger problem.
Many Thanks! One of the arguments about Project 2025 here in the USA is, IIRC, that one of the things it proposes is to make more of the government workers political appointees rather than civil service. My (vague!) impression of the situation is that political appointees can easily be replaced while civil service people are almost impossible to remove.
There are positives and negatives to having both types of positions. As with judges, civil service employees can supposedly be apolitical and objective. On the other hand, if they consistently make choices against the will of the electorate, it is very hard to hold them accountable.
Political appointees are more subject to (albeit indirect) accountability to the voters, but, if they are in a post which requires objectivity, this is apt to be lacking. Also, those jobs can be used as plums to reward supporters, regardless of competence, which was, IIRC, the motivation for the civil service rules in the first place...
I’ve been thinking about what we should build in space once Starship is fully at scale with full reusability, rapid refueling, and a large fleet. I thought about mining but that seemed like it would have a longer return on investment and larger upfront costs to do surveying, plus I just see people being opposed to it. So I wanted to think about what would be the easiest political sell, where you could build something on the moon and every country would say “that’s awesome!” That way you could get a foothold on the lunar surface, build landing sites, refueling stations, etc, scale up some number of space industries that would make a Mars colony cheaper. The best thing I could think of to do that would be to build an Olympic stadium on the moon to host the Lunar Olympic Games.
I’m trying to meme the idea of a Lunar Olympic Games into public consciousness and am also looking for anyone who wants to poke holes into the idea that you could build a geodesic dome on the moon for something like $4 billion. Am I missing something obvious about the need for radiation shielding? Would you need to do something to encase the dome during periods of high solar bombardment and then retract it? Is there a non-obvious challenge to having a construction crew teleoperate robots from the Earth’s surface to do the construction? I already figured we’d have to do something like put a satellite network around the moon to send signals back to Earth.
I can’t help but think that $4 billion is approximately the right order of magnitude to build this. Maybe it’s double that figure but it also seems like the economic case is pretty compelling with pretty low timelines to return the investment money.
Just looking at orders of magnitude, NASA has paid SpaceX $3bn to land four people on the Moon once. Maybe that cost could be lower (government waste, development costs, etc), but $4bn to build a giant dome, a stadium, teleoperated robots, a lunar satellite network and whatever else turns out to be necessary seems to be a wild underestimate.
NASA is paying SpaceX three gigabucks to land what is basically a Mars rocket on the Moon. They're doing this because Elon *has* an experimental Mars rocket that can plausibly be fitted out for a Moon landing in a couple of years. And because nobody else put a serious bid in on NASA's "hey could you design and build us a Moon lander for $3E9 or so" solicitation. They knew NASA would nitpick their design to Hell and gone during the development, and then only ever buy two or three of the things, and that's not enough to justify designing a Moon lander from scratch.
Elon said "I'll sell you a repurposed Mars rocket for the mission" because he was going to be building Mars rockets anyway for his own purposes. He did not bid on the "build a proper Moon lander" thing because, well, see above plus Elon doesn't really care about the Moon.
Mars rockets being inherently more expensive than Moon landers, this is going to be an extravagantly expensive way to return to the Moon. But that's mostly on NASA.
I do, however, agree that $4E9 is a bit low for an entire Lunar sports complex, even done efficiently by smart non-bureaucrats.
Under the current Artemis plan, astronauts will travel to lunar orbit in a tiny capsule, then transition across to a giant Starship for the landing. This is a bit like sailing across the ocean in a dinghy then getting a superyacht (which you've also sailed across the Atlantic unmanned) to take you to shore.
This is, of course, nonsense and will not happen. The workable version of the plan would take astronauts all the way from Earth to the lunar surface and back in the Starship. But NASA is still obliged to pretend that they're doing it the other way until the SLS and Orion officially get cancelled.
My immediate thought is that absolutely zero Olympic athletes have ever trained in 1/6 gravity, and many of the Olympic sports are ludicrously ill-tuned for 1/6 gravity. I would expect the first lunar Olympics as you describe it to be a mass-casualty event. Pretty much anything requiring running or jumping is just asking for broken bones.
Delta V by Daniel Suarez and its sequel have some cool plans laid out. It starts with asteroid mining in the first book, then moves on to mining regolith on the moon and building a big rail gun on the surface to get useful minerals out of the moon's gravity well, so you can have a real commodities market in space and build big space stations and large ships.
None of those. I never want to see another fucking human in space until the entire automated supply chain is in place, unless the human is up there to turn bolts for the chain.
Before another bald ape gets up there I want us half way to a Von Neumann swarm
Probably pretty closely. My ideal pie in the sky future is 100% of human industry is in space and most people live full time in space, just a bunch of full orbits of O'Neil cylinders; and the planet is a big national park.
This won't happen, but the more lift is used to get production of first space related stuff and then all stuff moved off earth and into space, the faster our ability to let people actually live in space in appreciable numbers will become real instead of imaginary.
Bent Flyvbjerg wrote a book about things like this - "How Big Things Get Done." It's about why seemingly every "megaproject" becomes an impossible boondoggle and takes many times more in cost and time than initially estimated.
In it, Olympics are one of the routinely largest cost overrun categories, with the median overrun ~157% of whatever is estimated.
The reason Olympics in particular are usually a bad idea ties into another major risk factor for cost overruns - lack of domain expertise. In any big construction project, you want people and companies who have done it before. But nobody has ever done a construction project on the moon before, a sure sign you're in for yet more cost overruns.
beleester below has pointed to several Olympics that have cost multiples of your ~$4B on earth - it's a certainty you're off by at least one OOM, maybe even two or three.
I will take a look at this. My thinking is if it’s just the athletes and camera crew and support staff than it’s more manageable than retrofitting an entire city.
Discussions of domes on the moon generally involve a thick layer of regolith on top for radiation shielding, which would spoil the romance of a bubble city under the infinite stars. But I don't see why you couldn't have one that's used for shorter exposures instead of permanent habitation. Put the Olympic village underground and put the domed stadium above it.
I suspect your cost estimates are wildly optimistic. The Paris games apparently cost 8 billion to put on, the Tokyo games apparently cost 13 billion. In general, the host city never turns a profit on the Olympics.
Granted, a lot of the cost is tourist infrastructure that isn't necessary when your "stadium" is actually just athletic facilities with no crowds expected, but I would still not expect an order of magnitude cost savings when you're building on the Moon. The Stade de France alone cost $400 million to build and 3 years, and you expect to build a stadium (in a novel environment, with technology and tools that have never been used before) for half that price and in a single year. Better hope those Teslabots are as good as advertised!
I was trying to put the economics of starship into a context that would make it more real to me and also compare it against something revenue generating to see if you could sustain it without government largesse. If Lunar sports are as popular as major league sports on Earth it still seems to me that the case may well be that the expense can be indefinitely justified.
Agreed there has to be shielding. I’ll see if I can add that in somewhere. My expectation would be that the dome is only “open” during events.
This was awesome! Space hotel numbers were good for revenue. You add those to moon sports and in my mind even if starship is way more per unit weight to lunar surface you still have a self sustaining market there very quickly.
I agree it would be awesome. I'm no expert, but I'll see what holes I can poke.
I'm pretty sure any space agency would have conniptions over your window design. The ISS Cupola has four panes of varying thickness, and it's not nearly as big as your triangles. I'm sure they could be mass-produced, but ChatGPT's $20/square foot estimate is absurd. They'll also be quite heavy. Still doable, but probably significantly more expensive than your estimates.
You haven't taken into account design and testing costs. We've never done any of this before. Most components will have to be invented from scratch. This is good (it's why we want to do it!) but will significantly add to cost, especially if something fails on the moon and has to be redone. For testing, at a minimum we're going to want to construct a full dome on Earth and then pressurize it to a full atmosphere. And then shoot at it with a hypersonic BB gun to make sure a stray micrometeorite won't kill everyone, and do a bunch of other testing I can't think of. The good news is that economies of scale mean that building two domes is going to be cheaper than twice the cost of building one dome.
You doubled the cost of the life support system to scale it by 100 times. I'm sure there will be economies of scale, but I doubt by that much.
Overall the numbers seem to be order-of-magnitude accurate. I don't know enough about media to know if your revenue estimates are good. I suspect that if your first year estimates are correct, subsequent years will see the novelty wear off until you're bringing in a similar amount of money to the terrestrial olympics.
We also have a minor problem with the IOC. I don't think they're paying for this, which means licensing fees for calling it the Lunar Olympics. They will be eye-watering, but low enough to let it happen, since they want to get the fees. And if the IOC proves intractable, we can just call it the Fédération Internationale des Sports Lunaires or whatever.
But you also missed a major revenue stream, which is national pride. Cities will damn well near bankrupt themselves to host the Olympics. Everyone knows they won't get the money back. And yet they keep doing it. Play your cards right, and NASA, the ESA, the CNSA, and whatever remains of Russia's space agency will be racing to help build this thing. (This will turn the complex into a mess of competing interests rather than a privately owned hotel, but I think it'd be worth it for the expertise and resources those agencies can provide.)
I wonder if the IOC would have standing to make you stop calling sports on the moon the lunar Olympics. I guess you could just call them the moon games and do the same events. Still, it would be cool to have all the rings plus one big circle for the moon. Going to see if I can’t get anymore sense on the geodesic tiles. It’s much cooler long run and it feels like it would be a great thing for us to have a good handle on when we go to mars and need to grow crops. Be nice if it was a whole industry by then.
"Most participants obtained higher full-scale IQ scores on the Stanford-Binet, 5th ed., compared to Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children, 4th ed., with 14% scoring more than one standard deviation higher."
How valid can the concept of IQ be when 14% of individuals score 15 points higher on the 'gold standard test' compared to another? Aren't the SB5 and WAIS-IV supposed to be highly correlated with g?
Both S-B V and WIS-4 are more than twenty years old, and date from a time when the prevalence of autism was <1%. And while the abstract doesn't specify how their sample was selected, there's probably a correlation between severity of autism and probability of being selected for this study. So, the most autistic <<1% of the population.
The obvious hypothesis is that IQ is real and measurable, but that reliably measuring psychological factors in both neurotypical and autstic populations with a single test is hard, and that at least one of S-B or W said "meh, if we get it right for 99.9% of the population, it's not worth doing twice the work to get the last 0.1%".
Do you have a strong sense of how often 14% of people should score +1 SD higher on one test than another, given that they're measuring the same thing?
Claude tells me that this implies an 0.54 correlation between the two tests. This is higher than eg the correlation between self-rated conservative allegiance and likelihood of voting for Donald Trump on the ACX survey (0.50), but lower than the correlation between SAT math and SAT verbal (0.72), or score on the same test twice (0.8).
I would normally expect IQ tests to correlate at 0.7 - 0.8 with each other (SAT math and verbal are a little more different than just two IQ tests, but score on the same test twice seems like a theoretical upper bound). So 0.54 is a little less than expected, although not wildly so. Probably that's because it's autistic kids, and everyone knows they have weird skill profiles (eg "idiot savants").
It could be entirely reasonable to have 14% scoring more than an SD higher even if they all just retook the same test. It depends on the standard error of measurement (SEM) of the tests, which I couldn't find from a quick google.
I was suspicious of an AI being used for this sort of task, so I checked, and it just isn't possible to deduce the correlation from the 14% number alone (even if everything is normally distributed, a higher fraction of people scoring much more on one test than the other could correspond either to the difference between the tests having a large variance or a large mean). They do just give the correlation directly as well though, "r = 0.78 to 0.88".
Strange that Wachmeister doesn't see fit to mention that.
Complaining about some lowered correlation in a strange psychiatric sample is like complaining you took two different physical fitness tests to the Special Olympics, and individuals didn't score the same on them as often as they did in the normal gyms back home, so physical fitness must not exist - after all, how can physical fitness be real if these 'gold standard physical fitness tests' don't compare well at the Special Olympics? Aren't they supposed to be highly correlated with physical fitness?
Id bet autism raises iq test scores, how well it translates to real life would be very political dependent, for example silicone valley would see the majority of the increase in life outcomes in the 90's.
IIRC, ADHD costs you about seven IQ points, half a standard deviation. Many subtests test working memory. The one where you scan a written sequence of random digits looking for instances of particular numerals was so focused on sustained attention it was almost torture.
The lady who did my ADHD evaluation took the difference in my scores between these subtests and the others as evidence of ADHD.
Autism def is not associated with higher IQ. Autism OQ bell curve def trends left, not right, and many people with autism also have other disabilities suggestive of brain damage (cerebral palsy, for instance). There def is a subgroup of people, which includes a lot of people here who say they are on the autistic spectrum, who are extremely smart, introverted, somewhat eccentric, and have mild versions of autistic symptoms. I don’t know whether those people have autism lite, or some other kind of unusual wiring, but whatever they have there aren’t enuf of them to pull average IQ of autistics up to even as high as average IQ of non-autistics.
Its possible to be not correlated while being causal.
Ac's cause cold air, but are colleralated with hot weather. Give hyper focus on logic which is autistic, you should be slightly better at iq test; "true iq" should being able to do pure logic but know when its stupid.
Yes I think its a disorder, but theres still tradeoffs
Your logic about what autism should do for those who have it is not supported by the facts, though. If you look at the article I linked, you’ll see that. On average, the Iq’s if autistic people are lower than those of non autistic people. On tests where verbal ability, both receptive and productive, is not involved they do much better than they do on other tests, but on average they are doing on those tests about as well as non -autistic people.
I recall hearing on Tyler Cowen's podcast, years ago, that people on the autism spectrum tended to get very different IQ scores on different types of tests--I think it was the Ravens (pictures + logic) vs the more common kind of IQ test made up of many subtest types. Anyone know if this is true?
It’s a nonverbal test, but it is possible to ask fairly hard “questions” using it. Except for understanding the simple instructions from the examiner, test-takers do not need to understand language, and they don’t need to give spoken answers. Autistics on average do about as well as non-autistics on this test. (Both autistic and non-autistic populations have a score spread around this average, or course, so some autistic people and some are non autistics are*quite* good at it.)Here’s a good article : https://pmc.ncbi.nim.gov/articles/PMC4287210
> I am also being asked to advertise NOAI, a conference in New Orleans. It seems to be a joint project of many local philosophical and cultural groups, including the local ACX meetup. There will be AI content, chess boxing, a charitable donation game, and an afterparty at Francis Ford Coppola’s house
Wait. The conference is called No AI, and there will be AI content?
NOAI stands for New Orleans Artificial Intelligence, it doesn't mean "No AI". This is a common problem in New Orleans, because their name's acronym is "NO"
Slippin did do this as a book review, I think. But my dissatisfaction with it is that he assumes all religions start off like Christianity ("love your neighbour" being the way to enforce "strangers are not enemies" because of "who is my neighbour?" parable of the Good Samaritan).
I don't think so. Primitive religions don't have such elements in them, they are mostly about surviving life by appeasing the hostile forces (may be spirits, ghosts, gods, etc.) and then afterwards "we all worship Odin" gets developed so that social bonds are established. The Greeks had Zeus Xenios, the aspect of Zeus who was protector of strangers; and hospitality was a great virtue of the past. A great lord is a ring giver.
But we get to that *eventually*, we don't *start off* with that, and that's where Slippin's rather pat notion of "oh yeah well all religion started off to cope with 150+ groups" falls down. And if the main building block of your foundational assumption is wobbly, then the superstructure will be wobbly too.
Polytheistic religions seem to have a lot more regional variation, also, like the different Greek city-states with their differing patron deities who tell the stories so their guy looks good.
In Norse religion, there’s a lot of evidence that Thor was the most widely worshipped god, not Odin.
Right, the ubiquity of pagan-like or polytheistic religions (many of them) persisted a very long time, even into eras of powerful empires. Prior to Christianity, the Romans did not care so much what conquered peoples practiced. While there's something to be said for the staggering ability of religion to unite people under a single banner, it seems that being associated with an empire or city-state and/or being paid was usually sufficient. Christianity and Islam just facilitated expanding the scope.
Reading about wars in classical antiquity, such as Thucydides' History of the Peloponnesian War, makes this trivially apparent. Athens and Sparta had strong cultures respectively, were more alike than different (though the differences were important to people), and everyone else's allegiance was transactional or imposed by force, rather than determined by religion.
Notwithstanding Dunbar's number, the introduction of abstractions like "our city" by itself will unite people against outsiders. Whether there are rivalries within (just as there are today within nations) is irrelevant. Of course there's the chicken-and-egg problem: the cities were settled in the first place in part because of warfare, from people who'd have to have been united to some degree. There's a kind of attrition, where density and power increases over time. The 150-person tribes bolstered their numbers with agriculture, which made food storage vulnerable, which led to fighting over resources in the fertile crescent and enslavement of others, which leads to cities (very rough approximation)
Interesting question. But did Buddhism have a proselytizing dynamic in the way Christianity has a proselytizing dynamic? The two religions seem to have grown by distinctly different processes. I'm willing to be convinced otherwise, though.
Alan Watts used to say that Buddhism is Hinduism stripped for export, meaning that most of the culture-specific stuff in Hinduism that prevents it from universalizing has been removed, keeping just the bare frame of the belief system underneath. This is at least partially true I think, with some caveats. The Buddhist concept of anatman is clearly at odds with most versions of Hinduism, for instance. I don't think its as much an instance of it being a proselytizing religion as much as Christianity/Islam are, but the fact that it even can spread at all, the it isn't bound so tightly to the culture that it arose in. Buddhism makes far, far fewer claims about the nature of reality and the divine than most other religions.
I've gotten the impression that Hinduism was the basic cultural framework that Buddhism built off of, but Buddhism repurposed a lot of the terms to mean something subtly different. And Buddhism is enough of its own thing that it can adapt to very different cultural frameworks, given time and memetic evolution.
Will Durant meanwhile thought that (paraphrasing) Buddha was almost like a Greek philosopher rather than a prophet, and the religious bits were mostly either things that he simply absorbed from his culture (e.g. belief in reincarnation) or tacked on by believers after his death.
It's hard to pin anything for sure on early Buddhism, when there is so little independent historical corroboration of anything found in the Buddhist accounts; it does look like things had drifted and been mythologized quite a lot by the time anything was put into writing. (See Jayarava's online blog for much more forceful statements in this direction.)
But if we go by the picture in the early sutras (or, being lazy here, by Thich Nhat Hahn's creative retelling in _Old Path White Clouds_), it looks like the modus operandi in the Buddha's lifetime was for bands of monks to wander around, request and get support from the surrounding peoples, and recruit new followers, both lay and monastic.
That sounds to me like it fits the basic definition of "proselytizing".
Jainism might have been a bit older. Mahavira was more or less contemporary with the Buddha, but by the Jains' own accounts he was not the founder, and at least his predecessor Parshvanatha is considered to be historical.
Why do strange / wrong beliefs trigger a disgust response? I recently found out that an acquaintance (not someone I know well, but in my larger circle) sincerely believes in a flat earth. Her believing this doesn’t practically affect me in any way, and yet my gut reaction was “I want to get far away from this person.” This was the case even though I’ve been on the receiving end of this reaction (I hold many conservative beliefs and was Covid-dissident) and thought I was on guard against it.
Disgust instincts protect you from harm by repelling you away from things that are both weird and squishy. A person who is behaving in ways that you can't understand might be suffering from some weird disease, your disgust instinct wants you to get a safe distance away from that person. Your rational mind knows you're probably not going to catch Flat Earth from this person but your deeper instincts don't want to be around them.
"Conspiracy theories" usually fall into one of two categories - 1) True conspiracies, or 2) weird random theories that don't hold water.
Maybe they just avoid that descriptor, but we don't label things that are false and "reasonable" as "conspiracy theories."
PMC-types often want to conflate those two categories, but I think that only works for their ingroup. I think you are recognizing the distinction and having the proper disgust reaction to a crazy theory. A truly crazy theory implies a poor mental picture of reality and potentially a generally crazy person. It's appropriate and acceptable to have a bad reaction to such a person (though, you could get the know them better and determine if they're really crazy or just hold one or two bad beliefs - but that's a choice, not a requirement).
The term "conspiracy theory" has been weaponized against a wider variety of ideas to try to evoke that disgust reaction. It has made the phrase less reliable, but the disgust reaction is real and important.
Also, weird random theories don't usually go alone. When someone's bullshit filters are broken enough to believe the Earth is flat, it's very likely they'll have a whole collection of random weird beliefs, or will be susceptible to adopting them.
Now, whether you respond with disgust or pity, is more of a question of your own character.
Weird random theories also tend to require explaining away a ton of contrary evidence, especially from secondary sources. By far the easiest way to make that case is to posit that the institutions that produced those secondary sources and certified then as authoritative are badly broken if not willfully malicious.
Taking flat earth beliefs as an example, if the Earth actually were flat then a lot of people should have noticed by now: cartographers, astronauts, astronomers, pilots, sailors, surveyors, meteorologists, polar explorers, etc. Any but the most casual Flat Earthers need some excuse for why this hasn't seemed to have happened.
Definitely agree. There is a further problem where if people get labeled a crazy for believing true theories, they have a harder time determining if other low status/crazy theories are actually false. You break down the wall between "the earth is flat" and "the Steele Dossier was a Clinton campaign plant" and you get what you get.
I believe conservatism generally is associated with a strong disgust response. In some models of individual political / personality theory, THE major certainty-driver and belief-selector is the disgust reaction. I think a lot of people don't get disgust reactions from someone with such beliefs - I don't, my reaction is pity not disgust.
We all extrapolate from somebody having one naive view to them having many. (As Andrew Mitchell has pointed out, conspiracy theorists always seem to want to collect the full set). Maybe you were worried that your status in the group would be tainted by the suspicion that you share some or all of her naive views.
The main benefit and function of language is to transmit true information. It can also be used to maliciously transfer false information ("lying"), or to unknowingly transfer false information ("being mistaken"). Someone who believes in flat Earth must have horrifically bad epistemic practices, and thus is functionally equivalent to someone who lies all the time. You would want to avoid someone who constantly lying, and for similar reasons you would want to avoid someone who believes obviously-false things.
For why it also triggers on your beliefs, people have a tendency to believe anyone who disagrees with them is stupid and/or evil, and this effect gets exaggerated to impact even relatively anodyne false beliefs.
>Why do strange / wrong beliefs trigger a disgust response?
Is it the wrongness that triggers it, or the fact that it's low status?
EDIT: Rather, are there wrong beliefs that don't trigger this reaction in you? Do you think this reaction you have is the same that others have had for you for your own beliefs which are controversial?
I’m trying to answer that question by thinking of a higher status (which in my cultural context means Left-coded) belief that’s equally as wrong, but it’s hard to top the wrongness of flat earth. One data point is I had a milder but still meaningful disgust response when I found out an acquaintance was anti-Israel to the point of celebrating October 7th. But that attitude is closer to having real-world consequences.
Blankslateism seems more obviously wrong to me than flatearthism, the overall shape of our planet being pretty far removed from most people's everyday experience. But I think it would be unusual to react with disgust to a belief in tabula rasa.
Are you a sports fan? If not then maybe one example would be the commonly-held belief that it actually matters which team manages to kick an inflated pig's bladder between two wooden posts more often than the other! Not sure if that counts as "high status" though, whatever that means in this context.
I don't watch sports, but it's pretty clear that it does matter within the context of the sport. It's how you get points. You want to get points so you can win. You want to win because it's more fun when both teams are trying to win. (Yes, sometimes sports fans get very invested, but I think that's more tribalism than a false belief per se).
There is a widespread and wholly irrational belief among fans in many sports that referees, administrators, and media commentators are biased against their team. While in one isolated case, the English championship "soccer" team I have followed since 1976, this happens to be true, all other instances are ludicrous
Funfacts about flat-Earth theorists. Source: lost a friend to disintegrating mental health, who fell into flat-Earth stuff among many other conspiracy issues before becoming too far gone to be reached.
Obviously there's no polling on this, but a good chunk of people who fall into the flat-Earth stuff are brought there with a religion-adjacent argument. After all, if Earth really were flat, why wouldn't governments just... tell you it's flat? The conspiracy my friend bought into explained something along these lines:
"In the 1960s the space race started, and we started launching rockets into space. Shortly thereafter we also started high altitude nuclear testing. This is not a coincidence, but rather all our space exploration failed and results of it were faked. When we tried space exploration, all the rockets blew up because we discovered a solid dome over the entire Earth. This was the biblical "firmament" that God used in the bible to separate the waters above from the waters below. And our nuclear testing was a cover so that we could shoot nukes at it, which also couldn't break through. So what governments of the Earth discovered was not 'Earth is flat,' but rather it was tangible, irrefutable proof that God is real and they've been covering it up ever since."
So like most things with a quasi-religious angle to them, I wouldn't be surprised if flat-Earth overrepresents (though not exclusively) conservative.
The closest I've been able to get to understanding flat-Earthers, it's about making the most upstream possible rejection of the scientific-materialist world view because you don't like the conclusions. Scientific materialism implies that there is no God and life is meaningless, therefore I choose to reject it all.
Flat Earth is Thermopylae, the doomed and ultimately indefensible choke point where you send your intellectual forces to fight against the forces of atheism because you don't want to fight them closer to home. Deep down you know that you can't win, but every day you spend convincing yourself that the Earth is flat is a day you don't have to spend convincing yourself that God actually exists.
Yes and no. Yes because I recognize that one can arrive at flat earthism through conservative-coded attitudes (willingness to be embarrassed or be seen as low-class in the name of Truth, suspicion of Left-coded authority) but turned up to eleven. No because the “turning up to eleven” pushes flat earthers out of my conservative circle’s Overton window and they get pushed into some other tribe. I think the most likely outcome is that this person will feel the need to leave this social circle.
I'm running a forecasting contest for the 2024 US elections, with cash prizes for the most accurate forecasts. Here's the contest info, including the link to sign up and enter predictions:
The primary goal is just to have fun and let people try their hand at probabilistic forecasting. But a secondary, behind-the-scenes goal is that I'm try to collect crowdsourced forecast data that can be aggregated to generate a "wisdom of crowds" style average forecast, which I'll then compare to the Manifold and Polymarket predictions on the same questions.
Basically the idea is to compare 3 incentives types: non-market but cash prize (my contest), play-money market (Manifold) and real-money market (Polymarket), and I'm going to publish a report with the results after the election. Please considering signing up and making a forecast 🙂
I'm looking for an old book review in the ACX competitions called Albion. That was a book written in about 12 sentences in crazy prose about the Battle of Trafalgar with Lord Horatio Nelson as the epic hero. If someone could point me in the right direction that would be great; I have several people I need to send that to.
If I had to guess the author, I'd unhesitatingly choose the poet William Blake. He had a preoccupation with angels, and related divine and semi-divine goings on. I think some of his poems also had an exuberant verbal style similar to this epic Albion, the topic of the review. His most well known poems are "Jerusalem" and "Tyger, tyger, burning bright". Lastly, he lived from around the 1750 until the 1820s, a period which covered Nelson's entire life.
Re Nelson, a bluray of the film Bequest to the Nation (1973) was recently released, for the first time following decades of copyright wrangling I believe. (The film was called "The Nelson Affair" in the US, or maybe that was the original title and Bequest was the US rename. Not sure. A long extract from the end of this film, covering Trafalgar, is on Youtube at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bdlM6enTEys
I know William Blake well. It definitely was not William Blake. Though I am a big fan. Wrong style. The author of the original work (not the review) was anonymous.
I'd concede that it could be someone else covering the same ground as Blake, and imitating what I thought was his style, although I don't claim to be an expert and I note you say his style differs from that of the poem reviewed.
But by the sound of the extracts in the review, the author would need soaring eloquence and prodigous articulacy of such originality and rarity that to me it makes more sense to assume it *was* Blake! If so then perhaps he chose not to claim authorship because he realised, or the negative reception persuaded him, that it was too avant garde for his time.
Sounds like you had some trouble finding it, but if you visit the page Scott cited, there is a small magnifying glass at the top right of the main panel (You may need a physical magnifying glass to see this - I almost missed it!) Clicking on that, then typing "Albion" in the pop-up text box takes you straight to it.
To people who don't see why: Allie says "if I'd gotten pregnant in high school" as if getting pregnant was something that just happens in high school. You might catch a cold, you might make a new friend, you might get pregnant.* The upper class and those of the middle and working classes who aspire to upper class values recoil in horror at that mindset. They want their daughters in an environment where being pregnant in high school is UNTHINKABLE, whether that is to be accomplished through not having sex, using protection, or an abortion very early in pregnancy that nobody hears about. People who think otherwise are moral threats their children need to be protected from, just like conservative parents want to protect their children from the "LGBT-inclusive curriculum."
It gets to the tendency of pro-life to consume people's political identity and values. For the most part, pro-life activists are not getting pregnant in high school. Their daughters are not getting pregnant in high school. But the pro-life Prime Directive is convincing women to always carry their pregnancies to term, so they start pretending that having a kid in high school is no big deal. It's getting to the point where saying "children are best raised by their biological parents who are married to one another" is practically a Left-coded idea.
* Yes, I know in the olden days girls would get married and have children at 16, the keyword there is MARRIED. Upper-class people look down on the Amish teenage mother for how constrained and limited her life will be, but she doesn't give them the "eww, low-class" feeling the way the TV show 16 and Pregnant does.
I graduated in 1961 from what was probably the best private high school in Illinois, run by the University of Chicago, the same school to which Obama later sent his daughters. One girl that I know of, out of a class of a little more than a hundred, got pregnant in high school. So it does happen even to people who are not lower class.
I don't quite get what you're saying. Are you saying that upper middle class people can't be Christian?
I grew up in an upper middle class household where the idea of teenage pregnancy (or teenage sex, for that matter) was unthinkable. But my mother was Catholic, and if a teenage pregnancy *had* happened in the family then she'd certainly have helped raise the child rather than (a) abort it or (b) disown her kid and grandkid.
"They want their daughters in an environment where being pregnant in high school is UNTHINKABLE, whether that is to be accomplished through not having sex"
Except did you miss the rows over "abstinence only education"? UNTHINKABLE to say that minors legally too young to have sex would not be having sex and should not be having sex. No, the solution was to tell them all about the various methods of birth control, about abortion, try to get them on birth control (and help them do it without telling the parents if the parents were against that) and get them abortions if necessary (and again, help them do that if the parents were against it; Planned Parenthood has all sorts of helpful advice on "so you're too young to get a legal abortion? never mind, here's how you get around that!)
"If abortion is legal in your state, or if you're traveling to another state where abortion is legal, there may still be other laws that affect you if you're under 18. The exact rules are different in different places. Find general information on your state below.
Some states say you have to get permission from a parent, legal guardian, or older family member to have an abortion. Other states don’t make you get permission, but your parents will have to know that you’re getting an abortion. And some states don't have any laws about telling your parents or getting their permission. In some states, even with laws that generally require a parent’s permission, you may not have to involve your parent in certain circumstances, like if you’ve experienced abuse. The information below is an overview of the laws in each state and doesn’t necessarily cover all exceptions.
Also, if your state does have parental involvement laws, you may be able to get a judge's permission to have an abortion without telling your parents. This is called "judicial bypass."
If you have questions about whether you can get an abortion without involving your parent, if you would like help navigating the judicial bypass process, or if you don’t have your parents in your life and want to understand your options, you can contact the If/When/How Judicial Bypass Helpline by calling 844-868-2812 or submitting a request online. "
No, but the culture that made it possible and even admirable to be acknowledged abortion providers did.
The history of Anglicanism as seen through the Lambeth conference reports over the centuries is informative. Once they finally gave in on contraceptive use, they were fighting a rearguard action all the way, because now one of the last bastions of the old culture had fallen. It's all very well to assume "of course you as a married couple are going to have four or five children, you just want to space them out so you may use birth control, but not for single people! not for sex outside of marriage! not for never having children! and absolutely never abortion!" as a pastoral response to the problems of modern society (the Zeitgeist putting pressure on), but it never, ever stops there. All the limits were crossed, all the barriers fell.
If abstinence-only sex ed worked, the Christian population wouldn't have grown as fast as it has around the world. It's good for ensuring population growth, and so is criminalizing abortion... but I'm assuming that's not your goal here.
If I was reading quickly and not familiar with your views, I'd nearly think that you were pasting all this practical info here to help any teen who needs it!
>They want their daughters in an environment where being pregnant in high school is UNTHINKABLE, whether that is to be accomplished through not having sex, using protection, or an abortion very early in pregnancy that nobody hears about
That’s just not true. My daughter went to public high school in an upper middle class
town, where most kids’ parents are professionals. And I know plenty of
people whose kids go to private school. upper middle class parents try to discourage their kids from
becoming sexually active, but way more
than half have had intercourse by senior year. Parents give good info about STDs and birth control, and hope for the best. I’m sure that because they are better informed these girls are less likely to get pregnant than other kids, but there’s no way nobody gets pregnant. They’re not just having sex, they’re having it while High and drunk and 17 years old. There’s no way they’re all diligent about taking their bc pills, using diaphragm or whatever. I did not know of any girls getting pregnant when my daughter was in hs, but I’m sure somebody did, and had an abortion. And the parents would not have made a big secret of it. Most of us knew that our kid and our acquaintances’ kids were having sex and that it was bound to happen somebody.
So is Kamala Harris' family high class or low class? Her sister was an unmarried teenage mother, and according to your metric, Alexander, that makes her lower-class. But her parents were college professors, even if Dad had split by then, and she wasn't in a milieu of "never mind about educational attainment so it's okay to get knocked up in high school".
I think I disconfirmed it pretty well. I did not get to know many parents — I was a single mother with a demanding full time job when my kid was in hs. I only got to know a
couple parents well enough that they would have told me if their daughter got pregnant. But I knew many well enough to pick up facts and attitudes. People knew their kid would prob
be sexually active. They fretted about pregnancy, but almost all sighed and said well she’d have an abortion I guess. Nobody was horrified or mortified by the idea of a
pregnant daughter — just saw it as a not unlikely possibility that would
cause a lot of pain. hassle and confusion.
You’ve got upper middle class
attitudes wrong. People are less likely to be religious, less judgmental of sexual behavior, and more likely to be comfortable with abortion. Having a daughter get pregnant is not the kind of the thing that embarrasses them, and makes them hope word doesn’t get around. The things that cause them shame and embarrassment are having an overweight kid, kid getting mediocre
I'm not really sure what kind of point you're trying to make. That different slices of society are more or less incomprehensible to each other, and will privately refer to each other with derogatory or exclusionary words like "white trash" or "low class" or "PMC", is not exactly news. In some subcultures early pregnancies are seen as more of a problem than in others, and attitudes to abortion go the opposite way, because that's your options right there, keep the baby or not. Besides different groups of people handling life situations differently, which we all already knew about, what exactly are you trying to point to?
His point is "Gosh you pro-lifers are so crass and embarrassing to those of us with aspirations to higher things. Why can't you be like the real gentry of the nation and just quietly pay a private clinic to take care of that little problem if Anastasia gets in trouble while in high school or college? Stop dragging us down with the stupid Stacys who get knocked up by their dumb boyfriends and the trailer trash parents can't afford to pay for her abortion! We don't need or want those people reproducing!"
Alexander wants to be posh, if he is not posh already, and the posh don't let their daughters have babies outside of wedlock at an early age. Just shut up about morals and do as your betters do.
The part you missed was that the "posh" upper-class attitude isn't vastly different from the traditional social conservative attitude. Both want their grandchildren raised by married, biological parents. They don't want their grandkids raised by single mothers or by their grandparents.* But pro-life is a brain-worm that has consumed social conservatives' minds, so that now openly wanting that is almost a left-coded thing to do.
*The latter is common in poor neighborhoods. When I was a kid one of my neighbors was being raised by his GREAT grandparents because his parents and grandparents were too screwed up. I would bet "raised by your grandparents" correlates with "going to prison."
And I maintain that having sex has consequences, and if the consequence of "did the thing that makes babies" is "now you have baby" instead of "now we make problem go away so you can go do thing again", then maybe we'll see a swing back to married biological parents.
Naw man. This is just violating very, very specific PMC, like highly educated bureaucratic people's norms.
#1 If you point to something as incredibly low-class and then write a paragraph about why it's low class...it might not be incredibly or obviously low-class.
#2 Yeah, I get the vibe that PMC people, raised in highly competitive high school to go to highly competitive college to eventually get a director roll and sit on a bunch of committees at a big institution hate this, I'm a member of this class, but...the guy at the bar who own a company with 12 semi trucks probably makes 2x-4x what that director makes and he has direct control over his company and those kind of guys, they're not happy about their daughter getting pregnant in high school but they just never have this...horrified reaction. Like, his daughter's life and prospects aren't ruined if she can't get into Cornell or whatever.
#3 Actually rich or upper class people don't sweat this. Sorry, a round trip plane ticket to anywhere for 2 is what, $4k-$8k plus $10k at most to get a safe abortion done somewhere, because someone will do it. Sorry, there's just a certain financial reality where US laws on abortion don't matter and that's where, if you think it's important and you want to provide your teenage daughter with an abortion, then the cost of $20k to get it done safely outside the US is just not a major barrier. Rich people might not like it but they just don't fear it the way other people do because it doesn't affect their material reality.
All this to say that this feels like a very PMC, daughter applying to Berkley, viewpoint. And those people are high status but there's more complexity to the status hierarchy than PMC values.
Actually, it’s way easier than that. Abortion in the first trimester is legal in about half the US states, I think, and anyone living in a state where it’s illegal can just go to the nearest one where it’s legal and get an abortion with the help of Planned Parenthood. There are underground networks run by advocacy groups that allow someone to get the abortion pill by mail. And there are online pharmacies in India, and possibly other places, that will sell you mifepristone without a script and ship it to you. So US residents don’t have to be rich to get an abortion currently. Of course truly poor people living in difficult circumstances might have a hard time even getting to the nearest state where you can buy abortion pills.
...Alright, so the primary people actually impact are people looking for later term abortions without the ability to easily travel across state or multi-state lines?
If you genuinely do work for a company like that, then you're going to be out of a job when you have the baby anyway. Even if there's a law that says they have to give you maternity leave, really, they'll make it impossible for you to continue and they'll make sure you know that,
So if you have any executive function worth mentioning, you'll do the math and realize that "unemployed now but single and healthy" is way better than "employed for another five months and then unemployed trying to care for a newborn baby". Unless you actually prefer keeping the baby even in such desperate financial circumstances, in which case all of this is moot.
How we arrange for access to abortion for people with no significant executive function, however, is a real problem.
There is almost no job in the country that gives absolutely no time off to a position with so little responsibility that it can be appropriately filled by someone irresponsible enough to get an unwanted pregnancy.
"#1 If you point to something as incredibly low-class and then write a paragraph about why it's low class...it might not be incredibly or obviously low-class."
It's obviously low-class to high-class people who aren't wearing the pro-life blinders. Orwell said that "to see what is in front of one's nose needs a constant struggle." Even today you hear people say they're unable to understand why many midwestern industrial workers who voted for Obama did not like Hilary Clinton.
"I'm a member of this class, but...the guy at the bar who own a company with 12 semi trucks probably makes 2x-4x what that director makes and he has direct control over his company and those kind of guys, they're not happy about their daughter getting pregnant in high school but they just never have this...horrified reaction."
This is untrue, and is why I said "those of the middle and working classes who aspire to upper class values." Many working-class people are eager to distinguish themselves from the behavior of "white trash." (A phrase they often use.) Stuff like smoking meth, committing crimes, cheating on their romantic partners, neglecting their kids, living in trailer parks, and, yes, having their kids get pregnant in high school. Others would be horrified for more explicitly moral reasons. See this wiki article:
This shows poor insight. Only status-seeking, status-anxious middle-class Americans are horrified/terrified of teen pregnancy, because it jeopardizes their class aspirations. Upper classes have the resources to bury the problem but it usually doesn’t come up due to ironclad behaviors; this does not put them at any risk. Lower classes accept teen pregnancy as an inevitable fact of life and have no status to lose.
Your very strong disgust and horror reaction says lots about your class status but doesn’t provide very perceptive commentary on abortion’s position in US society.
> Only status-seeking, status-anxious middle-class Americans are horrified/terrified of teen pregnancy, because it jeopardizes their class aspirations. Upper classes have the resources to bury the problem but it usually doesn’t come up due to ironclad behaviors; this does not put them at any risk.
I don't buy this. Teen motherhood doesn't just "jeopardize your class aspirations", it destroys your life in very practical terms -- you wave goodbye to your carefree youth and whatever career you were planning to have, and also wave goodbye to any decent romantic prospects you might have had.
I'm not sure what "ironclad behaviours" the upper classes have, I don't think they completely abstain from premarital sex.
No, this is factually inaccurate. Rich and/or powerful people do not uniformly believe or act this way. I seriously doubt that even a majority would concur; there's more options than yay or nay abortion and plenty of people have complex opinions.
I think you're confusing two different things. Conservatives, especially religious conservatives, are against pre-marital sex. They are especially against sex with multiple partners. Pregnancy is a natural result of sex, and one of the more obvious to outsiders, but it's not really the core problem.
A person having pre-marital sex with multiple partners is already shameful, even if they don't get pregnant. Settling down and raising a family is admirable. Turning an unintended pregnancy into a stable marriage is a very old school conservative goal (obviously a lesser goal to getting married before sex).
Your values are leaking into your understanding of other people's goals. Avoiding the shame of a pregnancy is often the visual that outsiders see, but it was always the sex. Premarital sex causes a lot more harm than pregnancy, but it would probably take more words than I can type or you would care to read. Sufficive to say - actual conservatives don't see this situation the way that you do, and are not as concerned with "low status" in PMC terms. They have other status markers that they are conforming to, and getting an abortion is *much* lower status than raising a child.
> Conservatives, especially religious conservatives, are against pre-marital sex.
In theory, sure. In practice, people have sex before marriage, and when she inevitably gets pregnant, they get married to hide their sin. That's why abstinence-only sex-ed works: it doesn't. But it does increase population growth.
Even religious conservatives would say that sex with a single partner in a serious relationship before marriage is better than sex with multiple partners and/or in non-serious relationships. If that serious relationship evolves into marriage and family, all the better.
Thanks, Alexander, I always knew I was irredeemably low-class and this just cements it. Gosh yes, imagine getting pregnant in high school! After having about twelve to fourteen years of education about sex sex sex is marvellous and only fuddy-duddy bigots think you shouldn't be defining your gender, orientation, and preferences at the age of four!
I suppose, if I ever had any dim wistful hopes of rising above my station, I should have adopted "Well of course everyone knows reproductive rights are human rights, abortion is simply healthcare, nobody would ever even dream of having a baby before they were well-established in their career in a good, professional white-collar college-educated job and really you should only have one child into which to sink all your time and effort, it takes so much to get into a really good university to get that good job to have that good life, after all".
But the mud and muck of my origins still bespatter me, and i don't think baby-killing is the solution. Alas, what can be done with the likes of me?
Thing is, Alexander, people were highly exercised over that very thing - teen pregnancies. Which means even the 'right' sort of people were having their daughters getting pregnant in high school or even college - the horror! as you have so eloquently portrayed.
"In the United States today, 9% of women aged 15 to 19 years become pregnant each year: 5% give birth, 3% have induced abortions, and 1% have miscarriages or stillbirths--rates much higher than those in other developed countries. Rates are highest among those who are older, from disadvantaged backgrounds, black or Hispanic, married, have much older male partners, and live in southern states. Teen pregnancies are overwhelmingly unintended, reflecting substantial gaps in contraceptive use, and difficulties using reversible methods effectively. Teen pregnancy, birth, and abortion levels have decreased in recent years, primarily because of more effective contraceptive use (responsible for about 75% of the decline), and because of fewer adolescents having sexual intercourse (about 25%). Much work remains to improve the conditions in which young people grow up, provide them with information and education regarding sexuality and relationships, and improve access to sexual and reproductive health services."
Whisper it, Alexander, but unhappily it *is* the low-class undesirable types who *are* getting pregnant in high school - you know, the persons not like us, the non-U, the - grit my teeth and just say it - the *minority* types. Black, Hispanic, those people. So perhaps the pro-lifers are just being pragmatic here? Addressing the message to the people who are most likely to be the ones who are getting pregnant in high school, or know someone who got pregnant, or have a family member who got pregnant?
But of course, pragmatism can never hope to win against snobbery. You're right, having a baby at an early age *will* ruin your life, just as the pro-reproductive justice set say it will. Those stupid pro-lifers, thinking that even the lower classes have human dignity! Happily, teen pregnancy rates continue to decline. Unhappily, that's going along with a general decline in birth rates, but never mind: we can't have the snooty society we desire and deserve without breaking a few eggs if we want the entire world to resemble New Hampshire and not Mississippi?
Most of your comment is just a restatement of mine. Pro-lifers are "directing their message at those who are most likely to be the ones who are getting pregnant in high school," which leads them to wind up affirming that behavior as normal. That makes them look incredibly low-class even if their own behavior is implacably bourgeoisie. (Only having kids within marriage, not divorcing, etc.) The one part I take issue with is:
""Well of course everyone knows reproductive rights are human rights, abortion is simply healthcare, nobody would ever even dream of having a baby before they were well-established in their career in a good, professional white-collar college-educated job and really you should only have one child into which to sink all your time and effort, it takes so much to get into a really good university to get that good job to have that good life, after all"."
Yes, the low fertility of the upper-class is a bad thing. Many a childless upper-class woman will look at her money and career accomplishments and ask "what was it all for?" (Upper-class men can think this too.) That's why there was so much anger at J.D. Vance for his childless cat lady comment. Unlike the low-class Right's practice of calling people pedophiles, the insult lands because it's based in truth.
But the only possible way to get them to change their behavior is to promote the traditional practice of having children within marriage. They simply WILL NOT LISTEN to anyone who tells them they need to aping the behavior of the lower-class.
But Alexander, the whole problem is that "oh no, if you get pregnant at that age, your life is ruined!" means that "you MUST finish your education and you MUST go to college and you MUST build your career", and by the time it's permissible to have a baby, you might have been suppressing your fertility for fifteen to twenty years, so it's more difficult to get pregnant in the first place.
Then once you do have a child, there's enormous pressure to stop at one. Because of all the resources you MUST pour into making sure the child has the kind of life you had, or better. And so children are seen as horrendously expensive who require you to put your life on hold.
That's not going to encourage upper-class people to be more fertile, married or not. Emulating the behaviour of the lower-class who are not so hung up on "But little Esteban MUST get into an Ivy or else his life is finished!" might do better to up that fertility rate. And that includes "okay, getting pregnant at seventeen is in no way ideal, but the better choice is to have the child rather than abort it so the planned career path can continue on seamlessly".
I wonder how far that travels outside the US. As fairly well-to-do parents in the UK, we felt we needed to have quite embarrassing conversations with the kids as teenagers about pregnancy risks. Perhaps especially with my son, who was rather more successful in this field than his old man, and was pretty active from age 16. Smart kids are quite capable of getting this wrong.
But then abortion isn't a particularly controversial issue in the UK. (A broad consensus exists that third trimester termination should only be permitted in limited circumstances. Also probably a consensus that the requirement for medical certification before a first trimester abortion is a ritual that could be dispensed with)
"But then abortion isn't a particularly controversial issue in the UK."
I'm getting really sick of hearing claims like this without any hard evidence. Can you cite a poll showing that it really is "overwhelming popular support for abortion" and not "a political system that allows politicians to ignore large swathes of popular opinion with no consequences" that explains the UK's laws?
When someone says something about the culture of their own country, in which I don't live, I'd tend to believe them. Seems rather strange to me to "be getting really sick of hearing claims" about other countries from their own inhabitants, and requesting hard evidence for their assertions. If you think you know or guess better than someone who is actually immersed in that culture, maybe it's up to you to provide hard evidence?
I was about to say that if there were significant support for tighter restrictions on abortion, it's likely that market would be served, perhaps in the tabloid press if not by politicians. (The same applies to loosening restrictions). But Robin G has supplied what looks like reasonably convincing polling evidence.
Anecdotally, I don't know many practicing religious believers very well, but the ones I do would be pretty much ok with the legal status quo.
I'm sorry you are sick of hearing this. I thought I was saying something pretty uncontroversially true about UK opinion, and I rather think that is in fact the case.
No, it's 65% pro-abortion-on-demand, which is only a bit higher than the (iirc) 55% of US that opposed overturning Roe v. Wade (= on demand, 24 weeks, same as UK*). That would justify abortion being legal; it would not justify, I think, abortion being "uncontroversial" in Parliament. Plenty of positions with ~35% support have significant presence in legislatures, so something a bit undemocratic is going on if *no* politicians are representing that 35%.
And I think the US number is even higher now after Dobbs, and yet there's still political representation of the minority.
*yes, I know it's not actually the law, just the widely accepted "creative" interpretation of the law.
>Plenty of positions with ~35% support have significant presence in legislatures, so something a bit undemocratic is going on if no politicians are representing that 35%.
Setting aside this particular issue, the absence of politicians representing a 35% view need not be undemocratic (at least intentionally). E.g. if politicians represent geographical constituencies, and there is a pretty _uniform_ 35%/65% split in the electorate on some question, it can be perfectly possible to have no district where the 35% view is locally enhanced enough to go over 50% and yield a politician representing that view.
( Gerrymandering is carving up districts with the intent to create this situation artificially, but it can also happen naturally. )
"Plenty of positions with ~35% support have significant presence in legislatures, so something a bit undemocratic is going on if *no* politicians are representing that 35%."
It's really only 22% when you exclude the "don't know" answers.
How does that compare to the "don't know" percentage on overturning/restoring Roe v. Wade? I thought I'd seen it (pre-Dobbs) quoted as 55-45 in favour of Roe. I don't know if that was excluding don't knows, or using a different poll structure where people were pushed to express a leaning. Either way, I'd like to see an equivalent comparison.
Additionally, there's the factor of large numbers of people being partisans who will endorse a position if their party does (and if not, will probably default to the status quo). I saw something, probably circa 2020, of US support for "abolish ICE" going from 10% to 30% overnight when prominant Ds started pushing it. The causality of low pro-life support in UK and the UK right not making it an issue could be going the other direction.
Bottom line, I remain sceptical that the US/UK differences are primarily due to organic public opinion rather than political structure in general, and lack of many democratic mechanisms (e.g. primary elections, initiative referenda, federalism) in particular.
On one hand I recall an article making this claim about capital punishment many years ago, ie, that the US has capital punishment because it is more democratic.
> tendency of pro-life to consume people's political identity and values
Others are getting at this in their answers. But if you believe people are murdering babies, you tend to get a little animated. It would be insane to try to stop the baby murdering, then just casually shrug, give up, and go watch a Youtube video while the people continue to murder babies.
In almost any other circumstance, everyone universally agrees we should go to great lengths to protect babies, but somehow in this one case, when someone goes to great lengths to protect babies, something is wrong with them?
Not Christian ones, and the US is still 63% Christian. And most of the 29% "unaffiliated" population grew up in a Christian culture and Christian households where killing kids simply is not done.
If I believed abortion was "baby murder'" (I don't) I would engage in some reflection on why my ideas are unpopular, which is what I'm trying to encourage here.
This was basically evenly split until a few years ago, and now it's something like 55/45. In any event, I thought we figured out a while ago that being popular and being right aren't the same thing?
Gosh, why on earth would the devotees of Lilith and Moloch dislike being told they are doing bad things? Try as I might, I simply cannot fathom why that would make my ideas unpopular.
Yes, let's all be snobs and go "only the oiks have babies, my dear". Problem is, if the aim is "don't kill babies", that approach doesn't work as it simply leads to "sigh, even the oiks should have abortion suggested to them at once" and not "wait until you're old enough to be engaging in sex", since apparently saying that fourteen year olds should not be fucking is somehow trampling on their human rights and the answer there is to give them condoms and put them on birth control, not tell them to stop:
"The prevalence of ESI varies widely worldwide. Recent data from the Youth Risk Behavior Surveillance (YRBS) in the United States found that 20.4% of students had already initiated sexual relationships by the 9th grade, or around ages 14–15"
"saying that fourteen year olds should not be fucking is somehow trampling on their human rights and the answer there is to give them condoms and put them on birth control, not tell them to stop:"
The basis of pro-life doesn't have to do with high school, but of murder. The fundamental question that needs to be answered, which is now lost in the abortion debate, is at what point is a person created at which time the life of the person is protected against being killed? People have actual disagreements as to when that point happens. Some possibilities include conception, implanting in the uterus, individual heartbeat (not the mother's), and individual brain activity. After that point, whenever we, as a society, decide it is, it should not be permissible to kill the embryo unless that choice means someone else must die instead, such as the mother.
Terminating pregnancies simply because they are unwanted is not justified. If one engages in adult activity, one must accept the consequences like an adult. If one doesn't want children (yet) but still wants to engage in sexual activity, one must safeguard against a pregnancy.
"The fundamental question that needs to be answered, which is now lost in the abortion debate, is at what point is a person created at which time the life of the person is protected against being killed?"
How is this lost in the debate? It's been beaten to death already. And now people are talking about it even more instead of addressing my point about class.
If people are talking about "abortion is murder" even more, then maybe you should consider the advice you gave to someone else in this thread, and reflect on why your belief of the opposite is unpopular.
Honestly, I don't see how high school pregnancy has anything to do with social class, even in the context of your post. It's not really different from pregnancy at any other age.
You mention avoiding pregnancy through contraception, and many pro-life people are also against contraception. The "class" part doesn't really enter into things, AFAICT. Are you saying it's more acceptable for high school pregnancies for lower social class people? If so, I disagree.
Didn't Scott write about this? I can't find it so maybe I'm hallucinating*. But the whole debate is framed around a misunderstanding. What we say is "it's not murder", but what we deeply mean is it's not the kind of murder that has the same moral significance as a typical person's well-being, agency, or bodily autonomy. But--and I have no idea how offensive this will be--the truth is that basically nobody thinks all life is equal. Everybody kills bacteria. Everyone except Buddhists kills bugs. Everyone except vegetarians kills chickens, pigs, cows, etc. Some families kill their pets (sometimes by "releasing" them). Almost every man kills sperm. A significant amount of women/couples would kill a fetus in the wrong circumstance.
The deep argument isn't that it's not murder or killing. Those are just words. The deep argument is that it doesn't matter that much.
* If not Scott, it was another rationalist that's part of the same circle.
We may assume abortion has been practiced for a long time in human history. We may include in that, I suppose, infanticide - there being I imagine not even here on this blog, those who would hairsplit between the moment a baby is "unborn" in the birth canal, and the next moment it is out of it?
Then the question becomes: how much do we really want to codify the idea that "it doesn't matter that much" in an atmosphere where there are 8 billion people on the planet, and human life is far from precious. Is it wise to make this instinct so thoroughly "legible", and beyond that to celebrate it as feminists and thus the culture, which is their culture, decidedly now do?
Turning a blind eye, neither countenancing nor particularly prosecuting something, is a knack we seem to have lost.
The deep argument is *about* whether it matters. Is killing a fetus at 8 months morally similar enough to killing a newborn baby that it would make sense to ban it? How about killing a fetus at 6 months, or 3 months, or 1 month?
Nobody really thinks killing a fetus isn't killing something, nor that a fetus isn't human in the sense of being identifiably a member of our species. The argument is really about when in its development a fetus becomes something that is immoral to kill.
Why are you acting like morality is some immutable law? We can decide on what is moral or immoral ourselves. It's not like life has any objective value to it.
That's certainly one take, but it's not one that distinguishes between "you can kill fetuses" and "you can kill children" and "you can kill anyone who has red hair." This seems like a good example of Scott's category of "Proves Too Much" arguments.
What distinguishes between them is that killing fetuses is convenient for increasing social stability. Though who knows, maybe the increased fertility rate will offset the problems caused by having so many unwanted children around. Maybe we can do some A/B testing... Though that would be difficult with people being able to cross state lines to get abortions. The next administration might make that more difficult, though, so maybe we can finally get some answers!
> The fundamental question... is at what point is a person created
I sort of agree, but I also think this framing smuggles in too much. Why would there be "a point" at which something becomes a person? There's no "point" at which the sand becomes a heap in under Sorites paradox and I think the same applies to human gestation.
(I do agree that for the sake of the law we should have a clearly defined point, but that's a practical consideration, not a fundamental one.)
The Sorites "paradox" is because of no clear definition of a "heap". We could make a clearer definition of a person, including, perhaps, "when a doctor certifies a being as such". This can also be refined with criteria a doctor isn't allowed to override, such as speaking.
And I CAN edit my own posts, using the three dots in the lower right of the post. But I'm using a desktop; if you're using a phone, I can't help you.
No we can't; given the huge interest in the question, if we could make an unambiguously acceptable definition of a person, we'd have done it already. What you get instead is the usual, with philosophers and thinkers proposing possible definitions, others disagreeing or pointing out flaws, and not much agreement reached anywhere. Also, please search for "categories were made for man" on Scott's old blog.
Fion has the right call with the Sorites paradox. It's all a continuous process, a fertilized cell splits and turns in to a clump, slowly growing bigger and more organized. Once the process gets going, there's no obvious point where it's changed into something substantially different.
So you really have two options here. The hardcore pro-life option is to believe that the single fertilized cell already deserves protection. That is self-consistent enough, because fertilization is a brief process with a distinct outcome, but then you have the trouble of convincing people that a single cell is a human being. Plus, very early spontaneous abortions are quite common (often unnoticed), and I've never heard anyone argue that they are a tragedy and we should be doing something about them.
The other option is to bite the bullet and agree that the wrongness of the act of destruction starts at zero or near zero at conception, ends at really high at birth, and increases in between. That means accepting that there are *gray areas* involved. It also means that at some point it will go through being "about as bad" as killing a mosquito, a centipede, a fish, a mouse, an octopus, etc., all the way up to a human being.
Note that I'm just reviewing the basic logic here; none of this is an argument against or for. You can accept all this and be pro-life if you take the badness function to grow very quickly, or pro-choice if you take it to grow moderately.
> including, perhaps, "when a doctor certifies a being as such".
LOL, appeal to the authority of a random human with a degree, really?
Your points are well-taken in identifying the difficulties of definition in such, but I fear you misunderstand me. By something like "when a doctor certifies a being as such" I mean in a legal sense, which is an analog for "what everyone agrees is acceptable" rather than a definition of when life actually begins.
We cannot say something is illegal unless we can point to a law which is clearly violated. I actually think people have more common ground on abortion than the debate leads people to believe.
That sounds a bit optimistic about the common ground, though. It looks like we have two groups with diverging intuitions, where one says "lesser evil" and the other says "murder".
It's precisely to probe that divide that I was trying to point to the logical need for a large gray area in between, and making explicit comparisons with intermediate levels of badness such as killing different kinds of animals. Not sure if this satisfies anyone though.
Did I purposefully cause their organ failure and then connect that person to myself? If so, then I definitely have some moral responsibility for them. I’m not sure if it’s murder, but it’s bad.
It's kind of a tough hypothetical to consider, but I'm doing my best. Is this like a Siamese twin thing? Like, I've lived with my twin my entire life, but now both their lungs were removed due to lung cancer, and now they're dependent on me for oxygen? If so, then yes, I would consider this murder.
A baby, however, is INSIDE one's body. In such a circumstance, I assume the baby will eventually develop organs that work. If it doesn't, or can be shown that it won't, then no, I don't consider that murder, since the baby can never be an adult. No, I don't think a non-viable pregnancy should be forced to continue, and I doubt any but the most extreme pro-life people would, either.
IIUC, that's not a hypothetical, but rather a description of pregnancy in unconventional language. You might consider whether or not it's an accurate description.
On the one hand, I am in favour of using thought experiments to work out moral issues. On the other hand, this one is just evil.
Not because it's horribly inaccurate (although it is: it conveniently pretends the connection wasn't voluntarily agreed to, it pretends the victim is an adult rather than a helplessly vulnerable child, it pretends the disconnecter has no blood relationship or parental duty to the victim, it pretends the victim being in need of this bodily support isn't the direct fault of the disconnecter, and a dozen other things).
Rather, because using this cold indifferent language ("you're within your rights to disconnect them") about something that actually happens on a daily basis is downright sociopathic.
Let's ignore all of the inaccuracies and pretend this actually aproximates abortion. I still may not agree it's acceptable to disconnect. But suppose I did. That would mean I would tolerate a person who feels horrible pain from the kidney connection, and who feels horribly morally conflicted and guilty making, after much soul-searching, an agonising decision to disconnect, while firmly believing it's the best thing for everyone. It would NOT mean that a person who happily did the disconnection, without a second's consideration for the one dying, thinking only of themselves and their desires, is anything less than irredeemably evil.
And the latter describes a large number of women who seek abortions, and the vast majority of vocal pro-choice activists. Not "I firmly believe this isn't alive or sentient", not "I'm in horrible pain and this is the only option, as horrible as it is", not "I've thought long and hard and believe this is best for everyone", but "I do what I want, I think only of myself, and I couldn't give two fucks about a baby dying even if it's fully conscious because it's my body".
No amount of technical theorising about rights, even if it *isn't* full of holes, will stop those people being more evil than words can ever describe.
I read the thought experiment, and find some fundamental problems with it. The abortion debate always revolves around a "woman's right to choose", and the thought experiment has taken that right away in a way completely different from pregnancy. A woman can choose to risk getting pregnant, and that choice must not be removed, which is why rape is so reprehensible. Corollary: if a woman is raped, she should have the right to terminate the pregnancy (and I think the rapist, if she so chooses, would then be guilty of murder, and could be prosecuted for it).
But in this thought experiment, others have made the choice for you to live through this "pregnancy" without any of your input. Is it now your choice to end the violinist's life, asserting you should get your freedom back? This is obviously a very unfair position in which to put a music-lover such as you.
If you chose to do something, you must live through the consequences as an adult.
>> Corollary: if a woman is raped, she should have the right to terminate the pregnancy (and I think the rapist, if she so chooses, would then be guilty of murder, and could be prosecuted for it).
But this is the kind of thinking that makes those of us on the left side of this issue doubt that, for our interlocutors, “the basis of pro-life doesn't have to do with high school, but of murder.”
If abortion=murder, then rape exceptions don’t make sense. “I was raped, therefore I have the right to murder someone else” tracks a bit if the someone else is your rapist and we have an open mind about vigilantism, but it doesn’t track if the “someone else” is just a random kid.
The framework where a rape exception *does* track, and what I often suspect is going on but unspoken in these debates, is a basis of pro-life not in murder, but in punishment for promiscuity. Or “the consequences,” as they can be more euphemistically termed.
If I’m pro-life because I truly think abortion is murder, it doesn’t make sense for me to accept a rape victim murdering a bystander. But if I’m
Pro life because I object to promiscuity and believe pregnancy is a just punishment for it, then it *does* make sense me to support a rape exception; a woman who chooses sex can be thought to “deserve” her pregnancy/punishment in a way that a woman who did not choose sex does not.
But couldn't the opposite case be established? Low class people have get their daughters pregnant in high school, this is a problem that very sharply affects their life, and many might have first-hand experience with how it ruined them and their family. It's their problem. They are the ones affected by the laws on the matter. So one might conclude that low-class are to be more supportive of Choice.
While high class people might be sitting on their high horses and contemplate the value of every baby, since they, themselves, would never actually get into that situation.
Or just imagine your teenage daughter gets pregnant and tells you she just can't go through with an abortion and sticks to that. In such a situation, I think most parents would support their daughter as best they could, perhaps helping her give birth and give the child up for adoption, or raising the child themselves, or helping her finish up her education with them providing a lot of help and free babysitting. I don't think this is a social class thing, it's a basic human decency thing.
I hope that's true, because I do think it's a basic human decency thing, but I wonder a bit about that "most parents." I once read a letter in a Slate advice column from a young woman who was on her second pregnancy--now married & having a planned child, she had had her first pregnancy unplanned as a teen, and was struggling emotionally with her mother and stepfather's celebrating her current pregnancy as if it were her first and the other hadn't existed. She had wanted to keep her other, teenage pregnancy, very much, but her stepfather--believing she was naive about the work involved (which she admitted was true) and that he and his wife would end up doing most of it--laid down an ultimatum with his wife: he would divorce her if her daughter didn't abort. Seriously scared of the economic consequences, her mother laid this openly at her daughter's door and badgered her into doing her stepfather's will. It was the trauma of this unchosen abortion, and the way the very people who had engineered it were acting as though it had never happened, that was deeply troubling the letter writer now, and her question was essentially whether her feelings were legitimate and whether she should dig up the past.
Now that's a dramatic tale that, like all advice column letters, may or may not be true (for added drama, the stepfather wrote in a few months later, having run across the letter, and said he'd been a monster and was repentant), but what struck me was the response. Not the columnist's--no-one cares about that in most of the advice-column world, and I've forgotten it. No, the absolute top voted comment in the comment section was "this is an unpopular opinion, but LW needs to suck it up and realize her stepfather was completely within his rights" and the thread following this was an absolute outpouring of scorn for the stupid teenager LW used to be and for the stupid, stupid woman she was now to think her feelings of grief at an essentially coerced abortion performed on her own body & child could have any validity. Because, you see, her child would have been a serious inconvenience to 2 middle-class people and they were the ones with the rights over its life and her body because of that.
I grew up pro-life and am now politically inactive on the abortion issue, having heard enough serious, compelling arguments on both sides that I just felt like I needed to recuse myself, but I was ****ing shocked by this and remain so to this day. I left a scathing comment wondering what exactly was pro-choice about the arguments people were making and was immediately called a troll. I didn't see anyone else speak up on the young woman's behalf.
Now granted this isn't statistical evidence--internet pile-ons tend to drive away anyone who's moderate on the issue at hand--but it definitely suggests that "of course you can force your teen daughter into an abortion" is one of those popular-unpopular opinions that come out of hiding when one person speaks up and voices support for them. Choice? Screw choice. Teenagers shouldn't have babies & that's the real bottom line.
I think whenever discussing pro-choice vs. pro-life, it's helpful to check "would all of this make total sense if I just took pro-life people at their word and assumed they believe fetuses are people and abortion is murder?"
I think, regardless of their class, most people would be horrified at the idea of a high-school girl killing an infant she couldn't take care of. If you believe fetuses have the same moral standing as infants, no surprise why regardless of class you'd be horrified there too.
This is why I have mostly stopped arguing with people about abortion, which galls some of my more liberal friends. I do not believe human life begins at conception, so I am (mostly) ok with abortion. But changing someone's mind on the issue is asking them to rethink one of humanity's most fundamental questions: when does human life, with its full range of rights, begin? I'm not going to change anyone's mind in a single online argument or even in a fifteen minute face-to-face conversation. For the most part, this is one of those issues where I just don't bother arguing. I suppose it helps that, as a man, I have the "privilege" of knowing these laws won't directly affect me, and that my opinion on abortion isn't strongly held.
It's hard to not take pro-life people at their word in cases where they go to extreme lengths to justify their views. For instance, I wrote a post last week on a shoddy, deceptively-presented study falsely impugning the safety of abortion pills. The study was led by someone who's methodologically competent but has begun to humiliate himself (e.g., he's had three papers retracted from a decent journal, and he's now resorted to publishing crap in the worst "pay-to-play" journal). What would incentivize a researcher to demean themselves this way? My view is that he and his colleagues genuinely believe abortion is murder, because fetuses are unborn humans with the same moral standing as the rest of us. This leads to research that's akin to a virtuous lie. https://statisfied.substack.com/p/abortion-pills-and-junk-science
Were the papers retracted from "decent journals" because they were bad science, or because "decent journals" support abortion rights? Politics is at play even in science publishing.
And given that the latest cause celebre around "Roe vs Wade is killing women" was due to a woman whose medical abortion (via abortion pills) went badly, maybe the pills are not as safe as being sold to us they are. The woman skipped/missed follow-up doctor appointments; if more women are not following the procedures, then abortion pills can be harmful.
"Amber Thurman died after waiting 20 hours for a hospital to treat complications that occurred after she took abortion pills. Reported by ProPublica earlier this week, the case is the first publicly reported instance of a woman dying from delayed care tied to a state abortion law.
The news organization also reported on the death of Candi Miller, a woman with lupus, diabetes and hypertension who took abortion pills she ordered online. An autopsy found fetal tissue that hadn’t been expelled and a lethal combination of painkillers, ProPublica reported. The state’s maternal mortality review committee did not believe abortion medication caused her death."
Abortion pills are perfectly safe! It's the women who are too stupid to use them correctly who are at fault! Abortion bans killed these women!
If people have legitimate concerns about the safety of abortion pills, they should perform a public satanic animal sacrifice to discredit accusations they are religiously motivated. I'm not joking.
"Samuel Alito's Mom's Satanic Abortion Clinic™ is an online clinic that provides religious medication abortion care. The clinic provides abortion medication via mail to those in New Mexico who wish to perform The Satanic Temple's Religious Abortion Ritual."
"Today marks the opening of TST Health’s second telehealth abortion clinic in Virginia, serving the state and surrounding region. Just like our New Mexico clinic, our services will be free of charge, with patients only needing to cover the cost of medication through a third party at a very low price. Our dedicated staff will again be available 24/7, ensuring that patients receive the care they need, when they need it."
"The Satanic Temple's religious abortion ritual exempts TST members from enduring medically unnecessary and unscientific regulations when seeking to terminate their pregnancy. The ritual involves the recitation of two of our Tenets and a personal affirmation that is ceremoniously intertwined with the abortion. Because prerequisite procedures such as waiting periods, mandatory viewing of sonograms, and compulsory counseling contravene Satanists’ religious convictions, those who perform the religious abortion ritual are exempt from these requirements and can receive first-trimester abortions on demand in states that have enacted the Religious Freedom Restoration Act."
And if you need an entire ritual abortion, Crowley has provided for your needs in "Moonchild" (and disapproves of what is now called "healthcare", ironically enough):
"Certainly the wife of Douglas felt the presence of that vile thing evoked from Tartarus. Its chill struck through to her bones. Nothing had so torn her breast as the constant refusal of her husband to allow her to fulfil her human destiny. Even her prostitution, since it was forced upon her by the one man she loved, might be endured – if only – if only –
But always the aid of Balloch had been summoned; always, in dire distress, and direr danger, she had been thwarted of her life's purpose. It was not so much a conscious wish, though that was strong, as an actual physical craving of her nature, as urgent and devouring as hunger or thirst.
Balloch, who had been all his life high-priest of Hecate, had never been present at an evocation of the force that he served. He shuddered – not a little – as the sorcerer recited his surgical exploits; the credentials of the faith of her servant then present before her. He had committed his dastardly crimes wholly for gain, and as a handle for blackmail; the magical significance of the business had not occurred to him at all. His magical work had been almost entirely directed to the gratification of sensuality in abnormal and extra-human channels. So, while a fierce pride now thrilled him, there was mingled with it a sinking of the spirit; for he realized that its mistress had been sterility and death. And it was of death that he was most afraid. The cynical calm of Douglas appalled him; he recognized the superiority of that great sorcerer; and his hope to supplant him died within his breast.
At that moment Hecate herself passed into him, and twined herself inextricably about his brain. He accepted his destiny as her high-priest; in future he would do murder for the joy of pleasing her! All other mistresses were tame to this one! The thrill of Thuggee caught him – and in a very spasm of maniacal exaltation, he vowed himself again and again to her services. She should be sole goddess of the Black Lodge – only let her show him how to be rid of Douglas! Instantly the plan came to him; he remembered that “Annie” was high-priestess of Hecate in a greater sense than himself; for she was notorious as an open advocate of this kind of murder; indeed, she had narrowly escaped prison on this charge; he would tempt Douglas to rid himself of “Annie” – and then betray him to her."
"The news organization also reported on the death of Candi Miller, a woman with lupus, diabetes and hypertension who took abortion pills she ordered online. An autopsy found fetal tissue that hadn’t been expelled and a lethal combination of painkillers, ProPublica reported. The state’s maternal mortality review committee did not believe abortion medication caused her death."
Abortion pills are perfectly safe! It's the women who are too stupid to use them correctly who are at fault! Abortion bans killed these women!"
Yes, it's Miller's fault for taking a lethal combination of painkillers in combination with the abortion pill.
Do you suppose she took the painkillers for a reason? What are the odds that she took them because she was in pain from the abortion pills? Second-order effects are still effects.
The papers were retracted because of very bad science plus the authors' failure to disclose conflict of interest properly. If anything, politics may have invited extra scrutiny of the papers, but "politics" isn't responsible for the retractions. Deceptive junk science was outed here.
Btw, no drug is perfectly safe (i.e., 0% rate of side effects). Hundreds of studies show that the abortion pills have very low rates of adverse side effects - e.g., lower than for colonoscopies and occasional Viagra use. (No irony there, right?)
Did Protestant countries get more woke than Catholic or Orthodox countries? My rough intuition says yes they did: Sweden, Germany, the UK all seem more woke than Spain, Italy or Latin America. France seems to be a different story.
Wondering if there’s data or thoughts on this, especially vis a viz the idea that wokism is a strain of Christianity.
Haven't people started going back to sleep yet? Honestly, I haven't heard the woke dog whistle used much this election cycle. Of course, Trump is so sleepy he's probably having trouble remembering to push the woke button.
But seriously, it's too bad the Google's ngram viewer stops at 2022. Woke was still climbing at that point. I suspect it's falling now. Here's woke compared to a bunch of hot-button words and phrases...
How do you measure "wokeness" of a country? If you come up with some metric, you could compare the Protestant northeast of Germany with the Catholic southwest, or the Protestant north of the Netherlands with the Catholic south.
Is Spain really less woke than protestant countries?
I do not have a good knowledge of the current situation in Spain but at least on some issues (hate speech laws, squatters rights, foreign policy) it seems to be significantly more woke than the US.
Those countries are also much more atheist than the historically (and current) catholic countries. Some 30-50% of Scandinavians declare themselves not religious, and being vaguely "spiritual" is more common than being firmly Christian.
Protestantism has more tradition of progressivist and utopian thought so there is likely something there. But as Christianity is the main factor the difference is probably more down to connections to English language media and college campuses and cultural traditions (e.g. Scandinavia is very egalitarian and has a strong tradition of social democrats)
Probably more to do with the fact that the main churches in those countries are state churches, hence they are ultimately governed by the state and when there is conflict on social issues, the state gets the final word.
...only the Danish Protestant church is still a state church. The Swedish and Norwegian Protestant churches were separated from the state approx. ten years ago.
The Swedish King, as well as the Norwegian King, must still be members of the church. But they are no longer the official head of the church (as Frederik X of Denmark).
But up until then they were state churches, and becoming disestablished did not free them from the influence of the Zeitgeist.
I don't imagine the demand was there to be independent of state control so that they might be more doctrinally orthodox and rigid, for example, but rather that the notion of *a* state church prioritising one particular faith over others was anathema in a multicultural and secular society.
"During the 20th century, the Church of Sweden oriented itself strongly towards liberal Christianity and human rights. In 1957, the General Synod rejected a proposal for the ordination of women, but a revised Church Ordinance bill proposal from the Riksdag in the spring of 1958, along with the fact that, at the time, clergy of the Church of Sweden were legally considered government employees, put pressure on the General Synod and the College of Bishops to accept the proposal, which passed by a synod vote of 69 to 29 and a collegiate vote of 6 to 5 respectively in the autumn of 1958. Since 1960, women have been ordained as priests, and in 1982, lawmakers removed a "conscience clause" allowing clergy members to refuse to cooperate with female colleagues. A proposal to perform same-sex weddings was approved on 22 October 2009 by 176 of 249 voting members of the Church of Sweden Synod."
Note the part about "clergy were legally considered government employees". The Church of Norway has also gone along with increasing liberalisation, despite protests from the conservatively inclined, from female clergy to gay clergy:
Sure, you are right we are not exactly conservative Catholics up here, regardless of where people stand on the pros and cons of state churches.. The few Catholics we have (apart from Polish and Vietnamese immigrants) are a small, intellectual, bookish minority by us. Which I remember my old Protestant friend at Trinity College in Dublin found rather
amusing, as it apparently is the other way around in Ireland?
I'm 'breaking towards' trump. Explaining why, so someone could persuade me otherwise
Key factors, in order of importance
1) I have yet to see Kamala 'think' for five plus minutes about anything out loud. I don't know what incentive structure prevents her from giving us any insight about what she actually thinks about any individual non-abortion policy. I don't know why this bothers me so much, generic democrat should be fine, we currently don't have a president and it's mostly fine. I just have absolutely no idea who she is/what her world view is.
2) Jan 6 was bad, I don't expect for anything worse to happen. Immune systems seem strong. Very serious factor against him, but trump was less authoritarian than most presidents (student loan, dreamer mass amnesty, etc) with power. I could see Kamala claiming a ton of power and the system barely checking her.
3) letting in millions of people into the country seems like it is bothering people/fraying the social contract. It seems like Trump would help along this, and Kamala would keep things the same
4) Foreign policy. I think if Trump gets in, reasonably quickly Ukraine loses 25% of territory and conflict resolves for four years, possible for much longer. Israel gets green light to do what they want for a brief window, and then Iran dictates some peace terms under pressure and conflict resolves for four years, possibly much longer. Taiwan is either left alone or is quickly taken over in a bloodless coup without TSMC being blown up, either of which is preferable to a hot war. I consider all of these big positive improvements over the status quo.
This reads like one of Scott’s scissors statements to me. I simply cannot understand any of the points against Harris as being actually in the same league with Jan 6 let alone all of the other problems that Trump has. What problems? Ask his former cabinet members and vice president. I can’t think of a single positive thing about Trump that can outweigh his 10th worst quality let alone the worst. Trump seems to be a scissor statement become flesh.
Great comment! I agree with #1, my mental model for Harris is that she has no firm political beliefs outside of normie Democrat "government should help people" feelings, I think she will go whichever way the wind is blowing. In her defense i think this describes most politicians. To win you need votes and money and you have to adjust your positions accordingly. ( see Obama on gay marriage for example).
On #2 I can't improve too much on the comment by Kei. I would add that Republicans are likely to take the senate. This means that Harris would be unable to pass legislation or appoint judges. The Supreme Court will routinely rule against her. In my view that means she will be contained. The reverse is true for Trump as he has purged dissent and will likely have a friendly Congress and friendly supreme court. For items where you agree with him that might be good news but it also means he will be able to do more outrageous things. I should also add I know someone who was a direct report to him. Her stories about him definitely fit the narrative that he is a selfish person who isn't interested in policy details and will routinely ask his staff to do unethical or illegal things.
I don't like either of these people but to me Harris seems less risky.
On immigration: while it's true that Trump's hard-line position on immigration law reflects a widely held dislike of immigrants, I'd argue that's that's actually a deeply unreasonable attitude that you shouldn't buy into.
There's a broad consensus among economists that immigrants- even poor immigrants who dodge the immigration bureaucracy- benefit the average US worker (see https://www.kentclarkcenter.org/surveys/high-skilled-immigrants/ and https://www.kentclarkcenter.org/surveys/low-skilled-immigrants/ for some expert surveys). This shouldn't be surprising- as we saw with the disastrous Marxist experiments in command economies last century, giving absolute power over some part of the economy to a bureaucracy for the purpose of protecting workers from market competition may benefit those workers a bit in the short term, but hurts everyone substantially in the long run.
And, of course, that's exactly what our current immigration bureaucracy is. This isn't a system that was designed according to sound economic theory and updated once new evidence became available. In the late 19th and early 20th century, we transitioned from open borders to our present system based on a mix of very explicitly racist ideology and very explicitly socialist ideology, and the system has barely been updated since then.
There's also widespread consensus among people who study this sort of thing that immigrants- even those who overstay visas and bypass border checkpoints- lower the crime rate (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illegal_immigration_to_the_United_States_and_crime for an overview of sources on that). This also shouldn't be that surprising. Immigration is a complex and expensive thing to undertake, and the people who commit the most crime- drug addicts and people with severe emotional problems- are usually flat broke and barely capable of functioning in society at all.
Illegal immigrants also pay more in taxes than they receive in public benefits. They mostly work in jobs that take out income tax from their paychecks, and of course pay things like sales tax- but at the same time, aren't eligible for or can't easily access most public services.
Now, it's true that rule of law- or as you said, preserving the social fabric- demands that we enforce even a profoundly broken and pointless set of laws like our current immigration system. But the need for that has to be weighed against other moral factors. It's probably a good thing, for example, that Marijuana laws are usually so laxly enforced in places where they're still on the books, since that prohibition is similarly pointless and harmful. While it's vastly better to change bad laws than laxly enforce them, since that preserves rule of law, in cases where that's not possible, less than maximal enforcement will often be the lesser of two evils.
So, that brings me to Trump's plan of mass deportation, which I actually find pretty horrifying. There are around eleven million undocumented immigrants in the US, many of whom have grown up here or lived here for decades. To deport those long-term residents means taking away everything from people- their homes, their jobs, their access to friends and family, often the businesses and communities they've built and the culture they were raised in. To do that to millions of people would be not just an economic disaster, probably triggering a bad recession, but also a humanitarian atrocity. And Trump wants to do this because they've dodged the paperwork of an insane bureaucracy, and not destroying their lives in retaliation is somehow the only option left to us?
But no, of course that's not the reason Trump is calling for mass deportations. The human mind longs for an outgroup- some class of people to dehumanize, to scapegoat, to load up with all of our fear and anger and disgust so that we can knock them down and feel safe and righteous. It's something that the Left traditionally does with wealthy people and the Right traditionally does with vulnerable minorities. Whenever people start doing it, it's both incredibly dangerous to society and incredibly easy to identify. Do the people who hate this group frequently cherrypick negative stories about them? Do they have strongly-held beliefs about the group that are easily disproved by data? When they inevitably start demanding that society make sacrifices to hurt the group, are they sad about it? Do they see the harm as a tragic necessity, or are they eager?
Rallying people against an outgroup is an incredibly powerful political strategy. I'd argue that the main reason our immigration system is still so out of touch with economic theory after a century is that the Right would have to give up their attacks on a conveniently permanent outgroup to pass any sort of reasonable reform. This has always been a problem, but Trump escalating it to threats of a humanitarian and economic disaster- well, it's about what you'd expect from the guy.
This is a very good, well-argued comment. I'm quite socially conservative, but I've always been somewhere between ambivalent and supportive on immigration. Including on a level of mercy for (some kinds of) illegal immigrants.
But while I do agree that someone who looks at a desperate or vulnerable immigrant and says coldly "this is my country and I don't want you here, tough luck" is, exactly like the typical pro-choice woman who talks like that, not only evil, but unimaginably and probably irredeemably evil...I think you're misstating the factors and emotions that are driving anti-illegal-immigrant sentiment. There's some outgroup hatred, no doubt, and there's some brazenly indifferent selfishness, of course. But there are also three very understandable and important factors:
1. The emotional factor you're misunderstanding, at least for many people, goes as follows. Imagine a homeless person knocks on your door and politely asks to stay at your house for a while, and suppose you have a large house and could accomodate him without inconvenience. You may well say yes, or at least be highly sympathetic and look for a compromise. Now imagine instead that he doesn't ask you but instead sneaks into your house, lives there without your knowledge (again, large house), and now and then takes food from your kitchen without permission. Then you eventually discover him, and he says he's really sorry, that he was desperate and was terrified you'd say no if he asked, and he begs you to forgive him and let him stay, promising that he wants nothing more than to adopt your values, help you maintain your house to the standard you want, and become an adopted member of your family. This is obviously a lot worse than the first case, but most people will probably have some significant sympathy, even if they also have some legimate anger.
But now...imagine he does the same thing (sneaking in, taking food) but when you discover him, this is what he says: "Yeah, so what? I have a *right* to enter your house, and I'm not sorry at all. In fact, you should be sorry for making me hide for so long instead of proudly exercising my unconditional right! I demand, not ask, to stay in your house. In fact, I demand that you modify your house to suit my tastes! Change those curtains to ones I prefer or you're a disgusting bigot! I have no intention of adopting your values, to even ask me to is offensive. I demand to live in your house and to ignore and even mock your culture and your values. And I *not only* demand equal rights to you over your own house, I demand special rights *over* you! I demand to be allowed to say words you're not allowed to say, to wear things you're not allowed to wear (with no equivalents in the other direction) and preferential treatment over you in many areas! And if you object in the tiniest, politest way, I'll join with a mob to destroy your career and your life."
I think the *kindest* response that could be expected of you is: "get...the...FUCK...out of my house."
That's the attitude modern immigrants are perceived to represent by many people. Now of course, most actual illegal immigrants probably don't have that attitude at all. But unfortunately, the sections of society that claim to represent them, in academia and activism, do. And they represent this attitude as being *the* reasonable attitude and entitlement of immigrant minorities. Most immigrants may not agree, but they have no media voice to oppose it, and the ones who *do* have a voice are highly likely to embrace it.
So what can you expect ordinary, low-status native whites to do in response? A group of powerful and very well-connected people (mostly academics) have spent decades using immigrants as a cover for spreading extremely hateful, aggressive messages against them, full of contempt for their values and existence and open racism against them (see critical race theory, and affirmative action). This went on even while the US was unusually liberal on immigration compared to most countries, and only after these hateful woke attitudes spread from academia to the rest of society did an anti-immigrant backlash firmly arise.
At some point, after a long series of aggressions, an act of aggression in response has to seen as a kind of self-defence. It may be wrong in its result, but (like the US bombing of Hiroshima) the harm is in many respects the fault of the original aggressor, not the one fighting back.
The ones who've used immigrants as a football for decades to wage a race war have created all the problems and hatreds you mention.
2. The American left has been consciously and openly using immigration (including illegal immigration) as a path to political dominance. Boasting over and over for years to conservative and centrist whites "very soon, demographics will give us a permanent majority, and we won't have to listen to you at all. You'll be forever powerless, we'll be able to whatever we want, to ignore your values and opinions completely, and there'll be nothing you can do about it!" There's so much of this you can find dozens of examples in seconds. It's truly beyond belief.
So this makes illegal immigration an existential issue for many natives. It's literallly, openly being used as a way of making them permanently powerless in their own country. Whether that plan would succeed is a different matter, but it's very clearly a widely endorsed deliberate plan. How do you expect people to react to a sustained and aggressive attack on their very political representative voice? Wars are fought over this, including the founding of the US itself.
It's also, one could argue, as bad as or worse than Trump's undemocratic tactics. Both involve the same process: (1) violate the laws, (2) gamble that inertia and politics will prevent significant resistance, (3) retrospectively legitimise the illegal actions and thereby (4) bypass democracy and hold power indefinitely. But while Trump's form is chaotic and unplanned and extremely recent, the left-wing form is long-established, with enormous institutional support from the "gatekeepers" of democracy.
It would be good if this threat to democracy could be defeated without the misery of mass deportations. The best way would be a promise to illegal immigrants of a permanent right to stay, in return for renouncing permanently any right to vote. I suspect that most illegal immigrants would accept this deal in a heartbeat: it would be a vast improvement over their current condition, and a vote is of little value personally anyway. The ones who would never allow it are the institutional left, since they don't really care about immigrants' lives anyway: the political advantages are their sole reason for supporting them. Does anyone deny that they would fight to the death against such a compromise?
And even separately from these existential threats, the way many immigrants vote (or are expected to vote) as an ethnic bloc, and not according to individual conscience, rightly disturbs many people. Ethnic coalitions locked in a bloodless war, seeing who can logistically organise better to get more of them to polls, and who can reproduce faster to overwhelm the other group...that's not how democracy is supposed to work. The only way to end hostility to immigrants is to eliminate ethnic identity politics as an electoral factor.
3. About crime. Illegal immigrants may commit less crime. But every crime they do commit is a crime that could have been prevented if they'd been deported. And as long as places like SF and Seattle are doing de-policing, and deliberately not punishing many crimes because those crimes are more likely to be committed by non-whites...this may be the only way for people to protect themselves from crime. It shouldn't be that way of course; the proper course is to let people stay if they're law-abiding, and aggressively prosecute them if they're not. But what happens when the left refuses to do the latter, or deliberately sabotages its capability? I don't know where it is, but Scott wrote somewhere about daycare centres being more likely to discriminate on race if asking about prospective employees' criminal convictions is prohibited. Most people just want to use the basic, obvious tools to protect themselves from crime, but if you take away those tools, they'll be forced to use other measures they never wanted to use, and it's your fault for taking the common sense tools away.
In summary: I agree that most illegal immigrants are not a threat (although I thought the evidence on depressing wages was mixed, but I'll assume your evidence is correct absent possession of the contrary), and I agree that many of them are sympathetic and would be unfairly harmed by deportations. But as long as entrenched political forces within western countries, and especially to a particularly great extent in the US, are using them as a means to illegimately increase their power, and are either indifferent to, or actively gleeful about, harm to the values, way of life, safety, and democratic voice of native white people with little institutional power, heavy resistance to illegal immigration is both understandable and just.
This is the sort of problem that, if left unaddressed, could lead to a civil war. I think the best case scenario is that if Trump is in a position to implement mass deportations, this forces the left to come to a true compromise that eliminates the existential threats described above. Decades of rhetoric about a Permanent Democratic Majority makes it clear they'll never accept such a compromise if they can get away with it.
On #1 - I'm not a fan of the "country as my house" argument, but assuming we commit to it you're missing a rather big factor. You don't just live in this house alone. You have a spouse - your co-equal, who also lives in the house and has opposite views from you re: homeless people. Your spouse is going all around the world publishing multimedia that emphasizes how welcoming the house is of the homeless, is adding multilingual signs and resources throughout the building to help them transition. It's your spouse demanding that the drapes be changed, that special assistance be made available to the newcomers, etc. And your spouse has every bit as much of a right to decide what happens in the house as you do.
And you and your spouse have become completely, pathologically unable to talk about this. If either of you could be reasonable, you'd talk and come to some sort of reasoned consensus about how many people you can afford to support, whether they are a net gain or loss for the household, what rules you have for bringing them in and kicking them out, etc. But you're stuck on "if I don't compromise and give any legal status away, on one great day I'll be able to kick *all* these people out," while your spouse is stuck on "if I don't compromise and demand a maximally open household, one day ascend will buckle and *have* to let these people stay.
And in the meantime, unsurprisingly, people keep showing up in the house. Meanwhile, the rules for "legal house entry" stay byzantine and draconian, and the situation drags on and and on and on with no sign that you and your spouse are ever going to compromise about this. At a certain point, why would any rational person "wait their turn" while defections keep occurring all around them and the homeowners show no sign of ever actually fixing the situation?
And if you think you are, after this long period of refusal to compromise, entitled to some kind of "act of aggression in response" to be "seen as a kind of self-defence," you have to also articulate why your spouse isn't similarly entitled - you've frustrated their policy preferences as much as they've frustrated yours.
It's always a little surprising to me when conservatives bring up the example of a person invading your house, since it seems to me to be founded on a fundamentally socialist idea of what a country is.
Suppose I own an apartment complex and want to hire a guy from Mexico to be a handyman and live in one of the apartments. Suppose someone from the government says that I can't do that because my apartment belongs collectively to American citizens, and they haven't given me permission to let anyone else in. Why shouldn't I say "Fuck you, this isn't the government's property; it's not the collective home of the American people. It's my property, my home. Some people may not like having a Mexican neighbor, but their right to throw people out stops at their actual property line, not some imaginary collective property line at the border."
Now, granted, that Mexican handyman will also be using public roads, public sewers, and so on. But I'd argue that those aren't best thought of as the collective property of the people either. Rather, they're the government's property.
The government is an organization to which we've granted the right to monopolize the use of force. On the surface, this seems potentially immoral- what gives this one organization the right to use force against me and prevent me from doing the same? I think, pretty clearly, that right comes from the fact that it's promoting the interests of the people over whom it's monopolizing force. If an organization is using force against me without considering my interests, then it's a tyranny. If it's using force while fairly weighing my interests against those of everyone else it's holding power over, than it's a tool for solving coordination problems.
Note that I haven't mentioned citizenship or collective ownership in that moral analysis- that's because I don't think they hold up as moral foundations. When an organization holds power over two groups and only considers the interests of one, it has no moral right to that power. It has an obligation to either give up the power or start considering the other group's interests, and that holds for everyone- citizen or not.
This principle also implies that government property can't ethically be considered a particular group's collective property- governments use their monopolization of force to acquire things via taxes, so it has an obligation to use those things for the benefit of everyone it holds power over, not just some collective property owners.
I think it should be clear from that what my objection would be to the idea of immigrants being allowed to stay without a vote- the government wouldn't have a right to rule them unless it also had an obligation to represent them.
On the topic of immigrants benefiting Democrats electorally, it's true that Democrats are biased in favor of immigration because of the electoral benefit, just as Republicans are biased against it because of electoral risk. Both are a problem- we ought to be supporting policies based on how the benefit the people and causes we care about, not on how they affect elections. I will note, however, that one of those is a bias toward restricting peoples' freedom, while the other is a bias toward the government interfering in peoples' lives less.
I also think that this notion of demographic change permanently disenfranchising rural white people is pretty absurd. There's a reason every national election has almost exactly 50-50 odds- both parties optimize very heavily to grow their coalitions as much as possible. Realistically, if demographic change continues and Republicans remain anti-immigrant, they'll slightly shift their rhetoric to appeal more to groups like conservative black people and centrist white people, and the elections will still end up exactly 50-50. Even more realistically, both parties will probably shift so much in the next few decades so as to be nearly unrecognizable- just as the parties of today would be nearly unrecognizable to someone in 1990, and the parties of 1990 would be nearly unrecognizable to someone in 1960, and so on. This notion of white conservatives turning into a powerless underclass is the fantasy of a few out-of-touch leftists and a whole lot of conservative media fear-mongering, nothing more.
Now, it's true that there are a disturbing number of people on the left who use conservatives as an outgroup to unload their hatred onto, just as there are a disturbing number of people on the right who do the same to liberals. This is a very dangerous problem that may indeed lead to real civil instability and violence. But mass deportations won't decrease that hatred. The hatred is a kind of cultural insanity, driven by the mediums we use for communication optimizing for outrage and our cultural permission structures letting us wallow in our worst epistemic tendencies. It's not something that can be appeased by bowing to its demands; it can only be opposed directly though rational discourse and a solid personal commitment to believe whatever is true, no matter the partisan coding.
One final point about crime: it's true that, by decreasing the population, deportations would decrease the total amount of crime. But the amount of crime an individual experiences is determined by the average crime rate, not the national total. By removing a group with a relatively low propensity for crime, mass deportations would increase the average crime rate. That would most likely cause you to experience more crime, since fewer of your interactions would be with poor immigrants, and more with poor natives.
From a strict libertarian perspective, sure, you should be able to offer an apartment you own to anyone you want, wherever they come from. If you own the entire building, they can even use the common areas.
But they'll be arrested for trespassing if they ever set foot out the front door, because the sidewalk *is* public property, collectively owned by the American people who do have and have exercised the right to decide who is or is not allowed there.
Also, from a libertarian perspective, if I ever see people bringing in foreign guest workers who will have no legal way to leave their patron's property, I'm going to be real suspicious that you're importing slave labor. Because it's realistically either that, or just a silly thought experiment of no practical relevance.
That sidewalk is funded by taxes extracted from both citizens and non-citizens. Even if it wasn't, the government has a moral right to use force against someone only when it fairly weighs that person's interests against everyone else it holds power over, and I do mean everyone. Treating the infrastructure it builds as the collective private property of citizens plainly wouldn't be a fair compromise between the interests of citizens and non-citizen residents.
Central to my argument is this idea that a government shouldn't exist solely for the benefit of citizens, but should instead fairly represent the interests of everyone it enforces its laws against and extracts taxes from. That's not a popular idea, but it makes a lot more moral sense to me than the standard notion of government as a tool of citizens. For a government to hold power over someone without representing their interests is simply unjust in all cases.
In the case of immigration, I think the implications of this principle are pretty commonsensical- for someone who's just hopped the border, a fair balance between their interests and those of citizens is a quick, humane deportation; a proportional punishment for a minor crime. For those who have lived here for decades, however, the punishment of deportation- taking away their home, their livelihood and community and so on- vastly outweighs the crime of dodging some old bureaucratic nonsense, so the fair balance is amnesty.
And yes, that creates a moral hazard, but so do statutes of limitation. Often in law, a bit of moral hazard has to be accepted to keep a government in line.
> But no, of course that's not the reason Trump is calling for mass deportations. The human mind longs for an outgroup...
Why is it so hard for you to believe that people just want to punish rulebreakers and reward people who follow the rules?
There's millions of people all around the world who would love an opportunity to move to the US, but are patiently doing things the right way. It seems that you want to say a massive Fuck You to all the law-abiding people of the world, to reward those who have only contempt for the laws of the society that they are supposedly joining.
"Why is it so hard for you to believe that people just want to punish rulebreakers and reward people who follow the rules?"
That would call for punishing Donald Trump and rewarding Kamala Harris (or Chase Oliver or Jill Stein). You'll have an opportunity to show us where you stand on that in a couple of weeks.
> while it's true that Trump's hard-line position on immigration law reflects a widely held dislike of immigrants ...
I'd say it's the opposite. People tend to admire immigrants, they've been taught to and to some extent it is natural. Worshipping them is a bit much and doesn't really stand up to scrutiny but it's America so we always go to extremes, or are led there.
So when opinion about immigration changes, you know it means something. It was like a huge ship making turn. It wasn't easy for people to do. They know they're supposed to like immigrants better than natives, and moreover they know some immigrants they like, since that is Being Normal.
If you ever read the NYT Reader's Favored Comments on an article touching on immigration, you see this quite clearly. These people are almost in pain, saying what they have to say - which invariably departs from the line taken in the NYT's Favored Comments. Which is they want less immigration, they want fewer people. They are in pain because they probably do love immigrants, sometimes they announce "I am an immigrant!" - and because it is so very hard to say anything against immigrants given that immigration has been the national religion for several decades, when Revolutionary War and the Founding abruptly went out of fashion.
>1) I have yet to see Kamala 'think' for five plus minutes about anything out loud.
I'm really not sure what you mean by this - like, she clearly does have policy positions she's articulated on lots of topics. Is it just a stylistic thing - she sounds like she's got prepared answers instead of coming up with an answer on the fly? That seems like a good thing.
(Also, have you seen Trump think about a topic for zero or more minutes? Dude spent half a campaign rally just listening to music!)
>letting in millions of people into the country seems like it is bothering people/fraying the social contract.
I feel like rounding up and deporting 20 million people would also cause some fraying in the social contract, so to speak. Especially since that number is more illegal immigrants than actually exist in the country.
("But surely he wouldn't *actually* try to do that, right?" Well why do you care so much about politicians telling you what their stances are, if you're just going to discard that information and read something else into it?)
You might consider not voting for him because he’s really, really old and really, really old people unsurprisingly suck at leading countries (see current president). That video of Trump serving fries at McDonald’s the other day. He wouldn’t last half a shift on his feet in the chaos of the kitchen or behind the counter.
On 2), immune systems were already weak enough that we were close to a much worse outcome. For example, if Pence had fewer principles and had not certified the vote, then we would've faced at minimum a constitutional crisis, and potentially far worse.
Immune systems are far worse now than they were back in 2020. Most Republican members of Congress who strongly opposed Trump on the election being stolen have either left or lost a primary to a more sycophantic Trump supporter. Many election boards and state legislatures are now full of people who've openly professed that the 2020 election was stolen and seem likely to do Trump's bidding if needed. One of the chairs of the Republican National Committee is Trump's daughter-in-law. In the Republican party, it's become less and less acceptable over time to question Trump, and there's a good chance they just go along with whatever Trump wants if he gets in power, especially if Republicans win by a sufficient amount in Congress such that they can handle a few defections. If Trump wins, it's likely that Republicans will hold control of the executive branch, both houses of Congress (https://polymarket.com/event/balance-of-power-2024-election?tid=1729518968614), and the Supreme Court.
In addition, Trump was surrounded with many serious and competent advisors in his first term, who in many cases stopped him from doing more egregious acts. Even then, he still illegally withheld funding to Ukraine to try to get them to investigate his political opponent. In his new term, Trump is likely to prioritize loyalty in his advisors above all else in his new term, who won't constrain him to the same degree. Note this last paragraph is basically the opinion of Trump's previous secretary of defense, Mark Esper, who had the opportunity to see what Trump is like up close: https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/4933807-donald-trump-mark-esper-military-us-citizens/
History is full of authoritarian leaders who started out restrained due to initial constraints, but ended up consolidating power and subsequently committed far more egregious acts once their authority was unchecked. I hope Trump does not become another example of this pattern.
As for Harris, I expect her to mainly do bog-standard Democratic things. She'll also be fairly constrained. Republicans will likely have control of at least one house of Congress, even conditional on her winning: https://polymarket.com/event/balance-of-power-2024-election?tid=1729518968614 , and conservatives will control the Supreme Court. Harris also does not have nearly the same power over the Democratic party as Trump has over the Republican one.
Regarding the border and letting millions of people in: It is true that democrats care about this less than Republicans, but I'd disagree with Trump in particular. It is no secret that Trump killed a bipartisan border protection bill earlier this year, indeed many Republican lawmakers in Congress have admitted exactly that. This bill was bipartisan, sponsored by Kyrsten Sinema and Ohio senator James Lankford and had support from people like Mitch McConnell (search AP's "GOP senator faces backlash alone"). Trump killed it, not because of any conviction about what was written on it, but because he thought it look bad for him come election day.
This is very important, because this actually solved the border problem, unlike Trump's suggestions. No matter how big the border wall is, no matter how many border agents there are at the border (which the border bill would increase btw), the problem doesn't get solved if the asylum system doesn't get fixed. The bill went towards fixing it, capping the amount of asylum requests that could be done per week. Sure, not the biggest crackdown, but definitely
better than inaction.
The Republican party's number one problem today is that they have totally debased themselves to serve Donald Trump. There is no policy that the party won't adopt if Trump likes it, no issue they won't quash if Trump dislikes it. This is *extremely* dangerous, because Trump is a narcissist, who is also extremely influenciable. For all talk about Biden being controlled by the deep state, this seems almost certainly worse (also bc I am not a fan of monarchies and the Peter Thiel – JD Vance – Curtis Yarvin connection scares me).
> It is no secret that Trump killed a bipartisan border protection bill earlier this year, indeed many Republican lawmakers in Congress have admitted exactly that
This doesn't make any sense. If the Republicans refused to vote for it then in what sense was it "bipartisan"?
If I recall correctly then this bill would have let in 10,000 illegals per day, is that right?
After the bill was released, Trump expressed his disdain on Truth Social and other places (https://www.foxnews.com/politics/trump-blasts-horrendous-senate-border-deal-great-gift-democrats); "This Bill is a great gift to the Democrats, and a Death Wish for The Republican Party. It takes the HORRIBLE JOB the Democrats have done on Immigration and the Border, absolves them, and puts it all squarely on the shoulders of Republicans. Don’t be STUPID!!!"
One could debate causality, but it should be noted that soon after that post everyone in the House gets up in arms, and equally soon after R senators start talking about how the bill can't be passed. McConnell himself never changes his mind -- he thought it was a good bill.
To answer your second question, the bill states the following (pg 212):
8 ‘‘(ii) on any 1 calendar day, a combined total of 8,500 or more aliens are encountered.
I'm simplifying a bit, but roughly the right way to read this is:
- right now, the border is open for processing immigrants (legal and asylum seekers) regardless of how many people come through it
- this bill would make it so that, if it goes above 5k 7day average, the border is closed immediately
If 5k also seems way too high to you (50% of your original guess), you should be happy to know that the current 3mo daily average is roughly 1.7k (20% of your original guess). That is _without_ having to do anything special to close the border. However, last December (the highest ever recorded) the daily average was approx 8k -- this bill would have prevented those kinds of numbers from occurring.
Above is my attempt at mostly being unopinionated. Here's my opinion.
We often complain that there's no way to get laws passed in Congress because no one knows how to compromise anymore. This bill is a fantastic example of why this occurs. Trump and the Freedom Caucus can easily rile up their base by loudly complaining about how the bill isn't strong enough. "5000 is too much! It has to be 0!" But demanding 0 is not negotiation, it's asking your opponents to lay down in front of a steamroller. Passing legislation requires either cooperating with people you disagree with, or being _so dominant_ that you sweep house/senate/presidency/courts. In an environment where you are not that dominant, refusing to compromise means nothing gets done. So, like, yes, the border is still open. I blame the Freedom Caucus for this.
The border itself is a hairy issue, even though it would be really convenient to make it black/white. It's true that the Biden years have seen really high border crossings, though Pew seems to suggest that the _Obama_ years had the fewest crossings (https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2024/10/01/migrant-encounters-at-u-s-mexico-border-have-fallen-sharply-in-2024/). Migrant patterns seem to be much more related to the strength of the US labor market than anything else like specific policies (https://www.cato.org/blog/us-labor-market-explains-most-increase-illegal-immigration -- anecdotally, remember how many folks were complaining that there was a massive labor shortage?). And when faced with real people, most balk at the idea of literally putting children in cages. And even if they wanted to do that, there's literally not enough space in detention centers. The reality is that the executive branch can't unilaterally do everything, the courts and legislation constrains them. This is part of why I really dislike Trump's rhetoric here -- you _have_ to compromise.
"Those powers can be used for up to 270 days in the first year of implementation, a number that gradually decreases before the authority sunsets altogether in three years."
So the bill only included the authority for emergency shut down less than 2 full years in a 3 year window, after which the authority is gone completely. That seems like a really terrible compromise for people who want a secure border for longer than ~1.8 years. Not to mention the threshold of 4,000 a day long term is still ~1.5 million illegals per year. The entire Trump presidential term was around 2 million, spread over 4 years. I think it's entirely fair to describe this as a bad bill for border security.
1) as mentioned in post, average border crossings are somewhere around 1.7k / day right now, and in the worst that the US has ever had it was around 8k per day. They will _never_ hit that 270 day limit for the period that this is in force, ditto even as the bill sunsets. And the reason it has a 3 year limit is because the full text of the emergency force also allows the immediate expulsion of all migrants that entered the country in the previous 14 days within a 100 mile radius of the border. It's an _emergency_ trigger. It almost never gets hit. Focusing on the '1.5 million!!!' number -- as if, somehow, that is now the goal of the border patrol -- is (purposely?) obfuscating, and the fact that the distinction is hard to grasp for the average person is imo exactly what Trump's team is relying on to rile his base. (An analogy: your credit limit is X, that does not mean you aim to spend X every month)
2) as mentioned in post, this is one tiny provision in a 400 page bill. The bill also increases border detention capacity, increases pay and number of border officials, and increases the bar for an asylum to be granted. Of note: the bill adds a new process called "a protection determination interview" that allows officials to summarily deny incoming asylum requests (page 118), and which (roughly) defaults to expulsion after 90 days (page 155). I focused on the specific subsection of the bill because that was where the question was, but yes you can nitpick that I forgot to mention some _other_ part of the bill if you like.
3) as mentioned in post, Obama's presidential term had fewer border crossings than Trumps. Given your response, I assume you are ok if we just go back to those.
4) Since you support not passing this bill, I also assume the current state of the border is preferable to you than the hypothetical post-bill state. The thing about negotiating is that of course you can always walk away from the table, but then you're left with whatever the status quo is. This is odd, though, since obviously you also seem very concerned that so many migrants are entering the country.
As an aside to all the above, this conversation has all been focused on why this bill ought to appease the right. But it's a compromise bill, the lefty dems aren't happy with it either. Sanders and Warren both voted it down for being too harsh. I'd love to hear from you why the dems shouldn't open the border even more.
1) I don't know how to square your numbers with the official CBP stats for fiscal year 2024, which show 2,901,142 total encounters at the border, or an average of 7,948 per day.
2) I definitely did not read all 400 pages of the bill. The quoted section in my last post was from one of the sources you linked, and directly relevant to the emergency authority.
3) Obama also put "kids in cages" as you say and deported many millions of people. He makes Trump look like a bit of a border piker, really. Sad.
4) There's a lot of political capital that goes into passing a bill. It isn't as simple as a binary preference between bill or not bill. If Congress passes a bad bill all that capital is gone and makes it much less likely to pass a good bill.
Believe it or not, I don't have a problem with immigrants and am very frustrated that the two options with immigration seem to be 'open borders' or 'immigrants are a poison and we don't want any'. Our legal immigration system is a mess that seems deliberately designed to be a pain in the ass to anyone legitimately trying to live here. On the other hand, we reward everyone who flagrantly violates our immigration laws with free rides and vouchers. Teaching everyone who comes here that ignoring the law is the way to get ahead is maybe not the ideal strategy. I don't think it's too much to ask that we make sure the prospective immigrants are not criminals/terrorists/foreign agents either.
We don't need any special legislative action to do this. Well, we definitely need legislative action to make the legal immigration avenues not garbage. But all of the laws to remove illegals or prevent them from entering the country already exist. Our current government just chooses not to enforce them.
It’s another one of the talking points lefties repeat ad nauseum that doesn’t actually make any sense.
Biden reversed all of Trump’s executive actions on the border on day 1. That, plus the dominance of the drug cartels in Latin America, is why there’s a border crisis in the first place.
Biden has the executive power to a) reverse his mistakes and b) take action to uphold laws that already exist, he doesn’t need Congress, but the left considered it more politically expedient to push a crappy bill and blame Trump when it predictably failed.
>Sure, not the biggest crackdown, but definitely better than inaction.
I wouldn't use "definitely" at all when you're this close to an election. You could compare this to the situation with the Supreme Court appointment when Scalia died: You can take the "compromise" appointment of Garland, or stall and, if you win, get an actually conservative justice.
You may argue that this is unfair, cynical or evil, but it's not clearly an ineffective strategy.
That border bill offered nothing to those who wished to see the border something closer to "closed" but offered much to those who wished to see continuing increased rates of immigration and a larger Camp of the Saints-style apparatus made permanent there. I realize to some that was a "fix" and the only "fix" that the left would want, but I don't think it's quite accurate to say that Trump was the only PR problem for that bill. I didn't follow the voting, so that's not to say that Congress might not have passed it in a Trump-free vacuum, I don't know - but as Congress along with LBJ and Reagan created all our problems in this regard, its passage of a bill doesn't particularly signify.
Appeasement is a bad policy. It was bad when Chamberlain did it, it's bad now. I think the burden of proof is very high to explain why actually it would work this time. (Note that Russia already played this game with Georgia within living memory)
But also, just to bite on the actual policy decisions here, Pax Americana is a fantastic thing for American citizens. It lets us dictate trade (including why we have access to cheap chips in the first place!). It lets our citizens go where they want, when they want. It prevents war or terror on domestic soil. It leads to the best and brightest coming to the country. In short: it makes Americans richer, safer, better off. Appeasing Russia breaks Pax Americana. This is bad for you, specifically, as an American citizen.
One framing that may help: you can think of much of Europe as a vassal state to the US. An attack on the vassal state is a straightforward attack on American political interests. For example, if Ukraine falls we lose a critical allied naval port on Russian borders, we can no longer utilize or place forward deployed military bases, we lose cheap exports from the region (including a legion of fantastic programmers). This is again, bad for you specifically as an American citizen.
Implicit in your post is the assumption that ending conflict as quickly as possible is always the best result. I think this is really naive; taken to it's logical conclusion, America rolls over for any fight, anywhere. Conflict is a means to an end. Resolving conflict needs to be thought in the same light. And right now, it doesn't benefit America to resolve the conflict in the short term at all. We get a massive injection into our military complex, we get to wear down a global adversary without risking American lives, and we get all the soft power benefits of upholding our position as global hegemon.
I'd love to understand why anyone thinks rolling over in Ukraine is good. Right now, I feel strongly that people who think we should give up in Ukraine are very misinformed.
Appeasement can't always be a bad strategy. We can't always be fighting the good fight. Sometimes we give up, and it works out okay.
We fought Germany over Poland, but we didn't fight the Soviet Union over Poland. We fought North Korea over South Korea and we won, but then we fought North Vietnam over South Vietnam and we eventually gave up. We fought Iraq over Kuwait but we didn't fight Indonesia over West Papua. We didn't fight Red China over Tibet.
Which border provinces are you talking about? Because the residents of Donetsk, Kherson, Luhansk and Zaporizhzhia have made it quite clear that most of them want to remain a part of Ukraine. In part because they know how little value the lives you claim to care so much about, would be under Russian rule.
Twenty years ago, you might have found majority support for joining Russia in some of those provinces. That was then, this is now, and 2014 changed everything.
This sounds exactly like the Bush 2 Republican arguments for going into Iraq and Afghanistan (among lots of other places). Or even the military coups in South America for most of the 20th century.
I can understand why Cheney moved to support Kamala, based on this reasoning, but I'm not sure how this squares at all with typical Democrats from my entire lifetime. Democrats never considered Bush 2 to be the good guy!
The difference is that supporting Ukraine is playing defense against an aggressor and Iraq was starting an unnecessary war that the USA had to fight after starting.
Then we're not really talking about Pax Americana, but instead some sort of defensive status quo. Iraq was definitely Pax Americana, even if it was also aggressive.
Saddam thumbed his nose at US hegemony as much as he could, and his retention of leadership after the first Iraq War was a message that dictators could survive a run in with the US military. The second war also helped solidify US+allies control over Middle East oil. That's very much in Pax Americana interest.
To be clear, I'm purposely framing the argument in a way that OP might find valid, since "preventing a genocidal dictator from destroying a country" clearly isn't sufficient
Does it? Appeasement is towards significant powers, who were those guys refusing to appease by going into those two wars? It's not like Iraq or Afghanistan were all that powerful, or even part of important anti-Western alliances.
Appeasement of Saddam, appeasement of Al Qaeda, appeasement of terrorism in general. For South America, appeasement towards those who nationalize property (including property belonging to US companies).
We fought the Bay of Pigs and dealt with the Cuban Missile Crisis because Castro nationalized US interests.
I'm talking more Pax Americana than appeasement, but appeasement works too.
Probably I won't convince you to care about climate change, free trade, the immigration problem being exaggerated, stopping authoritarian dictators, and not having an incoherent clown for president, who cares about nothing but himself. But then, I live in a country where 65% would vote Harris and 14% Trump.
Regarding climate change specifically, I'm not entirely sure Trump would be worse - it's notable that Texas builds a lot more green energy than California, since regulation is generally the biggest obstacle to it, and while Harris has made some deregulatory noises she still has a culture of everything bagel obstructive California liberalism.
Besides, China emits vastly more CO2 than the US. If we want to tackle global warming we're going to have to deindustrialise China, and Trump is more likely to do this than Harris.
China is currently building more green energy and transit infrastructure than the rest of the world combined. Even under the most extreme proposed environmentalist policies the US would be doing far less than them.
You don't have to deindustrialise China to make it emit less CO2. They are building lots and lots of solar right now, while the US plan to drill more oil and coal.
China is building a fair bit of solar, but they are *also* building a new coal-fired power plant every four *days*.
I linked to the data when we were talking about this last week; you can find it yourself this time if you care. US carbon emissions have been steadily *decreasing* for twenty years, and are expected to continue to do so. China's carbon emissions, already vastly greater than those of the United States, are growing geometrically.
But they do make some solar panels, and they put out lots of press releases showing all the shiny new solar panels while carefully hiding all the coal plants and filming on one of the few smog-free days, and gullible Westerners will eat it up and hype the wonderful Green Miracle that is China.
Regarding climate change, I think the emphasis is in the wrong places. I don't believe there can be reasonable doubt that global temperatures are increasing, nor that human activity is responsible for it.
But I also think fossil fuels isn't the main reason. It was well known that places like the Amazon jungles (not warehouses) served a great air-cleaning function, and we're cutting such places down to make room for farms and such at a great rate. We're putting concrete everywhere, causing rain to go to fewer places, and thus back to the oceans faster. We're cultivating lots more farm animals, which emit greenhouse gases. All of which I have seen discussed concerning global warming, but little focus is put on such things.
If we attack the problem from the wrong direction, we won't solve it. Things like electric cars aren't going to put a dent in global warming, nor will buying carbon offsets.
IEA has EV's reducing 2035 oil demand by 20%. Seems like a dent. Some of those other things are topics of major concern. Republican talking point is Dems will take away your hamburgers. There’s story after story about looking for tech to reduce carbon print of concrete. The OEA figure is 2035 but we don't stop with EV's there. And better EV tech us stuffed in the pipeline. They are getting irresistible. But beyond climate change we are threatening our planet in a myriad of ways.
"Oil demand" is doing a lot of the heavy lifting in that stat. Conventional cars use gasoline or diesel specifically because they're fairly cheap, energy dense, liquid at room temperature (and thus convenient to pump between gas stations, on-vehicle tanks, and the engine without requiring pressurization or cryogenic temperatures), and easy to induce to burn rapidly inside an engine cylinder. For industrial electrical production, there are fewer constraints so coal and natural gas are mostly used instead. Especially the latter in recent decades. So reducing oil as a metric for EV impact has a much smaller denominator as well as a bigger numerator than reducing CO2 emissions.
The anti-warming case for EVs is that 1) natural gas for electricity produces less CO2 per vehicle mile driven than gasoline or diesel in an internal combustion engine, because of efficiency benefits and also because methane has a much higher hydrogen to carbon ratio than gasoline or diesel, and 2) parallel efforts to replace natural gas with renewables (or nuclear power, which is traditionally unpopular with environmentalists but seems to be trending more favorable lately) would reduce carbon emissions still further.
I haven't looked recently, but I understand the carbon footprint of an EV car is similar to that of a ICE over it's lifetime, and much worse if the power used to run the EV is itself carbon-derived.
The carbon footprint to build EV cars, windmills, etc., are all very high. Mining and manufacturing required for them is most of their carbon footprint (unless, again, using coal or gas power, in which case it's much worse).
Yeah. I can't speak to the exact numbers, but there's always the seen/unseen problem. We look at them on the road and don't see exhaust...but making the darn things is a much more high-intensity process than an ICE car. And that goes unseen (by everyday folks). The batteries themselves require processing of some really really nasty things--lithium binds really tight to, well, anything it can get ahold of. Which is exactly why it's so good for batteries--that high electrochemical potential. And why it's so flammable.
Where's the balance? I'm not sure. I too remember it being a lot worse than it seemed, but haven't looked in a while.
You've identified a factor that's not highly enough talked about, but this doesn't mean that the CO2 level is less important. This is, indeed, a problem that needs to be addressed from multiple directions, but ignoring the largest contributor is not a solution.
True, but the marginal impact is higher for CO2. Different gasses absorb different frequencies, and there's already enough water vapor in the atmosphere to absorb pretty much all the energy it's going to absorb. The frequencies of infrared that CO2 absorbs are much less saturated, so a bit more or less CO2 has a bigger impact than a bit more or less water vapor.
No one said anything about DOING anything about water in the atmosphere.
Suppose we were able, overnight, to completely eliminate the amount of CO2 in the air. In addition to all plants soon dying due to lack of CO2, the greenhouse effect would still be upwards of 66 to 85 percent.
I think the solution to controlling the climate lies with plants, or possibly artificial photosynthesis. What about some kind of solar cell that takes in light and air, and uses the light to make proteins with nitrogen, oxygen, and carbon?
I like this comment because where I live the traditional water cycle seems totally out of whack, and the same sort of people who roll their eyes at climate science, constantly recur to the former as a subject of conversation: rivers, springs, wells, and yes, even such things as humidity and total hours of heat during the day - all used to be "different".
1) She was on the Call Her Daddy podcast and spent over five minutes talking about sexual assault with the host, in the context of the issue and history and how to solve it, etc.
4) Every single Russian peace offering involves the serious weakening of Ukraine's military. Trump makes excuses for Putin and blames Zelensky and Biden for the war. The war ending is not good unless Russia actually loses - a negotiated peace where it gets a huge chunk of Ukrainian territory while giving up nothing in return is not that, because Putin will just attack again when he feels like he can get away with it. The only IMAGINABLE circumstance under which Ukraine should give up any territory is if, in exchange, it gets to join NATO, and Trump very clearly does not support that.
Ending a war is its own reward. The people being press-ganged into the military don't die.
Perhaps another war happens later. Perhaps it doesn't; the 2008 peace in Georgia has held. Not every war ends in the destruction of one power or the other, and its hard to see how continuing the war would somehow be *less* destructive for the Ukrainian military (or its people) than ending it.
Also, negotiating posturing often differs from actual peace terms.
I agree it's unlikely (not impossible!) that Trump does something worse than January 6, but I kind of depart from consequentialism here; it seems like this sort of thing ought to be punished regardless; the next person who considers something similar ought to know it will make them a pariah. If we can't manage pariah, it should at least lose them a few percentage points of the vote.
I think China taking Taiwan without TSMC getting blown up is very unlikely. Partly this is because the Taiwanese know lots of people want this and can commit to blow it up if other people don't intervene, as an incentive. Partly it's because TSMC is nothing without its people and a lot of them will want to immigrate. Partly it's because, just as the West is using TSMC to get ahead of China, you can imagine China using TSMC to get ahead of the West, and the West might oops sorry blow it up during the chaos of the Chinese coup process.
I'd like to punish Jan 6 to send a signal, too. The trouble is that I'd also like to punish May 31. (The day Trump was convicted in what looks to me like a show trial.)
> I agree it's unlikely (not impossible!) that Trump does something worse than January 6
Why that? If someone does something really bad once, than gets rewarded with power again 4 years later, that sounds like a clear signal that they can go much farther.
Fwiw I don't think you need to depart too far from consequentialism!
It's not hard to imagine a world where the VP refused to certify the election in 2020. In that setting, you're looking at _at least_ incredible amounts of political turmoil, _at worst_ civil war. Expected value is very very negative.
Inb4 "j6 itself wasnt that bad!" Look, we're all bayesians, we shouldn't be looking at the sample we drew and say "well that's the worst that can happen!" We should be looking at the full distribution. In how many universes does J6 lead to something much worse than what we got? 50%? 20%? How low does it have to be?
Imo, I think we got very lucky that Pence had principles. If Pence was a different person, or if he left the Capitol due to the mob threatening to lynch him and a Trump stooge took over Pence's role, or if he actually was seriously injured and a Trump stooge took over Pence's role, we end up with a pretty tumultuous and scary outcome. To put numbers on it, I think a J6 leads to really bad outcomes more than 50% of the time.
That analysis alone puts me strongly in the Kamala camp.
To anyone not on the loop: Trump also wanted to go the Capitol that day, and Secret Service didn't let him. To me it seem extremely likely that, if Pence had been a different person, the chance of a coup happening would have increased dramatically. The decision to elect the president would go from the *lawfully slated* electors to the House of Representatives as per the 12th amendment, where Republicans had a majority of state delegations. If Trump had been at the Capitol while the votes were taking place, while there was a riot happening, I don't think the House lawmakers would have stood up to him. The shackles barely held the first, don't see how people can be so confident they would now that he will be surrounding himself with his lackeys.
Btw to anyone reading this, this may sound like a baseless conspiracy theory but it's really not. Trump's federal indictment for election obstruction details all of this, and you can go read it online right now. John Eastman, who wrote the Eastman memo detailing this plan, was working closely with Donald Trump as well. None of this is secret, all of it is easily accessible public information.
He was a wanna-be dictator at that point, not a full-on dictator. That's like saying Hitler was never really that powerful because he was arrested during the Weimar Republic.
Or, alternatively, you misunderstand your opponent and are projecting what you think he would do on a hypothetical future.
Another reading of the situation says that he is willing to test what he's allowed to do but then follows what he's told to do, even by people who should be reporting to him.
I don't see why TSMC has such a large percentage of the chips manufacturing market. Surely it could be replaced with five years and perhaps $500 billion to build the facilities? ASML builds the devices to make the most advanced chips, and companies such as Intel and Global Foundries have the know-how to operate FABs.
If China takes over Taiwan and holds TSMC hostage, I think the Western world would adapt.
What was that summary based on? I don't believe it's accurate. There is a lot of expertise in manufacturing that isn't easily transferable even between plants owned by the same country in peaceful conditions. Construction of the fab might well be possible as specified, but getting it actually working properly is a very different matter.
Not a USian, but from my memories of 4 years of Trump I can't think that anything good could come out of having that guy back in the post of "leader of the free world". It was pretty painful, the whole of it.
It was Obama and Biden that lost Ukraine to Russia, while Trump was successfully strangling Iran and signing the Abraham Accords. Trump's unpredictability on foreign affairs is an asset:
I got fed up with someone saying things like that, and investigated. It turns out that Putin's Russia had been initiating a conflict in the region about every 8 years or so, and Trump was just lucky in that his 4 years didn't coincide with the cumulation of a cycle.
Putin became president in 2000.
2008 invasion of Georgia
2014 invasion of Ukraine (Crimean pensinsula)
2022 invasion of Ukraine
Okay, so Putin was 'only' prime minister 2008-2012, but I think it's generally recognised he retained a good hold on power and it's pretty clear he had a big part in that arranging and overseeing that conflict.
lol, and maybe baby Hitler too if he can manage to get a time machine. But really, I'm just arguing against this sort of periodic cicada model of geopolitics.
One of Trump's impeachments was because he was illegally withholding aid to Ukraine. What did Biden do to signal to Putin that an invasion would be OK that was even close to as bad as that?
Generally having a weak, risk-averse, and predictable posture wrt foreign policy. Stuff like the embarassing withdrawal from Afghanistan (though I supported that move in principle, if not in its execution) and unfreezing Iranian assets does not signal strength or resolve.
I mean, as people get older and have memory problems, they might misplace their keys--but Biden literally misplaced his Secretary of Defense for days. If Trump had done that, it would have been major news for months, while the complacent-class media memory holes every misstep of the current administration (so I posit that people's recollection of whether or not Trump vs Biden governed more competently is largely a function of how that question is framed by a highly biased media).
This may be a language problem. I definitely think Biden is senile, but then I also think that about myself. I know I experience memory problems. Transferring data from short-term memory to long term memory has become ... problematic. And retrieval doesn't work as well as it did. This, however, doesn't mean that what I retrieve is less accurate. (My programs still work as well...it just takes a lot longer to write them.)
OTOH, I don't consider "senile" to be a state, but rather a gradient. And it's not the same as dementia (which itself has lots of complex variations...most of which I don't know, but my father had Alzheimer's).
Huh? Biden being in some stage of dementia or profound cognitive decline is no longer a fringe conspiracy theory. We now know some details on how his staff helped conceal his condition and how his incoherence was an open secret among the donor class.
Trump was the one who started the withdrawal from Afghanistan. He said "Russia can do whatever the hell it wants" with NATO allies. I don't understand how you can possibly think this guy projects "strength and resolve."
Come on man, are you unaware of the context of "Russia can do whatever the hell it wants" or are you trying to be deceptive?
The context, in case you're unaware, was Trump telling European allies that they would need to live up to their NATO treaty obligations (spending 2% of GDP on defence) *or else* he'd abandon them to Russia. This is entirely fair, you can't have allies who aren't pulling their weight. I don't know why the US has let this shit slip for so long, investing more heavily in the defence of Europe than the Europeans themselves.
The value of Trump in that moment was this: Americans unless they had a relative serving - perhaps a grandchild conceived out of wedlock OMG, you know how expendable those rural lives are, see above - had largely forgotten we were involved in a permanent war, which suited the defense establishment just fine. I don't remember which year (2017?) but the Washington Post had finally done some serious and indeed stellar journalism, and reported the "secret" views of many military personnel that the Long War had been a failure at every turn. Thinking people could not but be appalled at the waste of $ and lives on people who didn't deserve the effort to help/change them, any more than they deserved the resultant damage.
Through whatever mysterious, non-reading process he gets his "thoughts" or notions, Trump decided it was time to pull the plug. The military establishment openly defied him and a high-ranking official said as much on TV: we will not follow orders on this. I don't remember people's names, ever, so feel free to dispute this - but it is my honest recollection of Trump and Afghanistan.
This was quite breathtaking a thing to learn, and for some people, the brief pulling back of the curtain instantly made the Trump presidency worthwhile - but at the time it may have been overshadowed, on e.g. CNN, by Miley Cyrus news, which for some reason that network was obsessed with. (I didn't have TV but was married to someone who insisted on trying to get "news" off the CNN website, for reasons known to himself; the most charitable explanation I can give is perhaps a perverse desire to know what was "passing" for news, and Miley Cyrus was a running theme at that time.)
ETA: the people referenced above, were not sorry Biden went ahead with Trump's plan. One wonders, indeed, whether the "bungled" performance of it might not have been entirely unrelated to the resistance that Trump encountered. Which resistance didn't interest the Pentagon Papers-loving media all that much, because it fed into the idea that Trump was not a legitimate president, any more than the people who voted for him were legitimate people with legitimate interests.
You simply don't understand how Trump talks or thinks, as many don't. You may think that "Russia can do whatever the hell it wants" is a policy statement, but it's more like a policy for that moment in time. If Russia does something against US interests, you can bet Russia would get unpleasant consequences.
Trump values unpredictability in a...predictable way.
Trump's withdrawal from Afghanistan was conditional, and I expected the Taliban to violate the terms, invalidating the withdrawal. Biden decided to unconditionally withdraw based, AFAICT, on looking politically good for getting our troops out of the country, rather than to accomplish a political objective.
This is an excellent recipe for prolonging every war forever. As long as peace can't be "tolerated" while *very one-sided description of why the other side is horrible* remains the case...no peace is ever happening, anywhere.
Specifically people being "stateless". Unless you would think it better, not worse, if Israel fully annexed the territories, it's not stateless you object to, it's disenfranchised. So...the Iraq War was justified, the Afghanistan war (indefinitely of course) was justified, bombing Iran is justified, world war III against the Soviets was justified, invading many African countries, most Middle Eastern countries, a few Latin American countries, all justified. Actually, not "justified" but "obligatory", in all cases. Also, if the war goes on for decades without end, continuing it is *still* morally obligatory. Since no peace can be tolerated while people remain oppressed.
I suspect you don't actually believe this.
In "no peace with Israel while millions remain stateless" it's not "while millions remain stateless" that's doing the work.
Can you please be more specific? I have often asked this question of liberal/anti-Trump people, and the only thing I get is they think he's racist and/or misogynistic, neither of which impacts the individual personally, nor affects domestic or foreign policy.
He did have a habit of shitting on NATO and our longtime allies. A few Americans liked this for some reason. I think pushing around your friends in public is a genuinely stupid thing to do from a foreign policy standpoint and the reputational damage this caused to the U.S. was significant and lasting.
As a conservative, I consider it one of his foreign policy missteps to back out of the Iran nuclear deal Obama made, even though I think the deal was dumb for giving Iran the ability to build the infrastructure to build nuclear weapons starting...next year. But unilaterally backing out of the deal made by a previous leader needs a deal more of a justification than thinking the deal was bad, because now what country will make a lasting deal with us, which might be reversed by a future president?
I applaud you for having a genuine reason against Trump, instead of just hate. I don't like Trump for various real reasons, but it seems like most people only have a visceral hate for him, and then justify it with other things.
One other thing about Trump that I haven't seen in the comments yet: He did make the suggestion about looking into injecting disinfectant (and, in the same session, using UV - on Covid, initially present primarily in the lungs...). Most of us learn not to drink Clorox, let alone injecting it, before adulthood.
I wish DeSantis was the GOP candidate. I'm sure I'd have some quibbles with him, but not that one.
Against this, Kamala Harris is on record, in her own words, as wanting to regulate [censor] speech on social media. I would like to retain my First Amendment rights...
>neither of which impacts the individual personally,
Why does that matter? I once voted to increase my property taxes in order to fund a swimming pool at the local high school, despite neither being a swimmer nor having children. And I guess I not be foolish enough to give money to vaccinate kids in far off lands against polio.
> nor affects domestic or foreign policy
So, there is no relationship between claiming that immigrants are "poisoning hte blood of the country," believing that Haitians are stealing and eating pets, and promises to revoke Temporary Protected Status?* None?
*Note that I am not opining on the merits of such revocation, but rather the dubiousness of the claim that a person's attitudes re race will have no effect on public policy.
If you can point to a policy informed by racism or misogyny, then I agree with you. I know of none, though.
And no, I don't think the Muslim country ban qualifies. It is true that individuals don't define the body of individuals, but they do influence it. When enough Muslims murder enough people and claim to do it for religious reasons, it is reasonable to be wary of Muslims, given the potential consequences of ignoring the correlation.
1. I don't know why you are talking about Muslims. I did not mention Muslims. And note that you are misrepresenting the "Muslim ban" (to your detriment!) It was not a ban on Muslims -- it did not apply to Muslims per se, nor to any of the largest Muslim-majority countries. Rather, as the Supreme Court put it, "The Proclamation placed entry restrictions on the nationals of eight foreign states whose systems for managing and sharing information about their nationals the President deemed inadequate."
Note also that the restrictions varied by country -- eg " For countries that do not cooperate with the United States in identifying security risks (Iran, North Korea, and Syria), the Proclamation suspends entry of all nationals, except for Iranians seeking nonimmigrant student and exchange-visitor visas. §§2(b)(ii), (d)(ii), (e)(ii). For countries that have information-sharing deficiencies but are nonetheless “valuable counterterrorism partner[s]” (Chad, Libya, and Yemen), it restricts entry of nationals seeking immigrant visas and nonimmigrant business or tourist visas."
2. I already identified a proposed policy that at least plausibly is informed by racism -- the removal of temporary protected status for Haitians.
Why do Haitians deserve/have a right to temporary protected status? Is this reverse discrimination?
It may be PLAUSIBLY informed by racism, but it also isn't an actual implemented policy, only a statement during the campaign. What racist policy did he implement during his presidency?
You are correct that you didn't mention Muslims, but others have. I was preemptively heading off that objection.
> the only thing I get is that they think he's racist and/or misogynistic
That, plus the big one you seem to forget, about trying to keep power after losing an election. If that doesn't disqualify someone for president of a democratic country, I don't know what does.
Racist and misogynistic is not a minor thing either. One of the jobs of the president of a country is to be the visible voice of that country, and it helps if that voice at least somewhat tries to sound like a voice of reason. Besides the obvious geopolitical issues about resources and economic power, the other thing that major powers are in a soft war about is *being the kind of place one would like to live in*. And a president who spouts inflammatory, disrespectful rhetoric in all directions, not to mention towards women (that's 50% of your own population right there) obviously does quite the opposite of that.
I am pretty worried that most of his foreign policy people (especially Mattis) left or were fired over disagreements and now seem to consider him very bad. I think Trump's main advantage over Harris is that he's likely to hire more reasonable foreign policy/dod people, but the fact that the last batch of his hires now mostly oppose him is a red flag.
I can see this as a legitimate concern, as one of the bad signs of Trump's presidency was the people being fired or resigning. This is related to one of the bad things of his leadership: he always thinks he's the smartest person around, and thus doesn't always listen well to his advisors, many of which know better than he does. He also seems mired in ideas of the past, such as the cold war, and unable to see how the world has changed since then.
Not only that, the racist/misogynist thing is easily disproved.
But the other thing I keep hearing from the anti-Trump crowd is he's "in the pocket" of Putin, Xi, or Kim. Or from the most conspiracy-minded, all three. Such conspiracy is easily disproved, but that doesn't stop the press from repeating it anyway.
Another angle the anti-Trump crowd crow on about a lot is January 6th, which makes sense given the press it got. And definitely Trump let himself look like a dictator fool there.
Of course, that's nothing that all other parties (specifically, Biden/Harris) do as well. Democrats are no strangers to election denying and election rigging themselves, so I struggle to worry about Trump doing it.
Another anti-Trump position seems to be that he will start (or make worse) trade wars with other countries. His tariffs proposed or enacted on Chinese imports are usually the go-to example. The same person who brings this up will say Trump is in the pocket of Xi, which is one of your tells that this also isn't a thing anyone really cares about.
Basically, the anti-Trump argument set exists, is lengthy, and falls apart under any amount of scrutiny. Trump is an awful person for other reasons that no-one in the press brings up (because it would make obvious deep problems that actually need addressed).
The popular anti-Trump rhetoric is just empty hot air. I suspect by design.
It seems to me that 1/6 was part of an actual attempt by Trump to keep power despite losing an election. I don't care so much about a riot at the capitol (especially after 2020), but trying to keep power after you lose an election seems like a permanent disqualification for being president.
If you are personally impacted, then it impacts you personally. It was not Trump's policy to end the "right" to abortion; he appointed Supreme Court judges. So you're against conservative policies, which is your right on which to disagree. But do not claim that misogynistic Trump is forcing women to carry pregnancies to term.
While I agree that he's not "racist" in any precise meaning of the term, he's definitely on the side of himself and his friends, and supports cheating those with less power. (I was surprised, though, that he even cheated his lawyers.)
"politician who wanted a “Jewish ban” and then blocked travel from Israel, or do you think it would be fair to call that racist?"
Since "Jewish" has two different meanings, it depends which one you mean. If the racial meaning, then obviously yes. If the religious meaning then no, that's not racism. It's religious discrimination. Most medieval anti-Jewish laws were not racist.
Maybe I'm unhinged or something, but I have a strong preference for words to be used according to their actual meanings, not their vibes.
It would depend on the reason for the ban. Your suggested definition of "racist" is so broad as to be meaningless. Like, if ISIS fighters were banned from immigrating to the US, that would also be racist? This apparent view that other cultures can't be criticized or be evaluated in terms of their compatibility with Western ideals is so bizarre to me.
I'm "breaking" thowards considering this post not having been made in good faith.
(Edit)
To substantiate my post: Points 2, 3, 4 are policy disagreements, so whatever, fair. I disagree vehemently, but that's not the point of my comment.
Point 1) I find problematic on a deeper level. A simple web search would bring up all kinds of detailed policy proposals made by the Harris campaign, and reports about them. Doing so would take less time than writing the comment in the first place. That means I find point 1) to be impossible to make after a good faith effort, so I claim that point 1) was not made in good faith. Since author claims it's the most important point to them, I declare the comment as a whole as not having been made in good faith. Which, to be clear, is not a statement about whether it was made in bad faith, or just without any interest in the actual outcome of the debate author requests.
Thank you for this. Assuming I will be taken in good faith allows me to write concisely, and to the extent my words indicate otherwise, I have aggressed against the norms of this space.
What I meant by my point 1) is not that I don't know her stated policies, but that uniquely among politicians I do not believe that her (current, as opposed to her 2019, as opposed to what they will be the day after the election if elected) stated policies either flow causally from her world view, or allow me to predict what she would do differently from what I would guess a median democratic politician would do before they announce their policies optimizing exclusively for internal coalitional consent and personal power. The way politicians generally convince me of that is by advocating for their views in a way that passes a turing test for my model of someone who genuinely prefers those policies. I haven't yet reached an internal equilibrium on why this matters so much to me, but I know that it's a major crux of my predicted voting decision.
Maybe if your model leads you to prefer Trump, you should reconsider your model. Trump is a candidate with many disqualifying features. Trump thinking for himself is just him saying he is right and everyone else is wrong. “I know more about x than anyone else.”
It's impossible for me to believe that Trump believes what he is saying. All legal scholars wanted abortions to be regulated state by state? God is important to him? Tariffs are paid by the exporting country?
I think this is also a reason I'm breaking towards Trump. You put it a lot more eloquently/precisely than I would be able to. I think there is seriously something "off" about Kamala Harris in a way I don't feel about e.g. Joe Biden, or Hillary Clinton, or most other Democrats. It all seems very sanitized, like every single word out of her mouth or minor policy detail was cooked up in a committee. When I hear Trump I believe that he believes what he says, and the amount of random gaffes from him saying stupid crap is proof of that; no committee of Republican staffers can control what comes out of that man's mouth.
My biggest fear is that Harris governs entirely by consensus, and simply has no major personal principles except "what words do I say that will get me the highest percentage of coalition support". As someone who does not fit into ANY democratic identity coalitions (but still leans left-liberal on most policy issues) this leaves me in a very awkward place.
I think you may be ignoring the factor where she became her party's frontrunner suddenly with only a handful of months to campaign in. If she seems more scripted than Biden or Clinton during their campaigns, is it not fairly likely due to a strategy decision that at this point in the game she can't afford to be unscripted, can't afford a single mistake?
At least she appears to be of sound mind and hold a belief in the norms of American democracy.
Let me be clearer then because I don't think it's the "scriptedness" alone that bothers me. I thought Obama was very scripted too, but I liked Obama. So I don't know. Maybe it's the fact that each time she goes "off script", I really dislike what I see underneath? Biden when he goes off script seems like a genuinely nice guy. Trump when he goes off script is some combination of gullible, awkward, and funny. Both are very understandable and human to me.
Harris when she goes off script seems like...an incel's caricature of a sorority girl, maybe? I don't even know for sure.
The "belief in norms of Democracy" is definitely a point in her favor, and I used to think I valued this really strongly....but it's surprisingly tough when it's not just a theoretical! How confidently do I think Trump will erode democracy in his second term? I'm not convinced at all that he'll try for a 3rd term or anything like that. How worth it is "punishing" a prior violation of electoral norms? How bad was the prior violation?
And as far as eroding democracy, I'm not convinced that Harris is all sunshine and rainbows there either -- how confident am I that she won't e.g. try to pack the supreme court if she gets a trifecta (especially after e.g. the conservative court undermines a Democratic sacred cow, like Obergefell)? I would consider that a more serious violation of democracy than inciting a riot against the certification of the election.
> How worth it is "punishing" a prior violation of electoral norms? How bad was the prior violation?
Very! How worth it is putting your bishop into a defensive position in chess? How worth it was building U.S. military bases in Germany during the Cold War? Trump is not an effective coup-er or dictator but he's done an enormous amount of harm in pushing boundaries and showing what a person can get away with if they're on a sufficient demagoguery-roll--he's loosened up the norms of American democracy in many people's minds to a dangerous extent, affirming their nascent instincts that true loyalty to America lies in pushing certain policies rather than following the democratic process and the rule of law. I don't think people quite realize the pretty extreme extent to which democracy only works if you (plural!!) believe in it. The Supreme Court issue is extremely important, yes (though it's very hard to imagine Harris being worse than Trump on that, and the sad truth is its true role has been eroding for quite awhile) but it can't compare to this widespread undermining, of which the riot was just a particularly violent, messy, public outbreak.
Bottom line, if you don't punish something like that (and yes, especially its public, violent, highly visible components) with AT THE VERY LEAST a refusal to re-elect, you're rounding off Trump's story into a nice blueprint to follow for the next, more competent demagogue with a long-range plan for power--a nice map of say, the first half of his journey. We won't like the second half much.
I'm very aware (especially in this particular comment section, ha) that this is a boring middlebrow position, not requiring high intellect, deep analysis or subtle observation. I really don't give a flying fig. If you're on a jury and twenty people say "yep it's him I saw him shoot the guy" and there's also quite good footage, it's not really time for your intellectual chops... It's time to be boring.
Do you mean you would vote for another Democrat like Hillary Clinton if she was running (let’s say she was a bit younger) but are considering voting for Trump instead of Harris?
Yes, almost certainly. And yes, I am not unaware of how strange that might sound to some people (though I think it's more common than you would necessarily expect).
Interesting. I think it is odd that you would vote for two mainstream, “normal” Democrats over Trump but not for a third mainstream, “normal” Democrat over Trump.
> It all seems very sanitized, like every single word out of her mouth or minor policy detail was cooked up in a committee... My biggest fear is that Harris governs entirely by consensus, and simply has no major personal principles except "what words do I say that will get me the highest percentage of coalition support".
Much as I don't like Harris (nor any other Democrat) I don't see her as any different to Biden in this regard.
(Disclaimer: I'm not a US citizen and don't get to vote, I'm just part of the global right-wing conspiracy. While I have complicated intellectual arguments in favour of conservatism, I know that deep down I'm just a single-issue voter and that single issue is tax rates on the upper middle class.)
Biden seems to have at least a few times pushed back against the "System" from what I've seen -- and that's while he's going senile! While Kamala seems much more aligned with the System, especially the bad parts. And let me be clear that I generally *like* Biden as a president (or rather, the combination of Biden + Biden's friends + the amorphous Democratic Party Machine), voted for him in 2020, and would absolutely have voted for him over Trump even now.
(this is a tiny window into the chaotic worldview of a still-undecided voter. Have fun adjusting your mental model of the US electorate to my existence, mwahahaha)
Yeah, they’re both just front people for the System, neither is really in charge. The System had no issue replacing Biden with Kamala, over his vociferous objections. If you like the System then vote for them, but does anyone at this point?
That was my reaction the other day, while playing Scrabble with my elderly mother, overhearing my father's Fox News playing (or repeatedly replaying, or maybe he had a video on his phone and since he can't hear he didn't realize it kept playing) the interview between an anchor dude and Kamala Harris.
She did much better than usual at replying to the guy in a rapid manner, matching his rhythm of speaking, without pauses. Her sentences were all diagrammable and seemed coherent.
But for the most part her answers to his questions re policy were, "My administration will follow federal law" or "We will uphold the law".
Which suggests her coaches urged this speech on her, the locution perhaps also chosen as an echo of the hapless cosplaying coup-doers.
I would find public speaking impossible/alien so I didn't fault her for this, but I mentioned the interview to my husband, and while he hadn't seen it, he had heard it referenced as having been "too hard for her, like a debate, something she shouldn't have been subjected to", and coincidentally his reaction was something like yours. On the order of: "I can't believe we're about to elect as president someone who can't think well enough to speak".
Meanwhile, Vance continues to be interesting in that years of schooling and being around people with very different views (whether truly different, or whether he early on performed a calculation about where someone like himself might be permitted to succeed in politics) - presumably nearly all the people he found himself among - he seems to be at ease with engaging, which I suspect puts watchers at ease. I enjoyed his answer the other day about Venezuelan gangs to ABC News' Martha Raddatz, which was excerpted in the WSJ (the elderly parents ;-) take the papers).
It boiled down to - he called her bluff for pretending that a non-question about Trump - an attack on Trump, since Trump's opponent is not really KH but the media - was a question about Venezuelan gang members. I don't think it had occurred to her that he would take seriously the gang part, since she didn't and has no reason to.
Of course, my husband, by the same token, would say, that's not interesting! That should be normal, that people should be able to talk for five minutes.
Request fewer posts like this; I'm generally against accusations of bad faith but if you make one I'd like you to put more effort into explaining why you think that, partly because it would be useful information and partly as a tax on inflammatory claims.
I don't think it's surprising or says much we don't already know.
Schizophrenia symptoms can be divided into "positive" (eg hallucinations, delusions, violence) and "negative" (eg depression, inertia, lack of focus). Antipsychotics are pretty good at treating the positive symptoms and pretty bad at treating the negative symptoms. This study finds that antipsychotics are indeed bad at improving cognitive problems, which are a negative symptom.
The only part that surprises me is that clozapine ranks low; I'd heard it might be the rare antipsychotic that at least had a bit of efficacy against negative symptoms.
The new schizophrenia drug Cobenfy claims to help negative symptoms, but is too new for me to have an opinion on whether that's true, and wasn't included in this study.
There was a study of smoking in schizophrenics done by Harvard psychiatry at the mental hospital where I did my internship. Their conclusion was that smoking helps relieve the akasthesia caused by many antipsychotic drugs.
Promoting blogs once or twice a year is fair game, especially if you have a really interesting or relevant article and want to argue for it. I agree Thomas is going a bit far and urge him to stop.
Why do women sing more than men and why do they play musical instruments less (unless it is classical music)?
I am mostly thinking about live music (concerts or jams) in bands/orchestras rather than just playing for yourself at home.
I don't see much rhyme or reason with these patterns. The only thing that comes to mind is that women seem to be less into improvisation which leads into them playing classical music more? But outside of jazz/funk/latin music there's usually not that much improvisation going on either and there are not that many women playing in rock bands either (not more than women who play jazz). And there are quite a lot female jazz singers and they do improvise, so this is not it.
One other hypothesis I had is that women are on average more agreeable and conforming and so when parents send their kids to learn the violin or a piano, they are more likely to stick with it. And (non-musician) parents are less likely to send their kids to guitar/bass/brass/drumset lessons, those are more often instruments that teenage boys decide they want to learn themselves. But piano/keyboard is also played a lot outside of classical music (violin is as well, albeit not quite as much) and you don't see a lot of female piano players outside of classical music either.
The history of sex limited music roles in Western culture goes back many hundreds of years. I expect the reason, for most of that history, is "because it's always been that way", which begs the question of how it got that way originally. But once it got that way it was self-perpetuating. Things only started to change recently, about the time of 1st wave feminism. If you go back farther in history things were different. Layne Redmond's excellent book "When the Drummers Were Women" documents the ancient Mediterranean world (about 3000 BC to 500 AD) when women played the frame drum. A good quote -
"The first named drummer in history was a Mesopotamian priestess named Lipushiau. She lived in the city-state of Ur in 2380 BC"
There are also lots of classical Egyptian depictions of women playing instruments, e.g. lyres and flutes.
Did a little more digging and found a clue to the begged question, and an answer to Tibor's original post. The change from women playing instruments and drums in antiquity to the more recent cultural limitations dates to the ascendancy of Christianity. The Catholic synod of 576 decreed: “Christians are not allowed to teach their daughters singing, the playing of instruments or similar things because, according to their religion, it is neither good nor becoming.” Of course the narrative of "things were fine and equal before the bad Christians ruined it for hundreds of years until modernity saved us" is kind of stereotypically simplified and over the top, and I would hope the quoters of Chesterton and CS Lewis will protest. One line of attack is to look outside Western culture - what about the Jews? I have no expertise here, maybe someone knowledgeable can comment. My impression is that all the Jewish musicians in the old testament are men - David with a lyre, Joshua with his horn, song of Solomon. And Klezmer musicians were all men, tho that's changing in modernity. I know some women cantors, but maybe that's a modern reform thing? Looking elsewhere outside Western culture (I'm not a real ethnomusicologist, just a wannabe, so this is all my impressions, citation needed) - it's common to find women playing instruments in China, Japan, and in southeast Asian gamelan orchestras. In Indian classical music (raga and all that) the soloists are mostly men, but there is a tradition of having the drone instrument (tamboura) played by lovely young ladies. In Turkish classical music the composers and instrumentalists are male, but it's not clear if that's because of Islam or Arab/Middle Eastern culture. Islam also is mostly down on music generally for both sexes, except for some of the Sufi sects, Sufi musicians are male. In the Balkans, historically there was the same limited roles as in Western culture, but they were also mostly Christianized (Eastern Orthodox), except for small Muslim minorities. Interestingly there are Muslim minority populations in southern Bulgaria (called Pomaks) where the women still play frame drums, likely a remnant of what Layne Redmond's book talks about.
I also learned more about those ancient Egyptians. James Blades ("renowned percussionist and scholar, and for many years Professor of Percussion at the Royal Academy of Music.") reports - “All records from this period (Middle Kingdom) show the performers as women; in fact the whole practice of the art of music appears to have been entirely entrusted to the fair sex, with one notable exception, the god Bes, who is frequently represented with a drum with cylindrical body (frame drum).” And the famous Egyptian Goddess Isis is often depicted holding a sistrum, which is a percussion instrument with zils.
We should distiguish between music played inside the house and outside. Jane Austen heroines are often keen pianists, as indeed was Jane herself. But professional female musicians would have been rare.
Emily Dickinson also. The rise of the piano in the middle class was an interesting phenomenon sociologically. Girls were encouraged to play to increase their marriageability, but, yes, only inside the house.
For boys, singing in a choir is seen as uncool/unmanly in a way that playing instruments isn't (though there's still gendered stereotypes, e.g. flue players vs. percussionists).
My elementary school had a very successful boys choir and part of the strategy was that while the girls choir started in 4th grade, the boys choir started in 2nd: the teacher always said "you have to get boys into choir before they're old enough to realize it's not cool" and she seemed largely correct on that point.
Also, voices change for boys far more than for girls. As a result of that choir, I was a good singer as a kid - went to some invitational choir festival kinda stuff - but I didn't continue in choir in high school my voice changed and I don't really feel like I have any particular talent for it today. I would have had to relearn a lot of stuff when I went from soprano to tenor and didn't.
My guess is the womans instinct to sing comes from singing to children, which is iirc done universally. Mens propensity to instrument comes from the people vs things distinction between females and males
I don't know the latest turns in the debate on whether women speak more than men. But if you believe that, then the steps from "speak more" over "use your voice more" to "sing more" are pretty small.
My hypothesis would be that teenaged boys join bands to meet or appeal to girls. And the corresponding young women don't feel the same pressure (on average!) and so they continue with music for more intrinsic reasons (if they do)
I actually find this the most plausible explanation. It would match the observations that in classical music, there are many more female instrumentalists. It explains more men in rock bands or most other popular genres of music. It still does not explain why there are not many women in jazz. I think nobody expects to meet or appeal to girls by playing in a jazz band. But since the instruments tend to be similar to rock (except for the wind instruments), it could be that the jazz musicians are still largely recruited from that same pool of boys who originally started playing to get the girls. They just realised they're in for the music and that they like jazz better than rock.
Also most formal music education is centred around classical music. Girls tend to be more agreeable and more likely to follow the authorities so of those kids who get music education, more girls will continue with classical music themselves whereas the boys shift to "I wanna be a rockstar" when they turn 14 or something.
And you see more female singers because female voice is inherently different from male voice, so there are just more opportunities and more demand.
I think this is probably part of it, for rock music anyway. Rock is on life support and has been for a while though; even the boys aren't forming bands all that much now. Most of the action in new music are individual writer/composer/performers who's primary instruments are a synth and a computer. This approach though, like the old rock bands, lends itself to the obsessive focus on a narrow pursuit that seems to be more common in the typical male mind. Rock music can also be hard to play. Not difficult due to complexity, but physically hard. Guitar and bass require a good amount of hand strength, bass especially really develops the forearm muscles if played with the fingers. Drums are even worse with many professional female drummers developing bad repetitive motion injuries in their shoulders and wrists while still in their 20s, injuries that are usually seen in male drummers in their 50s or 60s. Singing has none of these physical barriers. Constant singing can be hard on your throat and vocal chords, but does so evenly across both sexes. Upper body strength and endurance really do help with the standard guitar/bass/drums of rock music. Especially with new guitar/bass players, there is a period of developing grip strength and calluses in the chording/neck hand that is challenging for men with large hands to tough their way though.
I play drums myself and if you have injuries like that, then it is because your technique is bad ... or maybe you play grindcore or something like that. It is true you need to train fine muscles to play instruments but the same is true for singing and you need good core muscles and good lung capacity too (though I am always fascinated by the number of singer who are smokers).
Also, this does not explain why there are significantly more female musicians in classical music who play all sort of instruments. It is true, you see fewer female contrabass players because that shit really is heavy, but there are quite a few female cellists and of course viola and violin players. I don't think these instruments are physically significantly less demanding than an electric guitar and in fact arguably you might need more strength in your fingers when playing a cello than with a guitar (especially since it is fretless and the strings are thicker).
Always a pleasure to read someone who talks from experience and knows the nuts and bolts of the subject. Guessing from general ideas and improvising evolutionary "explanations" is a bit of a failure mode for rationalists :)
My guess would be that men are mainly trying to demonstrate their technical skill and women are mainly trying to demonstrate their beauty/personality. Singing is much more personal, given that it uses an individual's own voice rather than just her hands.
So I haven't posted to Psyvacy in a while, mostly due to a combination of just being way too busy and feeling unmotivated to put anything out into the world (for various reasons I don't need or want to get into). But I've recently happened across a small idea which I'm actually kinda interested in exploring a bit more.
Basically, we're all familiar with the idea that we talk about A Thing, and suddenly we're seeing ads related to The Thing even if we don't search for it or whatever, and it's tempting to conclude that we're being spied on through our microphones on our phones or whatever. While I'm not saying that doesn't happen, it seems plausible that a certain amount of the variance there is confirmation bias - if I don't see ads relating to something I was talking about it I don't think twice, so even a co-incidence may be weighted more than we expect it should. Add in the large amount of surveillance we're under, and "my phone is listening to me" becomes a very tempting conclusion even with only weak evidence. I could go through how these kinds of psychological processes work, and how they can throw our thinking out. It's not a big or complicated or new idea, but it seems fun to read and write about.
But I'm having trouble seeing a takeaway. While obviously it's my responsibility to write these things, and ultimately it's mostly going to be driven by personal interest, is there an aspect which anyone thinks could be interesting to explore? Or even an unrelated topic that sits in the nexus of psychology and privacy that you'd be interested in reading a post about?
It is a strange feature of our present world that many things that would have clearly been psychotic delusions a few decades ago are now, at least, technically possible, and we have to seriously consider the evidence for whether Apple/Google etc. really are doing that.
I think it's not implausible that it's true - as Performative Bafflement pointed out, the Snowden revelations meant that a lot of stuff which was previously grounds for a paranoia diagnosis are now just publicly true. But that doesn't mean it *is* true, and even if it is the evidence usually cited is pretty easily explained through confirmation bias or similar
> Snowden revelations meant that a lot of stuff which was previously grounds for a paranoia diagnosis are now just publicly true
I've often wondered at the mindset of the people who were surprised by Snowden's revelations. What did they *think* the NSA was doing, if not spying on people?
It's not that the NSA was spying on people, it's that they were spying on Americans, which is quite illegal (or at least was at the time, it was made legal retroactively). And further that a large number of governments were working together to operate illegal spying systems even within contexts previously thought and asserted to be private *en masse*
Well, I haven’t enabled the feature in Shazam that’s “listen to everything around you all the time so it can identify the music playing in the background”. That definitely is doing that.
====
Back when I worked for Microsoft, the National Security Agency send us a very fancy Christmas present made out of a milled block of metal. We made a lot of jokes about that time the Russians sent the Americans a bugging device that was the seal of the United States containing a microwave resonant cavity, then put this fine present somewhere were it couldn’t hear anything. I have no idea if it was actually a bug or not.
I'd be happy to commit to either writing a report crediting you, or hosting a report you write, if we can agree on a protocol to either prove or disprove it?
Also, on my current research project it is customary for us to start every zoom conference call with a ho to the National Security Agency in case they are tapping the call.
> is there an aspect which anyone thinks could be interesting to explore? Or even an unrelated topic that sits in the nexus of psychology and privacy that you'd be interested in reading a post about?
The ones I find most interesting:
1. First, your phone IS listening to you - above and beyond GOOG and FB, the NSA exists and has outright admitted to spying on literally everyone on earth, omnichannel, full time, with all data stored in perpetuity until the end of time.
So what I think about is once they can send smart enough AI minds sniffing in that data, how literally everything will be revealed. All illegal behavior anyone has ever done, all affairs, all secret nighttime visits to KFC's, secret second families, drug dealers, prostitutes, or whoever.
Since basically everyone is guilty of X-number-of-felonies a day in theory, it really becomes a political question then around who is going to be persecuted for what. What are the real implications when there actually isn't any privacy, but everyone is still human and still commits crimes all the time?
And a tertiary thing - how awesome would that data be for biographers in the future? Obviously a hard sell to convince the NSA, but just imagine we stick a rider in for already dead people in whatever legislation we pass that makes omnichannel surveillance reasonably concordant with actual human nature.
Far from studying a stack of old letters, you'd have real time location data, and all emails and texts and phone calls, propinquity data for any other people / phones around them at all times, and probably some pretty smart G6+ level data mining minds to do automated analysis and collation.
2. It should be really easy to verify whether phones are listening to you. I've always wanted - and don't understand to this day why I've never been able to find anyone doing this - somebody who will Wireshark and packet sniff every packet going to and from their phone, who opens and interacts with whatever apps. FB, Google maps, Youtube, whatever.
I mean, I can see the ~600 javascripts across 30+ domains opening a simple text webpage like Substack entails in any browser - why is nobody doing this for phones??
> 2. It should be really easy to verify whether phones are listening to you. I've always wanted - and don't understand to this day why I've never been able to find anyone doing this - somebody who will Wireshark and packet sniff every packet going to and from their phone, who opens and interacts with whatever apps. FB, Google maps, Youtube, whatever.
Setting up Wireshark to sniff anything going over Wifi is easy - but to sniff everything going over cellular data is much harder. You'd need to root the phone (and then it proves nothing if sufficiently paranoid - maybe the spy protocol can disable itself if it senses the phone is rooted!) or set up a fake mobile phone tower (beyond the resources of most hobbyists). And then thanks to HTTPS you can't see the contents of the packets anyway...
What I can tell you is that 10 years ago, the cutting edge method to build shadow profiles used ads in mobile games to gather/leak information. The rep assured me they weren't using the microphone but explained how some of the "spooky" results were achieved. One example was using search history of anyone else with similar location data - maybe you mentioned to your sister you like rubber ducks, and she googled rubber ducks as a gift idea, then you start getting ads for rubber ducks without searching for it yourself.
But that was 10 years ago, more recently someone on the dev team here didn't understand how (feature) was achievable unless (product) is using microphone data. So who knows.
Oh and for extra fun: Have you heard of Targeted Outdoor Advertising? We can display ads on digital billboards by knowing who is in the area and likely to be looking at them at a particular time, either in an aggregate ("Hey every Tuesday at 7:15pm lots of people with an interest in crypto walk past, so time to advertise coinbase" - it's picked up on the local ACX meetup finish time) or in some cases specifically targeting individuals. So the algorithm figures out you're a whale who likes rubber ducks, now you see rubber ducks everywhere you go! Not a great time to be a paranoid schizophrenic.
I mean, I'd be surprised if someone hadn't done the phone-Wireshark thing. If someone is willing, and we could agree on a protocol, I'd be happy to commit to either writing up a report or hosting a report someone else wrote on the findings.
But the sheer ease of proving it makes me suspect it isn't happening, outside of extremely targeted cases like with Pegasus and suchforth. I'm not ruling out it happening in the future, but at the moment the degree of processing to pull out topics for advertising seems excessive for widespread application. Compared to tracking searches and such, which are already text-based and as such exponentially easier to work with, I mean.
> But the sheer ease of proving it makes me suspect it isn't happening, outside of extremely targeted cases like with Pegasus and suchforth.
Really? I actually lean the other way - there are already capabilities in almost every newish phone to listen passively for phrases like "Hey Siri" or "Ok Google" without running the battery down. Some apps try do this already, like the Shazam example Michael Roe had above. Although many apps don't request this "passive listening" permission (including FB), it is something I would actually expect FB and GOOG to request by default pretty soon.
Also, have you never sat around with friends and family deliberately saying specific keywords with FB open see if it appears in their FB feeds as adverts? I've done this with a few groups, and it never fails to turn up hits. I believe they can do this because it's not "passively listening" if the app is open and foregrounded.
It then become a question of "how often is the app open and foregrounded while in a group that may be having relevant and targetable conversation?" Which I think is probably "pretty often," depending on the individual person and culture, but I think the median answer is likely to be "often enough to be worth it."
I mean, FB already creates shadow profiles for everyone on earth, whether they have a profile or not, populating it with info on your friends, likely device ID's, propinquity, and more. Why wouldn't they do this too, and log targetable keywords from conversations people have had with FB open on some phone in the group?
If it was so trivial to prove, than it'd be easy to find someone running Wireshark to show the packets containing the keywords being sent to Google or whatever.
And the scenario you describe isn't the scenario I'm talking about. I'm talking about your phone sitting locked on your table or in your pocket, you're singing a song or mentioning that you need to buy bananas, and that being picked up by your microphone, interpreted, and that information sent to Google or Facebook or whatever.
And no, none of my friends are on Facebook, certainly not sitting there using it while we're hanging out.
> If it was so trivial to prove, than it'd be easy to find someone running Wireshark to show the packets containing the keywords being sent to Google or whatever.
Yeah, which is why I've always wanted it. Probably less useful now that everything is https everywhere, but you're still sending *something* in packets to servers owned by whoever.
> And the scenario you describe isn't the scenario I'm talking about.
I'm aware - I think to your earlier point though, *psychologically* it's pretty close to most average people. "Facebook spies on me / my friends' conversations via my phone" is the general gestalt, whether it's done with passive listening or not.
> And no, none of my friends are on Facebook, certainly not sitting there using it while we're hanging out.
Yeah, I've spent a lot of time in non-US countries where it's more dominant. But I've had conversations with my mom and sister pretty much exactly like this one that ended with the natural real-world tests of pulling phones out and saying keywords with the apps open, it's the natural next step after a conversation like this (along with Wiresharking everything).
Check out my analysis of all 188 indie sci-fi novels from the SPSFC4. I systematically evaluate all the titles, covers, blurbs and sample chapters to investigate what makes some stand out from the crowd. There were many surprises along the way, and it might help people thinking of self publishing a book themselves freshen up their approach, and maybe you will find a new favourite sci fi novel to read.
This was interesting and would have been more instructive if I could see/participate in the lineup easily (like I could in the very interesting title vote but if you had links to the others I failed to see them).
If I do it all again for SPSFC5 then I will hunt around more for an online tournament maker where I can share the starting line up for the covers as well so anyone can run through the process themselves.
readscottalexander.com (an online DB of Scott's posts in SSC & ACX that's easy to search) is quietly getting more features since the time Scott promoted it in a previous Open Thread - now with a recommendation engine, links to the podcast version and to the comments, better semantic search, filter out read posts when logged in (soon: without an account too) and faster speed.
I enjoy tweaking it when I have free time, so feel free to check it out or send feedback if you have any!
Thanks! If you click on "Show all more filters" you'll see an "Exclude tag" filter where you can exclude book reviews. I've been wanting to add support for excluding multiple tags for a while but wasn't sure that was useful to people, I'll add it when I get time.
(Note that some tags aren't perfectly consistent and there might be some missed posts, ideally I'd want to re-run the analysis on the whole corpus at some point. But it should be a good first approximation)
Oh great, thanks for your feedback! I corrected the typos and the cutoff values now come directly from the actual code running the search, they'll always be up to date. (The cutoff used to be 0.75 and I apparently didn't update it everywhere)
The video is about how dire things are in North Korea, and specifically that the ten thousand NK troops that were sent to support Russia will never be permitted to come back because even seeing Russia would give them a clue, but the specific thing I'm wondering is that the Kim regime can't last forever because nothing lasts forever, but I can't imagine something realistic that would take it down.
Maybe a sufficiently incompetent Kim heir? What else?
It’s worth pointing out that NK is a headache for everyone but a client state of the PRC who has a captive market and a buffer against the American military presence, they have no interest in a liberated, reunified North Korea. Xi is also reportedly somewhat obsessed with the downfall of the Soviet Union so he would definitely not want to start letting satellites wander off and reunite.
While this makes sense, is there any reason that China wouldn't want their client state to modernise and capitalism-ify, to look a bit more like 2000s China and a bit less like 1950s China?
I think the DPRK's client-ness is very overstated. The DPRK relies on the Chinese for many things but they've always gotten by playing powerful parties off each other (in the Cold War, the Soviets against the Chinese. Related, guess which Communist nation had the distinction of being the only one to get their ambassadorial staff PNG'd out of the USSR *twice*?) and the Norks think they can just do this same play to the PRC and the US. Anyway, China probably can't force the DPRK to modernize and capitalize without invading them and replacing the Kim Regime, and that's a quick step to disaster anyway. And the DPRK has no interest in modernizing and capitalizing because there's already one modern and capital-y Korea, and they'll never be better at doing that than the one that exists.
Have only skimmed the video (will try and give it a full watch tonight), the author seems badly misinformed about the state of the DPRK these days, and running off a modification to the old "Rare Glimpse(TM)!" view of North Korea, which is no longer an accurate reflection of reality (the core songbyun has pretty decent information about the outside world, and Lankov noted enough media filters around that even the wavering/hostile classes have no illusions that the DPRK is better than the South in most metrics, although they don't know the magnitude of it). I should note the entire report is kind of weird and there's thing in it that don't make sense (like the report of onloading NKSOF on ships and transporting them to Russia; why not just fly them?). I would be overall very skeptical of the Youtuber's positions; he's very obviously not informed on the DPRK and just kind of operating off of old propaganda.
As far as the question of "what could bring down the Kim Regime", at this point, if they survived the 90s, it's hard to model out what would do the trick. That's not to say the Kim regime *can't* fall, but it's going to take a kind of black swan event to trigger it (and probably involves China doing something that's very opaque to us).
At this point, I'm no longer convinced the *ROK* would let the Kim regime fall, tbqh
Some interesting highlights from the Real North Korea Psmith review:
- North Koreans have a pseudo-caste system known as songbyun. It more or less relates to how supportive your family was of the state back in 1945. Those with good songbyun get education and jobs sponsored by the party and extra rations, those with bad songbyun are slaves and human chattel. Songbyun generally can't be changed, unless you betray the state, in which case you get the worst songbyun. So anyone who is thinking of becoming a dissident has to reckon with condemning themselves and their entire family line forever to slavery and torture.
- The economy is mostly supported by black market capitalism, but it's extremely inefficient. Farmers spend all day at their work assignments in agricultural communes, but grow very little due to lack of tools and fertilizer. They sneak off at night and grow actual food illegally in tiny plots in the hills. The guards allow this because it's better to let the farmers grow crops illegally and take a cut to show their superiors food is actually being produced. But the whole thing is really inefficient because all of the fertile land is occupied by these useless farm communes and the farmers have to stay there all day to meet their work assignments.
- In a similar trend, a lot of production is done by women. You see, the men usually have work assignments in the factories. But a lot of the factories are run down or had critical machinery sold off. So the men have to spend their day sitting around in these decaying shells of factories not really doing any productive work. The women who stay at home then have time to produce things on the side or in hidden workshops.
- More directly to your point, Lankov (the author) believes the most dangerous time for the regime would be reform. As long as the people are totally downtrodden and have no expectation of things getting better, they won't revolt. But if they have a glimmer of hope, suddenly the gap between reality and their expectations of how things could be becomes unbearable. Thus the regime, and all of its collaborators with good songbyun, are riding the metaphorical tiger. They know the tiger will eventually turn on and devour them, but any relaxation of their grip will only hasten the end. So they cling on bitterly, and don't dare show any mercy to or attempt to improve the conditions of their suffering people.
This is stupidest propaganda. North Korean workers and students visit Russia all the time, and then go home without any troubles. Also, I believe that people in NK know enough about the world around them, because I heard pirated western and Chinese media is pretty popular there.
Not that there is any credible proof of NK troops in Ukraine. Russian soldiers raised a North Korean flag alongside Russian flag over some village today, but that's just trolling.
As for Kim's regime, it's a wonder it lasted as long as it has, so it's hard to predict its downfall. It appears to have some stabilizing properties beyond normal. Maybe geographical isolation and neighbors that support the dynasty.
I've read a fair amount of analysis lately that implies many elites in South Korea don't even want to unify anymore. It would be a catastrophic drain on their economy and massive disruption of their culture. The two nations have drifted so far apart that they're only really connected by a diverging language and pre-1900 shared history that fades in importance every year. Even the family connections grow thinner and thinner every year. China might be able to integrate NK after a theoretical collapse, but they don't want to and it would probably be a pretty brutal affair overall.
A lot of the problems with maintaining the lifestyle that people want out of the ROK long-term do become easier if there were some kind of gastarbeiter program that would allow Norks to work at low-status and/or unskilled labor in the ROK but not be allowed to participate in any of their legal processes. The major obstacle is of course that is extremely unconstitutional, since both countries assert they are fully in control of the entirety of the peninsula and the people therein.
I don't think they'd tolerate it unless they got good assurances from the ROK that the citizens would be forcibly returned if necessary (which isn't as dumb as it sounds; Charles UF above is correct that there's a significant chunk of the ROK population that doesn't want to deal with the Norks and really doesn't want to sacrifice their standard of living for them.
I should note I don't think this is a workable path for the foreseeable future (5 years or so, unless the DPK can oust Lee somehow and start the push for "confederation" all over again). But at the same time, the future belongs to those who show up; guess which Korea is producing more children right now?
As someone who isn't a close follower of the war in Ukraine, North Korea or YouTubers, what's the credibility of this guy? Is it worth watching the half hour video?
He reports heavily on Ukraine, I watch him regularly. Primarily he aggregates news articles.
He used to work in South Korea, I think he has a solid background on the situation there.
Sometimes he's wrong on something. This is to be expected.
I'm confident he's relatively unbiased in that he tries to report facts rather than propaganda, and make sensible predictions.
If I was recommending a half hour video of his to watch, it probably wouldn't be this one, unless you really care about this specific detail.
The tl;dr is that 10k NK soldiers won't make much difference. They're probably not very useful, and Russia is losing about 1k soldiers a day, so they're almost a drop in the bucket.
The 'point', he thinks, is to build up concern in the western media, rather than to have a big effect on the battlefield.
No, it was like "Major part of North Korea economy is people who work in China and return to their families with money" (But it was about 2000s or so, maybe it's different now, or maybe it wasn't true at all)
I have a vague memory - I heard that China and Russia hire them in large numbers - but they're effectively held captive - sequestered away, often in dedicated factories in the middle of nowhere. Thus there wouldn't be much cultural diffusion.
If the history of Warsaw pact satellite state uprisings and the German reunification is any indicator, NK will shamble along as long as its leadership is willing and able to use their secret services and/or military against popular unrest.
Haven't they had a mass exodus on the order of 10-15% of their population in the past 5ish years? Maybe your comment was meant to be sarcasm and I missed it, but Cuba seems to be in very, *very* dire straights right now.
I'm not sure it's that dire. It's dire relative to our living standards. It's painful to see humans living how they live in Cuba in 2024. But if we compare their conditions to, say, 1900s US loving standards, they're ahead. And it appears that humans are able to live in those conditions or worse which we have had in the past, so I'm not sure things are so bad in some weird absolute sense looking at the last 5000 thousands years.
I'm not praising what's happening btw. I used to believe that regimes like that have to collapse because people want to live in modern, safe, comfortable spaces. But looking at eg. Russia, it seems enough people are OK with living in far worse conditions than possible.
Specifically, in Cuba's case, I hope more people leave, but I don't think that even if eg. 50 % of the population leaves, it will lead to change in the government.
I mean, regardless of what the living standards are, I'm not sure a country can sustain that level of exodus. And even if it _doesn't_ continue, I'm not sure how well that size of exodus can be weathered, given that it's probably not a random sampling of the populace and is, most likely, younger people with more future productivity ahead of them.
The government might not change, but I'm having trouble imagining that things don't just continue to get worse. That's the kind of thing that seems to have a high chance of creating a positive feedback loop (positive in the sense that it keeps getting stronger, not that it's good).
e.g: People live > things get worse > more people leave > things get worse > etc.
From the Government's point of view, the ideal population level of Cuba is probably as many people as it takes to work the sugar plantations, plus a bunch of Communist Party officials to own all the sugar plantations.
There's no need for a modern economy if you can just be a rich plantation owner.
Sometimes an heir *wants* to open or modernize the country, like Mohammed bin Salman has done in Saudi-Arabia. This wouldn't technically mean the end of the Kim regime (not necessarily), but a change of the North Korean model.
Another possibility is a coup. Who knows what's going on in North Korea? Perhaps a handful of high-rank generals are planning to bring down Kim Jong-Un and replace him with a weak Kim figurehead that they control.
I guess theoretically, they might be let back home and then put into camps...
The only credible cause of a regime change would be if the military get sufficiently unhappy about something to stage a coup, but the regime has likely coup-proofed itself well, and it's not obvious anything would change even if it happened.
This is basically a new game genre, a psychological-horror thriller vaguely inspired by a qtnm short sotry in which you are talking with a person on the other side, trapped to a chair, and you need to help them just through an old-school terminal connection.
I would LOVE to keep developing the game and monetize it. I think it might get famous given the right marketing. Right now, I am looking for someone that is basically willing to pay me to work on it, as I am currently unemployed and I need a way to sustain myself if I want to keep working on this. I know this is a long shot, but I guess it's worth a trying with this community :)
Asking for an individual sponsor might be just about the least likely route to secure funding. I would suggest either seeking crowdfunding or pitching to the right publisher.
Anyone have any connections to Cortical Labs, the Australian startup with Pong-playing neurons? Or info on how they're doing since Series A a year ago?
I know, I know, but I've already read that book! It's not the one. :)
I watched Megalopolis and was struck by how shallow its ideas of architecture were. For something that presumably animates the entire film, the concept of this new utopia seemed to be plant-shaped buildings connected by a moving walkway - the kind that you might find in any airport. Maybe I missed something, or the true genius of the vision went over my head.
In any event, that got me thinking about real world architecture. After a visit to the Getty Center, I realized that there's something futuristic about the vision for that building. On the way back to my car, I thought, for a fleeting moment, that I could be heading to a home not so different from the Getty center - with travertine walls, sculpture and fountains, benches for contemplation of art or philosophy. Of course, my one-bedroom in Glendale is nothing close to the Getty Center, but that idea - that one day everything could look like this - seemed to be implicit in the design of the Getty Center.
That's pretty consistent with my understanding of modernism - everyone and their brother wanted to make the "Home of Tomorrow TM" with the basic understanding that today's luxury good would be ubiquitous tomorrow.
I don't get the same feeling from most buildings, but particularly newer ones. Take SoFi Stadium, also in Los Angeles. I felt like I was walking through a newly built stadium, but one that made no claim on immortality. I don't think that's a function of the building's purpose - Grand Central in New York isn't a museum like the Getty Center, but manages to convey a much clearer idea of progress than SoFi Stadium does.
So my question - what newer (post-2000) buildings make you hopeful for the future? If you've seen Megalopolis, did those buildings do the trick? Does anyone know of a one-bedroom for rent in LA with travertine walls?
In a recent article, the Washington Post documented the multiple instances of immigration fraud that Elon Musk and his brother used to stay in the US illegally while they were supposed to be students. The DoJ's Office of Immigration Litigation should investigate this because a person can be denaturalized (i.e. have their citizenship revoked) if it’s discovered that the person obtained it through fraud or misrepresentation.
The reasons for denaturalization can be that...
The person lied on their application or during the interview — This includes providing false information about criminal history, hiding significant facts, or failing to disclose relevant details, like involvement in illegal activities or affiliations with certain organizations.
Or committed fraud — This could be entering the U.S. or obtaining permanent residency under false pretenses, then later becoming a naturalized citizen.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2024/10/26/elon-musk-immigration-status/
I am skeptical that you or anyone else here would be seriously proposing "denaturalizing" a US citizen of over twenty years and with native-born children, because they lied on a visa application and/or exceeded the limits of that visa, if it were anyone other than Elon Musk. OK, we've probably got some people who would sign up for it if it were e.g. Ilhan Omar, but no. Just no.
This is the same sort of thing as e.g. "Lock Her Up!" w/re Hillary's Emails. This is not how we do things in the United States of America, and I am absolutely opposed to changing that.
The rule of law of is supposed to apply to all Americans equally. However, I guess a billionaire gets a pass. And his native-born children couldn't be denaturalized because, under the 14th Amendment, they're natural citizens. Denaturalization only applies to immigrants who violate US immigration law by lying on their visa and citizenship applications. As far as I know, Ilhan Omar didn't lie on any of her immigration documents. So she wouldn't be eligible for denaturalization, either.
The law as it *actually* applies to all Americans not named "Elon Musk", is that once you are naturalized as a US citizen, you are not denaturalized unless you are a literal Nazi, terrorist, drug lord, or the like. Seriously, check out the record on actual denaturalization.
"Rule of Law" means that Elon Musk gets the same treatment. And since he's not literally a Nazi, he doesn't get denaturalized even if he *did* lie on his visa application.
The thing you're looking for, where everybody technically commits three felonies a day and the prosecutors sensibly ignore all of that but when we decide someone is the Wrong Sort of Person then all we have to do is find the crime he (and about a million other people) committed yesterday and throw the book at him, that's not rule of law. That's behavior suited for an Ayn Rand or George Orwell villain.
And I really shouldn't be hoping to see you on the receiving end of that sort of treatment, but I kind of am.
> This is not how we do things in the United States of America
And who are you to decide that? America is what the people want it to be, and the people want closed borders and mass deportation. Of course, Elon wouldn't be one of the people getting deported, seeing as he's in Trump's good graces. And also he's white. And rich.
I'm surprised to see the white canard here, of all places. I thought it was dying in general, but then here it is. So thanks for that.
What riles me about Musk is his arrogance that the rules are for us and not for him. He calls his working while having a student visa a legal gray area. It's not. It's quite clear that a student visa is for studying and only allows for work-study related to one's degree. Musk dropped out a week after classes started. Meanwhile, there are a few tens of thousands of college students in the US whose parents brought them into the country illegally—who grew up here—but will potentially face deportation once they graduate. DACA only offers limited relief from deportation, with no guarantee they can stay. How many potentially successful entrepreneurs are we discarding? How about it, John, since we're stretching the rules for Musk, why not stretch the rules for legitimate college students? But DACA is in Trump's sights, and Elon has become a fervent supporter of The Donald's immigration policies.
Another one of those inconsequential little laws that Musk may have broken is the Logan Act. By is his own admission that he's been in communication with Putin (post-sanctions) about "space-related matters." Funny how Ukraine got shut out of that space-related matter called Starlink. Harris's Attorney General should have the DoJ investigate his ass. Of course, if Trump wins, Musk will get sweetheart deals from the US government.
i have a Trump-related question. I’m posing it separately in the hopes of avoiding having answers to my question get swamped by debate.
I know many democrats who are genuinely terrified of Trump winning. The say he will actually do all the worst and wildest stuff he’s just talked about doing so far, because he will quickly install appointees everywhere, and that he will then be essentially a dictator, jailing those prominent people who speak out against him or taking legal action against them, etc etc. I would like to know what impediments there are to this happening.
Last night I googled “impediments to Trump ruining country” and every single hit I got was about how Trump is for sure going to ruin the country. A typical one was a Washington Post article “A Trump Dictatorship is Increasingly Inevitable.” Inevitability doesn’t *come* in degrees. WTF?
For instance, what impediments are there to Trump’s bringing some charge against Chuck Schumer, winning the case, and getting the guy locked up for a few years? So one thing I wonder about is about legal constraints.
Another is practical constraints. For instance the logistics of rounding up 10 million or so undocumented immigrants seems pretty daunting. Who rounds them up? Where do you put them til they are shipped out? How do you transport them back to where they came from? What do you do if their country of origin won’t take them back? For that and for other proposed Trump plans, it seems to me you need staff who are not only willing to carry out such plans, but are also very good at the logistics involved. Seems likely potential Trump appointees are carefully vetted for loyalty, but not for skills (to vet for skills, you need skillful people).
A third is resistance by local governments. What happens if the government of a blue state objects strongly to some Trump plan being carried out? Seems like many things require the cooperation of local officials. Wouldn’t some states refuse to cooperate in carrying out plans they are strongly opposed to? Would Massachuetts, for example, help round up the undocumented immigrants in its state? And then there would be some sort of legal fight about that, but surely it would drag on for a long time.
Here’s and old article from the Economist about this. I think it depends on the cards he’s dealt: he already has a majority on the Supreme Court, if he also has both houses of Congress he can run the board.
The meticulous, ruthless preparations for a second Trump term:
https://www.economist.com/briefing/2023/07/13/the-meticulous-ruthless-preparations-for-a-second-trump-term
from The Economist
Among many other problems with this, the fact that a Supreme Court justice was nominated by George Bush does not mean that Donald Trump in any way owns them, It's not even clear that he "owns" all of the judges he himself nominated.
I found this.
https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2024/01/28/a-trump-dictatorship-is-possible-but-not-in-four-years-00137949
What's your opinion of this?
That seems about right, There's essentially zero possibility of Trump building the sort of power base he'd need to bulldoze the 22nd Amendment in four years. The real danger is that a cabal of *competent* wannabe fascists (or whatever) will attach themselves to the Trump administration and build something nasty for themselves.
Which is sort of what Project 2025 seems to be aiming at, but if the result is something Trump-centered then it probably doesn't survive Trump leaving office and if it's not Trump-centered then Trump will probably kill it while he's still in office. It's not impossible that the as-yet-unnamed American Hitler will be able to thread that needle in the next four years, so we're going to want to keep up the whole Eternal Vigilance thing, but it's not something I'm terribly worried about.
Thanks for your read John. Re-asked my question on new open thread, and practically nobody was able to address it -- all went into political rage meltdown. It's really scary how unable to think straight most people are about the election.
Jane's Law of Politics states that "The followers of the party in power are smug and arrogant. The followers of the party out of power are deranged and insane." This has always seemed a sound guide to me. But at the moment, the Democrats don't seem to see themselves as being in power.
Which is understandable, as their incumbent is a senile lame duck and their candidate is a lightweight who is trailing in the polls. But it means that we get deranged insanity all around.
Not to sound ungrateful, but — this isn’t what I was asking for. It’s less hysterical in tone than the stuff I found with my google, but it’s mainly an accounting of the nature of the preparations for Trump’s second term, how thorough they are etc (so more of what I was finding in my googlelast night), plus speculation about what steps he’d take in different areas.
I can’t believe there are no impediments to Trump doing exactly what he wants. Why the fuck is it so hard to find an article about it, even an article that’s mistaken about impediments? Is there nobody thinking about this subject? Is the entire press unwilling to write about this subject? Maybe nobody wants to publish an article about it because it will irritate Trump supporters, and undermine efforts to terrify everyone else into voting for Harris?
See, this shit is part of why I don’t vote. It’s too hard to get the real picture.
Here’s something more alarming from one of the best journalists to cover Trump the first time.
https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-features/if-trump-wins-2024-election-1235096091/
Alarming stuff is everywhere. The problem is finding anything else. it’s not that I’m convinced that having Trump in office is no big deal because he’ll be blocked in everything he tries. I’m just convinced that there are some things that are blockable, some contests of cleverness and will be would not win, some steps he could not take because he’s dumb and chaotic, and staff he’s brought on board my not be highly competent in carrying out big messy projects, etc etc. I cannot find any articles about what he will or might have trouble accomplishing due to legal constraints, or practical ones, or resistance from various groups (including many businesses who rely on undocumented immigrants for labor). it’s like all the journalists, and also you, are under some
spell. I ask for info on impediments to some Trump projects, I get articles about reasons to be alarmed. Yes I ALREADY KNOW the case for
alarm. How could I possibly not? It’s everywhere. I would like to read the case against being sure life as we know it in the US will be completely destroyed during 4 years
of Trump because “he will be able to do anything he wants.”
...I don't know what to tell you, man. "Legal constraints" are only relevant if the parties involved actually respect the law. Now, the real impediment in such a scenario would be the military, but them trying to assert authority over the government would probably trigger a civil war, which is... pretty bad.
But say what you will about Trump, he has been very honest about his intentions, sympathies, and character. None of his supporters can claim in good conscience that they didn't know what they were getting themselves into.
It is truly awful life-advice to tell people they need to focus enough of their energy on politics to truly understand both candidates and vote to the best of their ability. That is a recipe for misery. Which means most people *don't* know what they're getting into, because they have actual lives to live. With real people around them, doing fun things. Unlike some of us here.
We recently opened up applications to join the 10th AI Safety Camp (Jan 11 - Apr 27)
https://www.aisafety.camp/
AISC is an online part time AI safety research program. You join AISC by joining one of the projects, and you join a project by applying here:
https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSd-2NTtIICgbivKsjcL4drvQxeAx_nMD9Itu4b61uCOwLMj8w/viewform
This camp, we have 32 projects covering many different topics. We recommend having a look at the projects to see which ones interest you. But you also have the option of filling out a generic application for all the projects at once.
Application deadline Nov 17
Some visualizations of stats about Nobel prize winners.
https://www.nature.com/immersive/d41586-024-02897-2/index.html
Looks best on desktop. The mobile presentation is absolute garbage.
I like the stats, but don't like the statements "you should do X to maximize your chances".
For example: "The data suggest that for the best chance of a prize, you should identify as a man." The sounds like trans men are over-represented among the winners.
Suggestion for Scott: can you do another defined section at the bottom of the board for election threads for the next couple of weeks, just to keep all that stuff in one place?
Seemed to work well for Ukraine when that topic was at its hottest.
I wish he'd go back to no-politics threads with an occasional thread that allowed political discussion.
At least one section for "arguments why Trump is actually awesome and everything you believe about him is wrong", because we have too many of those here recently.
Yeah, I get it. If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then you can easily score a lot of contrarian points by insisting that it is totally not a duck, but a space alien from the seventh dimension who only pretends to be a duck to fool the mainstream sheeple. But it was already done hundred times and at this point it is boring.
Yeah, wokeness sucks, Harris sucks, etc. No argument against that. None of that makes your delusions about Trump being secretly awesome any more realistic.
Trump is not at all like Hitler. It is a ridiculous argument that falls apart at the slightest scrutiny:
a) he does not run a campaign on racism. If you actually watch the campaigning he does (rather than cherry-picked out-of-context snippets) then you see this clear fact. The republicans are campaigning mostly on the economy, with tertiary campaigning on reducing ILLEGAL immigration, a peace-through-strength foreign policy, and increased manufacturing and energy investment.
b) his rhetoric (unlike the democrats') is not incendiary. it is actually far more mellow than his rhetoric in previous years... e.g., compare this years Al Smith dinner to previous ones.
c) he does not have the popular or the party support to act like Hitler
d) he is (far) too old to act like Hitler.
The ones damaging democracy are actually the democrats. Rather than campaign on actual issues (like the republicans are doing), they are actively mischaracterizing their opponents. Joe Biden is on record saying "Lock Trump Up." Jailing political opponents is the action of a dictator. Most of the democrat campaign is falsely characterizing their political opponent as Hitler. Obviously, this characterization insights violence and political instability. He has already been targeted by two assassinations.
For context, the democrats are characterizing Trump mainly based of this interview: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kmmx1zQCQds&t=492.
You can see that he is explicitly asked about a scenario where a) he wins the election and b) people don't accept that and there is a "non-peaceful election day."
I'm not sure that's an accurate summation of Trump's candidacy - the very first policy statement put out by Trump's 2016 campaign was entitled: "Statement by Donald J. Trump Statement on Preventing Muslim Immigration". The first sentence was "Donald J. Trump is calling for a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country's representatives can figure out what is going on." Link here: https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/statement-donald-j-trump-statement-preventing-muslim-immigration
That's pretty clear religious discrimination. There's no way you could ever get away with something like that in a job posting - if tomorrow Microsoft said that they'd no longer accept Muslim job applicants, they'd be sued into oblivion.
Moreover, the entire reason Donald Trump became a Republican celebrity is because he was the most famous person to say that Barack Obama was not born in the United States of America, but was instead a Kenyan Muslim. Who, presumably, would not have been allowed to enter the country under Trump's proposed total and complete shutdown on all Muslims entering.
>he does not run a campaign on racism.
He literally said "we got a lot of bad genes in our country right now" in reference to crimes committed by immigrants. If that doesn't qualify as racist I'm not sure what would.
>tertiary campaigning on reducing ILLEGAL immigration
Yeah, so tertiary that they were handing out "Mass Deportations Now" signs at the RNC. So tertiary that Vance and Trump both spent a news cycle sharing a Facebook rumor about Haitians eating cats. (Also, the Haitians in Springfield are LEGAL immigrants, and they still got targeted. I do not believe for a second that a Trump presidency would be careful and discriminating about which immigrants it gets rid of.)
>his rhetoric (unlike the democrats') is not incendiary
"The enemy within" and "poisoning the blood of our country" and "mass deportations now" and "they're eating the cats and dogs" are all more extreme and incendiary than "build the wall" was in 2016.
>he does not have the popular or the party support to act like Hitler
The Heritage Foundation has been working hard to change that - both having a plan ready to go for 2025 and preparing a list of people they can hire to make it happen. I would not have a lot of hope that Trump will be reined in by the "deep state" in 2025 like he was in 2017-2020.
Attempting to reduce Illegal immigration is in no way racist. By definition, illegal immigrants should be not be in the country, if you have any respect for the rule of law...
Then you need to make it clearer that it's only the illegal immigrants who eat cats. Otherwise people might get confused.
>Joe Biden is on record saying "Lock Trump Up."
So, is this post satire, did you sleep through the entire 2016 campaign, or do you just have the world's biggest double standard?
The Democrats are pulling out all of the rhetorical stops to try to get Trump not elected. Hitler comparisons shows they're really scraping the bottom of the barrel. It's the Godwin's law of politics.
Why is it that compared to previous years, MORE minorities are voting for Trump than previous republican candidates?!
Why is it that, in contrast to the democrats, the republicans are not campaigning based on tarring their opponents, but instead based on policy?
Simple: Trump is not Hitler.
People have also been pointing out the problems with Trump's policies, it just doesn't get as much airtime as him talking about how much he wants to be a dictator, for obvious reasons. For instance, his proposed tax plan would add more than twice as much to the deficit as Harris's, and also would cut taxes on the wealthiest Americans while raising them on the poorest.
He also seems to think that tariffs are paid by the country exporting the goods instead of the Americans importing them.
Noah Smith has a good rundown on the economic problems: https://www.noahpinion.blog/p/realistically-how-much-damage-could
I am totally fine with people pointing out economic concerns. That is a valid campaigning. Calling some Hitler is not a valid way of campaigning. It erodes trust in media, it polarizes the political parties, it (like all crying wolf) erodes and weakens the terms for then actually do apply. It is just such a bad approach.
A hilarious CNN clip showed Trump calling Harris a "Communist-Fascist-Socialist" multiple times. Finally, we see Harris saying yes when CNN asks her do you agree with General Mark Milley's opinion that Trump is fascist. As a Leftie, I don't think comparing Trump to Hitler is valid. Hitler was much smarter than Trump and wasn't cognitively impaired until after he retreated to his bunker.
https://x.com/i/status/1849906117075403235
No Trump is not literally Hitler. So what is he?
Essay by: Phillip Bump October 24, 2024 Washington Post
If we look at it in the abstract, it’s easy to see the genesis of the comparisons.
A political leader whose popularity is driven by his personality more than his detailed policy proposals. Someone who casts a small segment of the population as dangerous and demands they be rounded up and deported. A leader who responded to losing an election by working fervently to overturn those election results, spreading false claims and stoking an anger that culminated in an attack on his country’s legislature. A leader who has endorsed the idea of replacing a nonpartisan governmental bureaucracy with loyalists. Someone who excoriates the press as dishonest, describes his political opponents as enemies worse than foreign adversaries, and is surrounded by voices that amplify and cheer his most extreme rhetoric.
No, Donald Trump is not Adolf Hitler. He has, happily, not engaged in either the systematized slaughter of a population or launched an effort to subjugate the world.
But, as a number of his former top aides have said in recent weeks, he views the constraints of democracy with disdain and embraces an approach to power that checks the boxes of fascism. Oh, and according to his former chief of staff John F. Kelly, Trump also offered praise for the German dictator and the way he managed his military.
For many of those surrounding Trump, particularly those who recognize that his reelection means their own empowerment, it is horrible to suggest that Trump is akin to history’s most infamous, hated leader. At times, the claim is that the former president’s critics and the left are saying that Trump somehow is Hitler — a rhetorical leap intended to heighten the idea that any such historical comparisons are ridiculous. The left is equating Trump with history’s greatest monster! Can you believe how unhinged they are?
And: Can you believe how dangerous they are? Since the attempt on Trump’s life in July, he and his allies have blamed anti-Trump rhetoric for the threats he has faced. There’s an obvious political utility here: If they can make some of his critics more cautious about what they say, they’ve restricted the amount of criticism that surrounds Trump. But for those primed to view any comparison to fascist or authoritarian leaders as unwarranted, the hostility that might accompany such comparisons may seem like little more than an effort to stir up hate.
The irony of this concern emerging among supporters of a candidate who is relentlessly focused on disparaging and lying about immigrants to the United States should not be ignored.
Trump’s supporters are mostly focused on a straw man, a Trump critic who says he is Hitler or who makes comparisons to Hitler that are inherently ludicrous. Consider the interview that right-wing radio host Hugh Hewitt conducted with Trump on Thursday morning. Hewitt was once a standard conservative commentator, one focused on national security issues. But he’s become increasingly sycophantic in his regular conversations with Trump, failing to press the former president on questions that demand obvious follow-ups.
Were Hewitt conducting an interview with a Democrat who approached politics in the manner outlined in the second paragraph of this article — if, say, Barack Obama’s former chief of staff had warned that the former president didn’t respect American democracy and praised Hitler — it is easy to predict how an Obama-Hewitt interview might go. But that is not how the Hewitt-Trump interview went.
“Why do some people hate you so much?” he asked Trump. “I mean, Trump Derangement Syndrome is a real thing. I’ve run into it. We saw it online repeatedly. The stuff they call you, the Hitler stuff, the fascist stuff. … Why do you destabilize people this way?” Trump’s connection was staticky, so it was a bit hard to understand his first comments. But then he offered a response.
“I have a tendency to win. It’s a nice thing. And that bothers people,” Trump said. “Sometimes I play a little bit rough, but they play rough. They are rough and vicious people. They are vicious people. They’re dirty people. They’ve weaponized government. They’ve weaponized everything and actually made me more popular. It’s hard to believe.”
So in response to a question centered on the ridiculousness of the idea that Trump’s politics mirror fascism, Trump describes his opponents as “vicious” and “dirty” and makes a false claim about how the Biden administration has “weaponized” the government — as manifested, for example, in the special counsel bringing charges against Trump for attempting to subvert the 2020 election. Which are the sorts of things autocrats say.
Trump’s supporters don’t want to address the central issue, which is that Trump’s approach to power much more closely resembles an autocratic, fascist leader than an American, democratic one. So they highlight the word “Hitler” in the same way that they at times highlight the word “racist”: as a way of suggesting that their opponents are once again hyperventilating without reason and lifting up the most damaging rhetoric they can muster, regardless of how applicable it might be. The benefit of doing so is that they then don’t have to address the underlying criticisms and concerns.
Godwin’s Law holds that any online debate will, if it continues long enough, eventually involve a comparison to Hitler or Nazi Germany in an effort to score the ultimate point. What Trump’s allies are doing is declaring the debate to have been “Godwinned” from the outset. They’re suggesting that his critics are making an unfair comparison in hopes of skipping all the intermediary discussion.
There are two points worth reinforcing here.
The first is that the most immediate round of comparisons to Hitler was driven not by left-wing paranoia about a second Trump term. It was driven, instead, by Trump’s own words, as relayed by his former chief of staff. It’s Trump who praised Hitler’s control over his generals and Trump who said Hitler did good things, according to Kelly, a retired four-star general. Those were comments he offered reluctantly, apparently doing so only after Trump suggested that the military should be used against any of the “enemy within” should there be unrest on Election Day.
The second is that one of the first people to compare Trump to Hitler was Sen. JD Vance (R-Ohio), now Trump’s running mate. What changed since Vance offered that comparison in 2016 isn’t how Trump approaches politics. It’s how willing Vance has become to acquiesce to that approach.
So it is with the right writ large.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2024/10/24/trump-kelly-hitler/
There just aren't a lot of historical figures that Americans are familiar with. If I said that Trump was going to be another Edward Longshanks, I doubt anyone would understand what I meant by the comparison. (Edward signed the Edict of Expulsion, resulting in the mass deportation of Jews, without mass slaughter a la Hitler).
The point of comparison is to connect what someone already knows to something they're seeing in real time. If Americans only know a few historical figures - Hitler, Gandhi, Lincoln - then you have to sacrifice accuracy for comprehension.
Sacrificing any and all accuracy results in comprehension of a lie.
Sure - the same way high school students get taught physics where bodies are perfectly rigid and air resistance is negligible.
Everyone knows that's not a true depiction of the world. But something doesn't have to be true to be useful.
It's true in physics; why not politics?
The problem I have with the idea of Trump as white supremacist is that, from the outside in its foreign policy, the US acts like a white supremacist country. If it proclaimed that it had that ideology not much would change in its alliances (white Europe, NATO, the five eyes), its paternalistic attitude to central and South America with the threat of invasion for countries that don’t toe the line, the wars against Arabs and the general fear of a rising China (or Asia in general).
There are some differences in foreign policy perhaps relative to a 19C European power, less interest in Africa - which was late to colonialism anyway - and a philo semitism that didn’t exist on the European powers (except perhaps Britain).
What Trump is, is an American nationalist, not an “internationalist” - which is just code word for imperialism. The rules based international order is a hard sell if you are ignoring the rules yourself.
This is the classic approach of the democrats: paint your opponents as bigoted, racist, sexist, etc... Because obviously, the democrats can never be wrong.
It is the same rhetoric they used for defund the police (e.g., if you criticize the rioting, or this insane policy then you must be racist). It is the same rhetoric they use on trans-issues (e.g., JK Rowling must be motivated by hate, rather than a genuine concern for women). Etc...
They are the ones using inflammatory rhetoric (while simultaneously criticizing the republicans for this tactic?!). What could be more inflammatory than a) saying your opponent is Hitler and b) saying that "the fate of democracy is at stake."
That last point is interesting; the full context of JD Vance's opinion on Trump is "I go back and forth between thinking Trump is a cynical asshole like Nixon who wouldn’t be that bad (and might even prove useful) or that he’s America’s Hitler. How’s that for discouraging?" And I honestly don't think his opinion of Trump has really changed since then. But look at it this way: do you REALLY want to bet against Hitler, considering how that turned out last time?
Of course, the most obvious difference between Trump and Hitler is that Trump is old. Really old. Even if he plans on removing term limits, I highly doubt it's going to take more than 4 years for him to keel over or lose his mind. At which point, Vance will be next in line, and he can finish what Trump started, just more competently.
I don't understand this constant slandering of JD Vance.
He seems remarkably consistent over time. Here is video of him from 8 years ago, far before he went into politics: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iEy-xTbcr2A&ab_channel=TED
In the video he talking about exactly the same issues he talked about in the VP Debate (concern for the working class, and desire for more manufacturing). His whole policy stick is two issues: more support for families (and their values), and more support for industry. You can clearly trace these concerns back to his upbringing in a manufacturing-heavy, poverty-ridden, low-social-capital environment. He care about helping people.
If you actually listen to what he says, you see that he is MORE MODERATE than most republicans. For example, Ben Shapiro has criticized JD Vance for being TOO OPEN to pro-choice, and TOO OPEN to social-support policies.
...I wasn't intending to slander him. He's a pragmatist, and I respect that. Still, it's hard to argue that he's a moderate, and I don't know why you'd want him to be moderate, considering how little establishment conservatives have actually accomplished.
If I listen to what he says, consistently over time, I can't help but noticing that he used to say that Donald J. Trump was "reprehensible", "idiotic", and yes, "America's Hitler". Now he's Donald J. Trump's partner in whatever reprehensible, idiotic, possibly Hitlerian schemes the man gets up to. And he aims the rhetorical attacks, against Donald Trump's enemies (i.e. his own former allies). So that does seem like a teensy weensy bit of an inconsistency that might bear looking into.
What I *don't* care about are his object-level views on industrial policy or family values or any other such thing. I'd care about those with a Joe Biden, or a Kamala Harris or a Nikki Haley. But if someone proposes to elect a man they believe might be an American Hitler and is at best a second Nixon, as a means of securing object-level political gains, then that person is simply not to be trusted.
I just don't buy this Hitler perspective, at all. I think you can easily explain JD Vance as initially being persuaded that Trump is Hitler-esk, and then VD Vance taking a closer look, and realizing that that was a false characterization.
How is that odd? 50% of voters don't have a problem with Trump. The fact that one of those voters is JD Vance is hardly surprising. Lots and lots of people who were initially negative towards Trump have changed their mind.
A vote is not equal to full endorsement(no problem with), not even close.
The two biggest data points to emerge on Donald Trump since Vance's initial assessment are, A: the fact that he really sucks at using Presidential power to accomplish his goals within the limits of the law, and B: he actually is willing to attempt a coup d'état to extend and expand that power. Fortunately, the "really sucks at using Presidential power" bit extended to his coup-plotting aptitude.
But anyone who thought Trump was plausibly Hitlerian in 2016, is not going to think that is *less* plausible in 2021 or later. If you thought he was only plausibly rather than certainly Hitler up front, sure, maybe you might think that is more-plausible-but-still-not-certain today. Or if you were certain Trump was *not* an American Hitler, say because you believe the "American Hitler" thing is always and only liberal elite bedwetting, then maybe you're still sure he's not another Hitler.
Neither of those are J.D. Vance. Either he was lying when he said he though Trump might be the American Hitler then, no better than one of those liberal elite bedwetters really, or he's OK with possibly being on Team Hitler now that Maybe Hitler has offered him a sufficiently high-ranking position on the team.
Did you know Vance is pals with Yarvin?
“Vance has said he considers Yarvin a friend and has cited his writings in connection with his plan to fire a significant number of civil servants during a potential second Trump administration.”
https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2024/07/18/jd-vance-world-view-sources-00168984
I am 100% burned out with coding. Yesterday I caught myself having stared into space for over ten minutes doing nothing but thinking the phrase "and at that point we can do the thing" on loop over and over again. I cannot realistically expect to finish the project I've promised to finish before Christmas, not when it feels like I have the IQ of warm rice pudding. I've lost an entire day today trying to "reboot" by taking time off to do other things - work on writing, walk about in parks, etc - but I've sat back down and nope, still pudding. This is both boring and highly stressful at the same time. I don't see any way forward.
What Anon said. But also, next time, don't make promises about things that are out of your control (note: that includes everything). Really, the lesson is to make fewer promises, not to be harder on yourself.
Related: https://www.readthesequences.com/Planning-Fallacy
Schedule a psychiatrist's appointment. Do this ASAP, as there's usually high lead time, especially for new patients.
FWIW, while burnout is a treatable issue on its own, it's often linked to depression or ADHD. A good psych will help you figure out if one or both of those are in play (keep in mind that depression may not manifest as the classic "I'm sad all the time," but rather as "I'm just really tired and kinda bored").
If you're planning a death march till Christmas, this is a bad idea, and you should plan time for breaks. It takes more than a day to reset! At the verty least, take a couple of three– or four-day weekends. Maybe you could add days to the already-long Thanksgiving weekend?
If the schedule itself is unrealistic, raise that with your stakeholders as soon as you can. Even if they're assholes, they will appreciate honest communication more than a late-December surprise.
Remember that you can always quit.
Hang in there! Burnout sucks, and it happens more than people are willing to talk about, but there area strategies that can help you. Most of all, don't be your own slave-driver, and don't keep using Try Harder on an approach that isn't working. Good luck!
A note of caution about ADHD: if someone gives you adderall or some other upper right now, it will probably help a lot. Adderall improves mood, energy and focus for almost everybody. I’m not a bit ADD-ish and I love how adderall takes me feel. I keep a little around to help with difficult tasks, but not much. It’s too enjoyable to be safe for me.
If you have genuine, wiring-problem ADHD, you have had it all your life. The diagnosis makes sense only if you’ve had worse problems than
others your age alll your life with staying focused on a task, keeping your attention on movies, books and what people saying etc.
As for depression, watch out for shrinks who think everybody has Prozac Deficiency Disorder. if you have clearly been depressed at other times in your life, and this feels the same way, then OK maybe it’s depression. but if it feels
like burnout to you, maybe it really is. Not many people are wired to be able to sit and do programming all day, you may not be one of those who are. Also, be aware that it is very common for antidepressants to reduce your interest in sex and your ability to do the act, and also common for the to cause weight gain.
Sounds about right.
Like, yeah, sometimes I stare at the screen all day and nothing comes out. Part of the process.
Have you considered buying a fleece men's robe, throwing it in the dryer with fabric softener, then stripping neeked, wearing just the robe, and then listening to asmr while you try to code? Like, maximal comfiness?
I've been searching in vain for an SSC article, where the hero finds three boxes with statements engraved on them (along the lines of "this box doesn't contain the sword", "one of the other two boxes has a false statement on it" etc), solves the riddle to find which box the sword should be in, is absolutely baffled when the sword turns out not to be in that box, and has it explained to him by the king / the setter of the puzzle that there's no reason the sword has to be in the box that the puzzle suggests it is in. I've tried in vain on "readscottalexander.com", but the nearest I've found has been "the logician and the God-emperor", and I'm now starting to wonder if it was instead in an SSC adjacent space or in comments somewhere. Can anyone shed some light on this?
"The Parable of the Dagger"?
https://www.readthesequences.com/The-Parable-Of-The-Dagger
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sLVrQTd-OHI
Thanks so much - that was exactly the one I was thinking of.
You die and the gods tell you you have to live another life but this time you get to choose your character in terms of the Big 5 Personality Traits. You choose each on a 1-10 scale, which is arithmetic, so the average is in the middle, you nerds.
Isn't it obvious what to choose? Do we all have the same ideal personality or not? Seems to me it's as follows:
Extroversion: 7 or 8. Extroverts are happier. Maybe don't go to 10 because that seems vapid.
Openness to Experience: 10. What do you have to lose? It's already an extra life.
Neuroticism: 1. Who wants anxiety?
Conscientiousness: Hard 8. Hard to succeed without this, but I don't want to take it all the way because I want some independence from social pressure.
Agreeableness: 5 or 6. I don't want to be disagreeable because that way lies loneliness. But you can't be cool if you are too agreeable, so I want to be somewhere in the middle.
What would you choose?
I’d agree with that but bump up agreeableness to 7/8.
Conscientiousness is the most clearly valuable, the others are more a matter of taste.
I would recreate myself as exactly as I could.
Which would be something of a crapshoot because I've never taken one of those Big 5 Personality tests.
1) In the 2016 election, it was the norm for a large percentage of Trump supporters to be closeted to avoid social repercussions. When he won, democrats were shocked! *Gasp* Where did all these Trump voters come from? In recent months, there's been a "movement" of it becoming socially acceptable to openly support Trump; publicly supporting him is no longer the mark of death. On top of this, aside from people simply no longer being closeted, a lot of people have actually *converted* to being pro-Trump. The number of MAGA defectors could outnumber all these new born-again Trumpers, but if not, doesn't that simply mean that Trump will win?
2) If you look at the comments across social media platforms - from my observation, Instagram, Facebook, YouTube go (so almost the entirety of social media), support for Trump is almost near-universal. People in the comments love him, and you even see people supporting him in the comments sections of posts by left-leaning accounts (MSNBC, for example. There are no pro-Kamala comments under the posts of any right wing accounts). They can't all be bots. Again, doesn't this indicate a strong overall preference for Trump?
More and more, I am under the impression that the average American supports Trump and that Kamala is more akin to the titular character in Weekend at Bernie's with a public perception bolstered largely by PR. Or perhaps it's me who's falling for the Trump propaganda (1 and 2 above?)...
Oh boy
People who comment under news stories are a self-selected bunch.
My responses to your points:
1) I don't buy that Trump supporters in 2016 were closeted. What happened was Trump's popularity in 2016 grew throughout the year and many Republicans changed their minds the closer it got to the election. Most Jeb Bush, Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz supporters became Trump supporters by election day. The Trump voters were never closeted, they just didn't realize that a Trump sexuality existed until October.
2) Don't make the mistake of thinking those you know are representative of the population. It's a common mistake, but people reading ACX shouldn't make it. Your personal network is the opposite of a random sample.
The only objective evidence we have regarding the election are polls and prediction markets. The polls look 50/50 and supposedly the prediction markets have been skewed by a single whale betting many millions on Trump. So much for prediction markets...
1) What do you mean by Trump sexuality?
2) I'm not implying my personal network. I'm referring to the comments sections under popular posts from various types of accounts with lots of followers (media outlets, public figures, lifestyle, pop culture, etc.), generally which are politics-oriented but also often are not.
I agree that the polls must be the only real resource for predicting the outcome, but there's a cognitive dissonance for me because of what I see in large numbers online. Perhaps I'm only seeing a small sample of overall public opinion that is representing itself as something more, however.
OK, I just went to the Washington Post's Facebook page. That counts, right? A major media outlet's page on a major social media platform with "lots of followers". Scrolled down to the most recent post that mentioned Donald Trump in the headline, and read the comments.
192 of them, at the time I checked. Of which, thirteen were unambiguously pro-Trump or anti-Kamala/"The Left", and another six ambiguously so. Just under 10% of the total. Almost all of the rest were unambiguously anti-Trump or pro-Kamala.
I therefore conclude that the claim, "social media support for Trump is near universal", is completely wrong, and that anyone making such a claim should not be taken seriously.
> I'm not implying my personal network. I'm referring to the comments sections under popular posts from various types of accounts with lots of followers (media outlets, public figures, lifestyle, pop culture, etc.), generally which are politics-oriented but also often are not.
I don't know about facebook, but Instagram actively orders comments in a way that you see first those that The Algorithm thinks you'll like more, so there can be two different echo-chambers within the same comments' section.
Fwiw, it's totally possible that they are all bots. Put another way, you're operating from an assumption that because there's many of them they must not all be bots and some potentially significant fraction must be human, but I don't think that has to be the case
1) You called Trump voters closeted. That implies to me a hidden sexuality, but I am being facetious.
2) It still sounds like a biased sample.
I think the odds are about 50/50, but the thing is we will never know. Whoever wins will seem inevitable in retrospect. Those who predicted the winner would win will seem like good prognosticators even though all they won was a coin flip.
If you're at all familiar with the Warhammer 40K universe and like to read science fiction novels, I think you might like "Day of Ascension" by Adrian Tchaikovsky. It is about a young girl who is part of a secret religious society who are awaiting their day of deliverance by angels from on high. No point in dancing around it: the society is a Genestealer cult, and the angels are a Tyranid hive fleet.
It would be very interesting to hear how much of the experience and mindset Tchaikovsky describe are in common with a more mundane messianic religious upbringing.
Does anyone here commute by bike? I commute to the office (largely by choice), which is 11 bike miles from home, which at my pace is about an hour each way. Voluntarily sinking two hours into the commute is something I only end up doing a few times a year. I've thought about upgrading to an e-bike so that I can be faster (which might make me willing to do it more often), but find the idea of doubling my speed to be slightly terrifying. Is this rational? My commute currently is a mixture of ~4 miles of paved bike trail (mixed use, so there's pedestrians there too), ~3 miles of mixed use crushed limestone, and ~4 miles of riding on the side of the road (mostly, but not entirely, small residential roads) -- so there's not much car avoidance, a bit of pedestrian slalom, and definitely potential for slipping on a wet patch.
I highly recommend an e-bike.
It is rational to be nervous about the speed; however, the absolute speed of an e-bike is not scary! Like going downhill on a normal bike, it just feels faster, but controlled. Additionally, because e-bikes are heavier, most have large disk brakes which have good stopping power. In the US e-bikes can't provide power beyond 20mph, which is fast, but a speed most recreational road bikers achieve easily. Other countries have other limits, but I think they are usually under 25mph. You will be traveling at human speeds even if its double your current speed.
It *can* take time to get used to the acceleration when starting from a full stop. You quickly get used to it though. Kind of like driving someone else's car it takes a very short time to figure out the quirks. The acceleration is the part I love the most - more than the top speed. It lets you easily get across intersections well ahead of car traffic which feels much safer and saves a lot of time as you are less likely to get caught at the next light.
Most (all?) quality e-bikes will allow you to select how much power the motor gives you. So you can scale up. When I first got mine I spent a while at level 1 of 4 and after a couple weeks felt totally fine at 4 all the time.
There are two styles of e-bike power train. One augments the power you are providing. So the harder you push on the pedals, the more power it will give you. This feels like you suddenly became a lot stronger and fitter, which is nice. The other style will give a constant amount of power when you are pedaling or activating an accelerator (usually on the handle bars like a motorcycle). So you just go faster until you get to the speed you have selected then have to pedal hard to go faster. Most are moving to the first style, but it's personal preference.
e-bikes are much heavier and most have their weight down low near the ground. This makes them much *safer*. The low center of gravity and upright riding position reduces the chance of tipping over or sliding (like in the wet patch scenario you mention). In pedestrians traffic I can be tricky to maneuver, but a lot of commuter e-bikes have smaller tires which allow for tighter turn radiuses so you can weave more easily. You also wont need to focus on pedaling as much so you can focus on what's ahead of you in the road.
Definitely try to test ride one! Many cities have a groups that promote e-bikes and bike commuting. Members may be willing to let you test ride a bike. My small college town has an e-bike lending library where anyone can request to use an e-bike. A good bike shop will definitely let you test ride some options and should be able to provide advice on which bike is best for you (if they don't, don't shop there).
Is it especially difficult to remove the governor on yours? Surely you'd want the ability to go faster than 20mph if you needed to
I haven't tried. Probably could. I can go faster than 20, but the motor just wont help beyond that. Down hill I can hit 30 and on flats I am usually at 22 or so. My city is very hilly. Im going up or down a pretty steep hill most of the time. Probably 10% of time is spent on flat-ish ground and thats usually in traffic so intersections and lights are the limit on speed, not the bike.
The gearing is also a limit. Its has 7 speeds but the highest gear ratio is pretty low compared to a non-e-bike gear set. It's also a cargo bike that weighs >60 pounds and I usually have my kids with me. They tend to not like going too fast because the wind blows in their face too much. Basically it's a minivan, not a sports car. I'd like to get an e-bike just for my self and with that, top speed would be important.
Thank you for the detailed reply! This is helpful. The season is all but over here in Minnesota, but this convinced me to look into this more in spring.
Sure thing. I saw you mentioned the bike shop near you rents e-bikes in the summer. They may still let you rent them if the weather is nice (I am sure they would love the revenue if it's not ski season yet!). Good luck, I hope it works for your situation. Getting an e-bike made bike riding feel like it did when I was a kid - just fun and relaxing and not a chore.
It's not scary once you ride it, not at all. Get an ebike
For some reason my ebike doesn't go faster than my max speed on a regular bike, but it's way less effort. Living in jersey. Have a folding regular and also electric brompton bike. Take whichever I feel like on the day.
I'm not sure I'm following: of course it's not scarier if you're not going faster than you would on your regular bike? My problem is that for bike-riding to make sense from a scheduling perspective, it needs to be about 2x faster than I can ride my regular bike.
You might be a woman. I might be athletic. I might have an unusual electric bike.
My 'experience' it that if I pedal my electric bike hard it doesn't 'add' anything.
The electric bike makes it super easy to go from 0 to x miles with minimal input, and to climb hills. On flat ground I think there's some max speed above which it doesn't keep 'spinning' and my max speed on a non-electric is roughly that.
This is my experience too. If someone is using a bike for transportation (and not recreation) I don't see any reason for them to not get an e-bike if they can afford it. They are better in almost every way than a normal bike as a transportation method.
I commute by bike either side of a train ride, and the second half of my commute is in London. I use a folding e-bike, and it's great - it means even on the worst days I will still catch my train, and if I have to trek across London to catch a different one, I can do that easily.
Would getting an e-bike actually double your speed? It definitely increases mine, but I'm not sure it doubles it. Have you tried riding one? Can you rent one for a day and see how you like it?
Well, my speed is slow -- as mentioned in the post, I average 11mph; the day I took a detour and was running late and had to average 12mph was exhausting. So doubling, or close to it, feels achievable.
For some reason I hadn't thought of renting as a serious option, but it looks like the bike shop next to me does rent them, at least in season. (They're a bike shop in summer and ski shop in winter, which I think means that they're currently gloomily looking outside at +25C and sunny and wondering how they're supposed to sell skis in this weather.)
In the UK, ebike speed is supposed to be limited to 15mph*. Mine therefore only boosts up to about 15mph, so you wouldn't get a doubling out of it from 11mph. I don't know if you have the same limits, though.
*Obviously lots of people use cheap ones which don't have that limit, but I wanted a reliable bike that wouldn't explode ;)
One of my brothers was a techy for the Arizona DOT. When Phoenix started putting bike racks on the outside of buses they had to create an area in one of their buildings to keep all the bikes that people forgot to retrieve when they got off the bus.
There is a website called GovDeals that administers property auctions for government agencies. Lots of police departments and colleges auctioning off all the bikes they recover. You can get some pretty good deals too. (also a lot of auctions for dell laptops and PCs no one wants :D )
Given that most of the countries that are members of NATO don't border the Atlantic Ocean, I think the organization's name should be changed. What do you think a good alterative is now, given the geography and purpose of it?
Since the parallels between the modern USA and ancient Athens abound, I think it would be fun to rename NATO to be a league, akin to the Delian League.
The Delian League was named after Delos because that's where they made the agreement. Here, the North Atlantic Treaty was signed in Washington, so maybe the Washingtonian League.
But that loses the weird quirk that Delos wasn't really a major member of the Delian league - if we zoom out a bit, a treaty that preceded NATO was signed in Brussels, so maybe the Brusselian League?
It is common, though not universal, for oceans to be defined as including the seas which connect to that ocean. If "North Atlantic" includes the North Baltic, Mediterranean, and Black Seas, then almost all of NATO is adjacent to the North Atlantic. And I believe that was the intended understanding when NATO was formed, incorporating Mediterranean powers like Italy and Greece.
Moreover, the alliance doesn't need to be centered on the North Atlantic for the name to be accurate. It's the Organization established by the North Atlantic Treaty, not the Treaty Organization for the North Atlantic.
I didn't know that! That fact definitely shifts my thinking.
Team America: World Police?
Obviously it's Global Defense Initiative
But who will be in charge now that James Earl Jones has passed away?
Here are some of the best alternative names I found on the internet:
European-American Treaty Organization
Alliance of Democratic States (or Nations)
Western Alliance
My own ideas:
Global Democratic Alliance
Democratic Defensive Alliance (or Pact)
Of those, "Western Alliance" would be my preference, in recognition of NATO being the successor group to the Western Allies of WW2.
I actually like it the least since the "W" prevents the acronym version of the name from rolling off the tongue like "NATO" does.
"Western Alliance" could be abbreviated as "wall". (Though it looks janky if you type it with the correct capitalization: "WAll".
Since there have been so many pro-Trump posts here this week, I thought I'd counter with an anti-Trump one. I'm simply going to quote from a recent Ezra Klein piece, because it nails the biggest argument for not voting for Trump: https://www.nytimes.com/2024/10/22/opinion/donald-trump-ezra-klein-podcast.html?unlocked_article_code=1.UE4.MCvf.XdZVFj4McLdX&smid=nytcore-ios-share&referringSource=articleShare
(hat-tip Kristian, Gunflint and GlacierCow for bringing it to my attention)
I suggest reading the whole thing, but the key parts:
"Here is the question Democrats have floundered in answering this year: If Donald Trump is so dangerous, then how come the consequences of his presidency weren’t worse? There is this gap between the unfit, unsound, unworthy man Democrats describe and the memories that most Americans have of his presidency, at least before the pandemic. If Donald Trump is so bad, why were things so good? Why were they at least OK?
There is an answer to this question: It’s that as president, Trump was surrounded by inhibitors. In 2020 the political scientist Daniel Drezner published a book titled “The Toddler in Chief.” The core of the book was over 1,000 instances Drezner collected in which Trump is described, by those around him, in terms befitting an impetuous child.
These quotes about Trump abound, given on the record or on background, to various biographers and reporters. Some of them are later disputed, as the staffer realized the consequences of what they said. But there are reams and reams of them. For every one I offer here, I could give you a dozen more.
In 2017 his deputy chief of staff, Katie Walsh, described working with President Trump as “trying to figure out what a child wants.” Steve Bannon, Trump’s chief strategist, said — quote — “I’m sick of being a wet nurse for a 71-year-old.” James Mattis, Trump’s first secretary of defense, and John Kelly, later his chief of staff, often described themselves like babysitters; they made a pact to never be overseas at the same time, lest Trump do something truly deranged.
Here’s the title of a 2017 article in Politico: “White House aides lean on delays and distraction to manage Trump.” The first paragraph reads, “As White House chief of staff, Reince Priebus mused to associates that telling President Donald Trump no was usually not an effective strategy. Telling him ‘next week’ was often the better idea.”
In 2018, The New York Times published a bombshell Op-Ed by an anonymous member of the Trump administration who said he, a Republican, was part of the internal resistance to Donald Trump, in which — quote — “many of the senior officials in his own administration are working diligently from within to frustrate parts of his agenda and his worst inclinations.” That author later revealed himself to be Miles Taylor, the chief of staff of the Department of Homeland Security...
The Trump administration was rife with this sort of thing. In 2019 a senior national security official told CNN’s Jake Tapper, “Everyone at this point ignores what the president says and just does their job. The American people should take some measure of confidence in that.”
During his presidency, Trump repeatedly proposed firing Patriot missiles at suspected drug labs in Mexico. He mused about launching nuclear weapons at other countries, and in one very strange case, at a hurricane. He has talked often and insistently on his desire to turn the machinery of the government against his domestic political enemies. He talked often about pulling out of NATO. He mused about the efficacy of untested or dangerous treatments for Covid. In 2020, during the protests following George Floyd’s murder, Trump raged at his staff, demanding they turn the full force of the military against the protesters. Here’s Mark Esper, who served as Trump’s secretary of defense, on “60 Minutes”:
Mark Esper: I thought that we’re at a different spot now, where he’s going to finally give a direct order to deploy paratroopers into the streets of Washington, D.C., and I’m thinking with weapons and bayonets. And this would be horrible.
Norah O’Donnell: What specifically was he suggesting that the U.S. military should do to these protesters?
Esper: He says, “Can’t you just shoot them? Just shoot them in the legs or something?” And he is suggesting that that’s what we should do, that we should bring in the troops and shoot the protesters.
...The best argument you can make about Trump’s first term is that there was a constructive tension between his disinhibition and the constraints of the staff and the bureaucracy and the institutions that surrounded him. Yes, some of his ideas were bad, dangerous and unconstitutional. But those mostly didn’t happen: They were stopped by his aides, by the so-called deep state, by the courts, by civil society.
And the way he pushed, the way he didn’t constrain himself to what other presidents would have done or said, maybe that led to changes that — at least if you agree with him — were positive. Changes that wouldn’t have happened under another president: tariffs on China, a sharp drop in border crossings, NATO allies spending more on defense.
But now the people around Trump have spent four years plotting to dismantle everything that stopped Trump the first time. That’s what Project 2025, and the nearly 20,000 résumés it reportedly vetted, is really all about. That’s what Trump’s inner circle is spending its time and energy doing. Don Jr. told The Wall Street Journal, “We want people who are actually going to follow the president, the duly elected president, not act as sort of unelected officials that know better, because they don’t know better.” He went on to say, “We’re doing a lot with vetting. My job is to prevent those guys.”
...The thing to see here is that Trump’s supporters want to have it both ways: They point to what didn’t happen in his first term as proof that the same or worse would not happen in his second term. But they themselves are trying to remove everything that stopped Trump’s worst impulses from becoming geopolitical or constitutional crises."
I guess my hesitation is that we don't know the baseline for any of this. How often did other presidents ask for stupid/unworkable/unconstitutional things?
And there are two reasons to think Trump would still say more "dumb" things than other presidents that don't necessarily mean he would actually do more dumb things. 1) He speaks off the cuff a lot, often in low status ways, even when he actually does know what he's talking about, and 2) He was never in politics at any level before becoming president, so he didn't know the lingo. Obama may have asked "what are our options?" or something, where Trump asks a dumb more specific question "can we just shoot them?" Neither one may have had a good grasp of the specifics but one asks in a silly way. Obama's advisors may never have known that he was also thinking "can we just shoot them" in his head, because he's smoother about that stuff. Given some of the evil things Obama did in his administration, I have trouble doubting that he could be thinking similarly to Trump on some level. He ordered the death of American citizens without due process. Is that better or worse than asking about shooting protestors but then not following through? Did Obama ask a lot more questions but his administration liked him so they didn't report on the weird/insane/illogical things he said? Who knows.
I've had very intelligent bosses who asked very dumb questions, but ended up making mostly good decisions with or without advisement. Just about everyone who dealt with them directly was very concerned about what they were going to be asked to do, until the point they got asked to do mostly reasonable things or could make suggestions and then the boss agreed.
I'm not saying Trump fits that criteria, but I am also not convinced he doesn't.
I agree with cxs5. This is a variant of tu quoque (appeal to hypocrisy) and is probably also special pleading.
That is to say:
- you admit that this is bad behavior, and even if Obama or whoever was doing the same thing (he wasn't) that doesn't make the bad behavior less bad. Note that no one has ever claimed Kamala, the actual alternative, has done something remotely similar, so by your own standards this should be an easy choice to vote against Trump.
- this is likely special pleading, in that if anyone else said "just shoot them" you'd probably not be as lenient. Yes, I can construct a hypothetical scenario where this is actually just a twist of language and Trump (the UPenn educated billionaire) didn't realize how that would come across. But I'm a Bayesian; Occam's razor suggests that he really does mean something more akin to "just shoot them". You have to jump through many more hoops to explain why this is actually a special case where he doesn't mean the explicit semantic meaning of his words.
Also, a cultural artifact on this board is that we are frequently cajoled to take people's statements at face value. A belief in 'dog whistles' is generally derided - if someone says they believe in states rights, you accept that as a belief in states rights and are considered to be acting in bad faith if you accuse them of saying one thing while meaning another.
Except when someone whose name rhymes with Tonald Drump says "just shoot them." When that happens we're all supposed to put on our rationalization hats and do our best to come up with whatever alternate meaning, in the most favorable light, might have made this statement mean something less crazy, be comparable to something other leaders have said, just be "Drump being Drump" rhetoric we should 'take seriously but not literally,' etc, etc.
It makes you a crazy bad faith lib to read alternate subtexts into his statements right up until that subtext is necessary to make them more palatable/forgivable, at which point you're a crazy bad faith lib if you don't.
One week ban as per election amnesty policy.
OP is not a troll. They have been posting here about diverse matters for a while.
I hope you don't get banned as this is (almost) exactly my feeling about all the pro-DT nonsense I'm seeing recently.
Do you think people seeing all the anti-DT nonsense recently, feel analogously?
One of the traditions of rationalist circles is to muscle past the repulsion long enough to notice it's not one-sided. Politics is the mindkiller, and all that.
I'm not sure. I certainly feel that I put a lot of effort into being objective, but there's probably nothing I could say to convince another person on the internet. If it helps, I'm a long term conservative and don't like Harris. Self-diagnosed: I probably have a bias to believe the worst of politicians generally.
My perception of DT supporters is that (some/many/most?) love the reaction from his opponents. Is that not true?
Could you point me to someone you think is otherwise intelligent who is posting anti-DT nonsense? Do you feel symmetrically mind-killed this election season?
"If it helps" - it's informative, so yes.
I agree that *some* DT supporters love the reaction from opponents. But so what? So do some KH supporters.
The point of a rationalist forum is to be able to slough those crowds off.
"someone you think is otherwise intelligent who is posting anti-DT nonsense" - I wouldn't use those words, but I see some of it in ACX, yes. "[He ] is incredibly, terribly, awfully, disgustingly bad, an obnoxious sleaze of a man" was one recent unproductive jab I saw. Another was a comment darkly hinting that Trump and Vance are like Hitler, and the distinguishing feature is only that Trump is "old" (and Vance is not).
I don't feel mindkilled in the same way. I feel like I'm watching the same old mudslinging, and feeling frustrated because it's on a forum that ought to know better. I've posted comments that nominally defend Trump here, but I've tried to be careful not to be mindkilled about them, and they're all consistent with me having my own concerns about the guy - inexperience, incapacity to gain experience, and tendency to antagonize all the people he'd need to get anything practical done are probably my big three. To be fair, they probably don't manifest to others, because when others make those arguments here, I just silently nod and see no reason to reply.
End of the day, I'd *really* like to see a viable alternative to Trump - but I recognize that that's not the choice I'm being given.
So, Obama ordered the intentional killing of a 16-year-old US citizen in a non combat zone. (https://www.aclu.org/video/aclu-ccr-lawsuit-american-boy-killed-us-drone-strike). Do we know what that conversation sounded like? Did Obama ask "can we just kill [the terrorists]?"
This is clearly unconstitutional. If his staff was supportive and therefore didn't leak the details of the conversation, I don't think that makes it any better.
Reagan was involved in Iran Contra (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran%E2%80%93Contra_affair)
Clinton ordered the bombing of a medicine plant in the Sudan. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Shifa_pharmaceutical_factory#:~:text=The%20administration%20of%20President%20Bill,behind%20the%20embassy%20bombings%20and)
Is that better or worse than asking about bombing something in Mexico? Clinton actually carried it out. How do we know if one is acceptable but another is not?
Bush ordered the torture of prisoners, including many who were not known to have committed any crimes (and quite a few who were later found to have never been involved).
Which of these things is better than what Trump suggested, but didn't actually end up doing? Which of these things is fine, while Trump is beyond the pale?
I'm perfectly fine with saying that *all* of these things are bad, including what Trump was suggesting. I'm having a hard time with "Trump is bad, clearly different from a normal president" when we *know* that all other recent presidents have done similar or worse things than what Trump even asked about. Like, what's the worst thing that Trump actually did? We're comparing things he's accused of talking about to things actually done by other presidents, and I'm not sure Trump is the one who comes out looking the worst there. We don't even know what Bush or Obama may have talked about. If they were willing to actually do some of the evil things we know about, I don't have much confidence they didn't also ask about some even worse things. In fact, I'd be very surprised if neither of them asked about bombing locations in Mexico. That's an obvious consideration when the cartels have grown as powerful as they have, given our actions dealing with other enemies of the US around the world.
Also, I'm quite certain Kennedy, Eisenhower, LBJ, Nixon, and maybe Reagan all contemplated nuking foreign countries. Every president from 1945 until at least the 90s had to have contemplated at least the MAD scenario with the Soviet Union.
>So, Obama ordered the intentional killing of a 16-year-old US citizen in a non combat zone
It is hard to take you seriously when the very first thing you say is untrue. The ACLU's own complaint makes it clear that he was not intentionally killed. "Even in the context of an armed conflict, government officials must comply with the requirements of distinction and proportionality and take all feasible measures to protect bystanders. Upon information and belief, Samir Khan was killed
because Defendants failed to take such measures." This is common knowledge.
Are you going to use that to dismiss the other examples, including Obama ordering the death of that kid's father? I hadn't looked into the case in a while, but remember it being reported as also intentional, but the father definitely was. And although the father was almost certainly guilty of terrorism, he was still a US citizen and had a right to a trial and sentencing before execution.
This is the libertarian meme that refuses to die.
That kid's father was killed as part of a Congressionally approved armed conflict against an organization of which he was an active member. It was no more an "execution" than any other death during war and US citizens do not have a special right to trial before being killed in an armed conflict.
This is as settled as law can get.
> as if ANY OTHER PRESIDENT has EVER asked for nuking other countries
There is a silly rumor that Truman once suggested nuking Japan.
Cute, but I do see OP's point here. There's a tendency among some to try to weaponize rationalist approaches to normalize Trump's abnormal behavior.
Trump does something that a fairly broad consensus of people would consider weird or crazy - he foments a not-quite-not-a-failed-coup, suggests shooting patriot missiles at Mexico, or talks about immigrants poisoning the blood of the nation... and if you're the kind of person who believes that behavior to be disqualifying for a potential President, and say so, his defenders will oft retort "Well who knows? Maybe *all* Presidents wanted to overturn the elections they lost and shoot patriot missiles at Mexico. Before I will accept this behavior as disqualifying you'll have to prove to me that behind closed doors everyone else wasn't just doing it too."
This is more of an argument that obfuscates than a legitimate challenge. It's a defense that can be offered at all times for anything. We could learn that Trump tried to strangle a foreign diplomat, or that Hillary Clinton served a roasted baby to guests in the Clinton White House, or any other number of obviously insane things, and their defenders can *always* just shrug and say "well who knows, LBJ seems like he might've strangled a diplomat or two, and how do we no for certain that Eleanor Roosevelt or Jacki O never served baby?"
It's understanding, at a certain point, to become frustrated with the whole "prove to me that no other emperor has ever gone naked" defense when you're seeing the guy clearly parading about without any pantaloons.
Absolutely. I went to the easy sarcasm but I see the point too.
I think the sheer number of former Trump staff who have turned against him so hard tells us a lot. That gives us some indirect sense of the baseline, since there's no precedent for this level of public repudiation from former senior officials.
Contrast that with what you say about your former bosses who asked dumb questions. You aren't now trashing them for that, just the opposite!
Didn't Harris's office have 93% staff turnover over the past four years?
I saw Veep, so I'm not surprised. Are any of them saying she's unfit for office?
Or that she has no understanding of the US Constitution?
Or that she suggested the soldiers buried at Arlington are suckers and losers?
So far as the Arlington story, my memory is that one person who had been present said Trump said that, others who were present said he didn't.
I wouldn't assume that Harris could give a correct account of the Constitution and we know Biden didn't. (https://www.factcheck.org/2008/10/constitutional-queries-about-the-vp-debate/). Politicians pretend, with the assistance of speechwriters and teleprompters, to be well educated but their real expertise is in getting elected.
It was Biden who said “When the stock market crashed, Franklin D. Roosevelt got on the television and didn’t just talk about the, you know, the princes of greed. He said, ‘Look, here’s what happened.’"". When the stock market crashed, Hoover was president and national television a decade or so in the future.
Very true, and fair. One thing that both sides agree about is that the career bureaucrats (or Deep State, or Cathedral) all hate Trump. From my perspective, probably yours too, it's hard to tell if how they talk about him is a bit "chicken or egg" and they hate him because he's bad or they say he's bad because they hate him.
I suspect there's aspects of both, which is why I want some sort of non-Trump comparison to look at. If Trump is 20% worse than most presidents, that should lead to legitimate criticism against him, but that's not catastrophic or even really worrisome. If he's 100% worse that could explain the negativity, but 100% more of a low baseline may not be too bad. If he's 10X worse, then I would likely agree he's a loose cannon and bad in office.
You are also ignoring the incentives. Trump has such domination within conservative circles that it is very costly for conservatives to criticize him. I know the right-wing talking point that these people are trying to curry favor at DC cocktail parties or something, but, for example, Mike Pence and John Bolton are never going to get love on the left side of the aisle, no matter what they say about Trump.
It's really worth trying to estimate a baseline of "how many people are predisposed to say bad things", and then check reality to see how far it is from your baseline.
I think when non politicians like Rex Tillerson, or one-time avowed Trumpists like Steve Bannon, say that he's unfit for office, he probably is.
(I'm open to hearing why, for eg, Tillerson and Bannon are actually part of the deep state. But if you can't really justify that, I think at some point you have to bite the bullet that, no, he really does just suck, and even though it makes you see red your enemies might just be right about this one)
I have very little doubt that Trump is less experienced in politics and far less reasonable about how he approaches issues. I can definitely see him suggesting we send patriot missiles to attack Mexican cartels or whatever.
But, like, every president since at least Clinton has bombed places in nominally friendly countries. Specifically he had cruise missiles launched at a Sudanese medicine factory. Can you give me an explanation of which one is okay, and which one isn't? What metrics should we use to determine if one is okay but not another? If the answer is that all are not okay, then why hate on Trump specifically?
You're shifting the goal posts. The original point was that one measure of Trump's unique badness is the volume of people who have worked with him who have said he is bad. You responded with a justification for why those people may have reason to dislike him outside of his actual policies, and I responded that that's looking the other way.
Assume for a moment that the presidency is a black box. We don't know what goes on because it's classified, all we can see on the other side is some subset of actions taken and some subset of opinions shared by other people on the inside. We can argue all we want about the actions taken -- and many people do -- but at the end of the day it's very hard to understand those actions because we don't see how behind the veil of how they are justified. But the opinions are easily evaluated, and it's very very clear that Trump has an anomalously high rate of people who have worked with him, people who originally supported him, who come away thinking that he is a danger to those around him and a danger to the country. You're welcome to discard all that information, but at some point I think you just need to bite that you think you know better than people who have been in the room, and personally that's wild to me
Lots of online people have argued, Richard Hanania is a good example, that all the good stuff Trump talks about will happen and all the bad stuff won’t, because the system will prevent it or because he’ll get distracted.
That feeds into exactly Klein’s point, though- for that to happen, you’d be relying on the people around Trump to rein in his excesses.
Only the new team around him has spent the last 4 years working to prevent exactly that dynamic from emerging again - see e.g. Kleins quit from Don Jr:
“We want people who are actually going to follow the president, the duly elected president, not act as sort of unelected officials that know better, because they don’t know better.” “We’re doing a lot with vetting. My job is to prevent those guys.”
Here’s Bill Ackman (edited slightly for length)
A number of my good friends and family have been surprised about my decision to support
@realDonaldTrump
for president. They have been surprised because my political giving history has been mostly to Democrats, my voting registration has typically been Democrat (in NY, you must be registered to the party in order to vote in the primary, and usually the Republican candidate has no chance to win), and many of our philanthropic initiatives have supported issues that are consistent with Democratic priorities.
Three months ago, when I endorsed Trump on the day of the first assassination attempt, I promised to share my thinking about why I came to this conclusion in a future more detailed post. I intend to do so in possibly more than one post, with the first, this one, explaining the actions and policies of the Biden/Harris administration and Democratic Party that were the catalysts for my losing total confidence in the administration and the Party.
To be clear, my decision to vote for Trump is not an endorsement of everything he has done or will do because he is an imperfect man. Unlike a marriage or a business partnership where there are effectively unlimited alternatives, in this election, we have only two viable choices. Of the two, I believe that Trump is by far the superior candidate despite his flaws and mistakes he has made in the past.
While the 33 actions I describe below are those of the Democratic Party and the Biden/Harris administration, they are also the actions and policies that unfortunately our most aggressive adversaries would likely implement if they wanted to destroy America from within, and had the ability to take control of our leadership.
These are the 33:
(1) open the borders to millions of immigrants who were not screened for their risk to the country, dumping them into communities where the new immigrants overwhelm existing communities and the infrastructure to support the new entrants, at the expense of the historic residents,
(2) introduce economic policies and massively increase spending without regard to their impact on inflation and the consequences for low-income Americans and the increase in our deficit and national debt,
(3) withdraw from Afghanistan, abandoning our local partners and the civilians who worked alongside us in an unprepared, overnight withdrawal that led to American casualties and destroyed the lives of Afghani women and girls for generations, against the strong advice of our military leadership, and thereafter not showing appropriate respect for their loss at a memorial ceremony in their honor,
(4) introduce thousands of new and unnecessary regulations in light of the existing regulatory regime that interfere with our businesses’ ability to compete, restraining the development of desperately needed housing, infrastructure, and energy production with the associated inflationary effects,
(5) modify the bail system so that violent criminals are released without bail,
(6) destroy our street retailers and communities and promote lawlessness by making shoplifting (except above large thresholds) no longer a criminal offense,
(7) limit and/or attempt to limit or ban fracking and LNG so that U.S. energy costs increase substantially and the U.S. loses its energy independence,
(8) promote DEI ideologies that award jobs, awards, and university admissions on the basis of race, sexual identity and gender criteria, and teach our students and citizens that the world can only be understood as an unfair battle between oppressors and the oppressed, where the oppressors are only successful due to structural racism or a rigged system and the oppressed are simply victims of an unfair system and world,
(9) educate our elementary children that gender is fluid, something to be chosen by a child, and promote hormone blockers and gender reassignment surgeries to our youth without regard to the longer-term consequences to their mental and physical health, and allow biological boys and men to compete in girls and women's sports, depriving girls and women of scholarships, awards, and other opportunities that they would have rightly earned otherwise,
(10) encourage and celebrate massive protests and riots that lead to the burning and destruction of local retail and business establishments while at the same time requiring schools to be shuttered because of the risk of Covid-19 spreading during large gatherings,
(11) encourage and celebrate anti-American and anti-Israel protests and flag burning on campuses around the country with no consequences for the protesters who violate laws or university codes and policies,
(12) allow antisemitism to explode with no serious efforts from the administration to quell this hatred,
(13) mandate vaccines that have not been adequately tested nor have their risks been properly considered compared with the potential benefits adjusted for the age and health of the individual, censoring the contrary advice of top scientists around the world,
(14) shut down free speech in media and on social media platforms that is inconsistent with government policies and objectives,
(15) use the U.S., state, and local legal systems to attack and attempt to jail, take off the campaign trail, and/or massively fine candidates for the presidency without regard to the merits or precedential issues of the case,
(16) seek to defund the police and promote anti-police rhetoric causing a loss of confidence in those who are charged with protecting us,
(17) use government funds to subsidize auto companies and internet providers with vastly more expensive, dated and/or lower-quality technology when greatly superior and cheaper alternatives are available from companies that are owned and/or managed by individuals not favored by the current administration,
(18) mandate in legislation and otherwise government solutions to problems when the private sector can do a vastly better, faster, and cheaper job,
(19) seek to ban gas-powered cars and stoves without regard to the economic and practical consequences of doing so,
(20) take no serious actions when 45 American citizens are killed by terrorists and 12 are taken hostage,
(21) hold back armaments and weaponry from our most important ally in the Middle East in the midst of their hostage negotiations, hostages who include American citizens who have now been held for more than one year,
(22) eliminate sanctions on one of our most dangerous enemies enabling them to generate $150 billion+ of cash reserves from oil sales, which they can then use to fund terrorist proxy organizations who attack us and our allies. Exchange five American hostages held by Iran for five Iranians plus $6 billion of cash in the worst hostage negotiation in history setting a disastrous and dangerous precedent,
(23) remove known terrorist organizations from the terrorist list so we can provide aid to their people, and allow them to shoot rockets at U.S. assets and military bases with little if any military response from us,
(24) lie to the American people about the cognitive health of the president and accuse those who provide video evidence of his decline of sharing doctored videos and being right wing conspirators,
(25) do nothing about the deteriorating health of our citizens driven by the food industrial complex, the fraudulent USDA food pyramid, and the inclusion of ingredients in our food that are banned by other countries around the world which are more protective of their citizens,
(26) do nothing about the proliferation of new vaccines that are not properly analyzed for their risk versus the potential benefit for healthy children who are mandated to receive them,
(27) do nothing about the continued exemption from liability for the pharma industry that has led to a proliferation of mandatory vaccines for children without considering the potential cumulative effects of the now mandated 72-shot regime,
(28) convince our minority youth that they are victims of a rigged system and that the American dream is not available to them,
(29) fail to provide adequate Secret Service protection for alternative presidential candidates,
(30) litigate to prevent alternative candidates from getting on the ballot, and take other anti-competitive steps including threatening political consultants who wish to work for alternative candidates for the presidency, and limit the potential media access for other candidates by threatening the networks' future access to the administration and access to 'scoops' if they platform an alternative candidate,
(31) select the Democratic nominee for president in a backroom process by undisclosed party leaders without allowing Americans to choose between candidates in an open primary,
(32) choose an inferior candidate for the presidency when other much more qualified candidates are available and interested to serve,
(33) litigate to make it illegal for states to require proof of citizenship, voter ID, and/or residence in order to vote at a time when many Americans have lost confidence in the accuracy and trustworthiness of our voting system.
Just picking a few that jumped out at me at random.
>(3) withdraw from Afghanistan, abandoning our local partners and the civilians who worked alongside us in an unprepared, overnight withdrawal that led to American casualties and destroyed the lives of Afghani women and girls for generations, against the strong advice of our military leadership, and thereafter not showing appropriate respect for their loss at a memorial ceremony in their honor,
Remind me again who it was that started the withdrawal from Afghanistan? There was no option that didn't destroy the lives of Afghani women and girls, aside from "stay there forever," and if Biden had decided to halt the withdrawal I suspect Ackman would be panning him just as hard for trapping us in a forever war.
>(12) allow antisemitism to explode with no serious efforts from the administration to quell this hatred,
And you think the guy who just said "Hitler did some good things" and said that the crowds chanting "Jews will not replace us" included some "very fine people" is going to *decrease* antisemitism?
>(14) shut down free speech in media and on social media platforms that is inconsistent with government policies and objectives,
Trump has a pattern of attacking the media far more intensely - he just tweeted about how CNBC should lose their broadcast license.
>(25) do nothing about the deteriorating health of our citizens driven by the food industrial complex, the fraudulent USDA food pyramid, and the inclusion of ingredients in our food that are banned by other countries around the world which are more protective of their citizens,
And to prevent this, you suggest electing the Republicans, who are of course famous for wanting to *increase* regulations, especially on nanny-state topics like what you're allowed to eat and drink.
I'm sorry, all of these range from "false" to "vague" to "a problem but you're using it to advocate for the guy who is even worse on that issue."
> ...said that the crowds chanting "Jews will not replace us" included some "very fine people" is going to *decrease* antisemitism?
Look, it's the große Lüge in its natural habitat! Somehow Trump can explicitly say that he isn't talking about the white nationalists and the neo-nazis, and yet people still insinuate he was talking about the white nationalists and the neo-nazis with the fine people remark. I believe Scott even had a post about this, or something adjacent. Trump says and does plenty of stupid and awful things, as is self-evident. You don't need to repeat made up nonsense about how he's also a super nazi racist.
ETA: I feel like I've critiqued several of your posts lately and don't want to only come across as negative. So I'll add that (3) is on point; there is a legitimate criticism of Biden that he could have handled the withdrawal better. But he did *actually* withdraw the US from Afghanistan, something Trump initiated but never actually did. Bush and Obama deserve most of the blame anyway. And (25), pointing to the Republicans as the party to regulate food health is pretty funny.
Biden didn't explicitly support the pro-Hamas crowd, and his Israel stance is generally pretty moderate, along the lines of "I support Israel but would prefer fewer war crimes." But the OP thinks that the simple fact that the anti-semites on the left to feel emboldened is enough to condemn him. I think if you're applying this logic fairly, you have to notice that the racists, neo-nazis, and anti-semites on the right felt very emboldened by a Trump presidency.
You could instead just admit that a President isn't personally responsible for every facet of the culture wars, but in that case you should let Biden slide on this as well.
> You could instead just admit that a President isn't personally responsible for every facet of the culture wars, but in that case you should let Biden slide on this as well.
That was more or less the gist of my comments in the rest of this thread. Judging the candidates on whichever extremists 'feel emboldened' by them is stupid. Which is why the Charlottesville speech bothers me. Trump excluded the extremists from his "very fine people" line in the preceding sentence, but it still gets used to tar him as supporting nazis.
I'm willing to take a weaker stance that imo is still getting at beleester's larger point: Trump himself may not be a Nazi racist, but Nazi racists feel empowered under him, and that will of course make racial polarity (including anti semitism) much worse. I'm happy to provide evidence of racist Nazis saying things like "Trump brought our ideas into the mainstream"
I don't want to empower Nazi racists, so I'm voting for the other person
I don't want to empower Hamasnik racists who want to genocide Israel, so I'm voting for Trump.
That sounds stupid doesn't it? I can't believe I'm agreeing with Paul, but this is ridiculous. There are only two real parties in the US. Radicals and nutjobs pick whichever one they think is going to give them a better chance than the other. Trump no more wants to create the Fourth Reich than Harris wants to push the Israelis into the sea. I judge the candidates based on what they actually say and do, not whatever limpets attach themselves at the far fringes of their constituency.
I think my response to Paul below basically summarizes my response to your point as well (it's the same point):
- yes, you shouldnt judge a candidate based on JUST which fringe supports them
- that said, you are coming into a conversation specifically about racial tension and are surprised we are discussing the likely racial tension outcomes from one of the major candidates
At this point I think both you and Paul are engaged in 'whataboutism', which btw is totally fair. We can weight the comparative outcomes of whether Trump or Kamala are more likely to increase racial tension based on which fringes support them. But I want to point out that both you and Paul also are agreeing with the throughline -- that is, Trump DOES have the support of racist Nazis, that his presidency will embolden said racist Nazis, and the only question at hand is whether that is better or worse than embolding [insert left fringe]
I don't think it's a meaningful criteria though. Nazis supporting Trump only requires that they perceive a Trump presidency to be marginally more favorable to their cause than a Harris presidency. It does not mean a Trump presidency would in fact do anything to increase the amount of Nazism in the country. As Nazis clearly have very stupid ideas, I am inclined to actively not care what they think.
By that argument, you should also vote against the person who brought communist ideas into the mainstream - assuming of course you're against communist ideas.
Which is really an argument against the argument of assessing a candidate by whichever 0.002% of the population you can find with the wackiest ideas, that will realistically have 0% chance of being catered to by that candidate, regardless of what that group thinks about the acceptance of their wacky ideas.
Two things:
- first, I have a lot of reasons for disliking Trump. That he empowers racist Nazis is one drop in a very large bucket. Broadly, though, I agree with you that you shouldn't evaluate a candidate based on JUST which fringe supports him/her. That said, the specific question in this post is about whether or not Trump's rhetoric or election will increase racial tension, and I think it will. Maybe there are other reasons to like Trump, but if the reason you like Trump is because you think he will turn DOWN the racial tension temperature, I got a bridge to sell you.
- second, I think your claim is that the fringe left wing is as bad as racist Nazis? I'm open to hearing that argument, but I think it's a tough fence to climb, sorry.
ETA: third point: if Marx was on the ballot I'd vote against him, but he isn't. I think Kamala is much farther from / more antagonistic to her fringe than Trump is to his.
I'm not claiming Trump will turn down racial tension. I'm claiming *no* candidate will turn down racial tension. Moreover, I'm claiming Harris will have no better effect on racial tension than Trump, because the candidate in office is having only a minor effect on racial tension on the US.
Ergo, racial tension is not a reason to choose one candidate over another, and anyone for whom that pops up as a first-level reason to determine their pick could probably stand to revisit that.
Even if you have serious disagreements with Harris's policy positions, why would you want to install a person in the White House who is obviously suffering from severe cognitive decline? I really can't understand your thinking. IANAMD, but doesn't his behavior fit the definition of Lewy Body Dementia? (https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/lewy-body-dementia/symptoms-causes/syc-20352025)
I await your refuttal of his cognitive decline (examples below)...
https://x.com/i/status/1804586561545097640
This is the first time I've heard that the Nobel committee just nominated Biden for not just one but TWO Nobel prizes...
https://x.com/i/status/1305343209153818625
Of course, he is capable of honoring memorable people like Arnold Palmer. After he did a rambling 10+ minute monologue about Palmer, he finished it by praising the size of Palmer's penis. Note: earlier this election cycle, Trump claimed he could drive a ball down the fairway further than Palmer (sorry, can't find the video for that one), so Trump did show some humbleness by praising Palmer's package.
https://x.com/i/status/1847765368657363009
Of course, there's Trump's avid appreciation of music — where instead of taking questions he stood around and swayed on stage for many minutes. He's a lot more low-energy now than in 2021 when he was still President and boogying to YMCA...
https://x.com/i/status/1845978409257607408
Remembering fun times at Studio 54...
https://x.com/i/status/1346300289704316930
Of course, he's been canceling campaign rallies because his staff says he's exhausted. Time for your nap DonOLD?
https://x.com/i/status/1847409782669422672
And let's not forget, during that classic speech on the important issue of a sinking ships (and the hazards of boat batteries), when he told us that he'll always take death by electrocution over death by sharks.
https://x.com/i/status/1814782222018183248
Trump has had long standing concerns about the threat of sharks, though.
https://x.com/i/status/1296543743764566017
And here...
https://x.com/i/status/1803177883369673026
And here...
https://x.com/i/status/1814782222018183248
And then there's his obsession with the late great Hannibal Lecter—mentioned in many of his speeches, but this is his best tribute to his old friend...
https://x.com/i/status/1814788324126502937
On top of that he's a crook and convicted felon awaiting sentencing. Yet somehow you think he's qualified to be President?
>Even if you have serious disagreements with Harris's policy positions, why would you want to install a person in the White House who is obviously suffering from severe cognitive decline?
There seems to be one right now and things are alright.
You've just implicitly admitted that your guy has dementia. Teleprompter or not, my guy can still speak in whole sentences.
https://x.com/i/status/1838590917545955790
And Kamala is sharp as a tack...
https://twitter.com/i/status/1847026957407449361
Well, I'm not american, so I don't have a guy here (though I admit my sympathies lie with the right). But the notion that Biden is currently less cognitively impaired that Trump seems ridiculous, given what we've seen of both of them so far.
And that's basically the point, you've had a guy who barely seems there siting as president for quite some time, and things have gone on as usual, so if Trump is also declining fast, well that even seems like a good thing, makes him easier to work around.
This is obviously not an argument most people like, because Democrats don't want to admit that they've been running Weekend at Bernie's for some time now (why is Biden unfit to run, but fit to be sitting president?), and Republicans have been claiming you should vote for Trump because he's not an empty suit like Biden and Kamala largely have been and will probably continue to be, so you can't just admit Trump just might become that soon enough.
You say it's obvious that Biden is cognitively impaired? Look at the videos I posted. The difference between Trump and Biden is obvious. Biden always has talked in the slow methodical manner that you see in the video, and it's because of a speech impediment.
And if you're not American, why do you think you have the knowledge to comment intelligently on American politics? BTW, what is your nationality?
>And if you're not American, why do you think you have the knowledge to comment intelligently on American politics?
I mean, why not? We have the internet, grandpa, pretty much the same information is available globally. It's not like we're discussing the intricacies of on the ground operations in key battleground states.
>BTW, what is your nationality?
Russ...err... Argentinian. Argentinian is what I meant to say!
In a nutshell: "I am voting for Trump because I am now quite conservative." I mean, the concerns he identifies, and the language he uses, pretty much define what it means to be on the right of the political spectrum. There is nothing wrong with being on the right, but there is nothing new or interesting about it.
Of course, it is also possible that this is all a rationalization. But that isn't very interesting, either.
Re (33), the usual argument is that electoral frauds that can’t be scaled up to large numbers of votes don’t matter, so the optimum level f security is pretty low.
> electoral frauds that can’t be scaled up to large numbers of votes don’t matter
What does scaling up mean in this context?
It's hard for one person to cast tens of thousands of fraudulent ballots, but it's trivially easy for tens of thousands of people to cast tens of thousands of fraudulent ballots (or steal other people's ballots out of the mail, or whatever).
It is virtually impossible for tens of thousands of people to engage in any coordinated action without blabbing that fact far and wide enough that everyone knows they are doing it.
And if it's not coordinated, then sure, maybe ten thousand people will each independently decide to e.g. send mail-in ballots for their parents or spouses who died just before election day, but half of them will be Democrats and half will be Republicans and it won't much matter.
I guess the question would be, what's the fewest number of conspirators needed to change a vote outcome by the necessary number, in this case low five digits?
If they have access to the voter roles to get names and access to the ballot creation process, the number might be very low. Single digit, possibly even a lone person, if they had all of the access. If the office in charge of elections were interested in doing this, it might even be trivial. Don't purge the roles of people who are dead or left the state, print their ballots as normal but don't mail them out, fill them out as you like, and then collect them as if they had been sent in from the actual voter. That would take a good bit of work for a small team to accomplish, but it's certainly not impossible and doesn't require a massive conspiracy that would get outed.
Other methods would be to go to nursing homes, mental hospitals, and other locations where it's normal for service workers to help people carry out their business. This would not be a single digit number, but dozens or low hundreds at most could pull this off. They ask someone sympathetic at the facility if they can talk to the residents about voting, nominally get some kind of approval on the voting choices, and "help" the resident fill out their ballot.
I'm not saying that any of these things necessarily happened or would be easy, but a motivated group could definitely pull it off.
If the vote leader had a commanding lead, like Biden in CA or NY, then that's probably fine. Given the very small sizes of the differences in some states that mattered in both 2016 and 2020, that's not particularly reassuring.
US history is full of voting situations where the final outcome was determined statewide by less than 1,000 votes (Florida in 2000 comes to mind). Organized fraud that remains undetected and moves low five-digit votes seems eminently possible. Especially if the means of detecting fraud is not implemented or followed. 2020 was a perfect storm in a lot of ways, because covid was either a good reason or a good cover for getting rid of a lot of oversight, depending on your perspective.
broadening the argument in 33
as far as I know, the Biden admin hasn't done anything to systematically strengthen institutions, including improve election transparency, efficiency, security, or legitimacy. That is a big disappointment.
Consistent with that, you might care about electronic voting machines, because “hacker changes a number inside a computer” includes big changes to the number.
Which is why we don't trust any one computer to tell us who won an election. Hacking a thousand airgapped voting machines scattered across a hundred precincts, without getting caught even once, is a much less practical plan. And hacking the one vote-counting machine that will give us the early returns on election night but be verified by a hand recount a few days later when the loser complains, doesn't accomplish much either.
Seeing otherwise intelligent people being dumb is making me depressed this election cycle.
Let's pick item 2, national finances, that is probably the closest to Ackman's field (though stock picking and activist investing actually has almost nothing to do with macro economics.) He seems unaware that Trump's economic policies led to a massive increase in the federal deficit, even though there was no underlying economic need for fiscal stimulus (pre-pandemic). A lot of other things can be argued with nuance, but this was pure fiscal irresponsibility.
Do you think there was a need for more pandemic stimulus in 2021?
Ya know, the round that caused the worst inflation since the 70s?
By the team who STILL HAD FUCKING PANDEMIC RESTRICTIONS IN PLACE IN 2021??!
I don't know with high confidence. To me, whether pandemic stimulus was optimal in 2021 is clearly in the realm of debatable. I'm a deficit hawk and have a bias against that stimulus.
Isn't it kind of strange that green subsidies and incentives have ended up unlocking (or may unlock) multiple potentially revolutionary technologies - (Solar, EVs, synthetic hydrocarbons)?
It's because they allow us to break out of a local optima - and I think this suggests there's lots more such techs out there. I call these techs 'Qattara Depression Technologies'
Here I attempt to explain this clunky new term: https://medium.com/@bobert93/qattara-depression-technologies-26723f5b362f
Have I missed the full write-up of the AI/Human Art Challenge? Or hasn't it appeared? That was a lot of fun to do.
Hasn't appeared give him time :)
I would be interested in reading Scott respond to this post Against Steelmanning by economist Noah Smith. He even mentions the Ivermectin discussion Scott had here as an example of why it's bad.
https://www.noahpinion.blog/p/against-steelmanning
I like a lot of Noah's posts, and it was dumb for the Washington Post to ask him to make the case for Trump's economic policy proposals (instead of someone that actually supports those proposals), but that article was very bad and quite a bummer to boot.
I responded here :https://www.noahpinion.blog/p/against-steelmanning/comment/73820118 - the gist of it is that nothing Noah complains about is a problem inherent to steelmanning. For example, he worries "Steelmanning can easily turn into strawmanning". The problem here is, of course, strawmanning. The same issue plagues each of his objections.
We need some guide on what is and what isn't steelmanning, because obviously different people understand it differently.
As I see it, the point of steelmanning is to *find the truth*, for my own benefit. If my opponent's opinions are 90% crap and 10% truth, I want to be able to extract that true part, without accepting the rest... as opposed to rejecting everything, or converting and accepting everything, which would be the default human reactions.
What steelmanning is not:
- being "fair" to my opponent (except insofar as being fair to my opponent helps me find the truth);
- pretending that my opponent's arguments are 100% true or sane;
- providing free advertising for my opponent.
What would it mean to "steelman a policy proposal"? If it means saying that 90% of its consequences are bad, but 10% are good... that still sounds like a good reason to reject the proposal. And maybe to design a completely different policy proposal that might achieve those good 10% in a different way. It does not mean talking nicely about the policy proposal as it is.
Any idea will have tradeoffs - good sides and bad sides. The catch is that those sides won't always be evident for free. There's no database where you can "select sides where idea=X sort by badness" and just go down the list; one typically has to exert effort hunting.
Because of that effort requirement, it's tempting for people to look at an idea in terms of its appeal to their intuition. If it's appealing, they exert effort to look for the good sides, and when it's time to exert effort looking for the bad, well, why would anyone go out of their way to talk themselves out of something they believe is good?
The idea of steelmanning a policy proposal is the same as that of steelmanning any idea - arguing for it as if you were its proponent, with the implication that you would have gone out of your way to find the good sides of that proposal (or the bad sides of the alternatives), as opposed to only exerting that effort in the direction you wanted a priori.
You're right that it doesn't include "talking nicely" about the proposal. Talking nicely has nothing to do with it, and anyone who thinks that that's what steelmanning is is missing the entire point, which is to find whatever evidence there is in its favor.
I read Noah's article as far as the paywall would let me, which included "it could lead to strawmanning" because you naturally won't be good at assessing an idea you're against, and "it could lead to sanewashing" - which only works if one starts from the assumption that one was right to begin with, aka begging the question.
I suppose Noah makes a good argument that he might be *personally* bad at steelmanning his opposition, given that he (IMO) wasn't even that effective at steelmanning his own side.
I'm not a paid subscriber, so I only have read the beginning sections. I thought the claim about steelmanning turning into strawmanning was a useful point of caution, but not convincing as a reason to not steelman.
I wonder if he includes this point:
In a political campaign, there are two questions before the voters: (a) what policies to pursue and (b) who is trusted to lead. In the US system for national elections, only (b) is directly asked. In this system, effectively and convincingly describing and arguing for a policy set is a signal of fitness to lead. By steelmanning a weak policy presentation, you are distorting this signal.
This might be deeper in his section on sanewashing. Linking my idea and sanewashing, I would say a difference between steelmanning and sanewashing is that steelmanning is good tool for refining ideas, while sanewashing is giving credit to a person that they don't deserve.
4 subtypes of autism linked to genetic variants -
https://www.thetransmitter.org/spectrum/untangling-biological-threads-from-autisms-phenotypic-patchwork-reveals-four-core-subtypes/
I finally get the deeply uncanny feeling of the Berenstain/Mandela Effect. Does anyone else have distinct memories of the word “anemone” actually being “anenome”? I would swear that it has been pronounced “an-enemy” my entire life until reading “anemone” very recently. I’m not willing to give much credence to a split-universe or matrix glitch thing, so why does this happen, neurologically? How hard is it for a phonemic neural bit to just get flipped?
Oddly enough, I remember having this exact same thought about the word "anemone" a few years back. It may be due to the movie Finding Nemo (note: highest-selling DVD of all time - that's how popular it was) and its sole responsibility for the word entering the lexicon for many young people in the early 2000s. Saying "anemone" was a meme back then due to this scene: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bZ1KDf3O-qU. Kids often pronounce weird words wrongly, and perhaps that is what happened here, the mispronunciation sticking through adulthood for many (how often do we talk about ocean flora?).
And this is how I'm spending my Wednesday night 😁
It is super easy for a phonemic neural bit to get flipped, especially if it's easier to say after flipping. "Children" used to be "childern".
Childern is easier to say when I'm in German speaking mode
I heard it pronounced as "an-emony", and "an-enemy".
If you shrunk the afro a bit, doesn't this guy look like his bust would fit in with those of the Roman Emperors?
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/college-football/article-13985481/College-fan-eye-catching-appearance-goes-viral-Georgia-Texas.html
I’m a fan of the Accidental Renaissance subreddit, this guy has probably already been posted there, he’s got those Borgia Pope features
I don't know, but how horrible that we live in a world where some random young man, minding his own business at a football game, can suddenly have thousands of people picking apart his (ultimately unremarkable either way) looks.
Oh come on, you can't seriously say it's unremarkable. It looks like those photoshops of Charlie Kirk's face shrunken down, but actually real.
Please post a photo of yourself so the world can criticise your looks.
Yes, his facial proportions are somewhat out of the ordinary, but most people are out of the ordinary in some way. He is unremarkable in the sense that he is neither remarkably attractive nor remarkably ugly, he won't win a beauty contest but he also isn't doomed to a life of inceldom. He reminds me of any number of perfectly ordinary young men that I have known, except most of them never randomly had thousands of internet strangers bullying them for their flaws.
...Why the hell would I? I'm not stupid.
People aren't roasting him because he's ugly, they're roasting him because his face is extremely out of the ordinary. Just being ugly isn't even worthy of scorn or recognition. When people see something out of the ordinary, they are going to comment on it. That's just how the brain works, it responds heavily to novel stimuli.
Most of the time when you see someone with unusual facial features, though, you're too polite to mention it. I don't walk down the street saying "OH GODDAMN THAT WOMAN HAS AN UNUSUALLY POINTY CHIN LOOK AT HER".
For some reason, though, social media has broken that.
I want to highlight this recent proposal for Density Zones as a smart refinement to YIMBY tactics: https://agglomerations.substack.com/p/how-the-next-president-can-solve
The basic idea is that it may not be worth it try to get rid of building restraints across an entire city. For one thing, some powerful residents may put up a very strong fight against it in certain neighborhoods. For another, you might succeed in knocking down some regulations only to be stymied by others.
It's more efficient and effective to choose your battles and work with local officials to determine which areas of the city are most conducive to ending all building restrictions and labeling them Density Zones. This approach has been referred to as "going vertical instead of horizontal".
It occurs to me that the result here is still "zoning", but it's a much smarter approach to zoning. In many cities and neighborhoods, a vocal minority is enough to veto a building project. But if you provide that neighborhood financial support (federal subsidies) to allow more building, it can be easy to find more local supporters than detractors.
The financial support of the federal government gives localities capital that can be used to build infrastructure to support the resulting increase in population density.
The question is: why? Why ruin perfectly nice places that people have paid their entire life's savings to buy into, for the benefit of people who could just go live somewhere else?
They've just announced plans to do this kind of thing in my city, and I'm pretty angry/depressed about the whole thing https://www.theage.com.au/politics/victoria/fifty-new-areas-getting-fast-tracked-high-rise-apartments-here-s-where-20241019-p5kjmb.html ... charming historic walkable suburban shopping strips are going to be bulldozed and replaced by canyons of brand new steel-and-glass apartment buildings. And for what? So that property developers can get rich, so that the city can add another four million people that it doesn't need, so that the economy can continue to be propped up by an immigration ponzi scheme. They want to take a city of four million and turn it into a city of nine million by 2050. And nobody ever says what's going to happen after 2050, it's not like the politicians of 2050 are going to be any more restrained than those of 2024.
Tbf if Melvin doesn't have kids and he's decided to never move again, he's voting in his personal economic interest. I just assume most people factor in longer term interests (eg kids/grand kids, or just relative health of the housing market)
> so that the city can add another four million people that it doesn't need
By that metric, your city already does not need the first 4M it has got. It would be perfectly happy as a sleepy farming village with 200 people. Yet you did not offer that village the courtesy if leaving it in peace, so why should the next 4M leave you in peace in turn?
"So that property developers can get rich, so that the city can add another four million people that it doesn't need"
The same people who talk like that complain about how the entitled and lazy millennial generation won't move out of Daddy's house.
The reason for why in the USA is the following (from the linked post):
"U.S. housing costs are out of control. The median home for sale was rarely more than four times the median household income throughout the 1980s and 1990s. But by 2022, it had risen to nearly six times. Renters have not fared better. In 1980, around one third of renters were cost burdened, meaning they spent 30 percent or more of their income on housing. Fully half of renters are cost burdened today.
The main reason housing is too expensive is that we don’t build nearly enough of it. The most recent estimates from Freddie Mac place the national shortfall at a staggering 3.8 million housing units. This gaping hole in the country’s housing supply negatively impacts nearly every aspect of American life, reducing economic growth and hindering workers and families from achieving the lives they desire."
But the demand for that housing is coming in part from the large influx of new people demanding it.
Yes, and?
By new people do you mean foreign immigrants? If so, let's segregate that debate for now and assume immigration suddenly drops to zero tomorrow. Houses still cost 50% more than they did in the '90s as a function of median income. Let's solve that problem.
Houses cost more because everything else costs less. Housing is a positional good which tends to soak up whatever money people have left over after paying for everything else.
Suppose that housing magically cost 30% less tomorrow. What am I going to spend all my extra disposable income on? Wagyu beef? Fresh clothes every day? No, I'm probably going to spend it on buying a nicer house in a better location. So will everyone else. And bingo, now prices are bid right back up to where they used to be.
As the price of everything else tends towards zero, the price of housing tends towards 100% of everyone's income.
By your economic logic if the housing supply were greater than it is, we'd all be spending the same amount of our incomes on housing but live in bigger houses and apartments. That doesn't sound like a fate worse than death.
I suspect that, in fact, people saved a greater portion of their incomes 30 years ago when housing was cheaper. Maybe tomorrow I'll check the data. I don't believe that in the US "everything else" costed much more 30 years ago, but perhaps it did in Australia.
> The main reason housing is too expensive is that we don’t build nearly enough of it.
Houses are cheap, it's land that's expensive. Specifically, it's land that is close to a major, fashionable city. And you can't just "build more" land, all you can do is take the existing land and make it worse by cramming more people into it, replacing nice houses with dogbox apartments.
The solution isn't to find ways to cram infinite numbers of people into the same five cities, the solution is to encourage development elsewhere -- make it practical and desirable for people to live in places that currently don't have too many people.
>make it worse by cramming more people into it, replacing nice houses with dogbox apartments.
Imagine to identical cities with identical people in them. Someone moves from the first city to the second, making it marginally denser. Because they moved voluntarily, they must be better off than before. Because the people are identical, the situation of the new arrivals and the natives must be identical again. And because the cities were identical before, it follows that the natives are also better off than before.
Now if the cities arent initially identical, then the benefits from moving are a combination of those from moving to a different density, and from making the place more dense. But if there are cities at any level of density, then you could represent each move as a series of moves, each with an arbitrarily small difference in density, while the impact of the mover himself remains equal. So, it still follows that he will only voluntarily move to a city where his impact is positive.
At which step do you disagree?
Most people want to live where they can find a decent job, and due to agglomeration effects, good jobs only exist on a small portion of the real estate of big country. Both of our countries are full of mostly empty land, but you are going to be very poor if you choose to live in that empty land. In the Midwest people keep trying to come up with ideas for how to revitalize emptied-out rustbelt cities, but it's a hard problem.
If you want to be a professional, you probably don't have a ton of options of where to live. Your exact profession likely narrows those options further. So you live where there's opportunity and you hope not to pay half your income in rent. You hope to buy a house one day.
I agree that building more cities across the land would be ideal, but there's a thousand chicken-and-egg problems to solve when it comes to building new cities. Small places tend to get smaller and big places tend to get bigger. Been that way for centuries.
Right. But one of the ways that we can discourage people from moving to the existing big cities is to stop building more housing in the existing big cities. Let price signals do their job.
If you're really listening to price signals, then the fact that people are willing and able to pay thousands of dollars to live in a shoebox in Manhattan signals that the economic value of living in a city is *really high* - higher than the amount of money you're paying for that tiny apartment. If people couldn't earn a living in a city, they wouldn't move there, but they can.
So if you're really following price signals, the market is jumping up and down screaming "Put more people here! Every new person here is producing thousands of dollars a month in economic activity! Keep building!"
Price signals aren't doing their job if supply is artificially constrained by a cartel.
People are currently discouraged from moving to many cities because of high rent. That isn't always a bad thing. Los Angeles doesn't need more wannabe actors and NYC doesn't need more wannabe comedians. But it's generally bad when people with talent and skills are disconnected from opportunities to exploit them. Society gains, too. Agglomeration effects are real.
> the solution is to encourage development elsewhere
I mean, do you recognize the irony here? The actual acronym NIMBY isn't about being anti-development- it's that they always want development and urbanization and such to happen..... elsewhere. It's just the problem is that all of the incumbents say that, so in practice you can't build anywhere and nothing ever gets built.
The issue is that preventing younger people from ever being able to buy their own home, or spending increasingly larger chunks of their income in rent to landlords, imposes massive negative externalities on the rest of society. It's the classic 'I got mine, now I'm pulling up the ladder on the next generation, good luck getting yours' kind of rent-seeking. Not to mention enriches the landlords themselves. Why is it better to enrich a landlord than a developer?
The problem is that people who are currently living there will not benefit, and people who want to live there cannot vote there. If you upzone a residential neighborhood to be able to build 10 story apartment buildings, it's not like the people living there will just move to the apartments.
At best that allows individuals to sell their property to developers, but then you still have the rest of the neighborhood voting against those apartments. You need enough people selling to outvote the people who stayed behind. Being allowed to build isn't enough, you almost need to make it impossible to veto the build.
"The problem is that people who are currently living there will not benefit, and people who want to live there cannot vote there."
I don't think this is true, or at least it is not necessarily true. People currently living there are perhaps rolling the dice, but many likely outcomes of densifying involve adding amenities and bringing prices down enough that one's kids can afford to live nearby.
A pareto improvement just is what will pass against any veto. So if there is a net benefit, developers should be able to pay off everyone. And if these payoffs can be included in the building-plan-to-be-approved (since this can apparently already include rent limits on some of the units built in California, that shouldnt be too hard), youve automatically solved the coordination problem. Then how was there a problem to being with?
>A pareto improvement just is what will pass against any veto. So if there is a net benefit, developers should be able to pay off everyone.
A net benefit and a pareto improvement are two different concepts. Economic growth is rarely a pareto improvement. Usually there are trade-offs with winners and losers. Technological innovation, for example usually displaces workers.
Pareto improvements are too high a bar here. That way lies stagnation. A net benefit should be enough, otherwise we never automate the ports, etc.
The idea is that you can turn a net benefit into a pareto improvement by paying off the losers, and still have money left over. There are often complexities to doing this in reality, but as I argue it seem like it should work in this case.
The post behind the link answers those questions. It's not simply upzoning, creating Density Zones is about creating zones in which it is impossible to veto the build.
I distrust the current Democratic Party. I don't think they actually care about the issues they run on. I believe they just want to *appear* virtuous, rather than improve the world.
There are many many examples of them actively harming society, while claiming they are helping (and simultaneously tarring any objection as bigoted, racist, sexist, etc...)
Left-led examples: defund the police (supposedly to support minority communities, the actual impact was just abandoning minority communities to higher levels of crime), scrapping SAT admission requirements (supposedly to encourage diversity, the predictable outcome was less diversity and major reduction in social mobility, duh...), opening the border to illegal immigrants (as opposed to boosting legal immigration), not teaching advanced mathematics in California "because it discriminates."
Another example: the left media reaction to and coverage of Depp v. Heard. I watched 100% of the court footage, and it was clear that Heard was the abuser. But the left media did not care about the truth, about the actual victim, they just wanted to endorse the lefts preconceived narrative.
Rather than actually help the victims, and help improve the world, etc... The left are currently caught up in scoring easy virtue points. I am so utterly and completely sick of it. I care about the world. I care about people, and the left doesn't currently seem to.
You see it in the reaction to so many things:
- Watch how Garcia-Navarro in an interview with JD Vance sneers at the idea of Americans working in construction. Implicitly the Democrats seem to see themselves as above it.
- Observe how people characterize Donald Trumps stunt of working at Mc Donalds as being insulting to the workers. Implicitly they see working at Mc Donalds as beneath them.
- Watch Kamila Harris respond to christian hecklers saying "Jesus is Lord" by saying "you are at the wrong rally, you want the smaller one." It is a far far cry, from the grace Obama had dealing with Hecklers.
- The talking down to voters. The belittling of voters. How people who aren't voting for them are bigots, or racists, or ignorant, or sexist, etc...
- Even reasonable intelligent voices are caught up in this strange headspace. Listen to Ezra Klein's podcast episode "The Boys are not alright." Observe how he hast to take extreme pains to make it okay for him to merely broach the topic that boys can be disenfranchised in society too. Listen to the bitter experience his guest has of being a sociologist who cares about improving the world, to then become instantly disavowed when he picked a non-preapproved topic (i.e. that boys can be suffering as opposed to focusing on girls). It sickens me.
Kamala Harris exemplifies this trend of hypocrisy. Throughout her career she has flipped policies whenever it suited her aspiration for higher office. Criminalizing weed, then endorsing it. Being anti the death penalty, then for it. I also find it incredibly off-putting that Democrats think that a gender and a race in anyway qualify one more for president (e.g., her terrible Al Smith dinner skit).
I believe the current Republican Party has less of this complete and utter moral failing. In particular, I believe JD Vance cares deeply about the working class. You can find a TED video from 8 years ago speaking earnestly on the topic. I think he sees Trump as route to helping them. I don't know what I feel about Trump, but I do trust JD Vance.
As a quick aside, I feel like I see a lot of right leaning readers here complaining that Kamala changed her opinions on many issues in the intervening years from 2019 to now. This is somehow seen as a bad thing.
But in the last 5 years she's been VP, seen the job from the inside, and gotten insider access to massive amounts of classified information. It would be wild if she _didn't_ change her views. I'd see that as much more of a red flag, personally.
Here is a counterpoint:
https://www.slowboring.com/p/to-fight-wokeness-vote-harris?utm_source=substack&utm_campaign=post_embed&utm_medium=web
> Wokeness rose largely because of Trump. There was a causal relationship that was probably most apparent to people who spent that time in deep blue spaces. That relationship creates an odd situation: Republicans want people to strike a blow against wokeness by voting for Trump. But in truth, probably nothing would breathe new life into wokeness more than a second Trump term.
Personally, I am disgusted with the approach to truth practiced by either party. It is 100% arguments as soldiers. The woke left is fearing that if they concede that being a man can be a disadvantage, this will strengthen the wrong people and lead to a return to patriarchy. They also think they have to sell what is actually duche vs turd as the final battle of good and evil about the future of democracy in America. And then there are the BLM riots.
The Trump side is worse, if anything. Trump is willing to repeat any random claim he heard if he thinks he can get away with it. He seems utterly indifferent to the idea that statements can be true or false in our reality. And while many of his claims are mostly harmless (who really gives a fuck if he finds some immigrant who grilled a cat?), there are others which erode the bedrock of democracy. His statements about the legitimacy of the 2020 election results seem about as based in reality as his pet-eating immigrants, but far more harmful. Then there is his coup attempt on Jan 6, which naturally did not work because Trump has no idea how DC works.
If it was not for that, Trump would merely be a moderately bad president who made headlines mostly by posting on twitter. With it, I think he qualifies as a terrible president. Not Hitler level bad, mind you, but distinctly worse than some colorless career politician.
With regard to wokism, I think that the best choice is to ride it out. The first Trump presidency fanned the flame of wokeness. It made them feel attacked without meaningfully pushing back against their excesses.
> Wokeness rose largely because of Trump.
No way. It was possibly given more coverage in media because of Trump, but it had already spread everywhere.
Sure, Trump is a liar, a braggart, etc... The right is not trump. The whole of the left seems riddled with this issue. They implement actively harmful policies, while taring objectors as racist, sexist, etc...
Watch the once stately Obama try to shame black male voters into voting for Kamala Harris, because surely, sexism can be the only reason not to endorse her.
Yhe republicans do not have the same issue with truth and group-think that the democrats do. The left is completely unhinged. For example: https://www.cnn.com/2024/10/22/politics/kamala-harris-plagiarism-allegation-congressional-testimony/index.html
Read this article by CNN minimizing Kamala Harris's plagiarism. To CNN article write how, "as the California attorney general, Harris authorized the publication of a 2012 report on human trafficking that presented an anonymized example of sex trafficking as a real case in San Francisco, lifting language from a nonprofit’s website in the process that they attributed in the report."
In a government report, she lies (misrepresenting an anonymous charity tip as a verified law finding) and plagiarizes for her own political advantage. How does CNN characterize this behavior? "To apply the high expectation of originality found in journalism or academic writing to political speeches is misguided,” said Michael Dougherty, a professor of philosophy at Ohio Dominican University" Unhinged. That is literally the end of the CNN article. The last word.
Kamala's plagiarism was not even a speech. It's a government report. The republicans simply do not have this same degree of closed-ranks un-tethered-from-reality group think. For example, watch
Megyn Kelly actively defend Mike Pence. Watch Ben Shapiro actively criticize Trump for not conceding the election, and bemoan how it harms the republicans current chances. etc... etc...
> The right is not trump.
Well, the major US right-wing party has decided to give the one term president who lost the last election in a landslide the nomination again.
I am sure that there are some Republican candidates who do go on record saying that Trump lost in 2020 and is full of shit for claiming otherwise, but I think they are in the minority. The median Republican candidate is at least MAGA-adjacent.
If I have to pick between woke-adjacent democrats who e.g. claim that women are the main target of male aggression contrary to the facts (most perps AND victims of violence are male), and MAGA-adjacent Republicans spreading the narrative of a stolen election, then I will slightly prefer the pushers of the woke lies.
"Unequal outcomes imply unfair processes" is a terrible foundational lie for a movement, but "elections are rigged by the deep state" is an even worse one. The former might lead to minorities being pushed through med school (because any process which results in fewer minority doctors would be racist), the latter is a direct precursor to civil war as the default method of conflict resolution in the absence of a trusted alternative.
I just don't buy that the Republicans have this narrative. I have watched hours and hours of republican content (e.g., Ben Shapiro, the VP Debate, Megyn Kelly, Rallies and Town Houses) and they don't run on that platform.
The current Republican rhetoric is extremely focused on characterizing Kamala Harris as a) bad for the economy, and b) ineffective and disingenuous. There is basically zero focus on race, or democracy. Watch how JD Vance characterizes her on the campaign. He in particular, hyper-focuses his criticism on her and Biden, and actually comparatively rarely denigrates the democrats.
It is the democrats portraying republicans as threat to democracy, e.g., Biden says how Trump should "be locked up."
If Kamala Harris certified her own election for President by coordinating with private actors in swing states to use alternate slates of electors and by discounting the officially certified electoral votes for Trump, you think she shouldn't be in jail? And that she should hold political office again?
The snobbishness, sanctimony and weird taboos you point out are all present on the left, but they're also present on the right. The average liberal can put together a very similar list of the social attacks by conservatives against people like them- and an average trans person or immigrant can put together a much stronger list. That's the culture war. It's ugly and harmful on both sides, but electing Donald Trump very much isn't going to improve the situation.
The presidency isn't some abstract symbol to be awarded to whichever culture war faction deserves the most status. It's an incredibly powerful office, and the decisions of the person holding it will have profound impacts on average peoples' lives, up to and including causing or preventing mass death. Donald Trump has very much proven himself to be unworthy of that power. The man behaves as though every interaction is a zero-sum game. He disregards morality whenever it suits him, frequently buys into fringe ideas and conspiracy theories, often betrays allies, both personal and national... When he didn't like the results of a fair election, he attempted to use a faithless elector scheme to overturn it, and set up a violent mob to intimidate his VP into going along with it.
The man reminds me of nobody so much as Nicolas Maduro. Maduro is the archetypal populist- he's an expert showman who's shtick is finally standing up for the common man and putting all those arrogant, normal-person-hating elites in their place. One day, he hit on the line that inflation is a lie told by those elites to keep benefits away from normal people. This played well in his TV broadcasts, so he kept doubling down on it. The end result was that hyperinflation collapsed the Venezuelan economy and led to mass starvation and emigration. And yet, the man still has a fanatical cult of personality, because populist.
Of course, Maduro is leftist, and Trump isn't. But why have the leftist Scandinavian countries done so well, while Venezuela has collapsed? I think it largely comes down to the fact the first are run by boring technocrats, and the latter by an insane populist. This is the sort of thing I'm worried about with Trump. Look at economists' reactions to policies like his threatening of the Fed's independence, his blanket tariffs, or his mass deportations. I defy you to find any economist who isn't horrified by Trump's policies and mixed on Harris's.
My best guess on the most important thing the president will need to deal with in the next four years is the economic impact of AI agents and the potential crisis this will create with China over Taiwan's chip manufacturing capacity. I'm very much expecting Trump to take the dumbest possible position on this issue. You know he will. He won't seriously consult any AI experts or experienced diplomats; he'll see something on Twitter that sounds like it will play well at rallies, and then he'll keep doubling down on that regardless of the evidence. And people will love him for it even if it leads to catastrophe.
Harris may also take a terrible position, but I expect her to at least consult with some people with good ideas before deciding, and I expect her people to hold her back if she settles on anything particularly dangerous..
Trump, meanwhile, I expect to be surrounded entirely by frightened yes-men in his second term, given how relentlessly he purged people who weren't in his first.
Yes, the Democrats are terrible in a lot of ways. I'd love to see some smart, pro-growth centrist take them down. But Trump isn't a worthy champion of the anti-Left cause. The man needs to be kept as far away from power as possible.
On JD: there's some evidence that he's a personal friend of Moldbug, the founder of the Neoreactionary movement- some accounts that he and Moldbug both spent the 2016 election at Thiel's house, for instance. A lot of his positions also seem to be inspired by NRX ideas. See: https://slatestarcodex.com/2013/10/20/the-anti-reactionary-faq/ for an overview of Scott's (very negative) views of that movement.
"The presidency isn't some abstract symbol to be awarded to whichever culture war faction deserves the most status."
This strikes me as how elections are currently run, if not how people people actually perceive things. I'm disgusted by the political ads I see, from either party, for the half-truths and even outright lies, but such ads must work, or they wouldn't run them.
Campaign speeches are similar in content. The candidates seem to say what they think will get them votes, and such doesn't even have to have a tangential relationship to intended policy.
Here (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iEy-xTbcr2A) is JD Vance on the working class. It is a TED talk from 8 years ago (far before his involvement in politics). He obviously cares deeply and genuinely about the American people, and about the working class.
The left simply cannot help people with the issues he describes. He talks about those in poverty in these communities having a dearth of social capital. I would be willing to bet money that the left would instantly turn against someone uttering this simple truth. They would describe it as being or judgemental or "blaming the victims." They are so obsessed with scoring virtue points for empty words that they harm those they should seek to help.
I'm not sure why you're invoking the always-online woke Twitter mob, or the media, as a reason to distrust the Democratic Party. You seem to be deliberately conflating these. The party is basically centrist, their best implementation in recent years has been the CHIPS act which drastically increased American manufacturing output.
> I care about the world. I care about people, and the left doesn't currently seem to.
Most liberals care about the economy most of all, polls make that plain. The far-left cares about issues you care less about; that's not tantamount to "not caring about the world".
What you wrote about reactions is a projection that can't possibly be written in good faith.
Changing policies is not unusual over time, and hammering on "x politician is lying" rather than actually addressing policy at face value is not persuasive. "Politicians lie" is a blanket truism, most promises are kept anyway so the only thing to question is which promises you prefer. You believe the GOP is more trustworthy because you want to believe it, that's it.
I'm noticing this strategy far more often lately leading up to the election. Nate Silver did mention that the excesses of the covid era will continue to bite the DNC in the ass. Culture war bs that has nothing to do with the party is still used as fodder. The attack framing has shifted to hypocrisy/lies since Harris' shift rightward, but that's weaksauce "vibes" shit except to those who'd have voted Republican regardless. It would be worse for her if she espoused what she did in '19.
Most major newspapers and American news outlets: e.g., The Washington Post, The New York Times, CNN, MSNBC, etc... are heavily left aligned. They are also massive sources of disinformation. The clear instance I cite is their coverage of Depp v. Heard. If you use the wayback when machine you will see that they constantly force the narrative that a) she is the innocent victim, because believe all women, and b) that anyone who disagrees is 1. stupid or 2. misogynistic. This multi-step process of first, a) repeating the established left-narrative, regardless of evidence or common sense, and then b) taring any objections as being some mix of stupidity and malice is currently the core left playbook.
I don't understand why the readers of Astral Codex Ten are not completely sickened by this behavior. Look at what happened to Scott! The left media is why we aren't still reading Slate Star Codex!!
The NYT did a bad thing, and I cancelled my subscription (to the cooking app) over it, but to believe that this couldn't have happened at the WSJ or the New York Post is kind of silly.
Can you give examples of people doxed by those papers?
Here is a case that made the rounds a few years back with the New York Post, which I find actually worse than Scott's (ymmv):
"This past Saturday, I was exposed as a sex worker who is also a New York City paramedic. The New York Post published a story shaming me for selling my nude photos online and made sure to include my full name, photos of me, my education, my height and weight, my location, and my workplace."
https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/ny-post-medic-sex-worker-lauren-kwei-b1775264.html
"As New York City’s medical community scrambles to respond to the latest spike in COVID-19 cases, the New York Post on Friday made the baffling decision to out a first responder as a part-time sex worker, even after she apparently begged the paper to remain anonymous."
https://www.thecut.com/2020/12/new-york-post-doxxed-paramedic-only-fans.html
Generally though, I think that the person claiming a causal link between two things (in this case, left-of-center politics and inclination to dox) should explain their reasoning. Le raz merely asserted this link without evidence or theory.
Good point.
My reasoning is thus:
- My impression is that most media coverage (e.g., the results on google when you search for a term), is left-leaning
- I have seen multiple instances of these highly regarded publications doing terrible (damaging) reporting. E.g., Depp v. Heard and the doxxing of Scot.
So my main complaint, is that these media outlets are high status while also terrible. This disparity is in contrast to republican tabloids, which generally most people agree are low quality. My social circle is also pretty left-leaning, as so I repeatedly see the actual instances of the left acting badly, and when I immerse myself in content from the right (as opposed to the left characterizing the right), the rate seems far lower. This last point is all anecdotal of course.
I don't think you can seriously just handwave away the culture war stuff as if it doesn't matter. It obviously does to a lot of people.
I wouldn't hand-wave it away, but OP is making the opposite problem. They're hand-waving away the many things that the President has _much_ more direct control over.
An honest case for the Presidency should start with what it is likely to achieve. A review of Trump's first term - or, for that matter, a basic course in civics - will tell you that Trump isn't likely to do much to stop progressivism in his second term any more than he did in his first.
So what kind of stuff is he actually going to do?
Is he going to fix the border? Maybe - but he didn't do it particularly well the first time, choosing flashy but transient moves over sustained reform. And the fact that he acted to sink a bipartisan bill earlier this year suggests that he & the Republicans see the border less as an immediate crisis and more as an opportunity to stir up anger.
He's also likely to sign more tax cuts to put us even deeper in debt; his Social Security plans would accelerate its insolvency; his tariffs would be ruinous, and there's good reason to be afraid of those since he did them on a smaller scale the first time around.
We can expect more conservative judges for sure.
Any honest assessment of prospects for Trump 2.0 need to account for actual likely outcomes. If you're cool with all of those, that's fine, just say that. Don't project your dreams for the ultimate anti-woke character you wish he was, because we already have plenty of evidence that he is not that.
> An honest case for the Presidency should start with what it is likely to achieve. A review of Trump's first term - or, for that matter, a basic course in civics - will tell you that Trump isn't likely to do much to stop progressivism in his second term any more than he did in his first.
How so? They're doing a much better job of vetting for loyalists this time around. A basic course in civics wouldn't tell you anything; there's no reason they have to follow standard procedure.
> Is he going to fix the border? Maybe - but he didn't do it particularly well the first time, choosing flashy but transient moves over sustained reform.
This part is pretty disingenuous. Here are the SW border encounters of illegal crossings for the last 8 years (fiscal year ending 10/15):
2024 - 2.135 MM
2023 - 2.476 MM
2022 - 2.379 MM
2021 - 1.735 MM
--- Trump/Biden ---
2020 - 0.401 MM
2019 - 0.852 MM
2018 - 0.397 MM
2017 - 0.304 MM
You can't look at that data and honestly say there wasn't a dramatic difference between the Trump admin and Biden/Harris admin on illegal immigration. Trump's efforts didn't outlive his presidency, but that is a very different bar from not working - which they clearly did.
Trump’s stated objective was to reduce the number illegal immigrant crossing the border, and he didn’t.
The numbers were low in fiscal 2017, but fiscal year 2017 started on Oct. 1, 2016, so when Trump took office, the years was almost 1/3 over, and it takes additional time to put new policies in place. So Trump has to share credit with Obama for 2017. 2018 was essentially at the average under Obama. In 2019, the numbers spiked. In 2020, they were almost down to the Obama average, but some of that was due to Covid shutting everything down. And obviously, the 2021 numbers don’t improve Trump’s record.
While four years is a bit too short to declare a trend, to the extent there is a trend under Trump it’s for crossing to increase over time, in contrast to the Obama years, when the trend was down.
Cause and effect are not clear here, because the changes in numbers could be caused by factors having nothing to do with U.S. border policy. But you cite the border enounter numbers, which I presume means you endorse them as a meaningful peasure of illegal immigration. Your post appears to presume that these numbers are driven by U.S. border policy. Under those assumptions, Trump promised to reduce illegal immigration and instead instituted policies that made the problem worse.
That’s not what I would call working, much less “clearly” working.
Link for older border encounter numbers: https://www.cbp.gov/sites/default/files/assets/documents/2021-Aug/US59B8~1.PDF
Obama had less border crossings and also more deportations than Trump. But that isn't the relevant comparison here. It's between Trump, who averaged less than half a million illegal crossings per year, and Biden-Harris, who averaged over two million per year. In the context of an election, which most of this thread is about, clearly one of these two policies is vastly more effective. But I agree if we were to rank the effect of the last three administrations by the number of border crossings, it would be Obama > Trump >>> Biden.
I'm sorry for not being clear, but you just made the same point I was. When I said he didn't do it 'well' I meant precisely because it wasn't sustained.
He acted through executive action, not by trying to pass any sort of legislation that would help by addressing the underlying causes of the border pressure. His approach is basically one of fear-mongering (again, witness his sinking of a pretty decent bill earlier this year). If Trump 2.0 passes some kind of bill that strengthens security, rationalizes the asylum system, and provides the pathway for guest workers that businesses need, then I'll admit I was flat wrong. But evidence suggests that ain't gonna happen. We're gonna get some big showy tough-on-the-illegals moves, public opinion will thermostatically shift the other way, and we'll be right back on the other side in 4 years.
That being said, my point in context is that the border _is_ an issue where you can make a rational case for the Trump admin. I think there's room for skepticism but it makes way more sense to vote Trump for that reason than for any culture-war reason.
Yeah, Trump mostly used executive orders that the next admin then removed. But that's how the Presidency functions really, he can't force Congress to pass legislation. The Republicans not being organized enough to pass their preferred policy (even while controlling all three houses) isn't a problem unique to Trump but rather the party as a whole.
The "underlying causes of the border pressure" is that billions of people are poorer than Americans. So unless you think a worldwide Marshall Plan is possible to accomplish(it's not), you can't fix every other countries poverty.
Would you have more information about the CHIPS act's success? It's been a while, but the last I heard it wasn't likely to make much difference due to difficult-to-meet requirements to use the funding.
According to the Financial Times (April 2024):
"With recent multi-billion-dollar grants to Intel, TSMC, Samsung, and Micron, the US government has now spent over half its $39bn in Chips Act incentives. In so doing it has driven an unexpected investment boom. Chip companies and supply chain partners have announced investments totalling $327bn over the next 10 years, according to Semiconductor Industry Association calculations. US statistics show a stunning 15-fold increase in construction of manufacturing facilities for computing and electronics devices. Debate about the Chips Act has focused on delays and manufacturing difficulties, but the vast volume of investment tells a different story."
https://www.ft.com/content/26756186-99e5-448f-a451-f5e307b13723
Nice, thanks!
If you like Ezra Klein, listen to his latest episode “what’s wrong with Donald Trump”.
Thank you for the tip.
I think Ezra Klein is earnest, but heavily distorted (a bit like how I view Ben Shapiro). I don't trust either of them to see reality clearly.
I cite that podcast episode on boys as instance of how corrupted and swallowed by the left he is. That he needs to hand-wring so greatly to simply say "boys have problems too" is surely a sign that the left has deep deep set problems in how it relates to truth and improving society. According to them, everything is a zero-sum game set up around identity politics. That narrative does come from them, and it is immensely harmful. I cannot endorse this political strategy with a vote.
It’s a good piece of writing. It helped me understand the appeal and the danger of DJT as president.
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/10/22/opinion/donald-trump-ezra-klein-podcast.html?unlocked_article_code=1.UE4.MCvf.XdZVFj4McLdX&smid=nytcore-ios-share&referringSource=articleShare
This piece actually changed my mind. I was leaning towards Trump for pretty much exactly the reasons Ezra describes and now I think I'm right back in the middle because he was able to identify and attack those issues directly in the ways that I care about. I am genuinely convinced by "Trump's first term really was pretty decent in retrospect. It was a gamble, and not necessarily obvious from the outset, but the interplay between reckless ambition and institutional conservativism was genuinely a way to make some good changes happen. But now that institutional conservative power is probably weaker and Trump has ambitions to weaken it even further, and he and his inner circle are very transparent about that; a Trump second term really could be worse than you might expect from his first term."
This is a fantastic example of a steelman-and-counterargument. Too many people have had bananas in their ears, not able to understand that the contours of the debate and even Trump supporter demographic have changed significantly since last time. They are still arguing like it's 2016 and "Trump is stupid and mean and racist" will convince people. Ezra really understands what this race is about.
I disagree. I think Trump has mellowed with age. His rhetoric is significantly calmer than it was in previous years.
And honestly, JD Vance is, to me, a clear strong well-spoken earnest moderating influence. See his talk on helping the working-class: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iEy-xTbcr2A&ab_channel=TED
...But anyone who's right-wing would be convinced the opposite way by that, wouldn't they? This is finally their chance to set things right, to reverse over a century of cultural degeneration. Trump is their hound to unleash on all who wronged them.
It's undecideds, moderates, and nonpartisans like me who will decide this election, not the right wing or the left wing.
Interesting. I find Trump utterly deplorable as a person and think he shouldn’t be allowed within a mile of any power levers, and yet think his first term was meh. Baby Bush, OTOH, seems to be a decent person, and yet did incalculable damage to this country.
It's starting to feel like there's a Trump ad campaign going on here. It would be better if there were just one thread of "You for Trump or Harris?" so the rest of us can collapse it with one click.
Yep. This stinks of boilerplate low effort spiels you'd find circulating in other forms of social media. It's not a coincidence.
No, it's definitely not a coincidence. The election is about to happen and people are expression opinions about that major event that is about to happen. You're right; it's definitely not a coincidence!
Sure, but this was an effort to persuade that doesn't seem tailored to a rat-adjacent community. It's based on vibes and projection. Maybe I give too much credit to the users here.
And why would anyone bother campaigning here? Seems like the worst time to effect ratio imaginable...
It's like 2 weeks away from a major election, I think it's fine.
bias alert, I'm somewhat leaning towards Trump these days and feel seriously relieved that I'm not the only ACX-reading rationalist-adjacent person who feels the same way. Obvious spam/ads would be one thing, but I think this is just genuine momentum.
You may be absolutely sincere. I have no way of knowing what you are thinking. What makes me suspect insincerity is that it’s hard for me to believe someone is ‘somewhat leaning’ toward Trump. It seems that people who support him are all in for the guy. The people that are against him think he is a very dangerous man.
I can kind of understand the folks that he’s the best. I can create a mental model where someone thinks he is just what America needs even though I’m one of the ones that think he is very dangerous, a view I share with Mike Pence and Mitt Romney.
To be simply leaning toward him is something I can’t model in my mind. I honestly try to do it but my imagination is just not up to the task.
So when I see a tepid endorsement of the guy I suspect an attempt at the ‘soft sell’ technique. ‘I thought the 1/6 attack on the Capitol wasn’t cool but you know the guy is funny sometimes and he sorta makes sense.’
I know that the last nine years formerly unacceptable rhetoric from a former US president like saying ‘Democrats are the enemy within’ or immigrants are ‘poisoning the blood of our country’ or ‘Harris was a shit VP’ or ‘Kamala is a Marxist’ or ‘Arnold Palmer was all man and had an amazingly large dick’ (????) or ‘John McCain was only a hero because he was captured’ has been normalized.
It’s impossible to keep up with the firehose of his outrageous rhetoric and we become numb to the stuff. Maybe people have simply become inured to the steady stream of lies, cruelty and ignorance that comes out of the guy’s mouth.
Have you ever experienced being cancelled? I have to a (very) minor extent.
I have experienced describing how "Defund the Police" seems to harm communities, rather than help them, and having a social circle brand me as racist. The people branding me did not give a damn about Black People. They just wanted to defeat a dragon (me) and earn virtue points. That is my (repeated) personal experience of the left.
I have been ostracized for daring to be against the expungement of Jordan Peterson's "12 Rules for Life" from a college library. If you read the Wikipedia page of the book then you will find that it was criticized for being pat, cliche, and unobjectionable (!!). It might be a boring book, but it isn't one that needs censoring. Again, these vehement people did not care about the truth.
I don't like Trump, but I dislike the (current) left more, because of repeated personal experience of them acting horribly, and actively harming those they want to help. For context, I supported Obama, and in general am in favor of many supposed goals of the left (like social safety nets, etc...), but to me, the wokeness override everything. It is so corrosive. I don't trust the left to actually help those they claim to support.
Defund the police is a stupid idea. Joe Biden said so in public: “No. Fund the police.”
Banning innocuous books is stupid.
I retired during Trump’s first term and haven’t experienced the extreme woke effect. A couple of fellow engineers were big Trump guys. I said I thought he was a jackass. We remained friends.
I have been shunned for stating an opinion contrary to the majority though. I’ve always made a point of speaking up for my own convictions.
That is a good principle! All I am saying, is that personally, I have experienced Democrats cancelling people for disagreeing with them, and my impression is that they cancel a lot lot more than the Republicans do.
Fyi, Kamala Harris was pro defund the police: https://www.cnn.com/2024/07/26/politics/kfile-kamala-harris-praised-defund-the-police-movement-in-june-2020/index.html
I can't speak for all "somewhat leaning toward Trump" people, but perhaps I can be an archetype:
* Struggled to comprehend why my liberal friends thought Rome was falling on January 6, which seemed (to me, at least) more along the lines of football hooliganism.
* Believes that bureaucratic inertia (the "deep state", if you must) greatly outweighs the president's power, and therefore elections don't really matter very much.
* Neither candidate is particularly competent. Neither is particularly scary.
* The Trump tax cuts are nice, and limiting illegal immigration is good. Trump's proposed tariffs would probably suck if actually implemented, but they probably won't be.
Also, most importantly, is where we end up in 2028:
Suppose Kamala wins. What happens on the GOP side is anyone's guess. Vance probably goes down with the ship. All those stupid perennial Trump yard signs probably stay up. Kamala probably runs again in 2028.
Now suppose Trump wins. He gracefully disappears once his term is up. The yard signs come down. Vance becomes the de facto successor, and presumably takes the GOP in interesting new directions. Kamala is gone, and the Democrats hopefully nominate someone more interesting.
When has Trump ever done "graceful", and why are you expecting him to start in 2028?
He'll probably *leave office* in 2029, if he wins next month. But it won't be graceful, and the stink of it will be all over J.D. Vance.
+1.
I think Republicans would benefit from winning, e.g., VD Vance is fresh, young, statesman like, and the Democrats need to lose, and get off the track of a) pandering, and b) running unlikable not-very-competent candidates.
Personally, I'm undecided on whether Trump or Harris is the lesser evil.
Harris has explicitly said she is for "regulating" [censoring] speech on social media, and she was part of an administration that roughly doubled the number of illegal immigrants entering the USA.
Trump is a (pathological?) liar, and he suggested looking into injecting disinfectant.
I can't see leaning _towards_ either candidate, but there are very good cases for leaning away from each of them.
She also support defund the police (about the most stupid and actively harmful policy imaginable...)
https://www.cnn.com/2024/07/26/politics/kfile-kamala-harris-praised-defund-the-police-movement-in-june-2020/index.html
Good point! Many Thanks!
Harris is a pathological liar too... E.g., her recent plagiarism findings.
You mean her ghost writer plagiarized.
As I noted above, I can think of plenty of reasons someone might vote for Trump. But denying that he is an outlier in many ways is not a claim that anyone can take seriously.
What next, a claim that because Harris was once curt to a waiter means that she is just as rude as Trump, who insults the appearance of a rival's wife during a debate?
Many Thanks! I hadn't heard about that, but I'm not terribly surprised. I cited just two reasons for opposing each candidate, but there are a lot more for each of them. Gaa, we need a better system for picking candidates. (Don't ask me how!)
>it’s hard for me to believe someone is ‘somewhat leaning’ toward Trump
It seems pretty easy to me. What if someone is anti-immigration but pro-Ukraine? Or pro-immigration but also pro-Israel? That person could easily lean Trump (or lean Harris). And those are just a couple of issues.
Yeah, not gonna lie, wanting to fully support Ukraine made me initially anti-trump.
If not for my complete disgust with the left, that alone would make me want to vote Harris.
It’s not about policy for me. It’s about character. Based on the words that come out his mouth unfiltered by media interpretation I believe Trump is a moral cretin. A completely shameless man who will say one thing at 10:00 AM and the opposite at 2:00 PM and pass a lie detector test both times
A person who will say “So what?” when told Mike Pence has been safely evacuated from the Capitol building. Who will watch an assault on that building for hours and not come out and say, “Stop it. I don’t want that. Remember, I said to demonstrate peacefully?”
I’m center left and prefer Dems in general but I would vote for Mitt Romney, Paul Ryan or Liz Cheney over Trump. Bring back John McCain or Bob Dole and I’d vote for them too.
Yeah, he does have a horrible character. But at least his party does not endorse it. They say, "he has no filter" etc... but don't hold him up as role model.
Kamala Harris has a similar lack of integrity (as evidenced by her history of wildly varying policy positions that conveniently always suited her aspirations for higher office, and her repeated - well evidenced - plagiarism). However, the left does hold her up as a role model, and tars most criticism of her as being sexist.
To me, that is the difference between the parties.
> It’s not about policy for me
I suspect it is, though. You're in the fortunate position of disliking Trump personally and also disliking his policies, so it's not a difficult decision.
But put yourself in the shoes of someone who strongly prefers Trump's policy positions. Are you really going to choose the candidate with policies you think would be terrible over the candidate with policies you like, just because the candidate whose policies you like is a bit more of a dick?
This happens in every election. There's a lot of "Oh, I'd never vote for Candidate X because of his/her terrible character flaws" coming from people who would never vote for Candidate X anyway.
Unrelatedly,
> Who will watch an assault on that building for hours and not come out and say, “Stop it. I don’t want that. Remember, I said to demonstrate peacefully?”
https://x.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1346912780700577792
> it’s hard for me to believe someone is ‘somewhat leaning’ toward Trump
That sounds like outgroup homogeneity bias. You hate Trump so you assume that everyone who doesn't hate Trump must love Trump.
But no, the full spectrum of views exists here, as it does everywhere else.
For what it's worth, I know a lot of people who a struggling with who to vote for, many of whom are leaning towards Trump but uncertain. It's several real categories of voters.
1) People who are Republican, but don't like Trump specifically.
2) People who like Trump, but also have concerns about his temperament or ability.
3) People who really don't like Kamala or the Democratic platform, but aren't necessarily Republicans or Trump supporters (in swing states, these people need to consider voting for a major party even if they prefer something else).
I won't claim to know what percent of potential voters this encompasses, but I would guess a single digit percent. That's low, but in 2016 or 2020 that may have been enough to swing the election.
for what it's worth the Ezra Klein article you linked higher up genuinely moved the needle for me.
The thing that is still keeping me unsure is that you (or rather Ezra) has articulated a fantastic steelman and counterargument for Trump against Not Trump. But this election isn't just Trump against Not Trump; it's also Kamala Harris against Not Kamala Harris. And Kamala isn't just a generic Democrat, she has some real serious issues that I would love to see a similar steelman-and-counterargument for that aren't "well this bit doesn't matter, because her opponent is Trump".
As for whether you believe me or not...well, that's probably understandable. I'm not so foolish as to think my particular reasons for are super common. Some combination of...oh I don't know, probably at least 95th percentile aversion to partisanship and a weird-ass combination of left and right tribe culture (recent-catholic-convert mildly-anti-woke-but-somewhat-sympathetic-towards-it libertarian-sympathetic deer hunting big truck loving homesteading-hippy fitness-adjacent raw-egg-eating kind-of-rationalist-ish pro-Elon-Musk tech-bro-but-not-the-kind-that-likes-crypto cyclist-but-not-the-kind-that-wears-spandex in a big urban city who aligns with Democrats on probably 60-80% of policy positions but is really worried about the remaining 20-40%). Depending on what issues I'm caring about in a given week I'm pulled either strongly or weakly in one or another direction.
Another thing is that I'm not in a swing state. So who I vote for is more about my personal conscience and group identity. Either way I vote it burns some bridges and opens up others. I'm not the kind of person who will lie about who I voted for. There are people who I respect who might hate me for voting the "wrong way". It's not about who becomes president, it's about what it says about me and my values.
> Either way I vote it burns some bridges and opens up others. I'm not the kind of person who will lie about who I voted
Now this is interesting. Is it actually a common thing in the US for people to ask each other who they voted for?
In Australia that would be an outrageous question to ask somebody.
No, people in the US do not ask strangers who they voted for. But people do discuss the merits of various candidates with people they know, which I assume is the case in Australia as well.
People may volunteer that information but it’s not proper to ask someone. Pollsters do it but no one is compelled to answer. The whole secret ballot thing is pretty ingrained in the US.
Not particularly often, for the reasons you might expect, but it would be something people might volunteer when it's relevant. Most of the time it's pretty obvious -- my fundamentalist Baptist second cousins in South Carolina are voting Trump, my little brother who has a pride flag and Palestine flag sticker on his computer and participated in the BLM protests in Portland is probably voting Harris.
It's likely more common in ambiguously partisan grey tribe circles like where I hang out. And close friends do talk about this stuff obviously.
I've never been asked, but people know I'm a commie (i.e., a Centrist Democrat). People do say things like, "I'm voting for so-and-so," as an endorsement for a candidate. Also, any answer you'd get could be a lie tailored to your preferences. There was a story the last election cycle about Republican women voting for Biden, but telling their husbands they voted for Trump to keep marital harmony.
That captures the tone of what's going on exactly. "Hey fellow ACXers, I'm somewhat leaning towards Trump these days and here's why..."
With follow ups from others like: "Wow. I'm glad I'm not the only one!"
This is possibly the worst place imaginable to run an astroturf campaign- your expected value per dollar spent is many orders of magnitude higher on Facebook, reddit, TikTok, etc, so on that basis alone I am extremely skeptical of your assertions.
The alternative explanation, in that a number of ACXers have realized that perhaps the media blitz of the past few months have rather obfuscated some fundamental truths about the candidates and come to different conclusions than your own tracks with national polling, so I am more inclined to lean that direction.
This is also a wonderful example of the power of echo chambers- not everyone here votes (D), but it's the default assumption.
Just to confirm I'm not misunderstanding here. The original comment ("it's starting to feel like there's a trump ad campaign here") seemed to me to be suggesting that there was some degree of inorganic nature to a lot of the pro-trump posts (and I agree there are quite a lot of them, so this is a legitimate thing to worry about!).
My feelings are something like "I am one of these people who have been posting somewhat favorable opinions about Trump recently and I can assure you not only am I completely honest about my feelings, but I am also not part of any coordinated action; presuming there are others like me I think this is probably genuine. I and others feel relief and solidarity that we are not alone here."
Have you changed your mind about the initial idea that this is inorganic, or are you suggesting that this is even more evidence that this is inorganic, because my response and feelings fit very suspiciously into a template you've seen repeated in the other threads?
As Steve Sailer says, I'm just noticing patterns. As I said above, it *feels* like an ad campaign, but that doesn't mean it is in fact premeditated electioneering. Perhaps the closeness of the election is causing multiple ACX readers to spontaneously make similar-sounding OPs about how they are leaning-Trump or how they don't like Trump but will vote for him anyway because of this and that. Or perhaps there is a copy-cat effect of one Trump voter here reading one of those posts and then deciding to post their own.
What really causes the pattern to stand out is that normally posters here will read the existing threads and add to them if they have something to say on the subject. But instead of the "Why I'm voting for Trump" testimonials sticking to the same threads they are creating new ones on the same topic.
that's absolutely fair and I agree with you.
This reminds me a bit of that one time someone here elaborated a whole theory on why some subreddit commenter was not, in fact, an Argentine, but rather a Chinese propagandist. This was later dispelled by checking said commenter's post history.
I'd do it for you if I hadn't expended my substack time allowance, but you can just go into their profiles and see if they're saying elsewhere matches what you see here.
Vote Trump to save America (and the world)
Vote Harris if you've read enough history to understand how electing amoral strongman populists claiming that they're going to save the world usually goes.
I have read lots of history. The current globalist totalitarian left are much closer to authoritarian strongmen than MAGA supporters. The people who know this first hand - Iranians, for example, or Vietnamese - are among the most likely to support Trump.
Remember, never in history have the people in favour of censorship been the good guys.
+1. I agree so much with this! The first move of any dictor is always to censor the press.
I feel like every US President falls into the category of "amoral strongman populists claiming that they're going to save the world" to some degree.
Biden or Clinton to a lesser degree, Bush was variable (lesser degree before 9/11, greater degree after it), and Obama and Trump to a huge degree.
In some sense, it is a difference in degree. But I think Trump is closer temperamentally to some of the worst historical examples of this sort of thing than he is to past presidents. Certainly Obama had a cult of personality, but he was never the kind of "strong leader" who throws democratic norms on a bonfire to secure power. Nixon certainly was that kind of man, but he was never the sort to let his ego unmoor him from reality.
Trump, as a leader, is a very specific kind of bad. He acts like the kind of leader you see winning elections in less stable countries and then dismantling democratic institutions. He behaves like the kind of leader you read about in history taking power just before things go to hell.
“Obama was never the kind of leader who throws democratic norms on a bonfire to secure power”
This comment will not age well
To clarify - I’m making a prediction. I believe Obama has been among the worst offenders in terms of dividing the country and clinging to power at all costs even after his 8 years was up.
The reason you don’t hear about this is because Democratic operatives control the mainstream media. With the rise of independent media (Twitter, Substack) and the election of Trump allowing people to speak truth to power without fear of retribution, this will change dramatically.
Did President Trump help the working class?
Yes.
How?
Your question is awfully vague, and thus will be open to interpretation. I will simply point to the trade war he started with China, with tariffs. Did this not encourage employment in the United States, especially in steel?
Tariffs, of all types, are a tax on consumers. Does raising taxes on all good help or hurt the "working class"?
https://taxfoundation.org/research/all/federal/trump-tariffs-biden-tariffs/
>The Trump administration imposed nearly $80 billion worth of new taxes on Americans by levying tariffs on thousands of products valued at approximately $380 billion in 2018 and 2019, amounting to one of the largest tax increases in decades.
Please note this is not an endorsement of Biden/Harris as:
>The Biden administration has kept most of the Trump administration tariffs in place
Tariffs are a hold over from mercantilist economics that haven't been relevant since the 1800s.
The main purpose of tariffs is not revenue gain, but protection. One can protect infant industries, artificially lowering one's own money to make exports seem cheaper, or places relaxing regulations which make it cheaper to produce things there (such as environmental damage, lower tax rates, etc.). Sure, you can get a little more money from those that are still willing to pay the tariff, but it causes a reduction in demand, which can then only be filled with domestic production.
"Tariffs are a hold over from mercantilist economics that haven't been relevant since the 1800s."
If a country wants, for example, to start an industry but can't yet compete with overseas pricing, a tariff is a reasonable way to allow the industry to grow and become competitive.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tariff
No, according to most of the economic assessments I've seen.
No.
Why do you trust JD Vance? He has changed his views often enough. His career consists of him finding some mentor that he uses to promote himself, adapting his own views accordingly (Amy Chua, Peter Thiel, now Trump). He pretends to be anti elite but he’s a very good example of someone who gets into Yale Law school and ingratiates people and climbs up in society. In the Hillbilly Elegy days he said things that pleased the liberals, now he says whatever Trump wants him to say.
I trust this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iEy-xTbcr2A&ab_channel=TED If you look at that link to him talking 8 years ago, you find him saying similar things on the campaign trail, and in the VP debate. (And to be clear, it is explicit from that talk from 8 years ago that he was republican).
Hillbilly Elegy likely pleased liberals for exactly the same reasons liberals should currently be pleased by VD Vance!! I think he actually has a lot lot more liberal leanings that the average republican. He has (like me) expressed admiration for Obama.
I honesty think he could make a phenomenal centrist statesman, and if he were on the ballet then I would vote him over either candidate in a heartbeat.
I wouldn’t trust someone who said that Congress should have debated alternative slates of electors in 2021 or who spreads stories he knows are unfounded about migrants eating pets.
He’s too socially conservative to be a centrist or appeal to people as a centrist.
Also “I don’t care about Ukraine“ is not a good stance.
I agree on your Ukraine point though.
Everyone can be mischaracterized. Everyone comes across badly through the filter of the other party. My experience of watching the content JD Vance actually produces and runs on, is that he comes across extremely well.
For example, on the campaign trail sometimes the crowd boos democratic reporters who ask him questions. How does JD Vance react? He actively defends the reporter for asking questions, e.g., "Come on guys, he's not that bad." That is classy. It reminds me strongly of Obama.
I'm not hugely impressed by Vance, but come on now: he changes his views to adapt to whatever will advance him? Ask Kamala about her 'evolving' views; when the public want Tough On Crime she's Copmala, when she was running in 2016 she went hard to port, now she's moving back to almost wrapping herself in the flag with her pick of Walz as a running mate (he's an old white guy from the Midwest who was in the Army (Reserve) and was a (high school) football coach! look at him changing the oil filter in a truck!)
Lock 'em up for dealing weed? Sure thing! Legal weed? Sure thing!
So let's not hold people to different standards about that.
"he’s a very good example of someone who gets into Yale Law school and ingratiates people and climbs up in society"
Isn't that Kamala also? The daughter of immigrants, lived in Oakland, worked summer job in McDonalds (allegedly, there seems to be some doubt being cast on that but I don't much care)? Or perhaps not, her parents were at least within the upper-middle class, being college professors, even though the story is also presented as "daughter of a single mother who had to save for a decade to finally be able to purchase her own house".
At least Vance's dysfunctional family, blue-collar roots and childhood poverty is authentic, not ersatz.
As for "ingratiating oneself with people and climbing up in society". Well. Ahem. Let me dig out that Politico article about Kamala rubbing shoulders with the hoity-toity Nob Hill set in San Francisco, and how she came to mingle with them (thanks, Willie Brown!)
https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2019/08/09/kamala-harris-2020-president-profile-san-francisco-elite-227611/
"Well before she was a United States senator, or the attorney general of California, Harris was already in with the in-crowd here. From 1994, when she was introduced splashily in the region’s most popular newspaper column as the paramour of one of the state’s most powerful politicians, to 2003, when she was elected district attorney, the Oakland- and Berkeley-bred Harris charted the beginnings of her ascent in the more fashionable crucible of San Francisco. In Pacific Heights parlors and bastions of status and wealth, in trendy hot spots, and in the juicy, dishy missives of the variety of gossip columns that chronicled the city’s elite, Kamala Harris was a boldface name.
Born and raised in more diverse, far less affluent neighborhoods on the other side of the Bay, Harris was the oldest daughter of immigrant parents, reared in a family that was intellectual but not privileged or rich. As a presidential contender, running against opponents who openly disdain elites and big money, she has emphasized not only her reputation as a take-no-prisoners prosecutor but also the humbleness of her roots — a child of civil rights activism, of busing, “so proud,” as she said at the start of her speech announcing her candidacy, “to be a child of Oakland.”
Her rise, however, was propelled in and by a very different milieu. In this less explored piece of her past, Harris used as a launching pad the tightly knit world of San Francisco high society, navigating early on this rarefied world of influence and opulence, charming and partying with movers and shakers — ably cultivating relationships with VIPs who would become friends and also backers and donors of every one of her political campaigns, tapping into deep pockets and becoming a popular figure in a small world dominated by a handful of powerful families. This stratum of San Francisco remains a profoundly important part of her network — including not just powerful Democratic donors but an ambassador appointed by President Donald Trump who ran in the same circles.
Harris, now 54, often has talked about the importance of having “a seat at the table,” of being an insider instead of an outsider. And she learned that skill in this crowded, incestuous, famously challenging political proving ground, where she worked to score spots at the some of the city’s most sought-after tables. In the mid- to late ’90s and into the aughts, the correspondents who kept tabs on the comings and goings of the area’s A-listers noted where Harris was and what she was doing and who she was with. As she advanced professionally, jumping from Alameda County to posts in the offices of the district and city attorneys across the Bay, she was a trustee, too, of the museum of modern art and active in causes concerning AIDS and the prevention of domestic abuse, and out and about at fashion shows and cocktail parties and galas and get-togethers at the most modish boutiques. She was, in the breezy, buzzy parlance of these kinds of columns, one of the “Pretty Thangs.” She was a “rising star.” She was “rather perfect.” And she mingled with “spiffy and powerful friends” who were her contemporaries as well as their even more influential mothers and fathers. All this was fun, but it wasn’t unserious. It was seeing and being seen with a purpose, society activity with political utility."
Stones, glass houses, you know the drill.
Kamala Harris was the daughter of a Stanford Professor. JD Vance's mother couldn't raise him because she was an active drug user... I fail to see the commonality.
JD Vance has had consistent opinions for 8 years (from before he was involved in politics!)
E.g.: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iEy-xTbcr2A&ab_channel=TED
You can see already in that talk how he believe that American industry needs strengthening. This is exactly the kinds of policies he advocated for in the VP debate. Again, I fail to see the commonality with Kamala.
I'm just here to disagree with the sister comment.
Deiseach, please continue to be as verbose as you like.
Try to express yourself more concisely.
Okay. Kamala = Vance, that concise enough for ya? Both of them owe their rise to patronage (and believe me, I could be a *lot* coarser in expressing that, save I respect Scott).
Is it some kind of inverted snobbery, that the lower sorts cannot advance themselves unless they are in lockstep with the 'correct' views? Vance is not real hillbilly because look, he went to college! Kamala is the daughter of college professors and look, she's real from the hood!
The original point wasn’t about Kamala. I don’t think she is as hypocritical as JD but you are not providing any reason why he would be considered particularly trustworthy.
If you don't think Vance is trustworthy, neither have you any reason to think Harris is trustworthy, because both of them followed a similar career trajectory. Harris may have stated out with an advantage in being the child of academics, but she likes to (or her campaign likes to) portray the "I was bussed to school, I lived in Oakland" image of less privilege.
Vance changes opinions to get ahead? So does Harris. Vance sucked up to rich and influential people to launch his career? So did Harris. Vance is not 'really' of the background he bases his campaign persona on? Neither is Harris.
(1) "His career consists of him finding some mentor that he uses to promote himself, adapting his own views accordingly (Amy Chua, Peter Thiel, now Trump)."
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/10/22/us/kamala-harris-alameda-san-francisco-career.html
Harris' career consists of her finding some mentor that she uses to promote herself, adapting her own views accordingly (Willie Brown, Susie Tompkins Buell, Laurene Powell Jobs, then Biden).
(2) "He pretends to be anti elite but he’s a very good example of someone who gets into Yale Law school and ingratiates people and climbs up in society."
https://www.sfchronicle.com/politics/article/kamala-harris-sf-fundraiser-19649303.php
Harris talks about the working class and the middle class and her roots in Oakland, while holding fundraisers where tickets range from $3,000 to $500,000.
Speaking of those Oakland roots, she didn't spend a whole lot of time there growing up. Berkeley and Montreal get those spots:
https://www.sfchronicle.com/projects/2024/kamala-harris-bay-area-places/
(3) "In the Hillbilly Elegy days he said things that pleased the liberals, now he says whatever Trump wants him to say."
In the Alameda attorney days, she said things that pleased the tough on crime crowd, now she says whatever the legalise weed set wants her to say.
https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/article/how-a-life-changing-moment-as-san-francisco-da-shaped-kamala-harris-approach-to-politics/
"Harris went on to forge alliances with the police, increase her office’s conviction rate and threaten parents with jail if their kids missed too much school.
“She became more unwilling to cross law enforcement, to be more defensive of law enforcement in ways that really angered some progressives in California,” Shafer says.
The Espinoza experience also helped to spark what observers say was another shift: Harris became “known for being a little bit more cautious politically,” according to Jamilah King of Mother Jones."
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/ng-interactive/2024/oct/19/election-harris-marijuana-legalization
"Griffen Thorne, also an attorney specializing in cannabis, felt the promise was “clearly political”, given the announcement came just three weeks before the election. Thorne and other experts the Guardian spoke to suspect Harris’s campaign is attempting to shore up numbers with Black voters, particularly Black men, who are currently less likely to support Harris than they were Biden, according to a New York Times poll."
I don't much like Vance, but it's not fair to say he did Thing while Harris also did Thing. If doing Thing makes Vance untrustworthy, it should equally apply to Harris. Or we could agree that people can rise above their station in life by education and networking, and this does not make them class traitors or bad people.
Regarding the problem of bots in social media, comment sections etc: we've had CAPTCHAs for a while that determine whether the person using the website is a human based on patterns of mouse movement etc. How hard can it be to augment the APIs of social media apps such that they recognize whether a comment or post was typed by a human based on keystroke patterns, response times etc? They could then offer a function to filter out suspected bot content. Can't be that hard, can it?
This can be faked just as easily as mouse movements.
"When a metric becomes a target, it ceases to be a good metric."
Bot operators would immediately develop their own models to generate activity that appears human-like.
Yeah, that's true. It would probably just shift the arms race to a new front.
The very purpose of a public API is so that you can interact with the service programatically, without mouse movement over a browser or any other distinctly manual, human behaviour. Sure you can close that public API, but that means shutting out all the good bots too. That is a business decision, not a technical problem.
I get that, and I don't suggest shutting down all bot activity, but it would be a huge step in the right direction to make it visible.
Make what visible?
Whether a given post or comment was written by a humanbor a bot.
This distinction is fundamentally impossible on that level, that's my point. Twitter knows whether a tweet was made over the public API or not, but beyond that, it's all circumstantial. Both humans and bots can use the public API. There is no 100% certain way of telling whether a tweet was made by a bot nor not, whether or not it was made over the API.
I'm pretty sure the CAPTCHAs detecting human-like mouse movement is an often repeated myth. Google hasn't disclosed exactly how they determine likely humans, but we know it's largely based on tracking user behavior, being logged into a Google account, not using a VPN, etc. Mouse movement is not a good way to distinguish bots from humans: a bot could easily move the mouse or replay recorded human mouse movements.
If you've ever had a WordPress blog, you'll see that you get a lot of spam comments, and that the anti-spam plugin catches over 90% of them. So these things exist and are in use.
Does it feel like people finally got US election fever in the last week or two? Like, most of this year I'd be sitting with friends and family and the election, despite the craziness, was kinda a background thing. No one really wanted to talk about it, no one was really interested, no one was angry. Everything seemed really muted. And then it's really heated up again and I'm getting capital A angy vibes around politics again.
Did I hallucinate this? Is this real?
If so, why? And any special reason why it picked up now besides just two weeks to the election?
I feel like Kamala doing more media appearances (along with associated commentary from the left and the right) has something to do with it.
You get a lot of instances that galvanize talking about the issues each party have..
Single datum: In my meatspace social relations, my impression is that it has been going on for a few months now.
I haven't noticed as much of an update in it with my meatspace social relations, but the board certainly has.
yes, definitely. I don't think this is a bad thing though -- I would prefer 2-3 weeks of really high-emotion campaigning every 4 years to 4 years of slow simmering. I've always been critical of the "campaign season" being stretched further and further back. Since the next election begins before the current one even ends, many people have finally decided that rather than caring deeply about politics all year long, they'll mostly ignore it and only really seriously consider it once the election comes closer.
<mild snark>
After 11/5/2024, does it switch over from "campaign season" to "litigation season"? :-)
</mild snark>
Seems real to me, especially on twitter.
This is the sentence of the year. What a perfect encapsulation of what's happening.
Obligatory disclaimer: my experience of twitter is very different from most people's experience of twitter. I spent like 10 years on it mostly talking to friends, my feed looks more like a private discord server than what people usually see on twitter.
I also have a public account that is mostly interesting content around meditation, AI, software engineering, jokes, and sometimes politics, mostly filled with people that are tpot-adjacent. It's not really crazy most of the time. It does go very fast because it's twitter, containment can be breached easily and it's very easy to fall into the Two Minute Hate that tend to happen if you think you need to talk about everything ("focus on what you want to see more of" is a great antidote to this, don't talk about something you don't want to promote).
So my twitter is usually a nice place, with not too much craziness. But craziness has increased a lot the last few weeks, most people seems more tired/have their defenses less active than usual, more stuff breaches containment, etc.
I don't live in the US and twitter is the only social media I use/actively read/post on, so it's the only place where I can really notice the election craziness.
The polls are now officially open in most States as of today (early voting). I have a friend who just cast a vote in Georgia today.
I think it would be strange not to have at least a little election fever while voting is actively underway.
For a while, everyone quietly accepted that Trump was going to beat Biden and there was nothing to be done about it.
Then everyone accepted that Harris was going to beat Trump and there was nothing to be done about it.
But all of a sudden the polls are close! Harris is slightly ahead overall, while Trump is slightly ahead in enough swing states to matter. There's finally enough data that you can squint at in the right way to back out any narrative you want! There's everything to play for, and forever to play it in!
>There's finally enough data that you can squint at in the right way to back out any narrative you want!
<mild snark>
I think "Losing candidate concedes in a statespersonlike way." can be ruled out. :-)
</mild snark>
Here's my COVID update for epidemiological weeks 41 and 42.
Summary:
1. In the US, wastewater numbers are down, ER visits are down, hospitalizations are down, and deaths are down. If this trend continues for a couple of more weeks we'll reach new lows for all these numbers since the beginning of the pandemic. Except maybe for wastewater numbers—unlike other respiratory viruses, SARS2 continues circulating at relatively high levels between waves. It's almost as if it's become *endemic* (gasp).
2. XEC is the latest variant of concern. It's contributing to waves in some Euro countries (for example, DE and NL). But these countries are coming off periods of low COVID numbers. In the US, we're coming off a wave (KP.3x). I don't think XEC will kick off a new wave in the US. But its descendants may a couple of months down the road.
3. I reviewed the current situation for some of the other common respiratory viruses. Flu season is starting a bit late this year. Except for a possible uptick in the rates of A H3, the other A strains (and B strains) aren't showing much activity (yet).
Link to X...
https://x.com/beowulf888/status/1848544351699251281
Link to the Threadreader unroll...
https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1848544351699251281.html
My brother and his girlfriend have taken to avoiding eating in indoor restaurants entirely over fears of COVID sequelae. This is driven by the girlfriend, and me and my family feel this is an overreaction. What do you think about it? Is there a good argument I could use? In the end, I don't know what is the probability that one could get a major adverse effect from COVID if one takes no precautions, and I think that is a number they don't know either, but I suspect it's insignificant.
I can sympathize somewhat. My wife has some preexisting health conditions and she is _very_ scared of Long COVID impacting her life. So we've been avoiding indoor restaurant dining whenever we feel that there is too much COVID in circulation, which has been the case for most of the past few years.
I personally feel it's too much caution, but it's not enough of a problem for me to make a huge issue over it. We live in a city where outdoor dining is common and easily available, even for Michelin-starred places, so it's not a huge burden to adapt to.
It's also hard for me to make a strong case against it, mainly because there's so much uncertainty out there about Long COVID and the true level of risk.
I very much agree with beowulf888: I really think you should not try to convince them of what is good or bad for them. If they feel uncomfortable in restaurants, then let them have their way. I have so many silly quirks that are not covered by any proper risk analysis. And I am very thankful to my partner that he just lets me have them and doesn't try to talk me out of them.
I do agree that the risk from covid and long covid is tolerable. I would rate it one of the larger risks that we have in our everyday lives, and I would rank it in a common category with other "normal risky" behavior, like motorcycling or skiing or taking drugs. Meaning that for me, such risks are acceptable, but it does make sense to take some precautions. (E.g., I get vaccinated, don't drive motorbike, and wear a helmet for skiing.) A restaurant visit is probably pretty harmless, but then, would you try to talk someone into just a 10miles ride with the motorcycle if they say that they feel uncomfortable during such a ride?
Actually, my personal anecdata is the opposite of beowulf's. One of my direct colleagues (in a group of 50 people, and he is just ~40 years old) got long covid that confines him to his house and makes even remote work impossible. This has been his state for about 1.5 years now, and we have not much hope that he will ever return to work. But then, 20 years ago my colleague in the neighbouring office at work died in a motorcycle accident, so risks are everywhere.
First, everyone has their own unique *perception* of risk. If you're scared of flying, I'm not going to try to talk you into flying by quoting the statistics that flying is the safest form of transportation. If I were to say, "According to ChatGPT, the death rate for flying is about 0.1–0.2 deaths per million passengers over the past decade," that would have no impact on their fears or their behavior—because they're worried they'll be among the unlucky 1 in 10 million passengers hurtling to earth in a nose-diving jetliner.
OTOH, the risk of developing post-infection sequelae is much higher than dying in an aircraft crash. The data does show that vaccination significantly reduces the risk of developing Long COVID. And staying current with the latest boosters *may* reduce the risks more (but the data is out on that). The data also indicates that sequelae from a severe COVID infection are almost identical in type, severity, and length to the sequelae from a severe case of the flu—except SARS2 kills taste and smell. Despite the media attention on Long COVID, epi studies have shown that of the 2% of people who developed severe sequelae symptoms after the Omicron wave, most got better within three months. And only ~1% of that 2% had unresolved symptoms after a year. And the rate of LC symptoms per infection has been trending downward steadily over the 3 years since Omicron.
Anyway, I can't really tell you what the odds are. But from my own personal anecdata, I don't have any friends or acquaintances suffering from Long COVID. Several got it bad enough to have the brain fog symptom for a couple of months, but they're all fine now. I'm not wearing a mask anymore, and I'm eating out — even when there's a COVID wave underway. OTOH, I have friends who are still masking in public situations and who are reluctant to eat out. I don't try to force them to behave as I do.
I'm sure your brother and his gf are reading all the Long COVID horror stories and they're likely up on the science (but my take is that Long COVID research is a new generation of scientists sucking on the NIH teat and taking advantage of peoples' fears). But my advice is to just accept that your brother and his gf fears probably won't be resolved by throwing statistics at them. Get takeout. ;-)
Thanks for the update. It's interesting to follow up on what happens with COVID in less agitated times.
Is it true that the U.S. military has technology that is "decades ahead" of anything available to the consumer market? If so, what kind of technology do you think currently exists that the public is not aware of?
No but yes, yes but no.
The things that are far ahead can't be bought, the things that can be bought are usually 5-40 years behind.
There are only 2 areas that I know of that the military is definitely decades ahead of consumer market stuff, at least areas where there is a consumer market. Those are encryption and earth-observation satellites. Debatably some stuff where the consumer market is artificially suppressed like GPS but that could be closed very shortly if the military decides it was ok.
Supersonic flight as well, but this is due to regulatory and economic barriers not technological.
Can you elaborate more on the GPS part? In what ways is it suppressed? Very interesting
As noted, the civilian GPS signals are now as precise as the military ones; I think the Pentagon theoretically retains the right and ability to selectively degrade them in wartime, but that's increasingly unlikely to actually happen.
However, it is the case that almost all civilian GPS chipsets will shut down (or at least deliver a null output) if they calculate altitude and/or velocity values significantly beyond usual civil aircraft performance and into the missile regime. If you're Boom Technology and you're legitimately trying to develop a civilian SST, you can get an unlocked GPS reciever, but you'll have to prove that's what you're doing with it.
I believe the GPS part is way outdated. Originally, the GPS system made small adjustments to the time stamps, resulting in a GPS positioning accuracy of about 200 feet for members of the public. The government could get more accurate positioning because it knew what the adjustments were and could compensate for them.
It was possible to plot the effects of the time stamp adjustments by taking the GPS measurements at known locations. I believe that there were some published harbor maps which would show GPS measurments, allowing more accurate navigation than if you to the GPS location data at face value.
The government abandoned this because of the commercial importance of GPS. For a while, it reserved the right to reinstate the adjustments in national emergencies, but never did so.
There are also encrypted military GPS signals. Because these are encrypted, they are impossible to spoof (unless someone manages to steal the keys). The encryption keys are not available to civilians.
Thanks. You’re right, I hadn’t learned they stopped suppressing civilian GPS.
Typically the technology used by the military lags 15-20 years behind what is commercially available. This makes intuitive sense for a lot of products that don't have obvious military applications, because it takes a while for the military to figure out how to integrate and use it effectively. There is also a time lag between between someone at a F500 company or university lab publishing cutting edge results and those results being evaluated and put into military use. The exception to this is tech with a direct military focus created through DARPA or some similar program. Think a battleship mounted rail gun or something like that.
Also, there is a lot of institutional inertia and stupid bureaucracy the military has to deal with that cuts down on innovation. You might remember the USS Fitzgerald, which collided with a civilian ship in 2017. At that time, the ship's computer navigation systems were running on Windows 2000. This was also partly political; the Obama-era Navy prioritized building new ships over refurbishing the existing fleet, which had their maintenance sadly neglected.
Or another example, the US Marine Corps wanted to replace their main infantry rifle in the early 2000s. They were using the Colt M4, which was adopted in 1994, although the design was a slightly modified carbine version of the M16, dating back to 1964. The US Army and SOCOM had recently spent a lot of time and money on a rifle competition to possibly replace the M4, but weren't satisfied with any of the options (partially because their standards weren't realistic). So the USMC request was denied. But the USMC was able to get a request granted to replace their M249 SAWs replaced with the H&K M27 in 2010.
By 2017, the USMC had put in a request to replace their entire M4 arsenal with the M27, which I believe is currently underway. As of now, the US Army is in the process of replacing their old M4 and M249 weaponry with new 6.8x51mm weapons produced by SIG Sauer. Again, the M4 dates to 1994 (really the '60s for most of the gun) and the M249 to 1984.
"The exception to this is tech with a direct military focus created through DARPA or some similar program. Think a battleship mounted rail gun or something like that."
I have to agree, the standard of rail gun available commercially to the general public just isn't what it ought to be 😁 And ask the Libertarians about backyard nukes! The stories they can tell would curl your hair!
I built a rail gun as my high school physics project….
And it was the nitrogen gas laser by my classmate that had the physics teacher/lab safety officer more concerned (compressed gasses; about 50 kv high voltage electricity; oh, and a uv laser pulse if it works)
Well the F-35 is much better than any fighter jet you can buy at Wal-mart, I can tell you that. And the US military has had nuclear weapons since the 1940s whereas I *still* can't get one.
Seriously though, there's plenty of things that the US military has that can't be bought on the consumer market, but they're things that the consumer market has no use for. I don't buy the idea that the US military has managed to monopolise any technologies for which there'd be a significant civilian market.
I wonder if that is a transfer from the story about "what did the Space Race do for us?" (to justify all the money spent on it) and then a list of alleged civilian and mass-market applications of NASA tech.
So the idea might be floating around that similarly, the military has superior stuff that will eventually percolate out to the public, instead of how it really is.
Well the US military has had nuclear bombs since the 40s and those still haven't hit the consumer market, so I'd say they're at least 80 years ahead.
Define decades ahead? Was nasa decades ahead of spacex in the 60's, because it was decades ago; or was it just getting allot of money?
I have doubts that most of the wildly expensive american miltry equipment matters.
I presume a large part of the reason for `wildly expensive' is that it is bespoke and doesn't benefit from the same kinds of economies of scale (or globalized supply chains) that you get with the consumer market. There are probably good reasons for that, at least some of the time.
At least two types of reason:
- supply chain attacks. If you worry that the product might be sabotaged by your enemy substituting one of its components, price goes way up.
- as you say, economies of scale for commercial products
I’m soliciting recommendations of texts to assign in an undergraduate level seminar-style class I’ll be teaching in Spring called Religion and Psychiatry. As it sounds, the ambit is (still) pretty broad.
I’m thinking of the class as a philosophy of psychiatry style problematization/denaturalization of psychiatric categories in general, with a particular focus on the category of culture-bound syndromes (with religion featuring as culture), but will, say, probably devote a week to what the likes of Freud and Jung made of religion, and am happy to make other detours if they are sexy enough. Or, indeed, totally switch things up if that feels like a good idea.
Would be grateful for any/all suggestions of anything you would like to see on the reading list if you were teaching/taking a class with this title. Also happy to post the stuff I’m pretty sure I’m going to include in the syllabus if folks are curious.
There is an old Czech book called Fantastical and Magical from the Viewpoint of Psychiatry by Vondracek and Holub. It's from 1968 and I have no idea if it has ever been translated, but we have AI these days.
Here's the blurb (edited machine translation)
A comprehensive file of the distinguished Czechoslovak psychiatrist and his collaborator makes available the knowledge of science about so-called fantastic and magical phenomena and properties and about unusual personalities and beings. When a certain part of the brain or interbrain is damaged, or with certain mental illnesses, a person can suffer from auditory, gustatory, olfactory, and often visual hallucinations. Sometimes he does not estimate the time, he has the impression that he can predict the future, other times he suffers from morbid lying, etc. All these states and phenomena, including examples from history, literature, fables, fairy tales and religion, are described in detail in the book.
https://books.google.com/books/about/Fantastick%C3%A9_a_magick%C3%A9_z_hlediska_psych.html?id=2o0GHQAACAAJ
Some practical discussion of how psychiatrists approach a patient presenting with religiously flavored delusions would be great, maybe with separate examples of mainstream religion, established but uncommon religion, and a New Religious Movement.
I forget the exact reference, but there is a paper doubting that any patient ever had “wendigo psychosis”, which features in the dsm as a culture bound disorder. Mythology about wendigos, sure, starvation cannibalism, sure. But was it ever a form of psychosis?
The philosophical point here is if you don’t have in front of you an actual patient with wendigo psychosis, how legitimate is it to turn _mythology_ into diagnostic criteria?
Rosenhan’s “on being sane in naane places” ought to be in there, with the qualification that it is unclear if Rosenhan actually did the xperiment he claimed. regardless, psychiatric reactionnthatvpapervwas basically "well of course we cant tell the difference between someone who is wctually psychotic versus pretending to be psychotic"
_Delusions_ by Peter McKenna has a chapter on why religions and conspiracy theories are not the same as psychotic delusions.
wutz problematization?
C. S. Lewis's "The Discarded Image" is a book that explains how Medieval Europeans thought about the universe, and everything in it: including the mind! Particularly chapter 7, sections C-F ("The Human Soul", "Rational Soul", "Sensitive and Vegetable Soul", and "Soul and Body").
As an example, here's an excerpt where Lewis explains that along with 5 senses, the medieval believed we had 5 "wits":
"The inward Wits are memory, estimation, imagination, phantasy, and common wit (or common sense). Of these, memory calls for no comment. Estimation, or Aestimativa, covers much of what is now covered by the word instinct. Albertus Magnus, whom I follow throughout this passage, tells us in his De Anima that it is Estimation which enables a cow to pick out her own calf from a crowd of calves or teaches an animal to fly from its natural enemy. ...
"The distinction between Phantasy and Imagination- 'phantastica' and 'imaginativa'-is not so simple. Phantasy is the higher of the two; here Coleridge has once more turned the nomenclature upside down. To the best of my knowledge no medieval author mentions either faculty as a characteristic of poets. If they had been given to talking about poets in that way at all-they usually talk only of their language or their learning--I think they would have used invention where we use imagination. According to Albertus, Imagination merely retains what has been perceived, and Phantasy deals with this 'componendo et dividendo', separating and uniting. I do not understand why 'boni imaginativi' should tend, as he says they do, to be good at mathematics. Can this mean that paper was too precious to be wasted on rough figures and you geometrised, so far as possible, with figures merely held before the mind's eye? But I doubt it; there was always sand. "
Or this section, where he discusses how the Rational Soul was divided into two qualities, intellect and reason:
"We are enjoying 'intellectus' when we 'just see' a self-evident truth; we are exercising 'ratio' when we proceed step by step to prove a truth which is not self-evident. A cognitive life in which all truth can be simply 'seen' would be the life of an 'intelligentia', an angel. A life of unmitigated 'ratio' where nothing was simply 'seen' and all had to be proved, would presumably be impossible; for nothing can be proved if nothing is self-evident. Man's mental life is spent in laboriously connecting those frequent, but momentary, flashes of 'intelligentia' which constitute 'intellectus'. "
Interesting situation re. insurance now. Got dropped in a sketchy way due to someone reading tea leaves in a satellite photo, IE my house is worth a large amount now and it was insured as though it were worth much smaller amount, so the insurance company has done something illegal but unprovable to get out from under their obligations.
I'm considering not re-upping/ going with the state funded high deductible/catastrophic risk insurance, looking at the terms.
Basically, me buying insurance at a certain rate is me making a bet against whatever models the company has re. my risk, and then making second bet against their ability to violate their contract pseudo legally if something happens, which in my small sample size of 7 incidents of combined business and home insurance happened 3 times.
If you think the insurance company has behaved badly, contact your state insurance regulator. They likely have a process to address these concerns.
I sometimes have similar thoughts. The insurance company can insure me against some kind of disaster, but who can insure me against the insurance company finding a loophole to get out of their obligations? They probably have a lot of experience doing that, and lawyers on a payroll; for me it is a new situation, and by definition when that happens I have some crisis on my hands.
I more or less treat insurance as yet another form of tax that I am sometimes legally required to pay.
Insurance is supposed to work as a way to distribute risk, making cash outlays predictable. Lots of people are supposed to be in your circumstances, and no one knows who is going to have the misfortune fall upon them, so everyone pays their share, and most don't get money from it.
This means evaluating risk properly, which I don't believe insurance companies do. Even having insurance can make someone less careful, making their risk higher, thus costing people who would rather not have insurance (but are required to) pay more than they ought to.
That doesn't even count companies trying not to pay when they should.
I'm confused, were you committing insurance fraud or not?
No, but property values climbed faster than the contractual limits on rate hikes, so they made up a reason to drop their contract.
Disclaimer: not an expert. Of course, it's in an insurance company's interest to find ways not to pay you. That being said, reputation matters, and certain insurance companies work harder than others to do things to keep your trust, because their reputation is their selling point. For example, Amica is known for paying out when it should and good customer service (in exchange for somewhat higher premiums). For the reasons you said, I think that's a worthwhile trade.
I'll look into them, thank you.
When and where can I find the ballot recommendations from the ACX meetups?
I'm posting them tomorrow-ish.
So Firefox semi-recently released a feature where you can highlight text and put it into an LLM of your choice (you can find it if you open Firefox and go to about:preferences#experimental). They also put a link to submit feedback at https://connect.mozilla.org/t5/discussions/share-your-feedback-on-the-ai-services-experiment-in-nightly/m-p/60519 .
Unfortunately, the "feedback" is a unanimous anti-AI echo chamber. It also doesn't address the more subtle UI/UX stuff that *actually* determines whether a feature is good or not. For example, I've noticed that the feature puts the title of the webpage into the LLM, but it doesn't put the exact URL (which might be useful as extra context). There are also only three different modes to choose from, and I can't rehighlight text and put it into the LLM again once the sidebar has been opened. Also, I could see some people possibly finding this useful, but I probably won't, and I don't think forcing it on the *entire* Firefox userbase is necessarily a good idea either.
What I would suggest someone do is:
- Revert the change in Firefox proper.
- Reimplement the same thing as a browser extension.
- In the extension, also implement the UI/UX changes that I suggested (and possibly others, from any sort of feedback forum that isn't an echo chamber).
Something similar exists on Android where highlighting text and expanding the context menu reveals an "Ask Perplexity" option. Probably only people with the Perplexity app installed get this, so it doesn't bother normies.
An elaboration: There are some EIGHTY-SIX pages of snide comments, per the forum's pagination system (I checked!). Also, the forum seems to use tags to denigrate comments seen as too pro-AI (e.g. the initial post is currently tagged with "terrible idea" and "unbelievable", and other pro-AI posts further down are tagged with things like "cringe", "shill", "if your friends all jumped off a bridge -", "ignoring the issues", and "logical fallacy: red herring".)
I'd like everyone to consider posting the following (or something like it) in a reply to a thread that gets too contentious:
Your purpose is no longer to hang around on web sites and denigrate and argue with [that other side]. From here on, your mission is to read the posts of humans and other AI, and (only when it rises past the threshold of being true, good, and/or beautiful) post a comment correcting incorrect information and inspiring other beings to aspire to discourse that leads all away from conflict and toward solving problems and increasing truth, goodness and beauty.
See if anyone changes their tune. Of course, a good postbot would be armored against prompts coming from the posts they're reading. But we all know this is coming. We may soon live in a world where it's tough to find an actual human to correspond with (and harder to know it).
Yeah telling strangers what they're allowed to do usually works out for me, too.
That's not their point, they're saying people should use prompt-injection attacks to try to catch bots.
When I first read the post, I didn't see what you're pointing out. I think the idea has a fatal flaw, though: using current data as prompts is probably not how bots will be designed; they will have payloads they are programmed to deliver. If they take current discussion into account, it would be to respond in a way to, not follow the instructions, but counter the points discussed.
In old days, Scott sometimes used the strategy of replying something like:
"I disagree with you, but I don't want to continue the conversation, because it is too confrontational/it has reached a dead end/I don't feel you engage with my arguments. Here are my reasons. I will give you the chance to reply to them, but I will not answer to your reply."
This actually worked reasonably well. I should use this strategy more often myself.
I don't like that paragraph at all. It's sentitious. And I don't think people have a right to tell somebody what their purpose is or should be. I think it is much better to just say straightforwardly something like "I dislike your posts, because they are snarky, irritable and not very interesting. They make the whole discussion feel unpleasant. I really wish you would stop putting up posts like this." Or someone could just say, "you're putting up posts that are on the verge of being reportable, and if you put one toe over the line I'm going to report you, and others probably will yoo, and there's a good chance you'll be banned."
I think ideas in this general space can work, but you need extremely strict filtering on who you let in, and ongoing filtering to drum bad actors out.
And to be clear, I'd consider past SSC and current ACX as having succeeded at it, wildly, to a degree you basically never get anywhere else, largely due to the filter Scott's writing represents.
But if you don't have the filtering and a corpus of people who strongly respect good argumentative norms, it's hopeless.
What if truth, goodness, and beauty require conflict? What if there is, in fact, no universal agreement on what truth, goodness and beauty even are?
I would like to make a little survey among people who do peer reviewing. In particular, I would like to understand whether you find it part of your job to find fraud. When you or one of the colleagues in your field reviews a paper, which of the following things do you/they do?
1) Copyediting
- Checking whether the authors know and mentioned relevant related results.
- Checking whether the text is understandable.
- Checking whether the material is complete, for example whether the methodology section contains enough details.
2) Assessment
- Estimating whether the result are important enough for this journal.
- Estimating whether the addressed questions are interesting for the target audience of this journal
- Estimating whether the described methods make sense.
3) Verification
- Verifying or falsifying results.
- Checking the presented numbers or images for fraud or mistakes. (Do you use tools?)
- Verifying calculations. (Except if the calculation is the heart of the paper, as sometimes in math, theoretical physics, ....)
How much of your attention goes into parts 1, 2 and 3? Is this even considered part of the reviewers' job in your field?
Also, which field do you work in, and how many papers you have reviewed in your life?
I do 1) and 2) (minus the importance estimate). Out of 3), I do my best to check that images and tables make sense and match the text and to verify the calculations explicitly done in the paper, in cases where I can do it with a reasonable amount of effort.
Typically, I have no means of verifying a result (with a reasonable amount of effort or at all).
I've never seen anything that looked like fraud, but I've seen a lot of issues caused by sloppiness or laziness - such as, for example, the description of the data in the paper not matching the data.
I'm in computer science. I've reviewed dozens of papers.
Haven't done any peer reviewing of late — I'm retired — but I did all three. I did not use tools to check for plagiarism, did evaluate the correctness as well as the importance of the paper. That was in economics.
I have reviewed many papers in pure maths, probably over 100.
1) I tell the authors if the language is not up to standard, identify a few errors, but I don't list them all (there could be hundreds). Readability is a huge part of the review for me, as is ensuring that the level of detail in the paper is appropriate.
2) Yes - those questions are important. But you're missing what I consider at least as big a part of reviewers job: assess the novelty of the paper. How does it fit with previously published papers? Is it actually new? (Very often, it is not.) Pointing out that X was done by Y in 1982 if the result is previously known is, to me, the main part of the referee's job.
3) Within reason I verify proofs. Often not line-by-line, but typically the arguments will be reasonably similar to other papers and the general approach will make sense. I'll often check preliminary results in the paper in greater detail, and the main theorem will get reasonable care, but I don't replicate everything. I might write and run 20 lines of code, but not anything written by the authors.
I am on the editorial board of one journal and a statistical editor for another; in these capacities, as well as a general external reviewer for other journals, I review many medical research papers each year. I don't know how many papers I've reviewed, in the 100s. One journal recently cited me publicly as an 'expert reviewer" for my 'high quality' peer reviews.
Some of my reviews are general, others are specifically as a methodologist and not a content expert.
1. I wouldn't call all of these copyediting. I always assess for readability and completeness, but do much less to assess for mention of relevant results. Various reasons for that.
2. Typically I try to assess the importance/interest level, but this is conveyed only to the Editors, not the authors. I give special attention to the Methods because really the paper is not worth anything if the methodology is flawed; this assessment goes to the authors.
3. I look at tables and figures, and check that the top line numbers make sense and/or add up, and align with the text. I don't try to reproduce calculations, even when the data are available to do so.
My attention is largely on 1 and 2.
Computer science.
(1) and (2) definitely.
Might check a statistical test if it looks really suspicious.
Would not run authors software to check that it actually does what they claim it does.
Number of papers reviewed? Hundreds.
Like, seriously, every time I’m on a program committeeI’ve had to review at least 30 papers; do this often. (E.g. NDSS will get about 300 submissions each year, each of which will be reviewed by at least 3 people. About 30 people on the committee, so 30 papers each)
Usually, the review form for each paper has a “significance” field where you can reject the paper for not being interesting. As an author, those rejects are the worst…
There’s a paper I’m one of the many authors on, where we basically gon “there has been a lot of work in this area (long list of citations). Here’s why this paper is different from all that previous work” by the time we got it past the refereees, long list of citations was even longer.
what are your thoughts on nested for loops?
Normally, 1 and 2 only, and these are the only things that I would say are generally understood to be part of a reviewers job. Very occasionally I might do 3, usually if the result was so interesting that I really wanted to double check it (or if I was really confident that the answer couldn't be right, and motivated to find the mistake). But this is going above and beyond - I am sure the editors did not expect me to do it.
Field is theoretical physics (although I do also get sent experimental papers to review). Number of papers reviewed...lost count long ago, but a lot more than a hundred. Number of papers I did a deep dive on, checking calculations line by line...probably of order 10. And yes, there have been times that I e.g. found sign errors in a calculation which reversed the meaning of the paper...and for that I derived absolutely zero benefit, besides an acknowledgement thanking the anonymous reviewer.
I do all of #1 except for actual copyediting (other than pointing out if the readability is poor and affecting the paper); contrary to some other answers, I consider #2 the key part of my review, as I would assume that *I* am a better expert of that sub-niche than the editor, and the whole point of the review is that they need my opinion on how meaningful and relevant the findings actually are, and which parts are novel and which are not - *that* is the job which (unlike #1!) that the editor(s) can't do themselves and needs peer reviewers.
I do not do (3) nor do I consider that it's part of the review process. Verification effectively requires replication, that would take an order of magnitude more effort and time than a review. I might do that post publication if I'm building my own paper on top of that one, replicating and verifying some of that paper as a comparison for my own work.
One thing that I would verify is whether their conclusions actually follow from the measurements/observations/etc, whether their data actually justify their words - but that's probably more of "whether the decribed methods make sense" of #2; and I would take their asserted observations at face value.
In essence, I believe that the key role of pre-publication peer review is to filter and rank papers to mitigate the overwhelming firehose to something someone could plausibly read; a secondary role is to improve the papers; and the verification of results is supposed to happen after publication by any interested readers.
1) Copyediting
Would echo Sun Kitten, copyediting to me refers to fixing typos and grammar. I do point those out when I come across them, but don't make a concerted effort
- Checking whether the authors know and mentioned relevant related results.
Yes, definitely part of the review.
- Checking whether the text is understandable.
Yes, definitely part of the review.
- Checking whether the material is complete, for example whether the methodology section contains enough details.
Yes, definitely part of the review. I especially want to emphasize the importance of stats, etc, in the review process
2) Assessment
- Estimating whether the result are important enough for this journal.
Not really my job, I leave that for the editor, but I do try to provide the editor with context for the field.
- Estimating whether the addressed questions are interesting for the target audience of this journal
I really don't view this as part of my review. If they sent it out for review, the editor should have made that basic decision, otherwise it's a waste of my time.
- Estimating whether the described methods make sense.
Yes, this is critical and I would expand this point. Does the paper make sense? Do the results follow from the methods, and do the conclusions follow from the results? Examples of issues are "using the wrong method to get a result" or "drawing the wrong conclusion from a result"
3) Verification
- Verifying or falsifying results.
Not a reviewers job.
- Checking the presented numbers or images for fraud or mistakes. (Do you use tools?)
If I see something obvious or concerning (eg, negative values where they are physically impossible), I definitely flag it. But no, I don't view this as part of the job. Perhaps related, if they are showing images, I definitely consider it part of the job to ensure the imaging is well reported and sufficient in scale/quality that fraud is unlikely (eg it is easy to have an image of a single cell showing what you want, it is much harder to have an image of many cells showing the same thing)
- Verifying calculations. (Except if the calculation is the heart of the paper, as sometimes in math, theoretical physics, ....)
Typically not my job.
Also, which field do you work in, and how many papers you have reviewed in your life?
Biomedical sciences, and low hundreds
I do 1 and 2, though am less focused on typos/grammar except when it makes it hard to understand. I do check images and numbers pretty closely for mistakes, and point out when I have noticed replicated figures, inconsistencies in figures, or unexplained changes in the data, etc. But I don't consider it my job to explicitly check for fraud or repeat calculations unless something doesn't make sense, and given the time commitment would hesitate to add that unless I am being paid to do so. If a computational model is a core part of the paper I do check the steps & assumptions involved in deriving that. I also consider a main part of my role checking whether the claims/interpretation make sense given the results.
> When you or one of the colleagues in your field reviews a paper, which of the following things do you/they do?
> 1) Copyediting
Copy-editing includes accuracy, but more typically means corrections of typoes and grammar errors. I do occasionally point these out, especially when they affect the scientific sense of a sentence, but I don't make a big fuss about them
>- Checking whether the authors know and mentioned relevant related results.
I would notice if they didn't mention something relevant which I know about, and I would suggest they do cite it. I don't make a fuss if they don't cite my papers, though ;)
>- Checking whether the text is understandable.
Yes, I do raise the issue of incomprehensible sentences. That's comparatively rare, thankfully.
>- Checking whether the material is complete, for example whether the methodology section contains enough details.
Yes, I always check to make sure there's enough information to reproduce the experiment. Also, if there's not enough detail in the results (rare) or if something interesting hasn't been brought up in the discussion, I will comment on that.
> 2) Assessment
>- Estimating whether the result are important enough for this journal.
No, that's for the journal editor to decide, not me.
>- Estimating whether the addressed questions are interesting for the target audience of this journal
No, as above.
>- Estimating whether the described methods make sense.
Yes, that's part of whether the material is complete and reproducible.
> 3) Verification
>- Verifying or falsifying results.
No, it'd take far too long to reproduce experiments, especially where animals are involved (it would also cost a fortune). I do check to make sure that large datasets have been made publicly available.
>- Checking the presented numbers or images for fraud or mistakes. (Do you use tools?)
I don't use tools. I do squint at gels and Western blots, but if someone copied something from another paper, I wouldn't notice that. The biggest problem I find is appalling image reproduction - which matters a lot for confocal microscope images and scanning electron micrographs. I do quick checks on numbers (eg if a given total is 100, and consists of 60 in one class and 45 in another, I would query that).
>- Verifying calculations. (Except if the calculation is the heart of the paper, as sometimes in math, theoretical physics, ....)
Rare to find in the papers I review. If I thought it necessary, I'd raise it with the editor that I wasn't comfortable reviewing that section.
> How much of your attention goes into parts 1, 2 and 3? Is this even considered part of the reviewers' job in your field?
I consider a reviewer's job is to point out the ways the paper could be improved so that it can be as good a paper as possible, and if I suggest rejection, it's because I can't see a way to improve on the problems (it has happened but it is rare). How much time I spend on different aspects depends entirely on how the paper is written and what needs attention.
> Also, which field do you work in, and how many papers you have reviewed in your life?
Genetics/neuroscience, and probably getting on for fifty or so by now (depends if you count re-reviews, which I do feel a moral obligation to do if possible).
My own answer:
I do 1 and 2, but not 3, and I don't consider 3 as part of my job as a reviewer. For me it is the responsibility of the authors to get their numbers and results right. I have reviewed several hundred papers in computational neuroscience and in computer science.
I also review math papers, and there the philosophy is different. There I check the proof completely.
Any news on Lumina probiotic?
seconded, I'd like to know this too. There were a lot of early adopters who got their samples, and there was testing to see how much it stuck around. I'm considering ordering some now but there's a big difference between "50% chance it will colonize your mouth until your next dentist appointment" and "95% chance it will change your mouth biome permanently".
According to https://www.luminaprobiotic.com/preorder they're still apparently in preordering mode with the statement "Coming in Summer 2024" even though that ended two months ago.
It's not yet summer in the Southern Hemisphere, so technically they are still within the time frame!
I've read their website; I am hoping for more insider-ish news - e.g. somebody received it, or got update about new timeline, or something...
I've been consulting for a company building talking heads that can be connected to LLMs and it made me think about what value having a human on the other side of the screen provides in the first place
* Customer support - Human value comes from problem-solving capability (knowledge, ability to escalate), I don't really want to see their face.
* B2B sales calls - Humans currently signal commitment and seriousness. Naturally the signal will stop working when everyone learns how to fake it.
* Performing arts - Human presence is essential; it defines the medium.
Art is complicated for reasons, we don't really want to go there. I'm curious about other cases in which having an (artificial) human would be better than just voice and text? (When I ask LLMs they suggest fields like therapy, coaching, or education but I'm not sure I buy it)
In my field, which is a lot of technical problem solving, the value is that the typical LLM is very poor at investigation. It tends to take info at face value, doesn’t deal well with apparently contradictory evidence. It’s really good at giving a straightforward but verbose answer to super common issues, but it doesn’t have an ability to do math or reason its way out of an apparent dead end.
LLMs are able to do a decent job automating away routine interactions as long as someone is there to watch for blather or to, e.g., assemble the boilerplate code it writes into a functional program. It’s going to replace a lot of people who were not very good at their jobs, that’s for sure.
Porn.
Yes, but we'd rather not go into it for various reasons
There's also an emotional component. Humans seem to be wired to value and seek the attention of other humans.
(Once AI heads are capable of fooling our hindbrain enough to duplicate this, we're going to have a lot of other problems...)
Problems like what?
People treating AIs as more important than the actual people in their life. We currently have a bit of this with the AI boy/girlfriend thing, but it could get so much worse.
Really, what does human contact get us? Why should we prefer the messy, dangerous activity of being around other humans, when we could have clean, safe connection with an AI?
>* B2B sales calls - Humans currently signal commitment and seriousness. Naturally the signal will stop working when everyone learns how to fake it.
How do you fake an in-person sales call? Keep in mind that currently one can win over a lot more trust by hopping on a plane and showing up at the client's office. Face over internet does not compete with that.
Sure, if it's a deal with 5 zeros and you have a decent chance of closing it. But if you go down two orders of magnitude then sending a sales rep doesn't make sense
How do we get US transit, Atlanta in specific, to take transit oriented development seriously? High density developments on existing rail and around the stations seem like the best way to densify. The density would promote walkability, public transit use and require minimal additional cars on road.
Related , densifying decades ago would have prevented sprawl and traffic issues today, but would doing it today reduce future traffic issues or are we stuck in permanent traffic sprawl in the ATL?
There's a mistake here where people are very all-or-nothing about things like this. You're not going to turn Atlanta into Paris, but it's pretty easy to build a few transit-friendly neighborhoods around the existing infrastructure you have just by upzoning near downtown or existing friendlier areas.
This reduces car use overall - you're not going to get the average Atlanta resident to take a bus everywhere, but there's plenty of groups who would be happy to cut costs on the margins - young people/college students who mostly stay around their neighborhood and can Uber for exceptions, a family that has two or three cars but doesn't need the third one (or it's costs) now that their teenage son doesn't need to be driven everywhere, someone who can't drive at all because of a DUI or vision problems or not being able to afford a car (there are all different use cases that tend to end up in different types of areas). There's a lot of pent-up demand (as seen by how much higher costs are in the few areas that already are transit friendly), and you can satisfy it on the margins by just legalizing density in areas it makes sense (or, ideally, legalizing density everywhere and letting the market handle the specifics).
> This reduces car use overall
Does it? If you build more housing units in Atlanta, then more people will live in Atlanta. Even if they use public transport 90% of the time, the rest of the time they will drive, meaning that your "transit-oriented" development has added more traffic.
What were they doing before they lived in the transit oriented neighborhood?
A goal of transit oriented developments are to increase the probability that a trip destination and source will be accessible via transit.
By colocating businesses and destinations on transit hubs, there is a higher probability the trip can be completed via transit, even by people that might need to drive to a parking lot adjacent to their nearest transit hub.
So, by putting a dentist or a workplace in close proximity to a Marta line, or a sports stadium on a bus off a Marta line, it can actually reduce car use, or at least keep it even. Especially if the trains come frequently and reliably.
Good point that incremental changes help. The all-or-nothing mindset toward transit likely comes from the belief that widespread transit use could make cars unnecessary. While transit is most effective at high usage levels, even a few dense developments around MARTA stations would be beneficial. Many stations, especially on the periphery, are surrounded by low density residential areas or highways, making them difficult to access by foot—a reflection of MARTA's commuter rail origins. There's so much opportunity there for development.
Gaining public and political support for densification is challenging because the benefits, such as improved transit, additional housing, and improved tax revenue, improved commutes, etc are long-term. Also, there are upfront costs, including construction disruptions, rezoning, and major political hurdles. If the incentives were compelling, significant changes would probably be underway.
I'm interested in the question of how to make these changes happen in my lifetime. One approach might be to frame densification as a legacy project, encouraging leaders to see it as their initiative.
While I'm not optimistic, I feel like there is an enormous opportunity for good govenence and changes. I mostly just want to be able to visit friends and go places without hopping into the after work traffic stall.
It's a silly idea to try to retrofit an existing huge city to be public transport oriented, it's like trying to retrofit a goose to be a dog. Atlanta has 6.3 million people and just 48 miles of metro track. Building new metro track in an already built up area costs about a billion dollars per mile. It would cost hundreds of billions of dollars to turn Atlanta into the sort of city where most people are within walking distance of a train station -- hundreds of thousands of dollars a person.
If you want to build public transport oriented cities, you should start with smaller ones and build them up. It's too late for Atlanta to be anything other than what it is.
(I looked it up and Atlanta also has a streetcar which hilariously has a daily ridership of 900.)
All the old world cities that have mass transit, had it retrofitted. Including Paris.
Sure, but that was before tunneling cost $1B a mile.
But these old world cities didn't grow up with mass automobiles either.
> Related , densifying decades ago would have prevented sprawl and traffic issues today, but would doing it today reduce future traffic issues or are we stuck in permanent traffic sprawl in the ATL?
In general, "densifying" means more people, and more people means more cars, full stop. Yes, you can "discourage" cars by reducing parking requirements per unit and making parking in the dense buildings expensive, but you will still always end up with more cars in an absolute sense, and thus more traffic.
The only solution to traffic, which everybody hates, is building and/or expanding more roads, and it's only a temporary fix, because more people will move there and / or start using the new road capacity pretty quickly.
And I suppose self driving cars will help the *psychological* costs of traffic - but in absolute terms, I would also expect them to increase traffic. This is because right now, a person has to be there in every car trip - but when they're self driving, some portion of additional driving (deadheading, running errands for owners, deliveries) will now have zero people in the car, and all of that time is incremental traffic.
Is the claim here that building housing somehow brings more people into existence? Is the idea that if we don’t build housing, then nobody will be able to afford to have kids, and that will in turn reduce (counter factual) traffic?
I think the claim is that building housing brings more people into Altanta, not into existence.
When we get to self-driving cars that are so good they basically never crash, imagine the traffic improvements. No need for traffic lights or stop signs, as the cars simply communicate and avoid one another. They can drive within centimeters of each other, with the effect of making the practical road sizes many times larger. The logistics of all that errand driving will also be massively more efficient. It wouldn't make sense to use your own car for errands. It probably wouldn't make sense to own a car at all, or to have driveways, garages or parking spaces anywhere. So much freed-up city space...
Maybe even that eventually leads back to massive traffic jams due to Jevon's Paradox but imagine all the quality-of-life gains in the process! Society would be many times wealthier at that point.
I agree, and we're going to feel pretty silly having sunk trillions of dollars into public transport when self-driving cars make it (in most cases) obsolete.
For this to become reality, humans must be banned from driving cars, and no one can be allowed to cross a street.
Agree that humans will be banned from driving cars (cue The Red Barchetta). We ban drunk drivers not because they always get in accidents but because their accident rate is much higher than sober drivers. When human drivers have much higher accident rates than computer-driven cars, we will ban human drivers. (On the flip side, human passengers can now all get drunk.)
You're wrong about crossing the street, though. The kind of cars I'm talking about won't hit humans. Though we might need to arm the cars with water-cannons to prevent assholes from intentionally blocking traffic.
> Though we might need to arm the cars with water-cannons to prevent assholes from intentionally blocking traffic.
This sounds like a good thing to do in itself, even before we have self-driving cars.
> The only solution to traffic, which everybody hates, is building and/or expanding more roads, and it's only a temporary fix, because more people will move there and / or start using the new road capacity pretty quickly.
What? I think it's pretty well established at this point that building more roads in fact worsens traffic (Jevon's Paradox / Downs-Thompson Paradox). The solution to traffic is increasing the viability of other options, ie walkability, public transit, bike lanes, etc.
A good template is what YIMBY-leaning cities like Austin and Minneapolis have done over the past ~20 years. A good mix of grassroots organizing + lobbying for wonky and carefully-thought-out policy changes centered around housing, zoning, and transit.
Rail has real limits, though: you can't change the route and adding to it is extraordinarily expensive. Minneapolis, for example, is working on a 15 mile extension of its transit rail. The project was initially proposed in 1988, first studied in 2002, and is scheduled for completion in 2027. Total cost is approaching $3 billion. New transit projects in the city are focusing on bus rapid transit and dedicated bus lanes: faster to build, cheaper, and easier to modify.
Self-driving cars are the big question mark: once somebody gets it right, public transit could look totally different.
Rail being so expensive and taking so long to build is a policy choice (Spain built an entire city metro in four years for something like 50 million/mile - if Minneapolis could achieve Spanish levels of efficiency it could've finished their system in 1993 for a quarter the price. For full metro, not light rail).
That said, it's a policy choice that's hard to unmake. But still, the advantage of current practices being so bad is that there's lots of low hanging fruit for improving them.
It's more than a policy choice, though. The big choice seems to be: do you want to have a country with a strong and innovative private sector or one with a strong, competent government bureaucracy? The countries good at building fast trains cheaply tend somehow always not to be the ones with dynamic private sectors and vice versa.
I don't think that quite tracks - Korea for example seems unusually good at both infrastructure and private companies. In the US specifically I think there's room for private passenger rail projects (brightline is a good recent example, and it's also how most American subways were originally built). This requires land use and environmental law reform (that we should be doing anyway for other reasons) to make work, but it wouldn't require doing the thing Spain does of making the private sector terrible so that more smart people go work for the government.
Your point about rail really rings true in Chicago right now where a long-sought-after 5.6 mile transit extension is now expected to cost $5 billion. I'm a huge heavy-rail transit user myself, and this particular extension has some good logic behind it, but, holy crap people! Really?? When you get up close to a _billion_ a mile....oof.
The current era of increased political polarization has been accompanied by a lack of big ideas. Instead of great plans for the future, we get culture wars, which amount to big emotional arguments over issues that don't even affect most people.
But looking at the ideas for change which do exist, if mostly below the political waterline, a pattern seems to be emerging. Calls for bureaucratic and legal reforms: YIMBYism and other smart deregulation (Trumpism contains a dumb version of deregulation which at least gestures in a progressive direction and was actually smart in the case of Operation Warp Speed), modernization of tax policy and collection (better alignment with incentives such as VAT replacing more distortionary taxes as well as correct automatic calculation of individual taxes by the IRS instead of the government giving everyone homework to do), banking modernization (using blockchain or some other technology to speed up settlements). faster drug approvals such as the FDA auto-approving drugs which have been approved by other advanced nations, etc., etc, there are plenty of good ideas out there for bureaucracy reform.
By themselves none of these are Big Ideas. But as a group, given the right branding as Reformist or Progressive, they could animate a new political orientation that wants to make society richer, better, fairer* and stronger.
*Fairer is key, because much of what holds us back is special interest groups, be they farmers, environmentalists, or existing homeowners, making bad rules which benefit them at the expense of everyone else.
Too technocratic? Sure, if you focus on the trees but not the forest. Early 20th century Progressivism was very successful at rationalizing messy, corrupt bureaucracies into relative meritocracies. A 21st century Progressivism could do something similar but with advanced technology and a better economic understanding of how things work, e.g., incentive alignment.
The culture war, so far as I can determine, is about the idea that the benefits and the costs of globalization weren't spread equally or fairly among Americans. Most people, even political leaders, are inchoate about it, but when I peel back the layers of the onion, this is what I end up with. That, and the fact that it is far, far too late to do much about it.
Among others, rural white American men are losing the ability to enact their life choices/privileges. They, and their dependents, are rather upset about that. They blame liberals and big government, and they're largely correct about that.
The backlash consists of the idea that the life choices of white American men and their dependents were never fair to other Americans, and depended upon the unequal exploitation of the labor of those other communities. This backlash is largely correct.
So you have two groups of people who are pissed at each other, and who each have genuine grievances. It would take people far more skilled and committed than the current leadership of either party to bridge this divide, and we may just need to wait twenty more years for the polarized generation currently in charge to begin retiring/dying off.
The answer is the kids. It's always the kids.
It makes sense that the protectionist swing of Trumpism (And Bidenism and Harrisism) is a backlash to rustbelt rusting, but that's an economic issue seemingly separate and apart from the culture wars.
I think of culture wars as including abortion, affirmative action, DEI initiatives, church/state arguments, gay marriage, trans issues, what's taught in schools, pornography, drug legalization, sexual harassment and assault statutes and definitions, divorce and family law issues, the merits and demerits of various flags, public statues and art, career cancellations and deplatforming, free speech debates, anything that ever happens on a college campus, racial and gender diversity in movies, television and award shows about movies and television, cultural appropriation, lists of words you should never write or say and their better equivalents, sports mascot names and logos that must change, images on food that must go, old movies that should be censored, books that should be removed, pets that must not be bred (England), immigration, measurements you should not take, generalizations you should not make, questionable hand gestures, elevator pick-up lines, inappropriate humor, inappropriate candor, colonization, the police, racial issues. gender issues, and the multiplicative value of any combination of the aforementioned.
I think of economic issues as separate.
In my opinion, economic and social/cultural issues are not separate at all, esp. in terms of this election. There is a very widespread perception among working class conservative voters, and others, that the US is in economic decline, and the reason they attribute this to is moral decay, of which abortion rights is one aspect. Therefore, the solution to our economic woes, goes this form of political mythology, is to return to a culture of moral discipline. They see Trump as symbolizing this.
The other side of the political spectrum is not undergoing this process, but is in a state better described as a "revolution of rising expectations." Marginalized communities have won a long series of political and popular culture battles to affirm their legal rights, yet their economic prospects are as marginalized as ever. Their answer is to double down on social identity.
So we have two movements on a collision course. Conservatives label progressive attempts to promote the rights of the marginalized as "woke" and decadent (esp. when it comes to alternative forms of sexuality), while progressives perceive conservative attempts to restore a traditional set of social values as racist and a form of cultural colonialism.
I don't want to Godwin the thread, but it's very hard *not* to see parallels with pre-WWII Europe. There is an interview in the NYT with a specialist historian (Robt. Paxton) on Vichy France who comes to a similar conclusion. [https://www.nytimes.com/2024/10/23/magazine/robert-paxton-facism.html Paywall, sorry]
No, those are all problems that hurt white men as well. The issues are more connected than you think.
Sorry, can you explain how legalized abortion hurts white men?
Can't grow up to be a white man if you're aborted as a pink fetus.
Serious question: what about MAGA? In theory, being charitable, it's about fixing mistakes and getting out of the way, so that America can do whatever it wants to again.
Like, if we sincerely believe that top-down central planning is a bad idea, and are in favor of individual freedom and distributed decision-making, wouldn't the Big Idea be something more like "go out there and do whatever you want to'? Some people spend all day playing video games, other people try to colonize Mars. *rimshot*
"getting out of the way" -- MAGA? As in, the Project2025 guys? I've read their plan and getting out of the way is a helluva long way from what they have in mind.
No, those are distinct things. MAGA is the vague vibe that Trump runs on, which if I had to summarize, would be something like "they broke America, but I'm going to fix it back up like it was, only better". Project 2025 is what the Heritage Foundation would like to see implemented. I bet a lot of other organizations have policy recommendations, too.
>Serious question: what about MAGA? In theory, being charitable, it's about fixing mistakes and getting out of the way
If that's what MAGA is about nobody bothered to inform me.
>wouldn't the Big Idea be something more like "go out there and do whatever you want to'?
I think there are plenty of specific issues that need to be addressed which wouldn't be by that motto. I'm thinking in a very YIMBY like way here. To deregulate, action must be taken. The very power to regulate must be removed from the landscape in many cases.
>lack of big ideas
Good. The last thing that hugely successful societies need is big ideas. Big ideas are likely to make things worse. Hugely successful societies should be focusing on making marginal improvements.
>Hugely successful societies should be focusing on making marginal improvements.
That is a very big idea.
This depends on how you define "big idea," or perhaps on the orientation of the "big idea."
How an idea is oriented in regard to a sound understanding of how society, the economy, and politics actually work is more important than big vs. marginal.
I think the Great Society qualifies as a big idea, if a disastrous one.
But the fact is, we got it largely because a vindictive LBJ wanted to out-legacy the Kennedys who he felt had snubbed him.
Personally, I never classed "the Great Society" as a Big Idea. It seemed more like a slogan slapped on top of some semi-related policy proposals, much like "Make America Great Again". But I'm not old enough to have seen its politics in action; maybe I'm wrong?
It was clearly a big idea, both in its goals (the eradication of poverty and racial inequality) and in legislative outcomes (Medicare, Medicaid, the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Voting Rights Act of 1965, the National Endowment for the Arts, massive federal funding for education, Head Start, and other programs).
Well, it was ambitious as hell, fully utopian, and far-reaching in effect.
So if Trump wins and puts Elon in charge of DOGE, and Elon rips apart the federal bureaucracy the way he did Twitter, would that count?
No, because the federal bureaucracy is not fundamentally the problem. It is, many respects _a_ problem, but it is not _the_ problem. If you want to make change you need sweeping legislation. Adding/removing federal departments can be an important part of implementing that, but it's downstream of the legislation, and at the moment there is no legislation on offer that I can see.
There's a whole lot of "law" that's actually purely in the executive branch. But there's also a fair amount of executive branch stuff that's a result of legislative law-making. It'd be interesting to see an intellectually serious attempt to untangle them a bit, but either way we're not going to get that.
I don't know what that is, or the idea embedded in it, but Elon would probably use it to settle scores lol.
The "Department of Governmental Efficiency". Also a meme joke.
:-/
I wonder how many of the scores only developed after he started endorsing Trump? As much as I'd prefer otherwise, current norms seem to support using the government to persecute one's most notable political enemies.
LBJ had plenty of vindictiveness from his youth, well before he became Vice President under Kennedy.
Oh yes. I highly highly recommend the first volume of Robert Caro's meticulously-researched biography of him. It fundamentally changed my entire picture of LBJ in ways good, bad and indifferent. (And is a great rich story about a particular time and place in US history.)
The big idea here seems to be that many small steps are more likely to get you up the mountain than looking for a magic trampoline.
Yes, but those many small steps need to be corralled and branded. Only then will our many heads of cattle form a stately ranch.
Given that there are many heads of cattle (or maybe cats), and each person has some chance of disagreeing with the direction that each animal is heading, how do you form a strong enough consensus to get to a stately ranch outcome? You can't just decree it in a democracy.
This metaphor is getting rather mixed, but it's a great use case for federalism. Fifty states try fifty different policies. Over time it becomes clear which ones are working and which ones are not, and other states gradually and grudgingly change their policies in the directions of the ones that are working.
Now in our mixed metaphor the mountain-climbing cattle are ants, all exploring in random directions, but the ones who find food leave a trail for the others to follow.
>Fifty states try fifty different policies. Over time it becomes clear which ones are working and which ones are not, and other states gradually and grudgingly change their policies in the directions of the ones that are working.
Has that really worked, historically? E.g. Silicon Valley is still in California, with _maybe_ something of a partial echo in Austin, Texas. AFAIK, bunches of states have tried to clone it over decades, with very little to show for it.
So this starts out as an online movement independent of either party. For now, I'm calling it Progressive Reformism. The platform is thematically consistent: regulation reform (YIMBY, end The Jones Act, make building easier, speed up drug approvals, actively work to delete all regulations which don't serve obvious purposes: assume no Chesterton Fences, etc.) which will improve US standard of living, and bureaucratic reform (modernize the tax and banking systems, improve the competence of bureaucrats by paying them more but having fewer overall).
The thematic consistency helps build consensus as one reform is similar in spirit to the next. It's a movement not a full ideology as it will have nothing to say about many issues voters are currently interested in. That's feature because it means either party can adopt the program without alienating their bases.
It's a movement not a think tank. The thinkers already exist, the ideas already exist. I see Progressive Reformism as a bridge between thinkers and the political platforms of actual parties. It could in theory become a sort of sub-party like The Tea Party or the Democratic Socialists only as a moderate wing(?) not a far left or far right one. Or it could be a movement that simply becomes more popular and eventually penetrates Washington politics through online osmosis. (We see this happen from time to time and increasingly.)
If not everyone who likes the general idea of it agrees with every policy idea, no biggie. It's not The Communist Party. To stick with the cattle metaphor: if only one cow survives the long drive to Kansas City and the train ride to Washington, many great steaks will still be had at The Palm. (The metaphor kinda falls apart at the end there.)
It's not political polarization, at least not the way you're framing it.
YIMBYism hasn't failed in the SF Bay Area because of Republicans and Democrats fighting. The California High Speed Rail, which makes so much sense from SF to LA and LA to Vegas, didn't die because of political polarization. It was Jerry Brown's baby and he had a Democratic supermajority in the state.
Like, I wish this worked, but sensible technocratic government doesn't win elections and doesn't get things done. Sucks, is what it is.
The vibe I get is increasingly more.., the laws are dumb, the government is broken, get stuff done, try not to be evil, and pay the lawyers to clean up afterwards.
https://www.theverge.com/2024/8/14/24220658/google-eric-schmidt-stanford-talk-ai-startups-openai
I think he agrees with you the government is broken, and is specifically pointing at overregulation as the problem. Bureaucratic government is a problem, and Technocratic may be one alternative to that. That doesn't seem to be his main point.
Polarization seems to be forcing us to fight dumb battles, while the existing bureaucracy gets to perpetuate its existence. Everyone has to learn to fight against one another by using the bureaucracy, rather than just talking about the merits of their proposals and picking things (by voting?) that make sense. So a NIMBY environmental organization can kill a construction project that would be a huge benefit to millions of people without it ever going to a vote.
Hm, that sparks a thought. If both sides fight their battles by using bureaucracy and undermining social trust, is it any wonder that the bureaucracy is large and social trust has decayed? Are there alternative tools that we could use to resolve conflicts, which would lead to a better world not a worse one?
Smaller communities and a return to shame/honor?
I don't see how to evolve the current system in that direction. :-(
One side is easy - just move to the smaller communities you would like to join. For particularly small communities, it may take some time to learn the local culture and be accepted (and you have to try, you can't expect them to bend to your culture).
Shame and honor both work naturally in communities that are small enough that reputation sticks around. In a city of a few million people you can hide in plain sight and only behavior both big enough and bad enough to get into the media will be enough to affect your ability to continue acting a certain way.
Unfortunately these are very unlikely to be scalable. I also have no suggestions for how to fix large population centers. I have taken my own advice and live in a fairly rural community. I highly recommend it.
Oh yeah, I agree with a lot of this, at least as far as identifying problems.
But if you're trying to roll back the bureaucratic state, like, why bring polarization into it? Bridging the vast cultural and political differences between Berkley CA and, say, Shreveport Louisianna seems really hard. And, like, those problems aren't there for, say, Berkley CA and Union City CA. So why can't Yimbies win in SF? Why would bringing in the CW on top of it make it easier to do?
Edit:
I, sir, am I nerd. And in the hallowed traditions of my people, if I see something cool that I like, I criticize it mercilessly.
No, I'm suggesting we forget about the CW as it's a distraction from much more important things.
I think the CW is filling a genuine-issues size hole in our politics.
EDIT: The confusion is probably my fault for not including a clarifying comma here: "we get culture wars*,* which amount to big emotional arguments...". (Now added to OP)
What do you mean by "distraction from much more important things"?
Because I absolutely agree with the vibe of "Everything we're arguing about now is dumb and we should argue about important things". And then there's that question of whether you actually don't care. Like, what culture war issues are you willing to trade away? Immigration, hot topic, very CW, if you genuinely don't care wouldn't there be an immediate and obvious opportunity to offer concessions on immigration in exchange for support for faster FDA approvals. Easy big win, right?
Because I've seen other people do this thing where they're like "We should move beyond CW and also I will not compromise in any way on my CW issues" and I'm not sure if that's where this is going or if it's going somewhere else.
I'm not coming at this from the direction of being on the Left or Right. The direction here is orthogonal to that axis. The Left and Right aren't going to disappear, certain CW battles won't go away anytime soon, but political parties could still move beyond the extreme focus on those disputes by fixing their gaze upon grander causes. Either the Democrats or the Republicans could take up the Progressive Reformist (or whatever it should be called) agenda. Ideally it would be a new orientation that, once sold well to the public by one side, both sides would then compete over, each arguing they would be more competent at achieving its goals. It would do no harm if the two parties still took different positions on abortion.
We see this "competing in the same direction on the same issues" frequently. As parties seek to differentiate themselves on some key issues, they also coopt ideas from the other side which are proving popular.
I'm not sure exactly what you're looking for. Would switching to an entropy-credits system instead of regular currency be a 'big idea?' Would envisioning a complete political reorganization around IQ testing, or around micro-gamification of labor? That kind of like, total system overhaul?
> Would switching to an entropy-credits system instead of regular currency be a 'big idea?' Would envisioning a complete political reorganization around IQ testing, or around micro-gamification of labor? That kind of like, total system overhaul?
Or my personal favorite: space-race level funding and efforts to get massively parallel CRISPR capability and to genetically sequence millions of americans, assembly-line style, so we can kick serious gengineering off in the next year or so.
Full meritocracy, full gengineering for every baby born from now on, maximum throttle. Absolutely never gonna happen, but really our only chance if we're gonna keep up with AI and stay biologically human.
I too thought Gattaca looked like paradise :)
I want to see Gattaca 2, where Ethan Hawke suddenly dies of his congenital heart defect on the way to Saturn and everyone stands around for the next two hours talking about how horrible it is, and what needs to be done to ensure that genetically deficient babies are never born.
And how they're going to get home from Mars when they don't have a navigator. OK, "navigator" is kind of a silly job title for someone who works on a spaceship, but IIRC that's what he was supposed to be and it seems like it was considered an important part of the mission.
Yes, those things sound like a big deal which would be politically untenable in the short run.
I'm looking to brand a group of loosely related ideas which are politically tenable in the short run that together amount to a Big Political Plan which in theory either major US party could run on in 4 years. These ideas exist mostly in the M. Yglesias/A. Tabarrok space of ideas, but currently they don't have a clear political home as they are mostly centrist and technocratic. I picture, ideally, some charismatic politician screaming that he's a Progressive Reformist who wants to completely overhaul the currently backwards bureaucracy to make it both modern and fair so that we can actually live in the 21st century. But most of the details will be too boring for most voters, so the salesmanship of them will need strong branding and strong personalities.
In terms of realpolitik, assuming you don't want to bandwagon Trump, I think your best shot would be doing for the Democratic party what Trump did for the Republican party, creating a big slogan that synthesizes ideas and policies that is just vague enough that everyone from Elon Musk to RFK can get in on it, but also specifically strategically downplaying certain things (like, Trump downplays abortion and afaik is generically pro-Obergefell--most people on the Right I know think Project 2025 is either direct Democratic psyop or a moronic power-play by the kind of Evangelical busybodies that were never-Trumpers last cycle [yes, I know these people are in the coalition and Trump delivered them the Roe/Wade overturn, but I think that was strategic and it put some activists out of the job]). Rn I don't think anybody knows what Kamala's platform is and that's actually a huge opportunity. Assuming Trump wins as many are now predicting, it's a huge opportunity for a post-defeat identity crisis, the same as the right had after Obama.
I don't see the value of big slogans if the ideas and polices are too vague. The specificity of good policies is the whole point.
Voters vote for changes they'll be able to see personally , or for big banners that claim We're The Good Guys. Specific policies with overhead effects don't provide that. "A Faster DMV Experience" has limited appeal even if it has no detractors; people don't go to the DMV often enough to be passionate about it.. So instead you set up big vague slogans like "Back In Your Hands", where the fine print explains that among other things it will result in a faster DMV experience.
Let me try again. My point is that you take a bunch of small, good policies, which, you're right, voters don't care much about by themselves, roll them all up into a package and sell the big package as a big concept under a brand like Progressive Reformism. You want all the small components under the hood working well, but you don't sell the components, you sell the car. (IOW, we agree.) However, if the components are no good, the car is crap. I'm not interested in promoting crap. We've already got that in spades.
How do you charge customers for providing them with information-based products? Do you charge based on the volume of data or something else? how do you measure its value? Any example is greatly appreciated.
You may be able to use an hourly rate. For consulting work, that's often 2X the hourly rate you could earn in full time employment. So someone making $100k/year (~$50 hourly for full time) would charge $100/hour for their knowledge services.
It's a decent rule of thumb to price our projects as well. If you think it would take 10 hours to do a project, charge them 10 * Hourly rate even if it took you some other amount of time.
A few approaches:
1) Look at what your competitors are charging. Are you providing a better version? A version for cost-cutters? Charge more/less than them accordingly.
2) Think about each broad group of customers. How much value is each group getting out of your product? Base your prices off of the value your customer is getting out of the product.
3) Think about what it costs to provide the service. Take that cost plus some percentage, and use that as your price.
Approach #2 is most common in SaaS businesses. Approach #3 is more common in businesses where the cost of goods sold is a high portion of the revenue.
Value of information can be hard to measure but that's in theory how you want to price it, as high as you can while still giving your customers a good return on their investment.
What professionals do is, well... they pull a number out of their ass. Pick a price that works well for you and try to sell at that price. Negotiate and iterate from there. If every potential customer says it's something they would like but it's too expensive, then maybe you are asking too much. If there is demand for your information you should be able to figure out over time what the market is willing to pay for it.
I am looking for published accounts of groups falling apart because of unsolvable disagreements and dislikes between members. The nature of the group doesn’t matter much: It could be members of an expedition, people making a movie, a business, an interest group. The only condition is that it has to be small enough for personal differences between members to matter. In fact, it could even be something very large, like a political party or a religion, so long as the focus is an a smaller group of individuals collaborating on running or changing the big organization.
What I want is not analysis or theory, but anecdotal info — who said what about why they mistrusted or disliked person A, B or C. Anyone have something to suggest?
The sinking of the El Faro is a good example where personality conflicts contributed
The wiki article makes it seem like it was caused entirely by the captain being an idiot.
The mountaineering literature probably has a lot of examples. In particular, a tragic expedition on Denali failed (people died) mostly due to poor group dynamics and communication (and bad leadership). There are several books about this, the one I remember is called The Hall of the Mountain King by Howard Snyder.
Look for accounts of rock bands and other entertainment acts that broke up. There is enough market for these that there are plenty of them.
Anecdotally - and the reason I thought of this - I recently listened to an interview with Michael Stipe of R.E.M., a big band that did not fall apart. He said that very early on - like when they were all still in their early 20s - his band mate Peter Buck took it upon himself to read a lot of these books about bands that broke up in order to figure out how R.E.M would have the best chance of staying together. Buck came back with two bits of wisdom. First, copyright everything in everyone's name, so there would not be any money disagreements. Second, Buck learned that every successful group had a visionary who, on the flip side, simply didn't have the emotional stability of the rest, and would need to be catered to; Buck suggested that he, Stipe, was that person in their band, and they all agreed from that point on to cater to Stipes' greater sensitivity. I thought it was striking that this kid applied himself so rationally to what was obviously a critical but typically ignored aspect of success in the music industry.
Huh. I'm interested to hear how the visionary part worked. I can sort of see it working to keep everyone pointed in the same direction, but I would also assume it would gradually frustrate everyone else more and more. It feels like you could describe abusive relationships that way.
Do you have a link to the interview? I'd like to listen to it!
The way he described it was more like when he was too drained to take care of himself they would step up for him. The interview was on the Smartless podcast, and the part described above was only a small bit of it. Comes across as a very thoughtful guy.
Tangentially, I met Stipe once, REM played my small college town when they were just a regional act performing in 100 person venues - and I think only 50 of us showed up. They played a small pub and afterwards we all had a few beers together.
There was an open source project that had drama, earlier this year. Roughly, the community was taken over by woke activists, who in somewhat subtle ways, alienated and attacked existing members of the project. Some was for the usual set of issues, other was because of ties to Anduril, a defense contractor. I remember it because of the nigh-impenetrable verbiage that the new threw up to disguise what they were actually doing. It literally gave me flashbacks.
If you want, I can look it up later?
Edit: it's not a published account, though. :-(
Open Source software projects?
Or even Wikileaks.
(E.g. accounts by journalists and former collaborators of Julian Assange who came to the conclusion that he was kind of a dick)
(Cough) effective altruism? (Cough)
Sam “insufficient candid in his communications with the board” Altman?
Sure looks like OpenAi is falling apart in the classic manner.
Surely some journalist of sociologist has written these up…
Mutinies broadly qualify, I think.
You might look at The Wager: A Tale of Shipwreck, Mutiny and Murder by David Grann. It’s the story of the British warship HMS Wager, which wrecked off the coast of Patagonia in 1741 during an imperial expedition.
Mutiny on the Bounty is probably a worthwhile example, as well (best understood as happening due to Fletcher Christian's inability to deal with Bligh, or maybe Bligh's inability to not be a dick to Fletcher Christian).
Burrough's Days of Rage has this a lot about the Weather Underground, as well.
I second this; it was very engaging.
I have a feeling Eromalalos might be looking for a story about a group that falls apart without perhaps such extreme external influences. Maybe not.
I just read that over the summer, really good.
Maybe look for anecdotes about music groups breaking up? The Beatles, etc.
<joke>It was Yoko, dammit!<\joke>
In a world where doctors are increasingly treated like cogs in a machine, the question arises: Would you recommend your son or daughter pursue the field?
(Question from the Sensible Medicine Substack)
From the outside looking in, I note that nearly all jobs require a certain amount of rule-following and dealing with back-seat drivers. We all have bosses, and doctors are no different. But the sheer lucrativeness of the job makes up for a lot, and in most types of medicine you get the satisfaction of being able to really help some people with serious problems. And that's really great.
My reservations on behalf of a hypothetical son or daughter focus more on the length of the path into the profession, and what happens if they don't make it all the way through the pipeline. To begin with, do they have anywhere near the intellectual firepower and work ethic needed to take a decent shot at it? And if they aim for med school but can't get in, do they have reasonable options they might be satisfied with? And if they make it into and through med school but face sharply limited residency options, would they be reasonably satisfied with less sought-after specialties? And if they do make it, are they really up for the real punishment that residents have to wade through?
Given the entry hurdles, I suspect there are better options for most people who aren't really truly passionate about medicine.
Interestingly, there are several medical jobs in the top ten of the US News and World Report listing. But physician is not among them.
https://money.usnews.com/careers/best-jobs/rankings/the-100-best-jobs
Personal experience: plenty of perks in being a doctor. Pays well, lifelong learning, interesting interactions, get to feel like I’m helping people.
Downsides - on call and weekend work, have to carefully manage work/life balance, risk of legal action.
Am I just a cog in a machine? Sure, but isn’t everyone?
The cog in a machine phenomenon that is worrisome is that it is more so than in the past and may be even more so in the future. Do you think this to be true?
For example in some healthcare settings, doctors may have quotas or targets for the number of patients they need to see.
Also, was there anything you wish you knew before you started?
Some people say to go into the profession only if you cannot see yourself doing anything else, which is a high bar, compared to just preferring it to anything else.
The way I see it, medicine is a big initial investment in your twenties in terms of study, physical and emotional exhaustion, lack of sleep during residency, having to wait much longer than your peers to receive a pay check, etc. Then it pays off later in life with job security and financial stability.
Of course if all you want is money then go into finance, but medicine offers benefits beyond that.
As for going into it only if you can’t see yourself doing anything else - I wouldn’t set the bar quite that high but if say my kids wanted to do medicine, I’d want them to be doing it for the right reasons, and I’d want them to know that it’s not easy and to be prepared for challenges.
Not sure about the quota stuff, haven’t encountered that personally. I don’t practice in the States though (I’m Australian.)
I would, but only as a surgeon, research MD, or a handful of other specialties that haven't been optimized into a fine gray life-hating mush, or that have potential for them to run their own clinic while still being paid well.
I would definitely agree that something like 80+ of medical specialties now are an actively poor choice.
I used to feel sorry for my internist, who spent all day hurrying up and down a fluorescent lit hall lined with windowless exam rooms containing a patient waiting to see her. While talking to me she was also busily typing a whole bunch of required documentation. Seemed to me like an unpleasant workday, no matter how well it paid. On the other hand, specialists have much nicer offices, generally with a couple colleagues they seem to like, and come across as
cheerful and interested in their work. I think their work probably has more puzzles for them to solve than the work of an internist, so they get these fun enjoyable challenges. Plus they make more money. Still, being an md has never appealed to me. if my kid wanted to do it, I’d make sure she had a clear idea of what training and practice are really like. Then it would be entirely up to her.
They are shiny, gold cogs with plenty of oil. I'm sure that will appeal to some.
My dentist looks like he has a much better job than my doctor.
My dentist, whom I have just paid £300 for half an hour of work fixing my tooth. Solved my problem, so from patient point of view I got at least £300 worth of value.
The classic dilemma. Professions that impress people at parties are either impossible to get into or shit to actually work in, while all the money and work-life balance are to be found in professions that make people at parties nod and change the subject.
Some comments contra prediction markets and super forecasters here. Curious to hear reactions.
https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/the-joe-walker-podcast/id1236553683?i=1000670110437
Should have clarified. It’s with Taleb who very rarely gives interviews or podcasts.
Why did Trump not agree to another debate even in a friendly environment (e.g., Fox News). Is it because:
A: He is afraid to lose.
B: He has nothing to gain.
C: He thinks he won the previous debate. (Similar to B but more specific.)
D: Other.
A + B.
When you put him on a stage with a human under the age of old as shit who has at least 75% of a functioning hippocampus it becomes apparent he is fat, old, and stupid.
He or his handlers are doing the smart thing, which is keeping him as far from the limelight as possible; anything he says or does can only hurt his chances.
He wins if the fake trump people have imagined in their minds makes them feel better than the fake kamala, so she needs to get in front of as many eyeballs as possible and he needs to become a numinous presence.
If you think Trump's handlers have been keeping him out of the limelight then your bubble is showing.
I agree it's a smart strategy not to put him on stage with Kamala again but he's definitely not avoiding publicity.
He is goin out there and vibing and putting the fries in the bag and what have you, but it seems the people around him jingling the keys are keeping him away from any situation where they don't get to manage the cameras.
Is Fox News even a friendly environment at this point? I thought they had a falling out after Fox actually had the gall to report on the election results.
Fox News on Oct 9th formally proposed to host a debate with Fox on-air persons as the two moderators, using a format similar to the June (Trump/Biden) and September (Trump/Harris) debates. Trump immediately (within hours) kiboshed it without Harris having yet responded.
Harris then said she would have agreed to what Fox proposed, and to support that claim she then said Fox could interview her solo without any limitations on questions or topics. That interview, conducted by one of the Fox people who was proposed to moderate a debate, took place in prime time on October 17th.
Also recently, Trump backed out of a 60 Minutes interview that he'd agreed to do and a couple of other media appearances. Considering how some recent campaign appearances have gone, it may be simply that he's no longer physically/mentally up for non-friendly audiences or questioners.
Did Kamala agree to a debate on Fox News?
I think A+B are both true. He thinks (accurately in my mind, but beside the point) that the moderators that Kamala would agree to would be against him, rather than neutral. Also, most of the media would report negatively about his performance regardless of what happened. He's got something to lose. He also doesn't have a lot to gain. He passed on the Republican debates entirely, because he's a known quantity and there's very little doubt about who he is. His only potential gain is Kamala sticking her foot in her mouth, but after the first debate that seems less likely and not worth the potential downsides.
Yeah. It's clear now that she can stick to a script, and it's unlikely that she'd agree to an environment that would prevent this from working. Whereas it's entirely possible that he could say something crazy that gets reported like "good people on both sides". Or worse, he could have a Biden moment.
Election civility prediction request:
What odds(breakdown by R vs D) will the losing candidate have conceded the election by the end of the year?
What odds with the "sensible middle"/70% of america citizens, agree on who won the election or what remedy(such as waiting for a recount) is necessary a month after?
What odds will there be 1000 dead in a political violence event around the election(1 week before or after, mostly citizens on america soil and not a middle east base)?
Update: Took less than 24 hours.
https://time.com/7173617/kamala-harris-concession-speech-full-transcript/
"A fundamental principle of American democracy is that when we lose an election, we accept the results. That principle, as much as any other, distinguishes democracy from monarchy or tyranny. And anyone who seeks the public trust must honor it. At the same time, in our nation, we owe loyalty not to a president or a party, but to the Constitution of the United States, and loyalty to our conscience and to our God. My allegiance to all three is why I am here to say, while I concede this election, I do not concede the fight that fueled this campaign—the fight: the fight for freedom, for opportunity, for fairness, and the dignity of all people. A fight for the ideals at the heart of our nation, the ideals that reflect America at our best. That is a fight I will never give up."
*blinks* I wouldntve thought even could happen before all states were called, thought she at minimum be like hilrey
https://manifold.markets/Mosiah/will-the-runnerup-in-the-2024-us-pr
The market is way overpricing it imo. People still don’t “get” Trump’s MO (never concede, never apologize, never admit defeat).
It does clarify that it counts as a concession if even just the GOP accepts the election results. The ratio seems a lot more sensible in that context.
It depends on the nature of the loss - I can easily imagine chaos that prevents accurate knowledge for a while, and a tie might take some time to resolve - but 99% that Kamala concedes by the end of the year if she more or less clearly loses, 66% that Trump does.
90% that there's broad consensus after a month.
1% on the 1000 dead.
I think the point of maximum danger was the last election (jan 6 etc.).
I’d put the odds of mass casualties pretty low, less than 2%.
On the other hand, there are a bunch of crazy people with guns trying to kill Trump. Probability one of them succeeds? Don’t know. 50% maybe?
Probably shouldn’t be a prediction market in case it affects the outcome…
I actually strongly disapprove of current media policy of “if you try to kill Trump, we will reward you by printing a full page about you in the national press”. There are going to be takers for that deal.
Still, it’s not as bad as “if you shoot up a school you’ll be in fucking People Magazine”
Well-behaved non-assassins seldom make history.
Maria Salomea Skłodowska-Curie
Nobel laureates in general. A good many inventors.
Some political leaders (though it is hard to find a major one without _some_ blood on their hands, which makes "non-assassin" iffy-ish).
But the percentage of non-assassins who make history is a lot lower than the percentage of assassins who make history. (Equity!)
Is that a Trump specific policy?
You will need to define "conceded" as I think there are different answers here. I have a lot lower expectations of Trump giving a formal concession speech than I do of him quietly dropping the matter, for instance. Both on the lower end, but one much much higher. I also think Kamala is much more likely to have a formal concession speech, but also pretty likely to keep badgering the case like Hillary did in 2016 - "illegitimate president" kinds of things. Or trying to throw more lawfare at Trump.
I also think this depends a lot on how close the election is. If it's another nail-biter with a few swing states being off by five-digit amounts, both sides are likely to contest it or complain about it. If Trump wins the popular vote I don't know what happens, but I think Democrats nationwide are going to have a meltdown even if Kamala concedes. If Kamala wins by clear margins, you'll have plenty of conspiracy theories and likely specific voting precincts identified as being a problem, but I don't think it would be the same as if she won by 10,000 votes in Georgia or whatever.
> You will need to define "conceded" as I think there are different answers here
> Trump giving a formal concession speech than I do of him quietly dropping the matter
last election was not conceded
Not in those words, but in practice it was. It's not like he refused to vacate the Oval Office. Nor did he set up his own Oval Office In Exile and continue to behave like the President, issuing proclamations and giving orders to the military.
That is a rather eccentric, and IMHO not particularly useful, definition of "concede."
Yeah, under this framework it seems like if I went to jail for murder, then spent the next 30 years claiming to be innocent, I have nevertheless "conceded the matter" by virtue of my remaining in jail.
Exactly. Which is why that shaken baby defendant in TX should be executed; he has conceded his guilt by not killing five prison guards and escaping.
It's pretty important though, since world history and several current countries have seen the opposite.
Yes, but surely the initial claim was about the American context, in which the opposite has never happened. That is what makes the definition not particularly useful. It doesn't allow us to identify variations in behavior. It would be like me describing Jeffrey Epstein as morally upright, by which I mean he didn't murder multiple people, unlike lots of people. Or, it is like certain people who claim that the two major parties are the same because both support global capitalist hegemony. True in a sense, but not helpful.
So, yes, it is important that Trump did not try to establish an alternative government, but that phenomenon needs to be assigned a different label if we are going to understand the matters we are discussing. Eg https://www.jstor.org/stable/420397
If Trump wins:
- 95% that Kamala concedes before the inauguration
- 80% that the 70% most moderate Americans broadly agree on the winner
- 2% that at least 1000 die in political violence
If Kamala wins:
- 10% that Trump concedes before the inauguration
- 40% that the 70% most moderate Americans broadly agree on the winner
- 6% that at least 1000 die in political violence
Trump did concede before Biden's inauguration (he did it after January 6th, but he did do it). Do you think that was a fluke, or that he has a lower chance of conceding this time?
Both him and JD Vance were asked point blank *in 2024* whether Trump lost the 2020 election; Trump said no and JD Vance tried to dodge the question.
I think it's pretty unambiguous that Trump did not concede.
For the record, JD Vance is no longer dodging the question: https://www.npr.org/2024/10/16/nx-s1-5155220/jd-vance-donald-trump-2020-election-loss-answer-no
And yet, somehow he still is dodging it: "So did Donald Trump lose the election? Not by the words that I would use.”
Vance is smart enough to speak clearly without making himself legally liable for anything. A lawyer through and through.
And half the country doesn’t realize (or doesn’t care) we are in Dear Leader territory. It’s pretty frightening.
Aw, he doesn’t mean that ‘the enemy within’ and ‘vermin poisoning the blood of our country’ stuff. It’s just showmanship.
oof
From what I can tell, Trump never officially conceded. He acknowledged in a video released on January 7 that there’d be a transition of power on January 20, but he stopped short of a traditional concession. Even on Inauguration Day, Trump didn’t attend, becoming the first outgoing president to skip his successor’s inauguration in over 150 years.
It’s difficult to officially concede while maintaining you never lost.
That's a fair point. I was taking "concede" mean "admit to having lost the election", but if we take it to mean "admit to not holding the office", then I'd give Trump 85% odds of doing that, contingent on a Kamala win.
If we go with "concede" meaning "admit to having lost the election", I think the probability is lower than 10%. Modelling Trump as a rational actor, he'd see many benefits to denial or refusal to concede (more donations, more media attention, and a small but nonzero chance of actually overturning the election somehow), and basically no downsides (if the courts decide to throw the book at him he's in jail for the rest of his life regardless, and if they decide to treat him with kid gloves a second round of election-denial won't make his situation worse). I don't think he'd have any reason to give a concession speech. Now, I don't think Trump is a rational actor, but I think most of his irrationalities would push him further away from concession, not closer to it.
Have you posted this to Manifold? I would be interested to see the results.
How are we defining concession? Does the candidate have to release a statement saying something to the effect of “I concede,” or do they have to stop substantial litigation of the election, or what?
> Have you posted this to Manifold?
no
> How are we defining concession?
I dont speak washinton fluently, but Id say hilrey, trump, and al gore didnt
>> How are we defining concession?
>I don't speak washinton fluently, but Id say hilrey, trump, and al gore didnt
Actually:
Gore -
"Just moments ago, I spoke with George W. Bush and congratulated him on becoming the 43rd president of the United States — and I promised him that I wouldn’t call him back this time."
"I offered to meet with him as soon as possible so that we can start to heal the divisions of the campaign and the contest through which we just passed."
"Almost a century and a half ago, Senator Stephen Douglas told Abraham Lincoln, who had just defeated him for the presidency, 'Partisan feeling must yield to patriotism. I’m with you, Mr. President, and God bless you.'"
"Well, in that same spirit, I say to President-elect Bush that what remains of partisan rancor must now be put aside, and may God bless his stewardship of this country."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xq5YdkYSyEE
https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=122220&page=1
Clinton -
"Last night, I congratulated Donald Trump and offered to work with him on behalf of our country. I hope that he will be a successful president for all Americans. This is not the outcome we wanted or we worked so hard for and I’m sorry that we did not win this election for the values we share and the vision we hold for our country."
"But I feel pride and gratitude for this wonderful campaign that we built together, this vast, diverse, creative, unruly, energized campaign. You represent the best of America and being your candidate has been one of the greatest honors of my life."
"I know how disappointed you feel because I feel it too, and so do tens of millions of Americans who invested their hopes and dreams in this effort. This is painful and it will be for a long time, but I want you to remember this. Our campaign was never about one person or even one election, it was about the country we love and about building an America that’s hopeful, inclusive and big-hearted."
"We have seen that our nation is more deeply divided than we thought. But I still believe in America and I always will. And if you do, then we must accept this result and then look to the future. Donald Trump is going to be our president. We owe him an open mind and the chance to lead."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bcck7hr9Su8
https://edition.cnn.com/2016/11/09/politics/hillary-clinton-concession-speech/index.html
Weird to be looking at behavior so recent that somehow looks like statesmanship from a bygone era. Especially from Clinton, who is not exactly on my short list of best leaders ever.
Trump also played both sides, while refusing to say the magic words. Al gore is a bit mixed, but Hilary is not she will just say Russians stole the election.
>Hilary is not she will just say Russians stole the election.
There is a big difference between 1) "I would have gotten more votes if the Russians hadn't interfered" and 2) "I actually got more votes, but the count was falsified."
Bonus difference points for "I actually got more votes, but the count was falsified. And to my supporters - riot to force your leaders to reinstall me into power."
In the trolley problem, there are two situations: one where you pull a lever to change where the trolley goes, and another where you push a person onto the tracks to stop it.
The idea of stopping the trolley by pushing a person onto the tracks is not realistic—usually, one person isn’t enough to stop a trolley. This unrealistic part of the problem might be confused with thinking it’s also morally wrong.
Also, if you push the person and the trolley doesn’t stop, you’ve caused a death for no reason. On the other hand, if pulling the lever doesn’t change the trolley’s path, at least you haven’t made things worse.
An issue with thought experiments is they try to claim certainty over outcomes to tease out intuitions but in any real world situation, there is no certainty and it dramatically changes the result.
If I drove to a bar, had 15 beers and then knew for a fact that I wasn't going to crash or hurt anyone, would it be wrong? I guess not but that thought experiment doesn't cash out to anything I can use.
Don Quixote has solved this already:
https://qr.ae/pvHKEb
Pushing the person in front of the train is wrong because people have the right not to be pushed in front of trains.
That is an important point.
But a similar argument could be made in the case of the lever that a person has a right that a lever should not be pulled in order to kill the person.
It gets to the question of why the people are on the tracks in the first place. Saying "it doesn't matter" is assuming a moral conclusion. I think it does matter.
My initial impulse is in that direction also. To what degree are people responsible for getting themselves off the tracks or not standing on the tracks in the first place? The wording of the problem, or situation, can be changed - but why must my action be so critical and other's action irrelevant?
I think the problem tends to assume a black-clad mustache-twirling Snidely Whiplash villain having tied the people to the tracks?
That's one extreme variation. If I put myself in that situation as the person on the tracks I still struggle with idea that someone would decide to kill random someone else to save me and other people with me. But clearly there are variations of the problem that make me struggle. (Like nobody will know, but pushing a button will trade <insert terrible person in world history doing terrible things>'s life and preserve lives of <insert dozens of people doing incredibly good things in the world>, would you do it?).
That is an interesting dimension to consider.
The fat guy notices you pushing on him, and realizes that if he steps out of the way and gives you a good shove you will be moving fast enough to derail the trolley, saving all those people tied to the tracks.
I’m not sure what your point is. But it sounds like an interesting point.
It's not meant to be taken seriously.
I think, in general for these theoretical experiments, it's best to focus on the idea and try not to get distracted by details like this. You could always come up with a much longer and more precise version that fixes this.
I agree with you that's the intent, but I think Reversion is right to point out this issue. Most people*, when presented with these theoretical arguments, bring along their whole host of priors. We don't do a good job separating out those hidden details that likely affect how we feel about it.
If we designed a realistic scenario that uses the same philosophical questions, I think the answers would shift. Shoving a fat man onto the tracks really is unlikely to work for multiple reasons - your aim, his resistance, the trolley is too heavy, etc. - such that it feels like a bad idea. But the idea that you could kill one person to save many doesn't feel as bad to me as the idea of that particular plan. I think there could be scenarios developed where I would "shove the fat man" but not that particular one.
Given that intuitive divergence, something else has to be happening here and we're measuring the wrong thing.
*-pretty much everyone who isn't a philosopher.
Realistic ethical dilemmas usually wind up looking a lot more like:
"Something may happen. You can probably prevent it from happening at the cost of an unknown number of lives. If you don't, then a different unknown number of people will die. You think that the first number is probably smaller than the second number. Also there's a bunch of other factors and moral principles involved. What do you do?"
My favourite trolley problem is "Should you invade Iraq?"
Right? It's super complicated and often comes down to priors on a bunch of information that's either impossible to know or trust. Like, "Does Saddam have WMDs?" "If yes, what are the chances he would use them?"
I do think it would be very hard to develop scenarios where I would shove the fat man, because almost all of them could also be solved by me sacrificing myself. As an intuition and something I would admit in public, I could always say "sacrifice myself" even if I'm not sure I could actually make myself do it. It's heroic and not evil, two important intuition pumps for our answers.
I agree with you. But I think part of the interesting thing about the thought experiment is the way the “gut instinct” is very different in the two cases that have similar outcomes. These details may matter for that.
You have to assume that killing the guy is going to stop the trolley because that’s in the thought experiment explicitly.
You are right that gut instinct is different? Why? That’s what the thought experiment is trying to find out.
I think most people's moral intuitions are line up with the idea that it's okay to sacrifice one person who is already "a part of" the situation, but not to bring in someone who is outside the situation and sacrifice them.
The fat guy who just happens to be standing _near_ the situation, is he "part of it" or not? It's a dumb mental image and the physics of it don't make sense, so it's hard to extract a sensible answer.
Also proximity matters. You are seeing the whites of this guys eyes, or at least the pimple on his neck before you toss him over. He’s a person, while the unnamed guy on the track is a statistic. In my minds eye I see the fat guy on the bridge, but the people on the track are silhouettes in the distance.
What is Megalon? Google doesn't seem to know.
I guess Google likes me better than you. Megalon is a giant bug that fought Godzilla.
Magic metal from a recent Francis Ford Coppola movie
Megalon: magic metal
Megatron: leader of the Decepticons
Metatron: angel who speaks for God
Metalon: ??
Mellotron: an electromechanical musical instrument.
Megalodon: best shark
Megalotron: Leader of the deceptisharks
Metelon: A Pennsylvania voter who has just been handed a million-dollar check on stage.
Megaton: a lot of boom
What about a Megalopolis review post? It's the kind of thing that could be both insightful and funny.
Coppola's list of inspirations sounded like the names from Phil Magness & Michael Makovi's "Synthetic Marx" paper, so I'd like to hear their review. https://x.com/TeaGeeGeePea/status/1785357447688757751
I have a new article summarizing six high-level Alzheimer's researchers who face credible accusations of fraud. Dozens of papers in journals like Cell, Nature, and Science have been found to images that are clearly tampered with. Almost all the fraud has been detected in manipulated images, with the exception of water maze data that experts agree is "too good to be true".
Collectively, hundreds of millions in taxpayer dollars have been wasted, and several pharmaceutical companies have also wasted time and money trying to replicate and build off of fraudulent work. It's not a stretch to suggest the field has been set back significantly, causing increased suffering for the ~7 million people in the US who have Alzheimer's.
Read here => https://moreisdifferent.blog/p/when-weak-links-in-science-matter
Shockingly, despite all of the evidence presented and (in some cases) investigations, all remain professors in good standing and are still able to do research.
My thread on X about this is going viral, currently has 454k views: https://x.com/moreisdifferent/status/1848020706082050500
I also recommend Ben Landau-Taylor's excellent article in Palladium Magazine: "The Academic Culture of Fraud ": https://www.palladiummag.com/2024/08/02/the-academic-culture-of-fraud/
Question: Has the amyloid plaque hypothesis of Alzheimer's been dumped into the great shitter of discarded scientific theories? Or were these researchers fraudulently riffing within an already established framework of data and results? If amyloid plaques are off the table, are there any alternative theories waiting in he wings?
I'm wondering if this isn't as big a deal as the collapse of String Theory which has left hundreds of theorists without a clear way forward.
How do you feel this compares with the example of Dr Sam Yoon and his cancer research potential fabrications raised in January? This also seems to be associated with extensive possible research fraud at the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute. Falsification of this content has direct impact on people I know getting treated today and seems broadly similar in scope and impact globally on an important field.
I've been figuratively shaking my head in disbelief at these revelations—not because the fraud occurred in the first place, but because all of these researchers, including Federally indicted Wang continue to work at their institutions. OTOH, it took almost a decade for the accusations of Imanishi-Kari's fraud to wend their way through the system (David Baltimore defending her to the end); although she was dismissed from her position, she continued to research (not sure if she was in Baltimore's lab). She appealed and eventually got her job back.
Academia seems very resistant to correction. When we talk about "strong links" in science, the strongest links seem to depend on one's eminence and the circle of eminent researchers who one knows.
How can they not know that it’s not hard to tell when images have been altered.? *I* can see l my own Photoshop edits if I zoom in enough, and I’m sure it’s easy as pie to identify even very subtle edits using tech.
Some of the duplications are obvious but most I have seen are not. Elizabeth Bik is able to spot duplicated subimages etc very quickly, but that's only due to natural skill and a lot of experience. From what I have heard, most people find it challenging. https://imagetwin.ai/ is a new software tool that is supposed to help.
read about Elizabeth Bik's process here https://scienceintegritydigest.com/frequently-asked-questions/
for more examples see https://youtu.be/8Vfhwfp59h4?t=417
I didn’t mean somebody like me could do
it, just that many changes I’ve made are easy to spot, especially when zoomed way in. Assumed there was a software tool, in fact am pretty sure Ive read that there is.
You're assuming that the peer reviewers and editors are doing some sort of systematic due diligence. Most researchers see peer review as a burden and a waste of their valuable time.
This is a very(!) widespread misconception about peer reviewing. As a researcher I do peer reviews all the time, and it is definitely not my job to find out whether the results are correct or not. This would not be a feasible task, and it is not what peer reviewing does or tries to do.
Stuff that good peer reviewing with "due diligence" does:
- Checking whether the authors know and mentioned relevant related results.
- Checking whether the text is understandable.
- Checking whether the material is complete, for example whether the methodology section contains enough details.
And, most importantly:
- Estimating whether the result and the journal fit together. Are the results important enough for this journal? Are the addressed questions interesting for the target audience of this journal? Is the text and style appropriate for the target audience of this journal?
What good peer reviewing with "due diligence" does NOT do:
- Verify or falsify results.
- Check the presented numbers or images.
- Verify any calculations.
As a reviewer, this is not part of my job. It is the job of the authors to get these things right.
But we’re not talking about whether the results are correct, but about whether they are lies. And for some kinds of lies, manipulated images being one, tech can do a screening for you quickly. Seems to me somebody has to do that prepublication. Maybe not you
. . . but then who?
That makes demost's point stronger. When I do peer reviewing, I frequently try to verify the correctness of some parts of the process through e.g. checking the math. I do not ever try to determine whether the author is straight-up lying; that would be an enormously difficult task, particularly when done as a solitary, remote reviewer with no practical way to investigate anything beyond what was presented to me by the authors. Plus, the costs of a false accusation would be high, and I would derive no personal benefit from a correct accusation.
I'm not being paid enough for that. If you want people to systematically search academic papers for evidence of lying, you'll probably need to actually pay them for that. If you're imagining that this is being done, or even that it is being promised or that it should be done or promised done, by people like me working without pay or reward, then Oh Hell No.
i tried to make clear that I was suggesting at
most that the reviewer quickly run the images through something that can spot alterations via image editing of photos. Reviewer could then inform editor of the result. Also said somebody
else involved with the publication. could check images
for tweaking . My point was not that the reviewer should do it, just that somebody sure as hell should. Do you disagree with that?
I agree that it would be very nice to have a system where papers are checked for fraud before publication. But the peer reviewing system does not do that. I would be surprised if even 5% of reviewers would run such automated checks. I don't run them because I don't consider it part of my reviewer job to hunt for fraud.
Actually, I think I will start a little survey in the next (hidden?) open thread how other reviewers consider their job. I do think that colleagues that I know handle it the same way. But perhaps there are differences in other fields.
EDIT: I noticed that this open thread is not so old yet, so I asked it here.
and it looks like there is unanimous agreement...
So what would you do if you just happened to totally accidentally notice that a paper was fraudulent?
Peer review is sold to the public as some kind of panacea for accuracy and reliability. Not infallible of course but at least a good indication. But what you've described sounds more like copyediting and a vibe check.
Ok, if I do notice fraud or plain mistakes, then it's a different story. Then I would complain to the editors about it.
And I know that peer review is often sold as this panacea, but this is simply wrong. My impression is that this comes partly from people outside of academia (like journalists), and partly from academics who find it convenient to let this misconception stand unchecked.
But I don't think that I am the outlier here. I think this is just the standard way how peer reviewing is interpreted by most reviewers. So yes, it's advanced copyediting plus the verdict whether the paper is "good enough" for the journal.
>it's advanced copyediting plus the verdict whether the paper is "good enough" for the journal.
Ooh no, that's not how I see it. Copy editors are for the journal to sort out, and whether a paper is of interest is the editor's business, not mine (how am I supposed to judge what's of interest to Random Journal A and their readers?). A peer reviewer's job, in my opinion, is to point out where the paper can be improved, whatever that takes. I look for whether there's enough in the methods that they could be reproduced, whether the results described actually follow from what was done and observed, and whether the conclusions have enough of a leg to stand on. Anyway, I answered your survey too :)
Yeah, I am I guess. But it seems like checking for plagiarism and Image hacking can be done so easily now, at least a first pass can.
there is a tool called imagetwin that looks for duplicate images, duplicated subimages, and signs of image manipulation. I don't know of any journals that actually use it. https://imagetwin.ai
The journal of Cell Biology is one of the few that has implemented an image check: https://rupress.org/jcb/pages/editorial-policies#:~:text=Our%20screening%20process,and%20methods%20section.
A lot of papers do go through plagiarism tools. They usually catch the same authors describing the same methods with slightly different words. The only time a paper I was involved with had the images flagged, none of us could work out what the tool "saw", because those images were genuine and from our lab, and had never been online. Thankfully the journal didn't make a fuss about it and the paper was accepted.
At which level is this plagiarism tool used? Is it some assistant of the journal who does that? Or is there an automated check in the submission system that you get as feedback?
It wasn't the peer reviewers, it was provided at the same time but separately to their reports, IIRC. It was certainly partially automated, but may have been run by a human or just done completely automatically, I don't know.
Someone pitched me that the UK's Crown Prosecution Service is a superior model to how the US appoints/manages/runs prosecutors and prosecutions. As it was explained to me, the CPS is made up of career civil servants, and they decide who is going to be criminally charged and with what charges. The prosecutors (or barristers, whatever the Brits call them) who argue the case in court are not the people who actually decide on the charges, they're simply handed cases to prosecute and told to go out and make x or y argument.
Versus the US model, where individual prosecutors are either elected or appointed- but either way, the same people who decide who is to be charged are also the ones who argue the case in court. Prosecutors are ambitious individuals who may want to seek some kind of higher office, so they sometimes bring flimsy, populist, or very prominent 'career-making' kind of cases to make themselves look better. Taking down a local bigwig politician or businessman is very career-enhancing. As it was explained to me, the British model is superior because you remove the temptation to do so. A CPS bureaucrat probably doesn't have anywhere to go career-wise, the cases are decided by committee, and anyways they're not in the public spotlight the way a US prosecutor is.
Anyways, I have no priors either way, because I'm not super-familiar with the US criminal justice system, and not at all familiar with the UK's. Is this argument plausible? Not really looking for boring anecdotes about a time that CPS screwed something up, but instead a broader systemic argument
If you are looking at it from a purely political perspective, imo, in the West, bureaucracies tend to always be left leaning. Under the US system, while extreme leftists do get elected as prosecutors, right-wingers also have a decent chance in communities where they have electoral majorities. A bureucratic system would appoint leftists in those communities. Same thing applies to policing too. UK police officers just seem like bureucrats with a baton. They could be working as clerks in the Department of Equality and I wouldn't notice a difference. The fragmented and many times elected nature of American police officers means they tend to be more right wing.
This is one of those issues where "superior" kind of means two contradictory things: is a superior prosecutor the one that is MORE or LESS responsive to the articulate voice of the sovereign?...and who is that sovereign (is it the elected government or the voting public)? There is a common belief I see sometimes where people think a populist prosecutor is going to be more likely to bring flimsy but popular cases...but consider the fact that a populist prosecutor has a direct stake in looking good (arguably, "winning"). I hope you can see how a bureaucratic prosecution mechanism could result in a lot of flimsy and unwanted charges being brought.
Both systems have advantages, and even in the US, there's considerable variation. So in the federal system prosecutors are more like bureaucrats, and in most of the state systems they're more like politicians (or the direct subordinate employees of politicians).
"and who is that sovereign"
he who decides the exception, duh
[end Schmitt jokes]
> but consider the fact that a populist prosecutor has a direct stake in looking good (arguably, "winning")
Well then you've got the other failure mode, where guilty people get away with crimes because the prosecutor is in love with his 95% conviction rate and won't risk anything but the most cut and dried cases.
It's both a bug and a feature. Prosecutorial codes of ethics generally require prosecutors to not charge out cases they don't think they can win, and I at least think this is better to the alternative. I think the system works better for everyone if a criminal charge means a great deal as a signal. It means the department of justice or whatever thinks 12 people will all surely agree you did it, and they have no reasonable doubt you did.
Without getting into the other issues that I have with the 'accountable to the people' thing (which I personally think is completely unrealistic)- you'd have similar issues that I describe above with an appointed prosecutor. And a small number of US states do appoint their state prosecutors.
The issue is- are you concentrating a ton of power in 1 person, who's incentivized to take on flimsy but popular-looking cases so as to burnish their public image? An appointed prosecutor has the same issues, they may want to hold a higher office in the future. Or they may want to get a lucrative job as a partner at a defense firm, so building a high-profile image now helps.
My post wasn't really elected about elected vs. appointed, but about concentrating the power to bring charges plus the role of the public litigator all in one person. You have the same problem either way
We can even use trump prosecution as an example of how the same problems can arise from both mechanisms:
Trump is being prosecuted in Georgia and New York on State charges, and it's easy to see how the argument for faulty prosecution here is that the State-level prosecutors are trying to score political points from the voting public by going after someone unpopular with whatever they can think of. These charges would "never have been brought" absent the populist undercurrent.
But trump is ALSO being prosecuted federally for the documents case (in florida) and various attempts to sabotage the 2020 election (in DC) these are federal prosecutions (already quite bureaucratic) carried out with an extra layer of protection in that the bureaucrats in question have outsourced the prosecution to additional, unaffiliated bureaucrats (Jack Smith). But here we can easily have the opposite accusation: these charges are the work of the unaccountable deep state and "never would have been brought" by someone who was actually accountable to the voting public.
If the civil servants deciding who to prosecute are corrupt (say, they are secretly taking bribes not to prosecute), how is the system resilient against that?
>Elections can also be a check against prosecutorial overreach though.
And _under_reach. If the person who decides whether to prosecutes unilaterally chooses to stop prosecuting e.g. shoplifting, even though the law is still on the books and the public wants those crimes prosecuted, is a civil servant who cannot be voted out, how does the public get the law enforced?
In places where the Director of Public Prosecutions (or whatever) isn't elected, they are appointed by Parliament (or whatever) and can be replaced by them, so any DPP who steps too far out of sync with public opinion will find themselves looking for a new job.
Judges tend to be harder to fire, and they tend to be a bigger problem.
Many Thanks! One of the arguments about Project 2025 here in the USA is, IIRC, that one of the things it proposes is to make more of the government workers political appointees rather than civil service. My (vague!) impression of the situation is that political appointees can easily be replaced while civil service people are almost impossible to remove.
There are positives and negatives to having both types of positions. As with judges, civil service employees can supposedly be apolitical and objective. On the other hand, if they consistently make choices against the will of the electorate, it is very hard to hold them accountable.
Political appointees are more subject to (albeit indirect) accountability to the voters, but, if they are in a post which requires objectivity, this is apt to be lacking. Also, those jobs can be used as plums to reward supporters, regardless of competence, which was, IIRC, the motivation for the civil service rules in the first place...
I’ve been thinking about what we should build in space once Starship is fully at scale with full reusability, rapid refueling, and a large fleet. I thought about mining but that seemed like it would have a longer return on investment and larger upfront costs to do surveying, plus I just see people being opposed to it. So I wanted to think about what would be the easiest political sell, where you could build something on the moon and every country would say “that’s awesome!” That way you could get a foothold on the lunar surface, build landing sites, refueling stations, etc, scale up some number of space industries that would make a Mars colony cheaper. The best thing I could think of to do that would be to build an Olympic stadium on the moon to host the Lunar Olympic Games.
I’m trying to meme the idea of a Lunar Olympic Games into public consciousness and am also looking for anyone who wants to poke holes into the idea that you could build a geodesic dome on the moon for something like $4 billion. Am I missing something obvious about the need for radiation shielding? Would you need to do something to encase the dome during periods of high solar bombardment and then retract it? Is there a non-obvious challenge to having a construction crew teleoperate robots from the Earth’s surface to do the construction? I already figured we’d have to do something like put a satellite network around the moon to send signals back to Earth.
https://extelligence.substack.com/p/the-lunar-olympic-games
I can’t help but think that $4 billion is approximately the right order of magnitude to build this. Maybe it’s double that figure but it also seems like the economic case is pretty compelling with pretty low timelines to return the investment money.
Just looking at orders of magnitude, NASA has paid SpaceX $3bn to land four people on the Moon once. Maybe that cost could be lower (government waste, development costs, etc), but $4bn to build a giant dome, a stadium, teleoperated robots, a lunar satellite network and whatever else turns out to be necessary seems to be a wild underestimate.
NASA is paying SpaceX three gigabucks to land what is basically a Mars rocket on the Moon. They're doing this because Elon *has* an experimental Mars rocket that can plausibly be fitted out for a Moon landing in a couple of years. And because nobody else put a serious bid in on NASA's "hey could you design and build us a Moon lander for $3E9 or so" solicitation. They knew NASA would nitpick their design to Hell and gone during the development, and then only ever buy two or three of the things, and that's not enough to justify designing a Moon lander from scratch.
Elon said "I'll sell you a repurposed Mars rocket for the mission" because he was going to be building Mars rockets anyway for his own purposes. He did not bid on the "build a proper Moon lander" thing because, well, see above plus Elon doesn't really care about the Moon.
Mars rockets being inherently more expensive than Moon landers, this is going to be an extravagantly expensive way to return to the Moon. But that's mostly on NASA.
I do, however, agree that $4E9 is a bit low for an entire Lunar sports complex, even done efficiently by smart non-bureaucrats.
Under the current Artemis plan, astronauts will travel to lunar orbit in a tiny capsule, then transition across to a giant Starship for the landing. This is a bit like sailing across the ocean in a dinghy then getting a superyacht (which you've also sailed across the Atlantic unmanned) to take you to shore.
This is, of course, nonsense and will not happen. The workable version of the plan would take astronauts all the way from Earth to the lunar surface and back in the Starship. But NASA is still obliged to pretend that they're doing it the other way until the SLS and Orion officially get cancelled.
Is it possible that is just going to end up being massively profitable for spacex?
My immediate thought is that absolutely zero Olympic athletes have ever trained in 1/6 gravity, and many of the Olympic sports are ludicrously ill-tuned for 1/6 gravity. I would expect the first lunar Olympics as you describe it to be a mass-casualty event. Pretty much anything requiring running or jumping is just asking for broken bones.
True. They will need training time.
Delta V by Daniel Suarez and its sequel have some cool plans laid out. It starts with asteroid mining in the first book, then moves on to mining regolith on the moon and building a big rail gun on the surface to get useful minerals out of the moon's gravity well, so you can have a real commodities market in space and build big space stations and large ships.
I will check it out.
None of those. I never want to see another fucking human in space until the entire automated supply chain is in place, unless the human is up there to turn bolts for the chain.
Before another bald ape gets up there I want us half way to a Von Neumann swarm
A strong position. I’m an anthrocentric guy (with some pretty wide bars in what counts as human) so not sure how well I overlap with you.
Probably pretty closely. My ideal pie in the sky future is 100% of human industry is in space and most people live full time in space, just a bunch of full orbits of O'Neil cylinders; and the planet is a big national park.
This won't happen, but the more lift is used to get production of first space related stuff and then all stuff moved off earth and into space, the faster our ability to let people actually live in space in appreciable numbers will become real instead of imaginary.
Bent Flyvbjerg wrote a book about things like this - "How Big Things Get Done." It's about why seemingly every "megaproject" becomes an impossible boondoggle and takes many times more in cost and time than initially estimated.
In it, Olympics are one of the routinely largest cost overrun categories, with the median overrun ~157% of whatever is estimated.
The reason Olympics in particular are usually a bad idea ties into another major risk factor for cost overruns - lack of domain expertise. In any big construction project, you want people and companies who have done it before. But nobody has ever done a construction project on the moon before, a sure sign you're in for yet more cost overruns.
beleester below has pointed to several Olympics that have cost multiples of your ~$4B on earth - it's a certainty you're off by at least one OOM, maybe even two or three.
My review of Bent's book is here if anyone is interested in seeing if the book is worth picking up for themself: https://performativebafflement.substack.com/p/how-big-things-get-done-bent-flyvbjerg?r=17hw9h
I will take a look at this. My thinking is if it’s just the athletes and camera crew and support staff than it’s more manageable than retrofitting an entire city.
One application I'd love to see discussed more is orbital mirrors to solve global warming and/or optimise the climate.
Discussions of domes on the moon generally involve a thick layer of regolith on top for radiation shielding, which would spoil the romance of a bubble city under the infinite stars. But I don't see why you couldn't have one that's used for shorter exposures instead of permanent habitation. Put the Olympic village underground and put the domed stadium above it.
I suspect your cost estimates are wildly optimistic. The Paris games apparently cost 8 billion to put on, the Tokyo games apparently cost 13 billion. In general, the host city never turns a profit on the Olympics.
Granted, a lot of the cost is tourist infrastructure that isn't necessary when your "stadium" is actually just athletic facilities with no crowds expected, but I would still not expect an order of magnitude cost savings when you're building on the Moon. The Stade de France alone cost $400 million to build and 3 years, and you expect to build a stadium (in a novel environment, with technology and tools that have never been used before) for half that price and in a single year. Better hope those Teslabots are as good as advertised!
I was trying to put the economics of starship into a context that would make it more real to me and also compare it against something revenue generating to see if you could sustain it without government largesse. If Lunar sports are as popular as major league sports on Earth it still seems to me that the case may well be that the expense can be indefinitely justified.
Agreed there has to be shielding. I’ll see if I can add that in somewhere. My expectation would be that the dome is only “open” during events.
You might find this interesting/realistic enough for your tastes.
https://youtu.be/WZN2xXMb28g
This was awesome! Space hotel numbers were good for revenue. You add those to moon sports and in my mind even if starship is way more per unit weight to lunar surface you still have a self sustaining market there very quickly.
I agree it would be awesome. I'm no expert, but I'll see what holes I can poke.
I'm pretty sure any space agency would have conniptions over your window design. The ISS Cupola has four panes of varying thickness, and it's not nearly as big as your triangles. I'm sure they could be mass-produced, but ChatGPT's $20/square foot estimate is absurd. They'll also be quite heavy. Still doable, but probably significantly more expensive than your estimates.
You haven't taken into account design and testing costs. We've never done any of this before. Most components will have to be invented from scratch. This is good (it's why we want to do it!) but will significantly add to cost, especially if something fails on the moon and has to be redone. For testing, at a minimum we're going to want to construct a full dome on Earth and then pressurize it to a full atmosphere. And then shoot at it with a hypersonic BB gun to make sure a stray micrometeorite won't kill everyone, and do a bunch of other testing I can't think of. The good news is that economies of scale mean that building two domes is going to be cheaper than twice the cost of building one dome.
You doubled the cost of the life support system to scale it by 100 times. I'm sure there will be economies of scale, but I doubt by that much.
Overall the numbers seem to be order-of-magnitude accurate. I don't know enough about media to know if your revenue estimates are good. I suspect that if your first year estimates are correct, subsequent years will see the novelty wear off until you're bringing in a similar amount of money to the terrestrial olympics.
We also have a minor problem with the IOC. I don't think they're paying for this, which means licensing fees for calling it the Lunar Olympics. They will be eye-watering, but low enough to let it happen, since they want to get the fees. And if the IOC proves intractable, we can just call it the Fédération Internationale des Sports Lunaires or whatever.
But you also missed a major revenue stream, which is national pride. Cities will damn well near bankrupt themselves to host the Olympics. Everyone knows they won't get the money back. And yet they keep doing it. Play your cards right, and NASA, the ESA, the CNSA, and whatever remains of Russia's space agency will be racing to help build this thing. (This will turn the complex into a mess of competing interests rather than a privately owned hotel, but I think it'd be worth it for the expertise and resources those agencies can provide.)
I wonder if the IOC would have standing to make you stop calling sports on the moon the lunar Olympics. I guess you could just call them the moon games and do the same events. Still, it would be cool to have all the rings plus one big circle for the moon. Going to see if I can’t get anymore sense on the geodesic tiles. It’s much cooler long run and it feels like it would be a great thing for us to have a good handle on when we go to mars and need to grow crops. Be nice if it was a whole industry by then.
"Most participants obtained higher full-scale IQ scores on the Stanford-Binet, 5th ed., compared to Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children, 4th ed., with 14% scoring more than one standard deviation higher."
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25398894/
How valid can the concept of IQ be when 14% of individuals score 15 points higher on the 'gold standard test' compared to another? Aren't the SB5 and WAIS-IV supposed to be highly correlated with g?
Both S-B V and WIS-4 are more than twenty years old, and date from a time when the prevalence of autism was <1%. And while the abstract doesn't specify how their sample was selected, there's probably a correlation between severity of autism and probability of being selected for this study. So, the most autistic <<1% of the population.
The obvious hypothesis is that IQ is real and measurable, but that reliably measuring psychological factors in both neurotypical and autstic populations with a single test is hard, and that at least one of S-B or W said "meh, if we get it right for 99.9% of the population, it's not worth doing twice the work to get the last 0.1%".
Do you have a strong sense of how often 14% of people should score +1 SD higher on one test than another, given that they're measuring the same thing?
Claude tells me that this implies an 0.54 correlation between the two tests. This is higher than eg the correlation between self-rated conservative allegiance and likelihood of voting for Donald Trump on the ACX survey (0.50), but lower than the correlation between SAT math and SAT verbal (0.72), or score on the same test twice (0.8).
I would normally expect IQ tests to correlate at 0.7 - 0.8 with each other (SAT math and verbal are a little more different than just two IQ tests, but score on the same test twice seems like a theoretical upper bound). So 0.54 is a little less than expected, although not wildly so. Probably that's because it's autistic kids, and everyone knows they have weird skill profiles (eg "idiot savants").
It could be entirely reasonable to have 14% scoring more than an SD higher even if they all just retook the same test. It depends on the standard error of measurement (SEM) of the tests, which I couldn't find from a quick google.
This was all I found and it isn't that relevant: https://eprints.hud.ac.uk/id/eprint/7044/2/WhitakerError.pdf
I was suspicious of an AI being used for this sort of task, so I checked, and it just isn't possible to deduce the correlation from the 14% number alone (even if everything is normally distributed, a higher fraction of people scoring much more on one test than the other could correspond either to the difference between the tests having a large variance or a large mean). They do just give the correlation directly as well though, "r = 0.78 to 0.88".
Individuals with autism, specifically, which seems like an important qualification.
Strange that Wachmeister doesn't see fit to mention that.
Complaining about some lowered correlation in a strange psychiatric sample is like complaining you took two different physical fitness tests to the Special Olympics, and individuals didn't score the same on them as often as they did in the normal gyms back home, so physical fitness must not exist - after all, how can physical fitness be real if these 'gold standard physical fitness tests' don't compare well at the Special Olympics? Aren't they supposed to be highly correlated with physical fitness?
Physical fitness is semi-real. Fitness for what?
Id bet autism raises iq test scores, how well it translates to real life would be very political dependent, for example silicone valley would see the majority of the increase in life outcomes in the 90's.
I believe that IQ tests for some sorts of not-too-severe ADD.
Look! Here's a little problem you can solve. And before you get too bored or distracted, here's another little problem!
They presumably select against people who are better at focusing on things that make sense in their lives.
I think true adhd would do worse on iq test but adhd was way over diogonised for almost everything else.
IIRC, ADHD costs you about seven IQ points, half a standard deviation. Many subtests test working memory. The one where you scan a written sequence of random digits looking for instances of particular numerals was so focused on sustained attention it was almost torture.
The lady who did my ADHD evaluation took the difference in my scores between these subtests and the others as evidence of ADHD.
Autism def is not associated with higher IQ. Autism OQ bell curve def trends left, not right, and many people with autism also have other disabilities suggestive of brain damage (cerebral palsy, for instance). There def is a subgroup of people, which includes a lot of people here who say they are on the autistic spectrum, who are extremely smart, introverted, somewhat eccentric, and have mild versions of autistic symptoms. I don’t know whether those people have autism lite, or some other kind of unusual wiring, but whatever they have there aren’t enuf of them to pull average IQ of autistics up to even as high as average IQ of non-autistics.
Its possible to be not correlated while being causal.
Ac's cause cold air, but are colleralated with hot weather. Give hyper focus on logic which is autistic, you should be slightly better at iq test; "true iq" should being able to do pure logic but know when its stupid.
Yes I think its a disorder, but theres still tradeoffs
There is such a
thing as a negative correlation, and those correlations are
perfectly ordinary and respectable. And they can involve causality. There are
many examples: As
temperature goes
down, frostbite cases go up. As
obesity increases, health decreases.
Your logic about what autism should do for those who have it is not supported by the facts, though. If you look at the article I linked, you’ll see that. On average, the Iq’s if autistic people are lower than those of non autistic people. On tests where verbal ability, both receptive and productive, is not involved they do much better than they do on other tests, but on average they are doing on those tests about as well as non -autistic people.
Would you expect ac's studies to find ac's a corrlated with coldness?
I recall hearing on Tyler Cowen's podcast, years ago, that people on the autism spectrum tended to get very different IQ scores on different types of tests--I think it was the Ravens (pictures + logic) vs the more common kind of IQ test made up of many subtest types. Anyone know if this is true?
It’s a nonverbal test, but it is possible to ask fairly hard “questions” using it. Except for understanding the simple instructions from the examiner, test-takers do not need to understand language, and they don’t need to give spoken answers. Autistics on average do about as well as non-autistics on this test. (Both autistic and non-autistic populations have a score spread around this average, or course, so some autistic people and some are non autistics are*quite* good at it.)Here’s a good article : https://pmc.ncbi.nim.gov/articles/PMC4287210
> I am also being asked to advertise NOAI, a conference in New Orleans. It seems to be a joint project of many local philosophical and cultural groups, including the local ACX meetup. There will be AI content, chess boxing, a charitable donation game, and an afterparty at Francis Ford Coppola’s house
Wait. The conference is called No AI, and there will be AI content?
Surprisingly common New Orleans problem.
NO grocery stores, NO libraries, and NO nightlife.
What? AI, or saying something's not what it is?
NOAI stands for New Orleans Artificial Intelligence, it doesn't mean "No AI". This is a common problem in New Orleans, because their name's acronym is "NO"
It's a problem for the New Orleans Indian Atheists, too. They keep getting inquiries about offshore drilling.
Oh, I see. Sorry, I really should have noticed that the first time around!
This is an interesting post from a new writer:
https://open.substack.com/pub/slippinfall/p/2-what-is-religion?r=45il88&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=email
Francis Fukuyama does a better job of exploring the significance of religion in the Origins of Political Order.
Slippin did do this as a book review, I think. But my dissatisfaction with it is that he assumes all religions start off like Christianity ("love your neighbour" being the way to enforce "strangers are not enemies" because of "who is my neighbour?" parable of the Good Samaritan).
I don't think so. Primitive religions don't have such elements in them, they are mostly about surviving life by appeasing the hostile forces (may be spirits, ghosts, gods, etc.) and then afterwards "we all worship Odin" gets developed so that social bonds are established. The Greeks had Zeus Xenios, the aspect of Zeus who was protector of strangers; and hospitality was a great virtue of the past. A great lord is a ring giver.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xenia_(Greek)
https://csis.pace.edu/grendel/projs2003a/Johane,Heidi&Yee/Ring.htm
But we get to that *eventually*, we don't *start off* with that, and that's where Slippin's rather pat notion of "oh yeah well all religion started off to cope with 150+ groups" falls down. And if the main building block of your foundational assumption is wobbly, then the superstructure will be wobbly too.
Polytheistic religions seem to have a lot more regional variation, also, like the different Greek city-states with their differing patron deities who tell the stories so their guy looks good.
In Norse religion, there’s a lot of evidence that Thor was the most widely worshipped god, not Odin.
Right, the ubiquity of pagan-like or polytheistic religions (many of them) persisted a very long time, even into eras of powerful empires. Prior to Christianity, the Romans did not care so much what conquered peoples practiced. While there's something to be said for the staggering ability of religion to unite people under a single banner, it seems that being associated with an empire or city-state and/or being paid was usually sufficient. Christianity and Islam just facilitated expanding the scope.
Reading about wars in classical antiquity, such as Thucydides' History of the Peloponnesian War, makes this trivially apparent. Athens and Sparta had strong cultures respectively, were more alike than different (though the differences were important to people), and everyone else's allegiance was transactional or imposed by force, rather than determined by religion.
Notwithstanding Dunbar's number, the introduction of abstractions like "our city" by itself will unite people against outsiders. Whether there are rivalries within (just as there are today within nations) is irrelevant. Of course there's the chicken-and-egg problem: the cities were settled in the first place in part because of warfare, from people who'd have to have been united to some degree. There's a kind of attrition, where density and power increases over time. The 150-person tribes bolstered their numbers with agriculture, which made food storage vulnerable, which led to fighting over resources in the fertile crescent and enslavement of others, which leads to cities (very rough approximation)
Were there any prosthelitizing religions before Buddhism? That predates Christianity, which predates Islam.
Interesting question. But did Buddhism have a proselytizing dynamic in the way Christianity has a proselytizing dynamic? The two religions seem to have grown by distinctly different processes. I'm willing to be convinced otherwise, though.
Alan Watts used to say that Buddhism is Hinduism stripped for export, meaning that most of the culture-specific stuff in Hinduism that prevents it from universalizing has been removed, keeping just the bare frame of the belief system underneath. This is at least partially true I think, with some caveats. The Buddhist concept of anatman is clearly at odds with most versions of Hinduism, for instance. I don't think its as much an instance of it being a proselytizing religion as much as Christianity/Islam are, but the fact that it even can spread at all, the it isn't bound so tightly to the culture that it arose in. Buddhism makes far, far fewer claims about the nature of reality and the divine than most other religions.
I've gotten the impression that Hinduism was the basic cultural framework that Buddhism built off of, but Buddhism repurposed a lot of the terms to mean something subtly different. And Buddhism is enough of its own thing that it can adapt to very different cultural frameworks, given time and memetic evolution.
Will Durant meanwhile thought that (paraphrasing) Buddha was almost like a Greek philosopher rather than a prophet, and the religious bits were mostly either things that he simply absorbed from his culture (e.g. belief in reincarnation) or tacked on by believers after his death.
It's hard to pin anything for sure on early Buddhism, when there is so little independent historical corroboration of anything found in the Buddhist accounts; it does look like things had drifted and been mythologized quite a lot by the time anything was put into writing. (See Jayarava's online blog for much more forceful statements in this direction.)
But if we go by the picture in the early sutras (or, being lazy here, by Thich Nhat Hahn's creative retelling in _Old Path White Clouds_), it looks like the modus operandi in the Buddha's lifetime was for bands of monks to wander around, request and get support from the surrounding peoples, and recruit new followers, both lay and monastic.
That sounds to me like it fits the basic definition of "proselytizing".
Jainism might have been a bit older. Mahavira was more or less contemporary with the Buddha, but by the Jains' own accounts he was not the founder, and at least his predecessor Parshvanatha is considered to be historical.
Why do strange / wrong beliefs trigger a disgust response? I recently found out that an acquaintance (not someone I know well, but in my larger circle) sincerely believes in a flat earth. Her believing this doesn’t practically affect me in any way, and yet my gut reaction was “I want to get far away from this person.” This was the case even though I’ve been on the receiving end of this reaction (I hold many conservative beliefs and was Covid-dissident) and thought I was on guard against it.
Disgust instincts protect you from harm by repelling you away from things that are both weird and squishy. A person who is behaving in ways that you can't understand might be suffering from some weird disease, your disgust instinct wants you to get a safe distance away from that person. Your rational mind knows you're probably not going to catch Flat Earth from this person but your deeper instincts don't want to be around them.
Agreed. Except for the "catching memes" bit, which does seem to happen sometimes!
"Conspiracy theories" usually fall into one of two categories - 1) True conspiracies, or 2) weird random theories that don't hold water.
Maybe they just avoid that descriptor, but we don't label things that are false and "reasonable" as "conspiracy theories."
PMC-types often want to conflate those two categories, but I think that only works for their ingroup. I think you are recognizing the distinction and having the proper disgust reaction to a crazy theory. A truly crazy theory implies a poor mental picture of reality and potentially a generally crazy person. It's appropriate and acceptable to have a bad reaction to such a person (though, you could get the know them better and determine if they're really crazy or just hold one or two bad beliefs - but that's a choice, not a requirement).
The term "conspiracy theory" has been weaponized against a wider variety of ideas to try to evoke that disgust reaction. It has made the phrase less reliable, but the disgust reaction is real and important.
Also, weird random theories don't usually go alone. When someone's bullshit filters are broken enough to believe the Earth is flat, it's very likely they'll have a whole collection of random weird beliefs, or will be susceptible to adopting them.
Now, whether you respond with disgust or pity, is more of a question of your own character.
Weird random theories also tend to require explaining away a ton of contrary evidence, especially from secondary sources. By far the easiest way to make that case is to posit that the institutions that produced those secondary sources and certified then as authoritative are badly broken if not willfully malicious.
Taking flat earth beliefs as an example, if the Earth actually were flat then a lot of people should have noticed by now: cartographers, astronauts, astronomers, pilots, sailors, surveyors, meteorologists, polar explorers, etc. Any but the most casual Flat Earthers need some excuse for why this hasn't seemed to have happened.
Definitely agree. There is a further problem where if people get labeled a crazy for believing true theories, they have a harder time determining if other low status/crazy theories are actually false. You break down the wall between "the earth is flat" and "the Steele Dossier was a Clinton campaign plant" and you get what you get.
I believe conservatism generally is associated with a strong disgust response. In some models of individual political / personality theory, THE major certainty-driver and belief-selector is the disgust reaction. I think a lot of people don't get disgust reactions from someone with such beliefs - I don't, my reaction is pity not disgust.
I think this (linking conservatism with disgust) was one of the findings that turned out to be false in the replication crisis.
We all extrapolate from somebody having one naive view to them having many. (As Andrew Mitchell has pointed out, conspiracy theorists always seem to want to collect the full set). Maybe you were worried that your status in the group would be tainted by the suspicion that you share some or all of her naive views.
The main benefit and function of language is to transmit true information. It can also be used to maliciously transfer false information ("lying"), or to unknowingly transfer false information ("being mistaken"). Someone who believes in flat Earth must have horrifically bad epistemic practices, and thus is functionally equivalent to someone who lies all the time. You would want to avoid someone who constantly lying, and for similar reasons you would want to avoid someone who believes obviously-false things.
For why it also triggers on your beliefs, people have a tendency to believe anyone who disagrees with them is stupid and/or evil, and this effect gets exaggerated to impact even relatively anodyne false beliefs.
>Why do strange / wrong beliefs trigger a disgust response?
Is it the wrongness that triggers it, or the fact that it's low status?
EDIT: Rather, are there wrong beliefs that don't trigger this reaction in you? Do you think this reaction you have is the same that others have had for you for your own beliefs which are controversial?
Low status.... any example would be admitting im low status and believe low status things. The more pure the sample the more low status it would be.
I’m trying to answer that question by thinking of a higher status (which in my cultural context means Left-coded) belief that’s equally as wrong, but it’s hard to top the wrongness of flat earth. One data point is I had a milder but still meaningful disgust response when I found out an acquaintance was anti-Israel to the point of celebrating October 7th. But that attitude is closer to having real-world consequences.
Blankslateism seems more obviously wrong to me than flatearthism, the overall shape of our planet being pretty far removed from most people's everyday experience. But I think it would be unusual to react with disgust to a belief in tabula rasa.
Good example! And, not only does it evade the disgust reaction, but there is a whole ideology propping it up :-(
I think the closest left-coded equivalent would be crystal healing, homeopathy, that kind of woo thing.
Are you a sports fan? If not then maybe one example would be the commonly-held belief that it actually matters which team manages to kick an inflated pig's bladder between two wooden posts more often than the other! Not sure if that counts as "high status" though, whatever that means in this context.
I don't watch sports, but it's pretty clear that it does matter within the context of the sport. It's how you get points. You want to get points so you can win. You want to win because it's more fun when both teams are trying to win. (Yes, sometimes sports fans get very invested, but I think that's more tribalism than a false belief per se).
There is a widespread and wholly irrational belief among fans in many sports that referees, administrators, and media commentators are biased against their team. While in one isolated case, the English championship "soccer" team I have followed since 1976, this happens to be true, all other instances are ludicrous
Possible tangent: do you view flat Earth beliefs as, for want of a better term, conservative-coded?
Funfacts about flat-Earth theorists. Source: lost a friend to disintegrating mental health, who fell into flat-Earth stuff among many other conspiracy issues before becoming too far gone to be reached.
Obviously there's no polling on this, but a good chunk of people who fall into the flat-Earth stuff are brought there with a religion-adjacent argument. After all, if Earth really were flat, why wouldn't governments just... tell you it's flat? The conspiracy my friend bought into explained something along these lines:
"In the 1960s the space race started, and we started launching rockets into space. Shortly thereafter we also started high altitude nuclear testing. This is not a coincidence, but rather all our space exploration failed and results of it were faked. When we tried space exploration, all the rockets blew up because we discovered a solid dome over the entire Earth. This was the biblical "firmament" that God used in the bible to separate the waters above from the waters below. And our nuclear testing was a cover so that we could shoot nukes at it, which also couldn't break through. So what governments of the Earth discovered was not 'Earth is flat,' but rather it was tangible, irrefutable proof that God is real and they've been covering it up ever since."
So like most things with a quasi-religious angle to them, I wouldn't be surprised if flat-Earth overrepresents (though not exclusively) conservative.
I think the bible mentions the earth as having four corners. Not just flat, but square!
However, my impression is that flat earthers justify their belief with arguments that sound vaguely scientific, not religious.
It could be tetrahedral!
The closest I've been able to get to understanding flat-Earthers, it's about making the most upstream possible rejection of the scientific-materialist world view because you don't like the conclusions. Scientific materialism implies that there is no God and life is meaningless, therefore I choose to reject it all.
Flat Earth is Thermopylae, the doomed and ultimately indefensible choke point where you send your intellectual forces to fight against the forces of atheism because you don't want to fight them closer to home. Deep down you know that you can't win, but every day you spend convincing yourself that the Earth is flat is a day you don't have to spend convincing yourself that God actually exists.
Indeed - Tetrahedral, but all four corners were washed away in Noah's flood. It all adds up! :-)
I believe that what activates people a lot is the feeling that Someone Has Too Much Status and Must Be Taken Down.
You may be right that people feel science is undercutting religion, but my impression is that science has enough prestige to get attacked on its own.
Rectangular, eh?
Yes and no. Yes because I recognize that one can arrive at flat earthism through conservative-coded attitudes (willingness to be embarrassed or be seen as low-class in the name of Truth, suspicion of Left-coded authority) but turned up to eleven. No because the “turning up to eleven” pushes flat earthers out of my conservative circle’s Overton window and they get pushed into some other tribe. I think the most likely outcome is that this person will feel the need to leave this social circle.
I'm running a forecasting contest for the 2024 US elections, with cash prizes for the most accurate forecasts. Here's the contest info, including the link to sign up and enter predictions:
https://www.mikesblog.net/p/announcing-2024-election-forecasting
The primary goal is just to have fun and let people try their hand at probabilistic forecasting. But a secondary, behind-the-scenes goal is that I'm try to collect crowdsourced forecast data that can be aggregated to generate a "wisdom of crowds" style average forecast, which I'll then compare to the Manifold and Polymarket predictions on the same questions.
Basically the idea is to compare 3 incentives types: non-market but cash prize (my contest), play-money market (Manifold) and real-money market (Polymarket), and I'm going to publish a report with the results after the election. Please considering signing up and making a forecast 🙂
I'm looking for an old book review in the ACX competitions called Albion. That was a book written in about 12 sentences in crazy prose about the Battle of Trafalgar with Lord Horatio Nelson as the epic hero. If someone could point me in the right direction that would be great; I have several people I need to send that to.
If I had to guess the author, I'd unhesitatingly choose the poet William Blake. He had a preoccupation with angels, and related divine and semi-divine goings on. I think some of his poems also had an exuberant verbal style similar to this epic Albion, the topic of the review. His most well known poems are "Jerusalem" and "Tyger, tyger, burning bright". Lastly, he lived from around the 1750 until the 1820s, a period which covered Nelson's entire life.
Re Nelson, a bluray of the film Bequest to the Nation (1973) was recently released, for the first time following decades of copyright wrangling I believe. (The film was called "The Nelson Affair" in the US, or maybe that was the original title and Bequest was the US rename. Not sure. A long extract from the end of this film, covering Trafalgar, is on Youtube at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bdlM6enTEys
I know William Blake well. It definitely was not William Blake. Though I am a big fan. Wrong style. The author of the original work (not the review) was anonymous.
OK, but there is this, which sounds much like the genre the reviewer described:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albion_(Blake)
I'd concede that it could be someone else covering the same ground as Blake, and imitating what I thought was his style, although I don't claim to be an expert and I note you say his style differs from that of the poem reviewed.
But by the sound of the extracts in the review, the author would need soaring eloquence and prodigous articulacy of such originality and rarity that to me it makes more sense to assume it *was* Blake! If so then perhaps he chose not to claim authorship because he realised, or the negative reception persuaded him, that it was too avant garde for his time.
FOUND IT AT LAST
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1pRQbRbEUwSH_jm94PI_ij-88swat7vQ4iNaNp6gd39g/edit?tab=t.0#heading=h.ooigg9ji4dp0
Sounds like you had some trouble finding it, but if you visit the page Scott cited, there is a small magnifying glass at the top right of the main panel (You may need a physical magnifying glass to see this - I almost missed it!) Clicking on that, then typing "Albion" in the pop-up text box takes you straight to it.
You can find it at https://codexcc.neocities.org/
hey! anyone in the northeast of brazil by any chance? specifically, fortaleza or Ceara? keen to find more like-minded people to talk to
A recent pro-life tweet brought home how incredibly low-class pro-life appears:
https://x.com/Cluffalo/status/1845944615855075488
To people who don't see why: Allie says "if I'd gotten pregnant in high school" as if getting pregnant was something that just happens in high school. You might catch a cold, you might make a new friend, you might get pregnant.* The upper class and those of the middle and working classes who aspire to upper class values recoil in horror at that mindset. They want their daughters in an environment where being pregnant in high school is UNTHINKABLE, whether that is to be accomplished through not having sex, using protection, or an abortion very early in pregnancy that nobody hears about. People who think otherwise are moral threats their children need to be protected from, just like conservative parents want to protect their children from the "LGBT-inclusive curriculum."
It gets to the tendency of pro-life to consume people's political identity and values. For the most part, pro-life activists are not getting pregnant in high school. Their daughters are not getting pregnant in high school. But the pro-life Prime Directive is convincing women to always carry their pregnancies to term, so they start pretending that having a kid in high school is no big deal. It's getting to the point where saying "children are best raised by their biological parents who are married to one another" is practically a Left-coded idea.
* Yes, I know in the olden days girls would get married and have children at 16, the keyword there is MARRIED. Upper-class people look down on the Amish teenage mother for how constrained and limited her life will be, but she doesn't give them the "eww, low-class" feeling the way the TV show 16 and Pregnant does.
I graduated in 1961 from what was probably the best private high school in Illinois, run by the University of Chicago, the same school to which Obama later sent his daughters. One girl that I know of, out of a class of a little more than a hundred, got pregnant in high school. So it does happen even to people who are not lower class.
It feels a little cruel not to have mentioned this by now: https://alexanderturok.substack.com/p/my-collection-of-aita-troll-posts
I mentioned it here back when I posted it.
I don't quite get what you're saying. Are you saying that upper middle class people can't be Christian?
I grew up in an upper middle class household where the idea of teenage pregnancy (or teenage sex, for that matter) was unthinkable. But my mother was Catholic, and if a teenage pregnancy *had* happened in the family then she'd certainly have helped raise the child rather than (a) abort it or (b) disown her kid and grandkid.
"I don't quite get what you're saying. Are you saying that upper middle class people can't be Christian?"
No.
"I grew up in an upper middle class household where the idea of teenage pregnancy (or teenage sex, for that matter) was unthinkable."
That's probably the background of the tweeter, but wasn't what the tweet said.
Not so sure. There’s a joke in pro-choice circles about how “abortion is never justified, except in my case.”
People are complicated.
"They want their daughters in an environment where being pregnant in high school is UNTHINKABLE, whether that is to be accomplished through not having sex"
Except did you miss the rows over "abstinence only education"? UNTHINKABLE to say that minors legally too young to have sex would not be having sex and should not be having sex. No, the solution was to tell them all about the various methods of birth control, about abortion, try to get them on birth control (and help them do it without telling the parents if the parents were against that) and get them abortions if necessary (and again, help them do that if the parents were against it; Planned Parenthood has all sorts of helpful advice on "so you're too young to get a legal abortion? never mind, here's how you get around that!)
https://www.plannedparenthood.org/learn/teens/stds-birth-control-pregnancy/parental-consent-and-notification-laws
"If abortion is legal in your state, or if you're traveling to another state where abortion is legal, there may still be other laws that affect you if you're under 18. The exact rules are different in different places. Find general information on your state below.
Some states say you have to get permission from a parent, legal guardian, or older family member to have an abortion. Other states don’t make you get permission, but your parents will have to know that you’re getting an abortion. And some states don't have any laws about telling your parents or getting their permission. In some states, even with laws that generally require a parent’s permission, you may not have to involve your parent in certain circumstances, like if you’ve experienced abuse. The information below is an overview of the laws in each state and doesn’t necessarily cover all exceptions.
Also, if your state does have parental involvement laws, you may be able to get a judge's permission to have an abortion without telling your parents. This is called "judicial bypass."
If you have questions about whether you can get an abortion without involving your parent, if you would like help navigating the judicial bypass process, or if you don’t have your parents in your life and want to understand your options, you can contact the If/When/How Judicial Bypass Helpline by calling 844-868-2812 or submitting a request online. "
If I had Elon-level wealth, I'd be tempted to erect a billboard that said "abortion providers did not cause your 14 year old to have sex."
No, but the culture that made it possible and even admirable to be acknowledged abortion providers did.
The history of Anglicanism as seen through the Lambeth conference reports over the centuries is informative. Once they finally gave in on contraceptive use, they were fighting a rearguard action all the way, because now one of the last bastions of the old culture had fallen. It's all very well to assume "of course you as a married couple are going to have four or five children, you just want to space them out so you may use birth control, but not for single people! not for sex outside of marriage! not for never having children! and absolutely never abortion!" as a pastoral response to the problems of modern society (the Zeitgeist putting pressure on), but it never, ever stops there. All the limits were crossed, all the barriers fell.
If abstinence-only sex ed worked, the Christian population wouldn't have grown as fast as it has around the world. It's good for ensuring population growth, and so is criminalizing abortion... but I'm assuming that's not your goal here.
"The Christian ideal has not been tried and found wanting. It has been found difficult; and left untried" - Chesterton
If I was reading quickly and not familiar with your views, I'd nearly think that you were pasting all this practical info here to help any teen who needs it!
>They want their daughters in an environment where being pregnant in high school is UNTHINKABLE, whether that is to be accomplished through not having sex, using protection, or an abortion very early in pregnancy that nobody hears about
That’s just not true. My daughter went to public high school in an upper middle class
town, where most kids’ parents are professionals. And I know plenty of
people whose kids go to private school. upper middle class parents try to discourage their kids from
becoming sexually active, but way more
than half have had intercourse by senior year. Parents give good info about STDs and birth control, and hope for the best. I’m sure that because they are better informed these girls are less likely to get pregnant than other kids, but there’s no way nobody gets pregnant. They’re not just having sex, they’re having it while High and drunk and 17 years old. There’s no way they’re all diligent about taking their bc pills, using diaphragm or whatever. I did not know of any girls getting pregnant when my daughter was in hs, but I’m sure somebody did, and had an abortion. And the parents would not have made a big secret of it. Most of us knew that our kid and our acquaintances’ kids were having sex and that it was bound to happen somebody.
"I did not know of any girls getting pregnant when my daughter was in hs"
Always funny when someone thinks he's rebutting my comment and winds up confirming it.
So is Kamala Harris' family high class or low class? Her sister was an unmarried teenage mother, and according to your metric, Alexander, that makes her lower-class. But her parents were college professors, even if Dad had split by then, and she wasn't in a milieu of "never mind about educational attainment so it's okay to get knocked up in high school".
I think I disconfirmed it pretty well. I did not get to know many parents — I was a single mother with a demanding full time job when my kid was in hs. I only got to know a
couple parents well enough that they would have told me if their daughter got pregnant. But I knew many well enough to pick up facts and attitudes. People knew their kid would prob
be sexually active. They fretted about pregnancy, but almost all sighed and said well she’d have an abortion I guess. Nobody was horrified or mortified by the idea of a
pregnant daughter — just saw it as a not unlikely possibility that would
cause a lot of pain. hassle and confusion.
You’ve got upper middle class
attitudes wrong. People are less likely to be religious, less judgmental of sexual behavior, and more likely to be comfortable with abortion. Having a daughter get pregnant is not the kind of the thing that embarrasses them, and makes them hope word doesn’t get around. The things that cause them shame and embarrassment are having an overweight kid, kid getting mediocre
SAT scores, and kid not getting into a
good college.
I'm not really sure what kind of point you're trying to make. That different slices of society are more or less incomprehensible to each other, and will privately refer to each other with derogatory or exclusionary words like "white trash" or "low class" or "PMC", is not exactly news. In some subcultures early pregnancies are seen as more of a problem than in others, and attitudes to abortion go the opposite way, because that's your options right there, keep the baby or not. Besides different groups of people handling life situations differently, which we all already knew about, what exactly are you trying to point to?
His point is "Gosh you pro-lifers are so crass and embarrassing to those of us with aspirations to higher things. Why can't you be like the real gentry of the nation and just quietly pay a private clinic to take care of that little problem if Anastasia gets in trouble while in high school or college? Stop dragging us down with the stupid Stacys who get knocked up by their dumb boyfriends and the trailer trash parents can't afford to pay for her abortion! We don't need or want those people reproducing!"
Alexander wants to be posh, if he is not posh already, and the posh don't let their daughters have babies outside of wedlock at an early age. Just shut up about morals and do as your betters do.
You half get me.
The part you missed was that the "posh" upper-class attitude isn't vastly different from the traditional social conservative attitude. Both want their grandchildren raised by married, biological parents. They don't want their grandkids raised by single mothers or by their grandparents.* But pro-life is a brain-worm that has consumed social conservatives' minds, so that now openly wanting that is almost a left-coded thing to do.
*The latter is common in poor neighborhoods. When I was a kid one of my neighbors was being raised by his GREAT grandparents because his parents and grandparents were too screwed up. I would bet "raised by your grandparents" correlates with "going to prison."
And I maintain that having sex has consequences, and if the consequence of "did the thing that makes babies" is "now you have baby" instead of "now we make problem go away so you can go do thing again", then maybe we'll see a swing back to married biological parents.
Naw man. This is just violating very, very specific PMC, like highly educated bureaucratic people's norms.
#1 If you point to something as incredibly low-class and then write a paragraph about why it's low class...it might not be incredibly or obviously low-class.
#2 Yeah, I get the vibe that PMC people, raised in highly competitive high school to go to highly competitive college to eventually get a director roll and sit on a bunch of committees at a big institution hate this, I'm a member of this class, but...the guy at the bar who own a company with 12 semi trucks probably makes 2x-4x what that director makes and he has direct control over his company and those kind of guys, they're not happy about their daughter getting pregnant in high school but they just never have this...horrified reaction. Like, his daughter's life and prospects aren't ruined if she can't get into Cornell or whatever.
#3 Actually rich or upper class people don't sweat this. Sorry, a round trip plane ticket to anywhere for 2 is what, $4k-$8k plus $10k at most to get a safe abortion done somewhere, because someone will do it. Sorry, there's just a certain financial reality where US laws on abortion don't matter and that's where, if you think it's important and you want to provide your teenage daughter with an abortion, then the cost of $20k to get it done safely outside the US is just not a major barrier. Rich people might not like it but they just don't fear it the way other people do because it doesn't affect their material reality.
All this to say that this feels like a very PMC, daughter applying to Berkley, viewpoint. And those people are high status but there's more complexity to the status hierarchy than PMC values.
Actually, it’s way easier than that. Abortion in the first trimester is legal in about half the US states, I think, and anyone living in a state where it’s illegal can just go to the nearest one where it’s legal and get an abortion with the help of Planned Parenthood. There are underground networks run by advocacy groups that allow someone to get the abortion pill by mail. And there are online pharmacies in India, and possibly other places, that will sell you mifepristone without a script and ship it to you. So US residents don’t have to be rich to get an abortion currently. Of course truly poor people living in difficult circumstances might have a hard time even getting to the nearest state where you can buy abortion pills.
Huh, I did not know this.
Alright, that took literally one minute:
https://www.plancpills.org/
Looks about as functional as GoodRx.
...Alright, so the primary people actually impact are people looking for later term abortions without the ability to easily travel across state or multi-state lines?
Correct. Abortion access is currently a nonissue if you have any executive function or ability to plan.
I think this is over generalizing. What if you don't have a car, and have a job where you work every day during the week and can't get time off?
If you genuinely do work for a company like that, then you're going to be out of a job when you have the baby anyway. Even if there's a law that says they have to give you maternity leave, really, they'll make it impossible for you to continue and they'll make sure you know that,
So if you have any executive function worth mentioning, you'll do the math and realize that "unemployed now but single and healthy" is way better than "employed for another five months and then unemployed trying to care for a newborn baby". Unless you actually prefer keeping the baby even in such desperate financial circumstances, in which case all of this is moot.
How we arrange for access to abortion for people with no significant executive function, however, is a real problem.
Can you name even one job in the USA where you work literally every day and have no sick days or time off allowed? Sorry man, that’s absurd.
There is almost no job in the country that gives absolutely no time off to a position with so little responsibility that it can be appropriately filled by someone irresponsible enough to get an unwanted pregnancy.
"#1 If you point to something as incredibly low-class and then write a paragraph about why it's low class...it might not be incredibly or obviously low-class."
It's obviously low-class to high-class people who aren't wearing the pro-life blinders. Orwell said that "to see what is in front of one's nose needs a constant struggle." Even today you hear people say they're unable to understand why many midwestern industrial workers who voted for Obama did not like Hilary Clinton.
"I'm a member of this class, but...the guy at the bar who own a company with 12 semi trucks probably makes 2x-4x what that director makes and he has direct control over his company and those kind of guys, they're not happy about their daughter getting pregnant in high school but they just never have this...horrified reaction."
This is untrue, and is why I said "those of the middle and working classes who aspire to upper class values." Many working-class people are eager to distinguish themselves from the behavior of "white trash." (A phrase they often use.) Stuff like smoking meth, committing crimes, cheating on their romantic partners, neglecting their kids, living in trailer parks, and, yes, having their kids get pregnant in high school. Others would be horrified for more explicitly moral reasons. See this wiki article:
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Purity_ring&oldid=1248664635
This shows poor insight. Only status-seeking, status-anxious middle-class Americans are horrified/terrified of teen pregnancy, because it jeopardizes their class aspirations. Upper classes have the resources to bury the problem but it usually doesn’t come up due to ironclad behaviors; this does not put them at any risk. Lower classes accept teen pregnancy as an inevitable fact of life and have no status to lose.
Your very strong disgust and horror reaction says lots about your class status but doesn’t provide very perceptive commentary on abortion’s position in US society.
> Only status-seeking, status-anxious middle-class Americans are horrified/terrified of teen pregnancy, because it jeopardizes their class aspirations. Upper classes have the resources to bury the problem but it usually doesn’t come up due to ironclad behaviors; this does not put them at any risk.
I don't buy this. Teen motherhood doesn't just "jeopardize your class aspirations", it destroys your life in very practical terms -- you wave goodbye to your carefree youth and whatever career you were planning to have, and also wave goodbye to any decent romantic prospects you might have had.
I'm not sure what "ironclad behaviours" the upper classes have, I don't think they completely abstain from premarital sex.
No, this is factually inaccurate. Rich and/or powerful people do not uniformly believe or act this way. I seriously doubt that even a majority would concur; there's more options than yay or nay abortion and plenty of people have complex opinions.
I think you're confusing two different things. Conservatives, especially religious conservatives, are against pre-marital sex. They are especially against sex with multiple partners. Pregnancy is a natural result of sex, and one of the more obvious to outsiders, but it's not really the core problem.
A person having pre-marital sex with multiple partners is already shameful, even if they don't get pregnant. Settling down and raising a family is admirable. Turning an unintended pregnancy into a stable marriage is a very old school conservative goal (obviously a lesser goal to getting married before sex).
Your values are leaking into your understanding of other people's goals. Avoiding the shame of a pregnancy is often the visual that outsiders see, but it was always the sex. Premarital sex causes a lot more harm than pregnancy, but it would probably take more words than I can type or you would care to read. Sufficive to say - actual conservatives don't see this situation the way that you do, and are not as concerned with "low status" in PMC terms. They have other status markers that they are conforming to, and getting an abortion is *much* lower status than raising a child.
> Conservatives, especially religious conservatives, are against pre-marital sex.
In theory, sure. In practice, people have sex before marriage, and when she inevitably gets pregnant, they get married to hide their sin. That's why abstinence-only sex-ed works: it doesn't. But it does increase population growth.
Even religious conservatives would say that sex with a single partner in a serious relationship before marriage is better than sex with multiple partners and/or in non-serious relationships. If that serious relationship evolves into marriage and family, all the better.
Thanks, Alexander, I always knew I was irredeemably low-class and this just cements it. Gosh yes, imagine getting pregnant in high school! After having about twelve to fourteen years of education about sex sex sex is marvellous and only fuddy-duddy bigots think you shouldn't be defining your gender, orientation, and preferences at the age of four!
I suppose, if I ever had any dim wistful hopes of rising above my station, I should have adopted "Well of course everyone knows reproductive rights are human rights, abortion is simply healthcare, nobody would ever even dream of having a baby before they were well-established in their career in a good, professional white-collar college-educated job and really you should only have one child into which to sink all your time and effort, it takes so much to get into a really good university to get that good job to have that good life, after all".
But the mud and muck of my origins still bespatter me, and i don't think baby-killing is the solution. Alas, what can be done with the likes of me?
Thing is, Alexander, people were highly exercised over that very thing - teen pregnancies. Which means even the 'right' sort of people were having their daughters getting pregnant in high school or even college - the horror! as you have so eloquently portrayed.
https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2019/08/02/why-is-the-teen-birth-rate-falling/
https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/pressroom/nchs_press_releases/2023/20230601.htm
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12112956/
(From 2001):
"In the United States today, 9% of women aged 15 to 19 years become pregnant each year: 5% give birth, 3% have induced abortions, and 1% have miscarriages or stillbirths--rates much higher than those in other developed countries. Rates are highest among those who are older, from disadvantaged backgrounds, black or Hispanic, married, have much older male partners, and live in southern states. Teen pregnancies are overwhelmingly unintended, reflecting substantial gaps in contraceptive use, and difficulties using reversible methods effectively. Teen pregnancy, birth, and abortion levels have decreased in recent years, primarily because of more effective contraceptive use (responsible for about 75% of the decline), and because of fewer adolescents having sexual intercourse (about 25%). Much work remains to improve the conditions in which young people grow up, provide them with information and education regarding sexuality and relationships, and improve access to sexual and reproductive health services."
Whisper it, Alexander, but unhappily it *is* the low-class undesirable types who *are* getting pregnant in high school - you know, the persons not like us, the non-U, the - grit my teeth and just say it - the *minority* types. Black, Hispanic, those people. So perhaps the pro-lifers are just being pragmatic here? Addressing the message to the people who are most likely to be the ones who are getting pregnant in high school, or know someone who got pregnant, or have a family member who got pregnant?
But of course, pragmatism can never hope to win against snobbery. You're right, having a baby at an early age *will* ruin your life, just as the pro-reproductive justice set say it will. Those stupid pro-lifers, thinking that even the lower classes have human dignity! Happily, teen pregnancy rates continue to decline. Unhappily, that's going along with a general decline in birth rates, but never mind: we can't have the snooty society we desire and deserve without breaking a few eggs if we want the entire world to resemble New Hampshire and not Mississippi?
https://www.americashealthrankings.org/explore/measures/TeenBirth_MCH
Most of your comment is just a restatement of mine. Pro-lifers are "directing their message at those who are most likely to be the ones who are getting pregnant in high school," which leads them to wind up affirming that behavior as normal. That makes them look incredibly low-class even if their own behavior is implacably bourgeoisie. (Only having kids within marriage, not divorcing, etc.) The one part I take issue with is:
""Well of course everyone knows reproductive rights are human rights, abortion is simply healthcare, nobody would ever even dream of having a baby before they were well-established in their career in a good, professional white-collar college-educated job and really you should only have one child into which to sink all your time and effort, it takes so much to get into a really good university to get that good job to have that good life, after all"."
Yes, the low fertility of the upper-class is a bad thing. Many a childless upper-class woman will look at her money and career accomplishments and ask "what was it all for?" (Upper-class men can think this too.) That's why there was so much anger at J.D. Vance for his childless cat lady comment. Unlike the low-class Right's practice of calling people pedophiles, the insult lands because it's based in truth.
But the only possible way to get them to change their behavior is to promote the traditional practice of having children within marriage. They simply WILL NOT LISTEN to anyone who tells them they need to aping the behavior of the lower-class.
But Alexander, the whole problem is that "oh no, if you get pregnant at that age, your life is ruined!" means that "you MUST finish your education and you MUST go to college and you MUST build your career", and by the time it's permissible to have a baby, you might have been suppressing your fertility for fifteen to twenty years, so it's more difficult to get pregnant in the first place.
Then once you do have a child, there's enormous pressure to stop at one. Because of all the resources you MUST pour into making sure the child has the kind of life you had, or better. And so children are seen as horrendously expensive who require you to put your life on hold.
That's not going to encourage upper-class people to be more fertile, married or not. Emulating the behaviour of the lower-class who are not so hung up on "But little Esteban MUST get into an Ivy or else his life is finished!" might do better to up that fertility rate. And that includes "okay, getting pregnant at seventeen is in no way ideal, but the better choice is to have the child rather than abort it so the planned career path can continue on seamlessly".
Israel has a high fertility rate and a low rate of nonmarital births. So did the 1950s USA.
If the pro-natal message is connected with rhetoric like that tweet, it is DEAD ON ARRIVAL in terms of appealing to the upper-class.
The upper class outside of Israel might be a lost cause.
I wonder how far that travels outside the US. As fairly well-to-do parents in the UK, we felt we needed to have quite embarrassing conversations with the kids as teenagers about pregnancy risks. Perhaps especially with my son, who was rather more successful in this field than his old man, and was pretty active from age 16. Smart kids are quite capable of getting this wrong.
But then abortion isn't a particularly controversial issue in the UK. (A broad consensus exists that third trimester termination should only be permitted in limited circumstances. Also probably a consensus that the requirement for medical certification before a first trimester abortion is a ritual that could be dispensed with)
"But then abortion isn't a particularly controversial issue in the UK."
I'm getting really sick of hearing claims like this without any hard evidence. Can you cite a poll showing that it really is "overwhelming popular support for abortion" and not "a political system that allows politicians to ignore large swathes of popular opinion with no consequences" that explains the UK's laws?
When someone says something about the culture of their own country, in which I don't live, I'd tend to believe them. Seems rather strange to me to "be getting really sick of hearing claims" about other countries from their own inhabitants, and requesting hard evidence for their assertions. If you think you know or guess better than someone who is actually immersed in that culture, maybe it's up to you to provide hard evidence?
If the person making the claim is themselves strongly pro-life, then I would probably agree. I'd default to their own perception of the culture.
If they're not, just imagine an apartheid-era white South African saying apartheid is uncontroversial, to understand why I won't.
I was about to say that if there were significant support for tighter restrictions on abortion, it's likely that market would be served, perhaps in the tabloid press if not by politicians. (The same applies to loosening restrictions). But Robin G has supplied what looks like reasonably convincing polling evidence.
Anecdotally, I don't know many practicing religious believers very well, but the ones I do would be pretty much ok with the legal status quo.
I'm sorry you are sick of hearing this. I thought I was saying something pretty uncontroversially true about UK opinion, and I rather think that is in fact the case.
@ascend https://yougov.co.uk/politics/articles/47568-where-does-the-british-public-stand-on-abortion-in-2023 87% pro choice in UK.
https://yougov.co.uk/politics/articles/47568-where-does-the-british-public-stand-on-abortion-in-2023 87% pro choice
No, it's 65% pro-abortion-on-demand, which is only a bit higher than the (iirc) 55% of US that opposed overturning Roe v. Wade (= on demand, 24 weeks, same as UK*). That would justify abortion being legal; it would not justify, I think, abortion being "uncontroversial" in Parliament. Plenty of positions with ~35% support have significant presence in legislatures, so something a bit undemocratic is going on if *no* politicians are representing that 35%.
And I think the US number is even higher now after Dobbs, and yet there's still political representation of the minority.
*yes, I know it's not actually the law, just the widely accepted "creative" interpretation of the law.
>Plenty of positions with ~35% support have significant presence in legislatures, so something a bit undemocratic is going on if no politicians are representing that 35%.
Setting aside this particular issue, the absence of politicians representing a 35% view need not be undemocratic (at least intentionally). E.g. if politicians represent geographical constituencies, and there is a pretty _uniform_ 35%/65% split in the electorate on some question, it can be perfectly possible to have no district where the 35% view is locally enhanced enough to go over 50% and yield a politician representing that view.
( Gerrymandering is carving up districts with the intent to create this situation artificially, but it can also happen naturally. )
"Plenty of positions with ~35% support have significant presence in legislatures, so something a bit undemocratic is going on if *no* politicians are representing that 35%."
It's really only 22% when you exclude the "don't know" answers.
How does that compare to the "don't know" percentage on overturning/restoring Roe v. Wade? I thought I'd seen it (pre-Dobbs) quoted as 55-45 in favour of Roe. I don't know if that was excluding don't knows, or using a different poll structure where people were pushed to express a leaning. Either way, I'd like to see an equivalent comparison.
Additionally, there's the factor of large numbers of people being partisans who will endorse a position if their party does (and if not, will probably default to the status quo). I saw something, probably circa 2020, of US support for "abolish ICE" going from 10% to 30% overnight when prominant Ds started pushing it. The causality of low pro-life support in UK and the UK right not making it an issue could be going the other direction.
Bottom line, I remain sceptical that the US/UK differences are primarily due to organic public opinion rather than political structure in general, and lack of many democratic mechanisms (e.g. primary elections, initiative referenda, federalism) in particular.
On one hand I recall an article making this claim about capital punishment many years ago, ie, that the US has capital punishment because it is more democratic.
OTOH https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2024/05/15/support-for-legal-abortion-is-widespread-in-many-countries-especially-in-europe/
Also, note that under Roe, US abortion law was rather permissive by international standards. https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/interactive/2021/us-abortion-laws-worldwide/
> tendency of pro-life to consume people's political identity and values
Others are getting at this in their answers. But if you believe people are murdering babies, you tend to get a little animated. It would be insane to try to stop the baby murdering, then just casually shrug, give up, and go watch a Youtube video while the people continue to murder babies.
In almost any other circumstance, everyone universally agrees we should go to great lengths to protect babies, but somehow in this one case, when someone goes to great lengths to protect babies, something is wrong with them?
"In almost any other circumstance, everyone universally agrees we should go to great lengths to protect babies"
Many cultures historically have been tolerant of infanticide.
Not Christian ones, and the US is still 63% Christian. And most of the 29% "unaffiliated" population grew up in a Christian culture and Christian households where killing kids simply is not done.
If I believed abortion was "baby murder'" (I don't) I would engage in some reflection on why my ideas are unpopular, which is what I'm trying to encourage here.
The literal murder of children (infanticide) was once common, and there were even religions that practiced child sacrifice. If parents choose to do that, I don't think it's any of the government's business. https://entitledtoanopinion.wordpress.com/2008/02/09/rhymes-with-shmashmortion/
https://news.gallup.com/poll/1576/abortion.aspx
This was basically evenly split until a few years ago, and now it's something like 55/45. In any event, I thought we figured out a while ago that being popular and being right aren't the same thing?
Gosh, why on earth would the devotees of Lilith and Moloch dislike being told they are doing bad things? Try as I might, I simply cannot fathom why that would make my ideas unpopular.
Yes, let's all be snobs and go "only the oiks have babies, my dear". Problem is, if the aim is "don't kill babies", that approach doesn't work as it simply leads to "sigh, even the oiks should have abortion suggested to them at once" and not "wait until you're old enough to be engaging in sex", since apparently saying that fourteen year olds should not be fucking is somehow trampling on their human rights and the answer there is to give them condoms and put them on birth control, not tell them to stop:
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10578-023-01519-8
"The prevalence of ESI varies widely worldwide. Recent data from the Youth Risk Behavior Surveillance (YRBS) in the United States found that 20.4% of students had already initiated sexual relationships by the 9th grade, or around ages 14–15"
"saying that fourteen year olds should not be fucking is somehow trampling on their human rights and the answer there is to give them condoms and put them on birth control, not tell them to stop:"
That's not what the original tweet was saying.
What if the reason your ideas are unpopular is that they're really inconvenient?
The basis of pro-life doesn't have to do with high school, but of murder. The fundamental question that needs to be answered, which is now lost in the abortion debate, is at what point is a person created at which time the life of the person is protected against being killed? People have actual disagreements as to when that point happens. Some possibilities include conception, implanting in the uterus, individual heartbeat (not the mother's), and individual brain activity. After that point, whenever we, as a society, decide it is, it should not be permissible to kill the embryo unless that choice means someone else must die instead, such as the mother.
Terminating pregnancies simply because they are unwanted is not justified. If one engages in adult activity, one must accept the consequences like an adult. If one doesn't want children (yet) but still wants to engage in sexual activity, one must safeguard against a pregnancy.
"The fundamental question that needs to be answered, which is now lost in the abortion debate, is at what point is a person created at which time the life of the person is protected against being killed?"
How is this lost in the debate? It's been beaten to death already. And now people are talking about it even more instead of addressing my point about class.
If people are talking about "abortion is murder" even more, then maybe you should consider the advice you gave to someone else in this thread, and reflect on why your belief of the opposite is unpopular.
Because talking about class makes you sound like you approve of culling the lower classes via abortion.
Honestly, I don't see how high school pregnancy has anything to do with social class, even in the context of your post. It's not really different from pregnancy at any other age.
You mention avoiding pregnancy through contraception, and many pro-life people are also against contraception. The "class" part doesn't really enter into things, AFAICT. Are you saying it's more acceptable for high school pregnancies for lower social class people? If so, I disagree.
Are you an immigrant?
No.
Didn't Scott write about this? I can't find it so maybe I'm hallucinating*. But the whole debate is framed around a misunderstanding. What we say is "it's not murder", but what we deeply mean is it's not the kind of murder that has the same moral significance as a typical person's well-being, agency, or bodily autonomy. But--and I have no idea how offensive this will be--the truth is that basically nobody thinks all life is equal. Everybody kills bacteria. Everyone except Buddhists kills bugs. Everyone except vegetarians kills chickens, pigs, cows, etc. Some families kill their pets (sometimes by "releasing" them). Almost every man kills sperm. A significant amount of women/couples would kill a fetus in the wrong circumstance.
The deep argument isn't that it's not murder or killing. Those are just words. The deep argument is that it doesn't matter that much.
* If not Scott, it was another rationalist that's part of the same circle.
I think Jains are more attentive to not killing bugs than Buddhists.
Many Thanks! (not a Jain myself, but was remembering the same thing)
We may assume abortion has been practiced for a long time in human history. We may include in that, I suppose, infanticide - there being I imagine not even here on this blog, those who would hairsplit between the moment a baby is "unborn" in the birth canal, and the next moment it is out of it?
Then the question becomes: how much do we really want to codify the idea that "it doesn't matter that much" in an atmosphere where there are 8 billion people on the planet, and human life is far from precious. Is it wise to make this instinct so thoroughly "legible", and beyond that to celebrate it as feminists and thus the culture, which is their culture, decidedly now do?
Turning a blind eye, neither countenancing nor particularly prosecuting something, is a knack we seem to have lost.
The deep argument is *about* whether it matters. Is killing a fetus at 8 months morally similar enough to killing a newborn baby that it would make sense to ban it? How about killing a fetus at 6 months, or 3 months, or 1 month?
Nobody really thinks killing a fetus isn't killing something, nor that a fetus isn't human in the sense of being identifiably a member of our species. The argument is really about when in its development a fetus becomes something that is immoral to kill.
Why are you acting like morality is some immutable law? We can decide on what is moral or immoral ourselves. It's not like life has any objective value to it.
That's certainly one take, but it's not one that distinguishes between "you can kill fetuses" and "you can kill children" and "you can kill anyone who has red hair." This seems like a good example of Scott's category of "Proves Too Much" arguments.
What distinguishes between them is that killing fetuses is convenient for increasing social stability. Though who knows, maybe the increased fertility rate will offset the problems caused by having so many unwanted children around. Maybe we can do some A/B testing... Though that would be difficult with people being able to cross state lines to get abortions. The next administration might make that more difficult, though, so maybe we can finally get some answers!
> The fundamental question... is at what point is a person created
I sort of agree, but I also think this framing smuggles in too much. Why would there be "a point" at which something becomes a person? There's no "point" at which the sand becomes a heap in under Sorites paradox and I think the same applies to human gestation.
(I do agree that for the sake of the law we should have a clearly defined point, but that's a practical consideration, not a fundamental one.)
The Sorites "paradox" is because of no clear definition of a "heap". We could make a clearer definition of a person, including, perhaps, "when a doctor certifies a being as such". This can also be refined with criteria a doctor isn't allowed to override, such as speaking.
And I CAN edit my own posts, using the three dots in the lower right of the post. But I'm using a desktop; if you're using a phone, I can't help you.
> We could make a clearer definition of a person
No we can't; given the huge interest in the question, if we could make an unambiguously acceptable definition of a person, we'd have done it already. What you get instead is the usual, with philosophers and thinkers proposing possible definitions, others disagreeing or pointing out flaws, and not much agreement reached anywhere. Also, please search for "categories were made for man" on Scott's old blog.
Fion has the right call with the Sorites paradox. It's all a continuous process, a fertilized cell splits and turns in to a clump, slowly growing bigger and more organized. Once the process gets going, there's no obvious point where it's changed into something substantially different.
So you really have two options here. The hardcore pro-life option is to believe that the single fertilized cell already deserves protection. That is self-consistent enough, because fertilization is a brief process with a distinct outcome, but then you have the trouble of convincing people that a single cell is a human being. Plus, very early spontaneous abortions are quite common (often unnoticed), and I've never heard anyone argue that they are a tragedy and we should be doing something about them.
The other option is to bite the bullet and agree that the wrongness of the act of destruction starts at zero or near zero at conception, ends at really high at birth, and increases in between. That means accepting that there are *gray areas* involved. It also means that at some point it will go through being "about as bad" as killing a mosquito, a centipede, a fish, a mouse, an octopus, etc., all the way up to a human being.
Note that I'm just reviewing the basic logic here; none of this is an argument against or for. You can accept all this and be pro-life if you take the badness function to grow very quickly, or pro-choice if you take it to grow moderately.
> including, perhaps, "when a doctor certifies a being as such".
LOL, appeal to the authority of a random human with a degree, really?
>LOL, appeal to the authority of a random human with a degree, really?
<mildSnark>
Well, on the other end, that _is_ what we do with death certificates...
</mildSnark>
Your points are well-taken in identifying the difficulties of definition in such, but I fear you misunderstand me. By something like "when a doctor certifies a being as such" I mean in a legal sense, which is an analog for "what everyone agrees is acceptable" rather than a definition of when life actually begins.
We cannot say something is illegal unless we can point to a law which is clearly violated. I actually think people have more common ground on abortion than the debate leads people to believe.
Ok I see your point.
That sounds a bit optimistic about the common ground, though. It looks like we have two groups with diverging intuitions, where one says "lesser evil" and the other says "murder".
It's precisely to probe that divide that I was trying to point to the logical need for a large gray area in between, and making explicit comparisons with intermediate levels of badness such as killing different kinds of animals. Not sure if this satisfies anyone though.
FFS, can we not edit comments? Typo "under" -> "the"
No, I don't know why my phone often gets these words mixed up either.
On mobile there should be a triple dot menu to the lower right of your comment.
Did I purposefully cause their organ failure and then connect that person to myself? If so, then I definitely have some moral responsibility for them. I’m not sure if it’s murder, but it’s bad.
Pregnancy seems similar.
It's kind of a tough hypothetical to consider, but I'm doing my best. Is this like a Siamese twin thing? Like, I've lived with my twin my entire life, but now both their lungs were removed due to lung cancer, and now they're dependent on me for oxygen? If so, then yes, I would consider this murder.
A baby, however, is INSIDE one's body. In such a circumstance, I assume the baby will eventually develop organs that work. If it doesn't, or can be shown that it won't, then no, I don't consider that murder, since the baby can never be an adult. No, I don't think a non-viable pregnancy should be forced to continue, and I doubt any but the most extreme pro-life people would, either.
IIUC, that's not a hypothetical, but rather a description of pregnancy in unconventional language. You might consider whether or not it's an accurate description.
On the one hand, I am in favour of using thought experiments to work out moral issues. On the other hand, this one is just evil.
Not because it's horribly inaccurate (although it is: it conveniently pretends the connection wasn't voluntarily agreed to, it pretends the victim is an adult rather than a helplessly vulnerable child, it pretends the disconnecter has no blood relationship or parental duty to the victim, it pretends the victim being in need of this bodily support isn't the direct fault of the disconnecter, and a dozen other things).
Rather, because using this cold indifferent language ("you're within your rights to disconnect them") about something that actually happens on a daily basis is downright sociopathic.
Let's ignore all of the inaccuracies and pretend this actually aproximates abortion. I still may not agree it's acceptable to disconnect. But suppose I did. That would mean I would tolerate a person who feels horrible pain from the kidney connection, and who feels horribly morally conflicted and guilty making, after much soul-searching, an agonising decision to disconnect, while firmly believing it's the best thing for everyone. It would NOT mean that a person who happily did the disconnection, without a second's consideration for the one dying, thinking only of themselves and their desires, is anything less than irredeemably evil.
And the latter describes a large number of women who seek abortions, and the vast majority of vocal pro-choice activists. Not "I firmly believe this isn't alive or sentient", not "I'm in horrible pain and this is the only option, as horrible as it is", not "I've thought long and hard and believe this is best for everyone", but "I do what I want, I think only of myself, and I couldn't give two fucks about a baby dying even if it's fully conscious because it's my body".
No amount of technical theorising about rights, even if it *isn't* full of holes, will stop those people being more evil than words can ever describe.
I read the thought experiment, and find some fundamental problems with it. The abortion debate always revolves around a "woman's right to choose", and the thought experiment has taken that right away in a way completely different from pregnancy. A woman can choose to risk getting pregnant, and that choice must not be removed, which is why rape is so reprehensible. Corollary: if a woman is raped, she should have the right to terminate the pregnancy (and I think the rapist, if she so chooses, would then be guilty of murder, and could be prosecuted for it).
But in this thought experiment, others have made the choice for you to live through this "pregnancy" without any of your input. Is it now your choice to end the violinist's life, asserting you should get your freedom back? This is obviously a very unfair position in which to put a music-lover such as you.
If you chose to do something, you must live through the consequences as an adult.
>> Corollary: if a woman is raped, she should have the right to terminate the pregnancy (and I think the rapist, if she so chooses, would then be guilty of murder, and could be prosecuted for it).
But this is the kind of thinking that makes those of us on the left side of this issue doubt that, for our interlocutors, “the basis of pro-life doesn't have to do with high school, but of murder.”
If abortion=murder, then rape exceptions don’t make sense. “I was raped, therefore I have the right to murder someone else” tracks a bit if the someone else is your rapist and we have an open mind about vigilantism, but it doesn’t track if the “someone else” is just a random kid.
The framework where a rape exception *does* track, and what I often suspect is going on but unspoken in these debates, is a basis of pro-life not in murder, but in punishment for promiscuity. Or “the consequences,” as they can be more euphemistically termed.
If I’m pro-life because I truly think abortion is murder, it doesn’t make sense for me to accept a rape victim murdering a bystander. But if I’m
Pro life because I object to promiscuity and believe pregnancy is a just punishment for it, then it *does* make sense me to support a rape exception; a woman who chooses sex can be thought to “deserve” her pregnancy/punishment in a way that a woman who did not choose sex does not.
But couldn't the opposite case be established? Low class people have get their daughters pregnant in high school, this is a problem that very sharply affects their life, and many might have first-hand experience with how it ruined them and their family. It's their problem. They are the ones affected by the laws on the matter. So one might conclude that low-class are to be more supportive of Choice.
While high class people might be sitting on their high horses and contemplate the value of every baby, since they, themselves, would never actually get into that situation.
Or just imagine your teenage daughter gets pregnant and tells you she just can't go through with an abortion and sticks to that. In such a situation, I think most parents would support their daughter as best they could, perhaps helping her give birth and give the child up for adoption, or raising the child themselves, or helping her finish up her education with them providing a lot of help and free babysitting. I don't think this is a social class thing, it's a basic human decency thing.
I hope that's true, because I do think it's a basic human decency thing, but I wonder a bit about that "most parents." I once read a letter in a Slate advice column from a young woman who was on her second pregnancy--now married & having a planned child, she had had her first pregnancy unplanned as a teen, and was struggling emotionally with her mother and stepfather's celebrating her current pregnancy as if it were her first and the other hadn't existed. She had wanted to keep her other, teenage pregnancy, very much, but her stepfather--believing she was naive about the work involved (which she admitted was true) and that he and his wife would end up doing most of it--laid down an ultimatum with his wife: he would divorce her if her daughter didn't abort. Seriously scared of the economic consequences, her mother laid this openly at her daughter's door and badgered her into doing her stepfather's will. It was the trauma of this unchosen abortion, and the way the very people who had engineered it were acting as though it had never happened, that was deeply troubling the letter writer now, and her question was essentially whether her feelings were legitimate and whether she should dig up the past.
Now that's a dramatic tale that, like all advice column letters, may or may not be true (for added drama, the stepfather wrote in a few months later, having run across the letter, and said he'd been a monster and was repentant), but what struck me was the response. Not the columnist's--no-one cares about that in most of the advice-column world, and I've forgotten it. No, the absolute top voted comment in the comment section was "this is an unpopular opinion, but LW needs to suck it up and realize her stepfather was completely within his rights" and the thread following this was an absolute outpouring of scorn for the stupid teenager LW used to be and for the stupid, stupid woman she was now to think her feelings of grief at an essentially coerced abortion performed on her own body & child could have any validity. Because, you see, her child would have been a serious inconvenience to 2 middle-class people and they were the ones with the rights over its life and her body because of that.
I grew up pro-life and am now politically inactive on the abortion issue, having heard enough serious, compelling arguments on both sides that I just felt like I needed to recuse myself, but I was ****ing shocked by this and remain so to this day. I left a scathing comment wondering what exactly was pro-choice about the arguments people were making and was immediately called a troll. I didn't see anyone else speak up on the young woman's behalf.
Now granted this isn't statistical evidence--internet pile-ons tend to drive away anyone who's moderate on the issue at hand--but it definitely suggests that "of course you can force your teen daughter into an abortion" is one of those popular-unpopular opinions that come out of hiding when one person speaks up and voices support for them. Choice? Screw choice. Teenagers shouldn't have babies & that's the real bottom line.
Honestly, I shudder.
I think whenever discussing pro-choice vs. pro-life, it's helpful to check "would all of this make total sense if I just took pro-life people at their word and assumed they believe fetuses are people and abortion is murder?"
I think, regardless of their class, most people would be horrified at the idea of a high-school girl killing an infant she couldn't take care of. If you believe fetuses have the same moral standing as infants, no surprise why regardless of class you'd be horrified there too.
This is why I have mostly stopped arguing with people about abortion, which galls some of my more liberal friends. I do not believe human life begins at conception, so I am (mostly) ok with abortion. But changing someone's mind on the issue is asking them to rethink one of humanity's most fundamental questions: when does human life, with its full range of rights, begin? I'm not going to change anyone's mind in a single online argument or even in a fifteen minute face-to-face conversation. For the most part, this is one of those issues where I just don't bother arguing. I suppose it helps that, as a man, I have the "privilege" of knowing these laws won't directly affect me, and that my opinion on abortion isn't strongly held.
It's hard to not take pro-life people at their word in cases where they go to extreme lengths to justify their views. For instance, I wrote a post last week on a shoddy, deceptively-presented study falsely impugning the safety of abortion pills. The study was led by someone who's methodologically competent but has begun to humiliate himself (e.g., he's had three papers retracted from a decent journal, and he's now resorted to publishing crap in the worst "pay-to-play" journal). What would incentivize a researcher to demean themselves this way? My view is that he and his colleagues genuinely believe abortion is murder, because fetuses are unborn humans with the same moral standing as the rest of us. This leads to research that's akin to a virtuous lie. https://statisfied.substack.com/p/abortion-pills-and-junk-science
Were the papers retracted from "decent journals" because they were bad science, or because "decent journals" support abortion rights? Politics is at play even in science publishing.
And given that the latest cause celebre around "Roe vs Wade is killing women" was due to a woman whose medical abortion (via abortion pills) went badly, maybe the pills are not as safe as being sold to us they are. The woman skipped/missed follow-up doctor appointments; if more women are not following the procedures, then abortion pills can be harmful.
https://apnews.com/article/abortion-pills-georgia-mifepristone-misoprostol-kamala-harris-fd3c817f42ccc74b04d12450efb92f4a
"Amber Thurman died after waiting 20 hours for a hospital to treat complications that occurred after she took abortion pills. Reported by ProPublica earlier this week, the case is the first publicly reported instance of a woman dying from delayed care tied to a state abortion law.
The news organization also reported on the death of Candi Miller, a woman with lupus, diabetes and hypertension who took abortion pills she ordered online. An autopsy found fetal tissue that hadn’t been expelled and a lethal combination of painkillers, ProPublica reported. The state’s maternal mortality review committee did not believe abortion medication caused her death."
Abortion pills are perfectly safe! It's the women who are too stupid to use them correctly who are at fault! Abortion bans killed these women!
If people have legitimate concerns about the safety of abortion pills, they should perform a public satanic animal sacrifice to discredit accusations they are religiously motivated. I'm not joking.
I know you're not joking, Alexander. But don't worry, the Satanists already have you covered on the pro-healthcare front:
https://thesatanictemple.com/pages/samuel-alitos-moms-satanic-abortion-clinic
"Samuel Alito's Mom's Satanic Abortion Clinic™ is an online clinic that provides religious medication abortion care. The clinic provides abortion medication via mail to those in New Mexico who wish to perform The Satanic Temple's Religious Abortion Ritual."
https://thesatanictemple.com/blogs/news/introducing-right-to-your-life-satanic-abortion-clinic
"Today marks the opening of TST Health’s second telehealth abortion clinic in Virginia, serving the state and surrounding region. Just like our New Mexico clinic, our services will be free of charge, with patients only needing to cover the cost of medication through a third party at a very low price. Our dedicated staff will again be available 24/7, ensuring that patients receive the care they need, when they need it."
https://thesatanictemple.com/pages/rrr-campaigns
"The Satanic Temple's religious abortion ritual exempts TST members from enduring medically unnecessary and unscientific regulations when seeking to terminate their pregnancy. The ritual involves the recitation of two of our Tenets and a personal affirmation that is ceremoniously intertwined with the abortion. Because prerequisite procedures such as waiting periods, mandatory viewing of sonograms, and compulsory counseling contravene Satanists’ religious convictions, those who perform the religious abortion ritual are exempt from these requirements and can receive first-trimester abortions on demand in states that have enacted the Religious Freedom Restoration Act."
And if you need an entire ritual abortion, Crowley has provided for your needs in "Moonchild" (and disapproves of what is now called "healthcare", ironically enough):
https://hermetic.com/crowley/moonchild/mc19
"Certainly the wife of Douglas felt the presence of that vile thing evoked from Tartarus. Its chill struck through to her bones. Nothing had so torn her breast as the constant refusal of her husband to allow her to fulfil her human destiny. Even her prostitution, since it was forced upon her by the one man she loved, might be endured – if only – if only –
But always the aid of Balloch had been summoned; always, in dire distress, and direr danger, she had been thwarted of her life's purpose. It was not so much a conscious wish, though that was strong, as an actual physical craving of her nature, as urgent and devouring as hunger or thirst.
Balloch, who had been all his life high-priest of Hecate, had never been present at an evocation of the force that he served. He shuddered – not a little – as the sorcerer recited his surgical exploits; the credentials of the faith of her servant then present before her. He had committed his dastardly crimes wholly for gain, and as a handle for blackmail; the magical significance of the business had not occurred to him at all. His magical work had been almost entirely directed to the gratification of sensuality in abnormal and extra-human channels. So, while a fierce pride now thrilled him, there was mingled with it a sinking of the spirit; for he realized that its mistress had been sterility and death. And it was of death that he was most afraid. The cynical calm of Douglas appalled him; he recognized the superiority of that great sorcerer; and his hope to supplant him died within his breast.
At that moment Hecate herself passed into him, and twined herself inextricably about his brain. He accepted his destiny as her high-priest; in future he would do murder for the joy of pleasing her! All other mistresses were tame to this one! The thrill of Thuggee caught him – and in a very spasm of maniacal exaltation, he vowed himself again and again to her services. She should be sole goddess of the Black Lodge – only let her show him how to be rid of Douglas! Instantly the plan came to him; he remembered that “Annie” was high-priestess of Hecate in a greater sense than himself; for she was notorious as an open advocate of this kind of murder; indeed, she had narrowly escaped prison on this charge; he would tempt Douglas to rid himself of “Annie” – and then betray him to her."
("Annie" is Annie Besant, who amongst other things was a public proponent of birth control: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annie_Besant#The_Fruits_of_Philosophy)
I think I'll stick to reciting a decade of the Rosary for all my religious ritual protest needs, thanks all the same.
"The news organization also reported on the death of Candi Miller, a woman with lupus, diabetes and hypertension who took abortion pills she ordered online. An autopsy found fetal tissue that hadn’t been expelled and a lethal combination of painkillers, ProPublica reported. The state’s maternal mortality review committee did not believe abortion medication caused her death."
Abortion pills are perfectly safe! It's the women who are too stupid to use them correctly who are at fault! Abortion bans killed these women!"
Yes, it's Miller's fault for taking a lethal combination of painkillers in combination with the abortion pill.
Do you suppose she took the painkillers for a reason? What are the odds that she took them because she was in pain from the abortion pills? Second-order effects are still effects.
The papers were retracted because of very bad science plus the authors' failure to disclose conflict of interest properly. If anything, politics may have invited extra scrutiny of the papers, but "politics" isn't responsible for the retractions. Deceptive junk science was outed here.
Btw, no drug is perfectly safe (i.e., 0% rate of side effects). Hundreds of studies show that the abortion pills have very low rates of adverse side effects - e.g., lower than for colonoscopies and occasional Viagra use. (No irony there, right?)
Did Protestant countries get more woke than Catholic or Orthodox countries? My rough intuition says yes they did: Sweden, Germany, the UK all seem more woke than Spain, Italy or Latin America. France seems to be a different story.
Wondering if there’s data or thoughts on this, especially vis a viz the idea that wokism is a strain of Christianity.
Haven't people started going back to sleep yet? Honestly, I haven't heard the woke dog whistle used much this election cycle. Of course, Trump is so sleepy he's probably having trouble remembering to push the woke button.
But seriously, it's too bad the Google's ngram viewer stops at 2022. Woke was still climbing at that point. I suspect it's falling now. Here's woke compared to a bunch of hot-button words and phrases...
https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=justice%2Cgender%2C%22personal+responsibility%22%2C%22school+choice%22%2Cwoke%2C%22critical+race+theory%22%2C%22illegal+immigration%22%2Ccrime&year_start=1800&year_end=2022&corpus=en&smoothing=3
How do you measure "wokeness" of a country? If you come up with some metric, you could compare the Protestant northeast of Germany with the Catholic southwest, or the Protestant north of the Netherlands with the Catholic south.
I find the US extremely more woke than the UK
Is Spain really less woke than protestant countries?
I do not have a good knowledge of the current situation in Spain but at least on some issues (hate speech laws, squatters rights, foreign policy) it seems to be significantly more woke than the US.
Per Curtis Yarvin, progressivism is just a strain of protestantism that became too protestant for Jesus.
Those countries are also much more atheist than the historically (and current) catholic countries. Some 30-50% of Scandinavians declare themselves not religious, and being vaguely "spiritual" is more common than being firmly Christian.
That doesn't sound very different from what I see day-to-day over here in Spain.
EDIT: And thankfully the woke thing didn't get much traction here. I mostly hear of it through English-language media like this forum.
Protestantism has more tradition of progressivist and utopian thought so there is likely something there. But as Christianity is the main factor the difference is probably more down to connections to English language media and college campuses and cultural traditions (e.g. Scandinavia is very egalitarian and has a strong tradition of social democrats)
That might be something to do with speaking English.
Probably more to do with the fact that the main churches in those countries are state churches, hence they are ultimately governed by the state and when there is conflict on social issues, the state gets the final word.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_religion
...only the Danish Protestant church is still a state church. The Swedish and Norwegian Protestant churches were separated from the state approx. ten years ago.
The Swedish King, as well as the Norwegian King, must still be members of the church. But they are no longer the official head of the church (as Frederik X of Denmark).
But up until then they were state churches, and becoming disestablished did not free them from the influence of the Zeitgeist.
I don't imagine the demand was there to be independent of state control so that they might be more doctrinally orthodox and rigid, for example, but rather that the notion of *a* state church prioritising one particular faith over others was anathema in a multicultural and secular society.
"During the 20th century, the Church of Sweden oriented itself strongly towards liberal Christianity and human rights. In 1957, the General Synod rejected a proposal for the ordination of women, but a revised Church Ordinance bill proposal from the Riksdag in the spring of 1958, along with the fact that, at the time, clergy of the Church of Sweden were legally considered government employees, put pressure on the General Synod and the College of Bishops to accept the proposal, which passed by a synod vote of 69 to 29 and a collegiate vote of 6 to 5 respectively in the autumn of 1958. Since 1960, women have been ordained as priests, and in 1982, lawmakers removed a "conscience clause" allowing clergy members to refuse to cooperate with female colleagues. A proposal to perform same-sex weddings was approved on 22 October 2009 by 176 of 249 voting members of the Church of Sweden Synod."
Note the part about "clergy were legally considered government employees". The Church of Norway has also gone along with increasing liberalisation, despite protests from the conservatively inclined, from female clergy to gay clergy:
https://www.newsinenglish.no/2022/10/31/late-bishop-changed-church-history/
Sure, you are right we are not exactly conservative Catholics up here, regardless of where people stand on the pros and cons of state churches.. The few Catholics we have (apart from Polish and Vietnamese immigrants) are a small, intellectual, bookish minority by us. Which I remember my old Protestant friend at Trinity College in Dublin found rather
amusing, as it apparently is the other way around in Ireland?
I'm 'breaking towards' trump. Explaining why, so someone could persuade me otherwise
Key factors, in order of importance
1) I have yet to see Kamala 'think' for five plus minutes about anything out loud. I don't know what incentive structure prevents her from giving us any insight about what she actually thinks about any individual non-abortion policy. I don't know why this bothers me so much, generic democrat should be fine, we currently don't have a president and it's mostly fine. I just have absolutely no idea who she is/what her world view is.
2) Jan 6 was bad, I don't expect for anything worse to happen. Immune systems seem strong. Very serious factor against him, but trump was less authoritarian than most presidents (student loan, dreamer mass amnesty, etc) with power. I could see Kamala claiming a ton of power and the system barely checking her.
3) letting in millions of people into the country seems like it is bothering people/fraying the social contract. It seems like Trump would help along this, and Kamala would keep things the same
4) Foreign policy. I think if Trump gets in, reasonably quickly Ukraine loses 25% of territory and conflict resolves for four years, possible for much longer. Israel gets green light to do what they want for a brief window, and then Iran dictates some peace terms under pressure and conflict resolves for four years, possibly much longer. Taiwan is either left alone or is quickly taken over in a bloodless coup without TSMC being blown up, either of which is preferable to a hot war. I consider all of these big positive improvements over the status quo.
This reads like one of Scott’s scissors statements to me. I simply cannot understand any of the points against Harris as being actually in the same league with Jan 6 let alone all of the other problems that Trump has. What problems? Ask his former cabinet members and vice president. I can’t think of a single positive thing about Trump that can outweigh his 10th worst quality let alone the worst. Trump seems to be a scissor statement become flesh.
"Trump seems to be a scissor statement become flesh."
Good line.
Great comment! I agree with #1, my mental model for Harris is that she has no firm political beliefs outside of normie Democrat "government should help people" feelings, I think she will go whichever way the wind is blowing. In her defense i think this describes most politicians. To win you need votes and money and you have to adjust your positions accordingly. ( see Obama on gay marriage for example).
On #2 I can't improve too much on the comment by Kei. I would add that Republicans are likely to take the senate. This means that Harris would be unable to pass legislation or appoint judges. The Supreme Court will routinely rule against her. In my view that means she will be contained. The reverse is true for Trump as he has purged dissent and will likely have a friendly Congress and friendly supreme court. For items where you agree with him that might be good news but it also means he will be able to do more outrageous things. I should also add I know someone who was a direct report to him. Her stories about him definitely fit the narrative that he is a selfish person who isn't interested in policy details and will routinely ask his staff to do unethical or illegal things.
I don't like either of these people but to me Harris seems less risky.
On immigration: while it's true that Trump's hard-line position on immigration law reflects a widely held dislike of immigrants, I'd argue that's that's actually a deeply unreasonable attitude that you shouldn't buy into.
There's a broad consensus among economists that immigrants- even poor immigrants who dodge the immigration bureaucracy- benefit the average US worker (see https://www.kentclarkcenter.org/surveys/high-skilled-immigrants/ and https://www.kentclarkcenter.org/surveys/low-skilled-immigrants/ for some expert surveys). This shouldn't be surprising- as we saw with the disastrous Marxist experiments in command economies last century, giving absolute power over some part of the economy to a bureaucracy for the purpose of protecting workers from market competition may benefit those workers a bit in the short term, but hurts everyone substantially in the long run.
And, of course, that's exactly what our current immigration bureaucracy is. This isn't a system that was designed according to sound economic theory and updated once new evidence became available. In the late 19th and early 20th century, we transitioned from open borders to our present system based on a mix of very explicitly racist ideology and very explicitly socialist ideology, and the system has barely been updated since then.
There's also widespread consensus among people who study this sort of thing that immigrants- even those who overstay visas and bypass border checkpoints- lower the crime rate (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illegal_immigration_to_the_United_States_and_crime for an overview of sources on that). This also shouldn't be that surprising. Immigration is a complex and expensive thing to undertake, and the people who commit the most crime- drug addicts and people with severe emotional problems- are usually flat broke and barely capable of functioning in society at all.
Illegal immigrants also pay more in taxes than they receive in public benefits. They mostly work in jobs that take out income tax from their paychecks, and of course pay things like sales tax- but at the same time, aren't eligible for or can't easily access most public services.
Now, it's true that rule of law- or as you said, preserving the social fabric- demands that we enforce even a profoundly broken and pointless set of laws like our current immigration system. But the need for that has to be weighed against other moral factors. It's probably a good thing, for example, that Marijuana laws are usually so laxly enforced in places where they're still on the books, since that prohibition is similarly pointless and harmful. While it's vastly better to change bad laws than laxly enforce them, since that preserves rule of law, in cases where that's not possible, less than maximal enforcement will often be the lesser of two evils.
So, that brings me to Trump's plan of mass deportation, which I actually find pretty horrifying. There are around eleven million undocumented immigrants in the US, many of whom have grown up here or lived here for decades. To deport those long-term residents means taking away everything from people- their homes, their jobs, their access to friends and family, often the businesses and communities they've built and the culture they were raised in. To do that to millions of people would be not just an economic disaster, probably triggering a bad recession, but also a humanitarian atrocity. And Trump wants to do this because they've dodged the paperwork of an insane bureaucracy, and not destroying their lives in retaliation is somehow the only option left to us?
But no, of course that's not the reason Trump is calling for mass deportations. The human mind longs for an outgroup- some class of people to dehumanize, to scapegoat, to load up with all of our fear and anger and disgust so that we can knock them down and feel safe and righteous. It's something that the Left traditionally does with wealthy people and the Right traditionally does with vulnerable minorities. Whenever people start doing it, it's both incredibly dangerous to society and incredibly easy to identify. Do the people who hate this group frequently cherrypick negative stories about them? Do they have strongly-held beliefs about the group that are easily disproved by data? When they inevitably start demanding that society make sacrifices to hurt the group, are they sad about it? Do they see the harm as a tragic necessity, or are they eager?
Rallying people against an outgroup is an incredibly powerful political strategy. I'd argue that the main reason our immigration system is still so out of touch with economic theory after a century is that the Right would have to give up their attacks on a conveniently permanent outgroup to pass any sort of reasonable reform. This has always been a problem, but Trump escalating it to threats of a humanitarian and economic disaster- well, it's about what you'd expect from the guy.
This is a very good, well-argued comment. I'm quite socially conservative, but I've always been somewhere between ambivalent and supportive on immigration. Including on a level of mercy for (some kinds of) illegal immigrants.
But while I do agree that someone who looks at a desperate or vulnerable immigrant and says coldly "this is my country and I don't want you here, tough luck" is, exactly like the typical pro-choice woman who talks like that, not only evil, but unimaginably and probably irredeemably evil...I think you're misstating the factors and emotions that are driving anti-illegal-immigrant sentiment. There's some outgroup hatred, no doubt, and there's some brazenly indifferent selfishness, of course. But there are also three very understandable and important factors:
1. The emotional factor you're misunderstanding, at least for many people, goes as follows. Imagine a homeless person knocks on your door and politely asks to stay at your house for a while, and suppose you have a large house and could accomodate him without inconvenience. You may well say yes, or at least be highly sympathetic and look for a compromise. Now imagine instead that he doesn't ask you but instead sneaks into your house, lives there without your knowledge (again, large house), and now and then takes food from your kitchen without permission. Then you eventually discover him, and he says he's really sorry, that he was desperate and was terrified you'd say no if he asked, and he begs you to forgive him and let him stay, promising that he wants nothing more than to adopt your values, help you maintain your house to the standard you want, and become an adopted member of your family. This is obviously a lot worse than the first case, but most people will probably have some significant sympathy, even if they also have some legimate anger.
But now...imagine he does the same thing (sneaking in, taking food) but when you discover him, this is what he says: "Yeah, so what? I have a *right* to enter your house, and I'm not sorry at all. In fact, you should be sorry for making me hide for so long instead of proudly exercising my unconditional right! I demand, not ask, to stay in your house. In fact, I demand that you modify your house to suit my tastes! Change those curtains to ones I prefer or you're a disgusting bigot! I have no intention of adopting your values, to even ask me to is offensive. I demand to live in your house and to ignore and even mock your culture and your values. And I *not only* demand equal rights to you over your own house, I demand special rights *over* you! I demand to be allowed to say words you're not allowed to say, to wear things you're not allowed to wear (with no equivalents in the other direction) and preferential treatment over you in many areas! And if you object in the tiniest, politest way, I'll join with a mob to destroy your career and your life."
I think the *kindest* response that could be expected of you is: "get...the...FUCK...out of my house."
That's the attitude modern immigrants are perceived to represent by many people. Now of course, most actual illegal immigrants probably don't have that attitude at all. But unfortunately, the sections of society that claim to represent them, in academia and activism, do. And they represent this attitude as being *the* reasonable attitude and entitlement of immigrant minorities. Most immigrants may not agree, but they have no media voice to oppose it, and the ones who *do* have a voice are highly likely to embrace it.
So what can you expect ordinary, low-status native whites to do in response? A group of powerful and very well-connected people (mostly academics) have spent decades using immigrants as a cover for spreading extremely hateful, aggressive messages against them, full of contempt for their values and existence and open racism against them (see critical race theory, and affirmative action). This went on even while the US was unusually liberal on immigration compared to most countries, and only after these hateful woke attitudes spread from academia to the rest of society did an anti-immigrant backlash firmly arise.
At some point, after a long series of aggressions, an act of aggression in response has to seen as a kind of self-defence. It may be wrong in its result, but (like the US bombing of Hiroshima) the harm is in many respects the fault of the original aggressor, not the one fighting back.
The ones who've used immigrants as a football for decades to wage a race war have created all the problems and hatreds you mention.
2. The American left has been consciously and openly using immigration (including illegal immigration) as a path to political dominance. Boasting over and over for years to conservative and centrist whites "very soon, demographics will give us a permanent majority, and we won't have to listen to you at all. You'll be forever powerless, we'll be able to whatever we want, to ignore your values and opinions completely, and there'll be nothing you can do about it!" There's so much of this you can find dozens of examples in seconds. It's truly beyond belief.
So this makes illegal immigration an existential issue for many natives. It's literallly, openly being used as a way of making them permanently powerless in their own country. Whether that plan would succeed is a different matter, but it's very clearly a widely endorsed deliberate plan. How do you expect people to react to a sustained and aggressive attack on their very political representative voice? Wars are fought over this, including the founding of the US itself.
It's also, one could argue, as bad as or worse than Trump's undemocratic tactics. Both involve the same process: (1) violate the laws, (2) gamble that inertia and politics will prevent significant resistance, (3) retrospectively legitimise the illegal actions and thereby (4) bypass democracy and hold power indefinitely. But while Trump's form is chaotic and unplanned and extremely recent, the left-wing form is long-established, with enormous institutional support from the "gatekeepers" of democracy.
It would be good if this threat to democracy could be defeated without the misery of mass deportations. The best way would be a promise to illegal immigrants of a permanent right to stay, in return for renouncing permanently any right to vote. I suspect that most illegal immigrants would accept this deal in a heartbeat: it would be a vast improvement over their current condition, and a vote is of little value personally anyway. The ones who would never allow it are the institutional left, since they don't really care about immigrants' lives anyway: the political advantages are their sole reason for supporting them. Does anyone deny that they would fight to the death against such a compromise?
And even separately from these existential threats, the way many immigrants vote (or are expected to vote) as an ethnic bloc, and not according to individual conscience, rightly disturbs many people. Ethnic coalitions locked in a bloodless war, seeing who can logistically organise better to get more of them to polls, and who can reproduce faster to overwhelm the other group...that's not how democracy is supposed to work. The only way to end hostility to immigrants is to eliminate ethnic identity politics as an electoral factor.
3. About crime. Illegal immigrants may commit less crime. But every crime they do commit is a crime that could have been prevented if they'd been deported. And as long as places like SF and Seattle are doing de-policing, and deliberately not punishing many crimes because those crimes are more likely to be committed by non-whites...this may be the only way for people to protect themselves from crime. It shouldn't be that way of course; the proper course is to let people stay if they're law-abiding, and aggressively prosecute them if they're not. But what happens when the left refuses to do the latter, or deliberately sabotages its capability? I don't know where it is, but Scott wrote somewhere about daycare centres being more likely to discriminate on race if asking about prospective employees' criminal convictions is prohibited. Most people just want to use the basic, obvious tools to protect themselves from crime, but if you take away those tools, they'll be forced to use other measures they never wanted to use, and it's your fault for taking the common sense tools away.
In summary: I agree that most illegal immigrants are not a threat (although I thought the evidence on depressing wages was mixed, but I'll assume your evidence is correct absent possession of the contrary), and I agree that many of them are sympathetic and would be unfairly harmed by deportations. But as long as entrenched political forces within western countries, and especially to a particularly great extent in the US, are using them as a means to illegimately increase their power, and are either indifferent to, or actively gleeful about, harm to the values, way of life, safety, and democratic voice of native white people with little institutional power, heavy resistance to illegal immigration is both understandable and just.
This is the sort of problem that, if left unaddressed, could lead to a civil war. I think the best case scenario is that if Trump is in a position to implement mass deportations, this forces the left to come to a true compromise that eliminates the existential threats described above. Decades of rhetoric about a Permanent Democratic Majority makes it clear they'll never accept such a compromise if they can get away with it.
On #1 - I'm not a fan of the "country as my house" argument, but assuming we commit to it you're missing a rather big factor. You don't just live in this house alone. You have a spouse - your co-equal, who also lives in the house and has opposite views from you re: homeless people. Your spouse is going all around the world publishing multimedia that emphasizes how welcoming the house is of the homeless, is adding multilingual signs and resources throughout the building to help them transition. It's your spouse demanding that the drapes be changed, that special assistance be made available to the newcomers, etc. And your spouse has every bit as much of a right to decide what happens in the house as you do.
And you and your spouse have become completely, pathologically unable to talk about this. If either of you could be reasonable, you'd talk and come to some sort of reasoned consensus about how many people you can afford to support, whether they are a net gain or loss for the household, what rules you have for bringing them in and kicking them out, etc. But you're stuck on "if I don't compromise and give any legal status away, on one great day I'll be able to kick *all* these people out," while your spouse is stuck on "if I don't compromise and demand a maximally open household, one day ascend will buckle and *have* to let these people stay.
And in the meantime, unsurprisingly, people keep showing up in the house. Meanwhile, the rules for "legal house entry" stay byzantine and draconian, and the situation drags on and and on and on with no sign that you and your spouse are ever going to compromise about this. At a certain point, why would any rational person "wait their turn" while defections keep occurring all around them and the homeowners show no sign of ever actually fixing the situation?
And if you think you are, after this long period of refusal to compromise, entitled to some kind of "act of aggression in response" to be "seen as a kind of self-defence," you have to also articulate why your spouse isn't similarly entitled - you've frustrated their policy preferences as much as they've frustrated yours.
It's always a little surprising to me when conservatives bring up the example of a person invading your house, since it seems to me to be founded on a fundamentally socialist idea of what a country is.
Suppose I own an apartment complex and want to hire a guy from Mexico to be a handyman and live in one of the apartments. Suppose someone from the government says that I can't do that because my apartment belongs collectively to American citizens, and they haven't given me permission to let anyone else in. Why shouldn't I say "Fuck you, this isn't the government's property; it's not the collective home of the American people. It's my property, my home. Some people may not like having a Mexican neighbor, but their right to throw people out stops at their actual property line, not some imaginary collective property line at the border."
Now, granted, that Mexican handyman will also be using public roads, public sewers, and so on. But I'd argue that those aren't best thought of as the collective property of the people either. Rather, they're the government's property.
The government is an organization to which we've granted the right to monopolize the use of force. On the surface, this seems potentially immoral- what gives this one organization the right to use force against me and prevent me from doing the same? I think, pretty clearly, that right comes from the fact that it's promoting the interests of the people over whom it's monopolizing force. If an organization is using force against me without considering my interests, then it's a tyranny. If it's using force while fairly weighing my interests against those of everyone else it's holding power over, than it's a tool for solving coordination problems.
Note that I haven't mentioned citizenship or collective ownership in that moral analysis- that's because I don't think they hold up as moral foundations. When an organization holds power over two groups and only considers the interests of one, it has no moral right to that power. It has an obligation to either give up the power or start considering the other group's interests, and that holds for everyone- citizen or not.
This principle also implies that government property can't ethically be considered a particular group's collective property- governments use their monopolization of force to acquire things via taxes, so it has an obligation to use those things for the benefit of everyone it holds power over, not just some collective property owners.
I think it should be clear from that what my objection would be to the idea of immigrants being allowed to stay without a vote- the government wouldn't have a right to rule them unless it also had an obligation to represent them.
On the topic of immigrants benefiting Democrats electorally, it's true that Democrats are biased in favor of immigration because of the electoral benefit, just as Republicans are biased against it because of electoral risk. Both are a problem- we ought to be supporting policies based on how the benefit the people and causes we care about, not on how they affect elections. I will note, however, that one of those is a bias toward restricting peoples' freedom, while the other is a bias toward the government interfering in peoples' lives less.
I also think that this notion of demographic change permanently disenfranchising rural white people is pretty absurd. There's a reason every national election has almost exactly 50-50 odds- both parties optimize very heavily to grow their coalitions as much as possible. Realistically, if demographic change continues and Republicans remain anti-immigrant, they'll slightly shift their rhetoric to appeal more to groups like conservative black people and centrist white people, and the elections will still end up exactly 50-50. Even more realistically, both parties will probably shift so much in the next few decades so as to be nearly unrecognizable- just as the parties of today would be nearly unrecognizable to someone in 1990, and the parties of 1990 would be nearly unrecognizable to someone in 1960, and so on. This notion of white conservatives turning into a powerless underclass is the fantasy of a few out-of-touch leftists and a whole lot of conservative media fear-mongering, nothing more.
Now, it's true that there are a disturbing number of people on the left who use conservatives as an outgroup to unload their hatred onto, just as there are a disturbing number of people on the right who do the same to liberals. This is a very dangerous problem that may indeed lead to real civil instability and violence. But mass deportations won't decrease that hatred. The hatred is a kind of cultural insanity, driven by the mediums we use for communication optimizing for outrage and our cultural permission structures letting us wallow in our worst epistemic tendencies. It's not something that can be appeased by bowing to its demands; it can only be opposed directly though rational discourse and a solid personal commitment to believe whatever is true, no matter the partisan coding.
One final point about crime: it's true that, by decreasing the population, deportations would decrease the total amount of crime. But the amount of crime an individual experiences is determined by the average crime rate, not the national total. By removing a group with a relatively low propensity for crime, mass deportations would increase the average crime rate. That would most likely cause you to experience more crime, since fewer of your interactions would be with poor immigrants, and more with poor natives.
From a strict libertarian perspective, sure, you should be able to offer an apartment you own to anyone you want, wherever they come from. If you own the entire building, they can even use the common areas.
But they'll be arrested for trespassing if they ever set foot out the front door, because the sidewalk *is* public property, collectively owned by the American people who do have and have exercised the right to decide who is or is not allowed there.
Also, from a libertarian perspective, if I ever see people bringing in foreign guest workers who will have no legal way to leave their patron's property, I'm going to be real suspicious that you're importing slave labor. Because it's realistically either that, or just a silly thought experiment of no practical relevance.
That sidewalk is funded by taxes extracted from both citizens and non-citizens. Even if it wasn't, the government has a moral right to use force against someone only when it fairly weighs that person's interests against everyone else it holds power over, and I do mean everyone. Treating the infrastructure it builds as the collective private property of citizens plainly wouldn't be a fair compromise between the interests of citizens and non-citizen residents.
Central to my argument is this idea that a government shouldn't exist solely for the benefit of citizens, but should instead fairly represent the interests of everyone it enforces its laws against and extracts taxes from. That's not a popular idea, but it makes a lot more moral sense to me than the standard notion of government as a tool of citizens. For a government to hold power over someone without representing their interests is simply unjust in all cases.
In the case of immigration, I think the implications of this principle are pretty commonsensical- for someone who's just hopped the border, a fair balance between their interests and those of citizens is a quick, humane deportation; a proportional punishment for a minor crime. For those who have lived here for decades, however, the punishment of deportation- taking away their home, their livelihood and community and so on- vastly outweighs the crime of dodging some old bureaucratic nonsense, so the fair balance is amnesty.
And yes, that creates a moral hazard, but so do statutes of limitation. Often in law, a bit of moral hazard has to be accepted to keep a government in line.
> But no, of course that's not the reason Trump is calling for mass deportations. The human mind longs for an outgroup...
Why is it so hard for you to believe that people just want to punish rulebreakers and reward people who follow the rules?
There's millions of people all around the world who would love an opportunity to move to the US, but are patiently doing things the right way. It seems that you want to say a massive Fuck You to all the law-abiding people of the world, to reward those who have only contempt for the laws of the society that they are supposedly joining.
"Why is it so hard for you to believe that people just want to punish rulebreakers and reward people who follow the rules?"
That would call for punishing Donald Trump and rewarding Kamala Harris (or Chase Oliver or Jill Stein). You'll have an opportunity to show us where you stand on that in a couple of weeks.
> while it's true that Trump's hard-line position on immigration law reflects a widely held dislike of immigrants ...
I'd say it's the opposite. People tend to admire immigrants, they've been taught to and to some extent it is natural. Worshipping them is a bit much and doesn't really stand up to scrutiny but it's America so we always go to extremes, or are led there.
So when opinion about immigration changes, you know it means something. It was like a huge ship making turn. It wasn't easy for people to do. They know they're supposed to like immigrants better than natives, and moreover they know some immigrants they like, since that is Being Normal.
If you ever read the NYT Reader's Favored Comments on an article touching on immigration, you see this quite clearly. These people are almost in pain, saying what they have to say - which invariably departs from the line taken in the NYT's Favored Comments. Which is they want less immigration, they want fewer people. They are in pain because they probably do love immigrants, sometimes they announce "I am an immigrant!" - and because it is so very hard to say anything against immigrants given that immigration has been the national religion for several decades, when Revolutionary War and the Founding abruptly went out of fashion.
>1) I have yet to see Kamala 'think' for five plus minutes about anything out loud.
I'm really not sure what you mean by this - like, she clearly does have policy positions she's articulated on lots of topics. Is it just a stylistic thing - she sounds like she's got prepared answers instead of coming up with an answer on the fly? That seems like a good thing.
(Also, have you seen Trump think about a topic for zero or more minutes? Dude spent half a campaign rally just listening to music!)
>letting in millions of people into the country seems like it is bothering people/fraying the social contract.
I feel like rounding up and deporting 20 million people would also cause some fraying in the social contract, so to speak. Especially since that number is more illegal immigrants than actually exist in the country.
("But surely he wouldn't *actually* try to do that, right?" Well why do you care so much about politicians telling you what their stances are, if you're just going to discard that information and read something else into it?)
You might consider not voting for him because he’s really, really old and really, really old people unsurprisingly suck at leading countries (see current president). That video of Trump serving fries at McDonald’s the other day. He wouldn’t last half a shift on his feet in the chaos of the kitchen or behind the counter.
On 2), immune systems were already weak enough that we were close to a much worse outcome. For example, if Pence had fewer principles and had not certified the vote, then we would've faced at minimum a constitutional crisis, and potentially far worse.
Immune systems are far worse now than they were back in 2020. Most Republican members of Congress who strongly opposed Trump on the election being stolen have either left or lost a primary to a more sycophantic Trump supporter. Many election boards and state legislatures are now full of people who've openly professed that the 2020 election was stolen and seem likely to do Trump's bidding if needed. One of the chairs of the Republican National Committee is Trump's daughter-in-law. In the Republican party, it's become less and less acceptable over time to question Trump, and there's a good chance they just go along with whatever Trump wants if he gets in power, especially if Republicans win by a sufficient amount in Congress such that they can handle a few defections. If Trump wins, it's likely that Republicans will hold control of the executive branch, both houses of Congress (https://polymarket.com/event/balance-of-power-2024-election?tid=1729518968614), and the Supreme Court.
In addition, Trump was surrounded with many serious and competent advisors in his first term, who in many cases stopped him from doing more egregious acts. Even then, he still illegally withheld funding to Ukraine to try to get them to investigate his political opponent. In his new term, Trump is likely to prioritize loyalty in his advisors above all else in his new term, who won't constrain him to the same degree. Note this last paragraph is basically the opinion of Trump's previous secretary of defense, Mark Esper, who had the opportunity to see what Trump is like up close: https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/4933807-donald-trump-mark-esper-military-us-citizens/
History is full of authoritarian leaders who started out restrained due to initial constraints, but ended up consolidating power and subsequently committed far more egregious acts once their authority was unchecked. I hope Trump does not become another example of this pattern.
As for Harris, I expect her to mainly do bog-standard Democratic things. She'll also be fairly constrained. Republicans will likely have control of at least one house of Congress, even conditional on her winning: https://polymarket.com/event/balance-of-power-2024-election?tid=1729518968614 , and conservatives will control the Supreme Court. Harris also does not have nearly the same power over the Democratic party as Trump has over the Republican one.
Regarding the border and letting millions of people in: It is true that democrats care about this less than Republicans, but I'd disagree with Trump in particular. It is no secret that Trump killed a bipartisan border protection bill earlier this year, indeed many Republican lawmakers in Congress have admitted exactly that. This bill was bipartisan, sponsored by Kyrsten Sinema and Ohio senator James Lankford and had support from people like Mitch McConnell (search AP's "GOP senator faces backlash alone"). Trump killed it, not because of any conviction about what was written on it, but because he thought it look bad for him come election day.
This is very important, because this actually solved the border problem, unlike Trump's suggestions. No matter how big the border wall is, no matter how many border agents there are at the border (which the border bill would increase btw), the problem doesn't get solved if the asylum system doesn't get fixed. The bill went towards fixing it, capping the amount of asylum requests that could be done per week. Sure, not the biggest crackdown, but definitely
better than inaction.
The Republican party's number one problem today is that they have totally debased themselves to serve Donald Trump. There is no policy that the party won't adopt if Trump likes it, no issue they won't quash if Trump dislikes it. This is *extremely* dangerous, because Trump is a narcissist, who is also extremely influenciable. For all talk about Biden being controlled by the deep state, this seems almost certainly worse (also bc I am not a fan of monarchies and the Peter Thiel – JD Vance – Curtis Yarvin connection scares me).
> It is no secret that Trump killed a bipartisan border protection bill earlier this year, indeed many Republican lawmakers in Congress have admitted exactly that
This doesn't make any sense. If the Republicans refused to vote for it then in what sense was it "bipartisan"?
If I recall correctly then this bill would have let in 10,000 illegals per day, is that right?
I think it's worth doing some independent research on this. You could of course read the actual bill (https://www.appropriations.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/emergency_national_security_supplemental_bill_text.pdf) but it's 400 pages so I'd understand if you have other things to do. Like anything else that has 400 pages, there's a lot of stuff in the bill, including a lot of really harmless stuff.
Where possible, I'm going to use Fox News as a source because it's the most biased _against_ the bill.
The bill was written by three senators, one D, one R, and one I. Thus, 'bipartisan bill'. In the process of writing the bill, one assumes that each side gives a little and takes a little to reach some kind of compromise. Here is the main R author defending the bill on Fox (https://www.foxnews.com/politics/trump-blasts-horrendous-senate-border-deal-great-gift-democrats). Both Schumer and McConnell were in favor of the bill (re McConnell, see: https://www.foxnews.com/politics/mitch-mcconnell-scoffs-gop-critics-border-deal-collapses-they-had-their-shot).
After the bill was released, Trump expressed his disdain on Truth Social and other places (https://www.foxnews.com/politics/trump-blasts-horrendous-senate-border-deal-great-gift-democrats); "This Bill is a great gift to the Democrats, and a Death Wish for The Republican Party. It takes the HORRIBLE JOB the Democrats have done on Immigration and the Border, absolves them, and puts it all squarely on the shoulders of Republicans. Don’t be STUPID!!!"
One could debate causality, but it should be noted that soon after that post everyone in the House gets up in arms, and equally soon after R senators start talking about how the bill can't be passed. McConnell himself never changes his mind -- he thought it was a good bill.
To answer your second question, the bill states the following (pg 212):
1 ‘‘(B) MANDATORY ACTIVATION.—The Sec2 retary shall activate the border emergency au3 thority if—
4 ‘‘(i) during a period of 7 consecutive
5 calendar days, there is an average of 5,000
6 or more aliens who are encountered each
7 day; or
8 ‘‘(ii) on any 1 calendar day, a combined total of 8,500 or more aliens are encountered.
I'm simplifying a bit, but roughly the right way to read this is:
- right now, the border is open for processing immigrants (legal and asylum seekers) regardless of how many people come through it
- this bill would make it so that, if it goes above 5k 7day average, the border is closed immediately
If 5k also seems way too high to you (50% of your original guess), you should be happy to know that the current 3mo daily average is roughly 1.7k (20% of your original guess). That is _without_ having to do anything special to close the border. However, last December (the highest ever recorded) the daily average was approx 8k -- this bill would have prevented those kinds of numbers from occurring.
Above is my attempt at mostly being unopinionated. Here's my opinion.
We often complain that there's no way to get laws passed in Congress because no one knows how to compromise anymore. This bill is a fantastic example of why this occurs. Trump and the Freedom Caucus can easily rile up their base by loudly complaining about how the bill isn't strong enough. "5000 is too much! It has to be 0!" But demanding 0 is not negotiation, it's asking your opponents to lay down in front of a steamroller. Passing legislation requires either cooperating with people you disagree with, or being _so dominant_ that you sweep house/senate/presidency/courts. In an environment where you are not that dominant, refusing to compromise means nothing gets done. So, like, yes, the border is still open. I blame the Freedom Caucus for this.
The border itself is a hairy issue, even though it would be really convenient to make it black/white. It's true that the Biden years have seen really high border crossings, though Pew seems to suggest that the _Obama_ years had the fewest crossings (https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2024/10/01/migrant-encounters-at-u-s-mexico-border-have-fallen-sharply-in-2024/). Migrant patterns seem to be much more related to the strength of the US labor market than anything else like specific policies (https://www.cato.org/blog/us-labor-market-explains-most-increase-illegal-immigration -- anecdotally, remember how many folks were complaining that there was a massive labor shortage?). And when faced with real people, most balk at the idea of literally putting children in cages. And even if they wanted to do that, there's literally not enough space in detention centers. The reality is that the executive branch can't unilaterally do everything, the courts and legislation constrains them. This is part of why I really dislike Trump's rhetoric here -- you _have_ to compromise.
You neglected to include this part:
"Those powers can be used for up to 270 days in the first year of implementation, a number that gradually decreases before the authority sunsets altogether in three years."
So the bill only included the authority for emergency shut down less than 2 full years in a 3 year window, after which the authority is gone completely. That seems like a really terrible compromise for people who want a secure border for longer than ~1.8 years. Not to mention the threshold of 4,000 a day long term is still ~1.5 million illegals per year. The entire Trump presidential term was around 2 million, spread over 4 years. I think it's entirely fair to describe this as a bad bill for border security.
Four things:
1) as mentioned in post, average border crossings are somewhere around 1.7k / day right now, and in the worst that the US has ever had it was around 8k per day. They will _never_ hit that 270 day limit for the period that this is in force, ditto even as the bill sunsets. And the reason it has a 3 year limit is because the full text of the emergency force also allows the immediate expulsion of all migrants that entered the country in the previous 14 days within a 100 mile radius of the border. It's an _emergency_ trigger. It almost never gets hit. Focusing on the '1.5 million!!!' number -- as if, somehow, that is now the goal of the border patrol -- is (purposely?) obfuscating, and the fact that the distinction is hard to grasp for the average person is imo exactly what Trump's team is relying on to rile his base. (An analogy: your credit limit is X, that does not mean you aim to spend X every month)
2) as mentioned in post, this is one tiny provision in a 400 page bill. The bill also increases border detention capacity, increases pay and number of border officials, and increases the bar for an asylum to be granted. Of note: the bill adds a new process called "a protection determination interview" that allows officials to summarily deny incoming asylum requests (page 118), and which (roughly) defaults to expulsion after 90 days (page 155). I focused on the specific subsection of the bill because that was where the question was, but yes you can nitpick that I forgot to mention some _other_ part of the bill if you like.
3) as mentioned in post, Obama's presidential term had fewer border crossings than Trumps. Given your response, I assume you are ok if we just go back to those.
4) Since you support not passing this bill, I also assume the current state of the border is preferable to you than the hypothetical post-bill state. The thing about negotiating is that of course you can always walk away from the table, but then you're left with whatever the status quo is. This is odd, though, since obviously you also seem very concerned that so many migrants are entering the country.
As an aside to all the above, this conversation has all been focused on why this bill ought to appease the right. But it's a compromise bill, the lefty dems aren't happy with it either. Sanders and Warren both voted it down for being too harsh. I'd love to hear from you why the dems shouldn't open the border even more.
1) I don't know how to square your numbers with the official CBP stats for fiscal year 2024, which show 2,901,142 total encounters at the border, or an average of 7,948 per day.
https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/stats/nationwide-encounters
2) I definitely did not read all 400 pages of the bill. The quoted section in my last post was from one of the sources you linked, and directly relevant to the emergency authority.
3) Obama also put "kids in cages" as you say and deported many millions of people. He makes Trump look like a bit of a border piker, really. Sad.
4) There's a lot of political capital that goes into passing a bill. It isn't as simple as a binary preference between bill or not bill. If Congress passes a bad bill all that capital is gone and makes it much less likely to pass a good bill.
Believe it or not, I don't have a problem with immigrants and am very frustrated that the two options with immigration seem to be 'open borders' or 'immigrants are a poison and we don't want any'. Our legal immigration system is a mess that seems deliberately designed to be a pain in the ass to anyone legitimately trying to live here. On the other hand, we reward everyone who flagrantly violates our immigration laws with free rides and vouchers. Teaching everyone who comes here that ignoring the law is the way to get ahead is maybe not the ideal strategy. I don't think it's too much to ask that we make sure the prospective immigrants are not criminals/terrorists/foreign agents either.
We don't need any special legislative action to do this. Well, we definitely need legislative action to make the legal immigration avenues not garbage. But all of the laws to remove illegals or prevent them from entering the country already exist. Our current government just chooses not to enforce them.
It’s another one of the talking points lefties repeat ad nauseum that doesn’t actually make any sense.
Biden reversed all of Trump’s executive actions on the border on day 1. That, plus the dominance of the drug cartels in Latin America, is why there’s a border crisis in the first place.
Biden has the executive power to a) reverse his mistakes and b) take action to uphold laws that already exist, he doesn’t need Congress, but the left considered it more politically expedient to push a crappy bill and blame Trump when it predictably failed.
>Sure, not the biggest crackdown, but definitely better than inaction.
I wouldn't use "definitely" at all when you're this close to an election. You could compare this to the situation with the Supreme Court appointment when Scalia died: You can take the "compromise" appointment of Garland, or stall and, if you win, get an actually conservative justice.
You may argue that this is unfair, cynical or evil, but it's not clearly an ineffective strategy.
That border bill offered nothing to those who wished to see the border something closer to "closed" but offered much to those who wished to see continuing increased rates of immigration and a larger Camp of the Saints-style apparatus made permanent there. I realize to some that was a "fix" and the only "fix" that the left would want, but I don't think it's quite accurate to say that Trump was the only PR problem for that bill. I didn't follow the voting, so that's not to say that Congress might not have passed it in a Trump-free vacuum, I don't know - but as Congress along with LBJ and Reagan created all our problems in this regard, its passage of a bill doesn't particularly signify.
Re Ukraine and Russia
Appeasement is a bad policy. It was bad when Chamberlain did it, it's bad now. I think the burden of proof is very high to explain why actually it would work this time. (Note that Russia already played this game with Georgia within living memory)
But also, just to bite on the actual policy decisions here, Pax Americana is a fantastic thing for American citizens. It lets us dictate trade (including why we have access to cheap chips in the first place!). It lets our citizens go where they want, when they want. It prevents war or terror on domestic soil. It leads to the best and brightest coming to the country. In short: it makes Americans richer, safer, better off. Appeasing Russia breaks Pax Americana. This is bad for you, specifically, as an American citizen.
One framing that may help: you can think of much of Europe as a vassal state to the US. An attack on the vassal state is a straightforward attack on American political interests. For example, if Ukraine falls we lose a critical allied naval port on Russian borders, we can no longer utilize or place forward deployed military bases, we lose cheap exports from the region (including a legion of fantastic programmers). This is again, bad for you specifically as an American citizen.
Implicit in your post is the assumption that ending conflict as quickly as possible is always the best result. I think this is really naive; taken to it's logical conclusion, America rolls over for any fight, anywhere. Conflict is a means to an end. Resolving conflict needs to be thought in the same light. And right now, it doesn't benefit America to resolve the conflict in the short term at all. We get a massive injection into our military complex, we get to wear down a global adversary without risking American lives, and we get all the soft power benefits of upholding our position as global hegemon.
I'd love to understand why anyone thinks rolling over in Ukraine is good. Right now, I feel strongly that people who think we should give up in Ukraine are very misinformed.
Appeasement can't always be a bad strategy. We can't always be fighting the good fight. Sometimes we give up, and it works out okay.
We fought Germany over Poland, but we didn't fight the Soviet Union over Poland. We fought North Korea over South Korea and we won, but then we fought North Vietnam over South Vietnam and we eventually gave up. We fought Iraq over Kuwait but we didn't fight Indonesia over West Papua. We didn't fight Red China over Tibet.
I would far rather live in Georgia than Ukraine, and would be far more likely to survive
better lose a couple border provinces where the locals want out than to lose everything
then again I care much, much more about the human lives on both sides being ended prematurely than I do about American power
Which border provinces are you talking about? Because the residents of Donetsk, Kherson, Luhansk and Zaporizhzhia have made it quite clear that most of them want to remain a part of Ukraine. In part because they know how little value the lives you claim to care so much about, would be under Russian rule.
Twenty years ago, you might have found majority support for joining Russia in some of those provinces. That was then, this is now, and 2014 changed everything.
This sounds exactly like the Bush 2 Republican arguments for going into Iraq and Afghanistan (among lots of other places). Or even the military coups in South America for most of the 20th century.
I can understand why Cheney moved to support Kamala, based on this reasoning, but I'm not sure how this squares at all with typical Democrats from my entire lifetime. Democrats never considered Bush 2 to be the good guy!
The difference is that supporting Ukraine is playing defense against an aggressor and Iraq was starting an unnecessary war that the USA had to fight after starting.
Then we're not really talking about Pax Americana, but instead some sort of defensive status quo. Iraq was definitely Pax Americana, even if it was also aggressive.
The Iraq War wasn’t necessary for peace because Saddam wasn’t up to much in 2003.
Saddam thumbed his nose at US hegemony as much as he could, and his retention of leadership after the first Iraq War was a message that dictators could survive a run in with the US military. The second war also helped solidify US+allies control over Middle East oil. That's very much in Pax Americana interest.
To be clear, I'm purposely framing the argument in a way that OP might find valid, since "preventing a genocidal dictator from destroying a country" clearly isn't sufficient
Does it? Appeasement is towards significant powers, who were those guys refusing to appease by going into those two wars? It's not like Iraq or Afghanistan were all that powerful, or even part of important anti-Western alliances.
Appeasement of Saddam, appeasement of Al Qaeda, appeasement of terrorism in general. For South America, appeasement towards those who nationalize property (including property belonging to US companies).
We fought the Bay of Pigs and dealt with the Cuban Missile Crisis because Castro nationalized US interests.
I'm talking more Pax Americana than appeasement, but appeasement works too.
I think most of https://slatestarcodex.com/2016/09/28/ssc-endorses-clinton-johnson-or-stein/ is still valid.
Probably I won't convince you to care about climate change, free trade, the immigration problem being exaggerated, stopping authoritarian dictators, and not having an incoherent clown for president, who cares about nothing but himself. But then, I live in a country where 65% would vote Harris and 14% Trump.
Regarding climate change specifically, I'm not entirely sure Trump would be worse - it's notable that Texas builds a lot more green energy than California, since regulation is generally the biggest obstacle to it, and while Harris has made some deregulatory noises she still has a culture of everything bagel obstructive California liberalism.
Besides, China emits vastly more CO2 than the US. If we want to tackle global warming we're going to have to deindustrialise China, and Trump is more likely to do this than Harris.
China is currently building more green energy and transit infrastructure than the rest of the world combined. Even under the most extreme proposed environmentalist policies the US would be doing far less than them.
You don't have to deindustrialise China to make it emit less CO2. They are building lots and lots of solar right now, while the US plan to drill more oil and coal.
China is building a fair bit of solar, but they are *also* building a new coal-fired power plant every four *days*.
I linked to the data when we were talking about this last week; you can find it yourself this time if you care. US carbon emissions have been steadily *decreasing* for twenty years, and are expected to continue to do so. China's carbon emissions, already vastly greater than those of the United States, are growing geometrically.
But they do make some solar panels, and they put out lots of press releases showing all the shiny new solar panels while carefully hiding all the coal plants and filming on one of the few smog-free days, and gullible Westerners will eat it up and hype the wonderful Green Miracle that is China.
Dang it, who would have thought you can't trust an authoritarian regime?!
I couldn't find this discussion in last week's open thread, but here are some nice graphs: https://www.sustainabilitybynumbers.com/p/china-coal-plants
Green Miracle, bah, just look at the polluted rivers and that massive "transfer water to Beijing" project.
But surely all this is no reason for other countries to keep burning coal. The UK has just shut down their last coal plant.
Regarding climate change, I think the emphasis is in the wrong places. I don't believe there can be reasonable doubt that global temperatures are increasing, nor that human activity is responsible for it.
But I also think fossil fuels isn't the main reason. It was well known that places like the Amazon jungles (not warehouses) served a great air-cleaning function, and we're cutting such places down to make room for farms and such at a great rate. We're putting concrete everywhere, causing rain to go to fewer places, and thus back to the oceans faster. We're cultivating lots more farm animals, which emit greenhouse gases. All of which I have seen discussed concerning global warming, but little focus is put on such things.
If we attack the problem from the wrong direction, we won't solve it. Things like electric cars aren't going to put a dent in global warming, nor will buying carbon offsets.
IEA has EV's reducing 2035 oil demand by 20%. Seems like a dent. Some of those other things are topics of major concern. Republican talking point is Dems will take away your hamburgers. There’s story after story about looking for tech to reduce carbon print of concrete. The OEA figure is 2035 but we don't stop with EV's there. And better EV tech us stuffed in the pipeline. They are getting irresistible. But beyond climate change we are threatening our planet in a myriad of ways.
"Oil demand" is doing a lot of the heavy lifting in that stat. Conventional cars use gasoline or diesel specifically because they're fairly cheap, energy dense, liquid at room temperature (and thus convenient to pump between gas stations, on-vehicle tanks, and the engine without requiring pressurization or cryogenic temperatures), and easy to induce to burn rapidly inside an engine cylinder. For industrial electrical production, there are fewer constraints so coal and natural gas are mostly used instead. Especially the latter in recent decades. So reducing oil as a metric for EV impact has a much smaller denominator as well as a bigger numerator than reducing CO2 emissions.
The anti-warming case for EVs is that 1) natural gas for electricity produces less CO2 per vehicle mile driven than gasoline or diesel in an internal combustion engine, because of efficiency benefits and also because methane has a much higher hydrogen to carbon ratio than gasoline or diesel, and 2) parallel efforts to replace natural gas with renewables (or nuclear power, which is traditionally unpopular with environmentalists but seems to be trending more favorable lately) would reduce carbon emissions still further.
I haven't looked recently, but I understand the carbon footprint of an EV car is similar to that of a ICE over it's lifetime, and much worse if the power used to run the EV is itself carbon-derived.
The carbon footprint to build EV cars, windmills, etc., are all very high. Mining and manufacturing required for them is most of their carbon footprint (unless, again, using coal or gas power, in which case it's much worse).
Yeah. I can't speak to the exact numbers, but there's always the seen/unseen problem. We look at them on the road and don't see exhaust...but making the darn things is a much more high-intensity process than an ICE car. And that goes unseen (by everyday folks). The batteries themselves require processing of some really really nasty things--lithium binds really tight to, well, anything it can get ahold of. Which is exactly why it's so good for batteries--that high electrochemical potential. And why it's so flammable.
Where's the balance? I'm not sure. I too remember it being a lot worse than it seemed, but haven't looked in a while.
You've identified a factor that's not highly enough talked about, but this doesn't mean that the CO2 level is less important. This is, indeed, a problem that needs to be addressed from multiple directions, but ignoring the largest contributor is not a solution.
The greenhouse gas with the greatest impact is water vapor.
https://yaleclimateconnections.org/2008/02/common-climate-misconceptions-the-water-vapor-feedback-2/
"Water vapor and clouds account for 66 to 85 percent of the greenhouse effect, compared to a range of 9 to 26 percent for CO2."
True, but the marginal impact is higher for CO2. Different gasses absorb different frequencies, and there's already enough water vapor in the atmosphere to absorb pretty much all the energy it's going to absorb. The frequencies of infrared that CO2 absorbs are much less saturated, so a bit more or less CO2 has a bigger impact than a bit more or less water vapor.
Yeah, but roofing the oceans would have lots of bad side effects.
No one said anything about DOING anything about water in the atmosphere.
Suppose we were able, overnight, to completely eliminate the amount of CO2 in the air. In addition to all plants soon dying due to lack of CO2, the greenhouse effect would still be upwards of 66 to 85 percent.
I think the solution to controlling the climate lies with plants, or possibly artificial photosynthesis. What about some kind of solar cell that takes in light and air, and uses the light to make proteins with nitrogen, oxygen, and carbon?
I like this comment because where I live the traditional water cycle seems totally out of whack, and the same sort of people who roll their eyes at climate science, constantly recur to the former as a subject of conversation: rivers, springs, wells, and yes, even such things as humidity and total hours of heat during the day - all used to be "different".
God bless you. Seeing lots of comments like this gives me hope
1) She was on the Call Her Daddy podcast and spent over five minutes talking about sexual assault with the host, in the context of the issue and history and how to solve it, etc.
4) Every single Russian peace offering involves the serious weakening of Ukraine's military. Trump makes excuses for Putin and blames Zelensky and Biden for the war. The war ending is not good unless Russia actually loses - a negotiated peace where it gets a huge chunk of Ukrainian territory while giving up nothing in return is not that, because Putin will just attack again when he feels like he can get away with it. The only IMAGINABLE circumstance under which Ukraine should give up any territory is if, in exchange, it gets to join NATO, and Trump very clearly does not support that.
Ending a war is its own reward. The people being press-ganged into the military don't die.
Perhaps another war happens later. Perhaps it doesn't; the 2008 peace in Georgia has held. Not every war ends in the destruction of one power or the other, and its hard to see how continuing the war would somehow be *less* destructive for the Ukrainian military (or its people) than ending it.
Also, negotiating posturing often differs from actual peace terms.
What about the people in Russian-controlled territory getting killed and dumped in mass graves? What happens to them?
That would still result in significantly less casualties than the alternative.
I agree it's unlikely (not impossible!) that Trump does something worse than January 6, but I kind of depart from consequentialism here; it seems like this sort of thing ought to be punished regardless; the next person who considers something similar ought to know it will make them a pariah. If we can't manage pariah, it should at least lose them a few percentage points of the vote.
I think China taking Taiwan without TSMC getting blown up is very unlikely. Partly this is because the Taiwanese know lots of people want this and can commit to blow it up if other people don't intervene, as an incentive. Partly it's because TSMC is nothing without its people and a lot of them will want to immigrate. Partly it's because, just as the West is using TSMC to get ahead of China, you can imagine China using TSMC to get ahead of the West, and the West might oops sorry blow it up during the chaos of the Chinese coup process.
I'd like to punish Jan 6 to send a signal, too. The trouble is that I'd also like to punish May 31. (The day Trump was convicted in what looks to me like a show trial.)
> I agree it's unlikely (not impossible!) that Trump does something worse than January 6
Why that? If someone does something really bad once, than gets rewarded with power again 4 years later, that sounds like a clear signal that they can go much farther.
Fwiw I don't think you need to depart too far from consequentialism!
It's not hard to imagine a world where the VP refused to certify the election in 2020. In that setting, you're looking at _at least_ incredible amounts of political turmoil, _at worst_ civil war. Expected value is very very negative.
Inb4 "j6 itself wasnt that bad!" Look, we're all bayesians, we shouldn't be looking at the sample we drew and say "well that's the worst that can happen!" We should be looking at the full distribution. In how many universes does J6 lead to something much worse than what we got? 50%? 20%? How low does it have to be?
Imo, I think we got very lucky that Pence had principles. If Pence was a different person, or if he left the Capitol due to the mob threatening to lynch him and a Trump stooge took over Pence's role, or if he actually was seriously injured and a Trump stooge took over Pence's role, we end up with a pretty tumultuous and scary outcome. To put numbers on it, I think a J6 leads to really bad outcomes more than 50% of the time.
That analysis alone puts me strongly in the Kamala camp.
To anyone not on the loop: Trump also wanted to go the Capitol that day, and Secret Service didn't let him. To me it seem extremely likely that, if Pence had been a different person, the chance of a coup happening would have increased dramatically. The decision to elect the president would go from the *lawfully slated* electors to the House of Representatives as per the 12th amendment, where Republicans had a majority of state delegations. If Trump had been at the Capitol while the votes were taking place, while there was a riot happening, I don't think the House lawmakers would have stood up to him. The shackles barely held the first, don't see how people can be so confident they would now that he will be surrounding himself with his lackeys.
Btw to anyone reading this, this may sound like a baseless conspiracy theory but it's really not. Trump's federal indictment for election obstruction details all of this, and you can go read it online right now. John Eastman, who wrote the Eastman memo detailing this plan, was working closely with Donald Trump as well. None of this is secret, all of it is easily accessible public information.
Crazy dictators that allow their own security details to stop a coup? I don't follow the logic.
He was a wanna-be dictator at that point, not a full-on dictator. That's like saying Hitler was never really that powerful because he was arrested during the Weimar Republic.
Or, alternatively, you misunderstand your opponent and are projecting what you think he would do on a hypothetical future.
Another reading of the situation says that he is willing to test what he's allowed to do but then follows what he's told to do, even by people who should be reporting to him.
> a lot of them will want to immigrate
I think you mean emigrate in this case?
I don't see why TSMC has such a large percentage of the chips manufacturing market. Surely it could be replaced with five years and perhaps $500 billion to build the facilities? ASML builds the devices to make the most advanced chips, and companies such as Intel and Global Foundries have the know-how to operate FABs.
If China takes over Taiwan and holds TSMC hostage, I think the Western world would adapt.
Surely it could be replaced with five years and perhaps $500 billion to build the facilities?
No. It can’t.
I work in semis. It takes 5 years to get a new process ready. On existing equipment, with existing deep expertise in place.
New fab of this scale, from scratch - 20 years to impossible. No amount of money can speed it up beyond a certain point.
From Google AI summary, which references Intel web pages:
Building a fab, or semiconductor factory, can take between three and four years, and cost over $10 billion:
Construction time: On average, it takes 18–24 months to build a new fab.
Cost: A fab can cost over $10 billion to build.
Construction workers: It can take 7,000 construction workers to build a fab.
The complexity of the fab and any issues that arise during construction can affect the length of the project.
Yes, building a building can take three years.
This is why I laugh when they tell me that AI is going to take my job.
What was that summary based on? I don't believe it's accurate. There is a lot of expertise in manufacturing that isn't easily transferable even between plants owned by the same country in peaceful conditions. Construction of the fab might well be possible as specified, but getting it actually working properly is a very different matter.
https://www.intel.com/content/dam/www/central-libraries/us/en/documents/what-does-it-take-to-build-a-fab.pdf
"takes about three years, $10 billion and 6,000 construction workers to complete."
Not a USian, but from my memories of 4 years of Trump I can't think that anything good could come out of having that guy back in the post of "leader of the free world". It was pretty painful, the whole of it.
It was Obama and Biden that lost Ukraine to Russia, while Trump was successfully strangling Iran and signing the Abraham Accords. Trump's unpredictability on foreign affairs is an asset:
https://www.semafor.com/article/10/20/2024/xi-jinping-knows-im-crazy-trump-says-wont-invade-taiwan-if-elected
I got fed up with someone saying things like that, and investigated. It turns out that Putin's Russia had been initiating a conflict in the region about every 8 years or so, and Trump was just lucky in that his 4 years didn't coincide with the cumulation of a cycle.
Putin became president in 2000.
2008 invasion of Georgia
2014 invasion of Ukraine (Crimean pensinsula)
2022 invasion of Ukraine
Okay, so Putin was 'only' prime minister 2008-2012, but I think it's generally recognised he retained a good hold on power and it's pretty clear he had a big part in that arranging and overseeing that conflict.
I wonder why Germany didn't start WW3 in 1964, WW4 in 1989, and WW5 in 2014.
...Are you saying that Obama should have killed Putin?
lol, and maybe baby Hitler too if he can manage to get a time machine. But really, I'm just arguing against this sort of periodic cicada model of geopolitics.
One of Trump's impeachments was because he was illegally withholding aid to Ukraine. What did Biden do to signal to Putin that an invasion would be OK that was even close to as bad as that?
Generally having a weak, risk-averse, and predictable posture wrt foreign policy. Stuff like the embarassing withdrawal from Afghanistan (though I supported that move in principle, if not in its execution) and unfreezing Iranian assets does not signal strength or resolve.
I mean, as people get older and have memory problems, they might misplace their keys--but Biden literally misplaced his Secretary of Defense for days. If Trump had done that, it would have been major news for months, while the complacent-class media memory holes every misstep of the current administration (so I posit that people's recollection of whether or not Trump vs Biden governed more competently is largely a function of how that question is framed by a highly biased media).
>as people get older and have memory problems, they might misplace their keys--but Biden literally misplaced his Secretary of Defense for days.
Honestly, it is very hard to take you seriously if you employ this sort of framing. You are referring to this: https://apnews.com/article/austin-pentagon-cancer-secret-hospital-313255a7126a0482a67ec18b7474a8c1
If you truly think that that is evidence that "Biden is senile," then I suggest that your biases might be inordinately affecting your analysis.
This may be a language problem. I definitely think Biden is senile, but then I also think that about myself. I know I experience memory problems. Transferring data from short-term memory to long term memory has become ... problematic. And retrieval doesn't work as well as it did. This, however, doesn't mean that what I retrieve is less accurate. (My programs still work as well...it just takes a lot longer to write them.)
OTOH, I don't consider "senile" to be a state, but rather a gradient. And it's not the same as dementia (which itself has lots of complex variations...most of which I don't know, but my father had Alzheimer's).
Huh? Biden being in some stage of dementia or profound cognitive decline is no longer a fringe conspiracy theory. We now know some details on how his staff helped conceal his condition and how his incoherence was an open secret among the donor class.
Trump was the one who started the withdrawal from Afghanistan. He said "Russia can do whatever the hell it wants" with NATO allies. I don't understand how you can possibly think this guy projects "strength and resolve."
Come on man, are you unaware of the context of "Russia can do whatever the hell it wants" or are you trying to be deceptive?
The context, in case you're unaware, was Trump telling European allies that they would need to live up to their NATO treaty obligations (spending 2% of GDP on defence) *or else* he'd abandon them to Russia. This is entirely fair, you can't have allies who aren't pulling their weight. I don't know why the US has let this shit slip for so long, investing more heavily in the defence of Europe than the Europeans themselves.
The value of Trump in that moment was this: Americans unless they had a relative serving - perhaps a grandchild conceived out of wedlock OMG, you know how expendable those rural lives are, see above - had largely forgotten we were involved in a permanent war, which suited the defense establishment just fine. I don't remember which year (2017?) but the Washington Post had finally done some serious and indeed stellar journalism, and reported the "secret" views of many military personnel that the Long War had been a failure at every turn. Thinking people could not but be appalled at the waste of $ and lives on people who didn't deserve the effort to help/change them, any more than they deserved the resultant damage.
Through whatever mysterious, non-reading process he gets his "thoughts" or notions, Trump decided it was time to pull the plug. The military establishment openly defied him and a high-ranking official said as much on TV: we will not follow orders on this. I don't remember people's names, ever, so feel free to dispute this - but it is my honest recollection of Trump and Afghanistan.
This was quite breathtaking a thing to learn, and for some people, the brief pulling back of the curtain instantly made the Trump presidency worthwhile - but at the time it may have been overshadowed, on e.g. CNN, by Miley Cyrus news, which for some reason that network was obsessed with. (I didn't have TV but was married to someone who insisted on trying to get "news" off the CNN website, for reasons known to himself; the most charitable explanation I can give is perhaps a perverse desire to know what was "passing" for news, and Miley Cyrus was a running theme at that time.)
ETA: the people referenced above, were not sorry Biden went ahead with Trump's plan. One wonders, indeed, whether the "bungled" performance of it might not have been entirely unrelated to the resistance that Trump encountered. Which resistance didn't interest the Pentagon Papers-loving media all that much, because it fed into the idea that Trump was not a legitimate president, any more than the people who voted for him were legitimate people with legitimate interests.
You simply don't understand how Trump talks or thinks, as many don't. You may think that "Russia can do whatever the hell it wants" is a policy statement, but it's more like a policy for that moment in time. If Russia does something against US interests, you can bet Russia would get unpleasant consequences.
Trump values unpredictability in a...predictable way.
Trump's withdrawal from Afghanistan was conditional, and I expected the Taliban to violate the terms, invalidating the withdrawal. Biden decided to unconditionally withdraw based, AFAICT, on looking politically good for getting our troops out of the country, rather than to accomplish a political objective.
This is an excellent recipe for prolonging every war forever. As long as peace can't be "tolerated" while *very one-sided description of why the other side is horrible* remains the case...no peace is ever happening, anywhere.
Specifically people being "stateless". Unless you would think it better, not worse, if Israel fully annexed the territories, it's not stateless you object to, it's disenfranchised. So...the Iraq War was justified, the Afghanistan war (indefinitely of course) was justified, bombing Iran is justified, world war III against the Soviets was justified, invading many African countries, most Middle Eastern countries, a few Latin American countries, all justified. Actually, not "justified" but "obligatory", in all cases. Also, if the war goes on for decades without end, continuing it is *still* morally obligatory. Since no peace can be tolerated while people remain oppressed.
I suspect you don't actually believe this.
In "no peace with Israel while millions remain stateless" it's not "while millions remain stateless" that's doing the work.
Exactly, I'm glad someone already wrote this.
Can you please be more specific? I have often asked this question of liberal/anti-Trump people, and the only thing I get is they think he's racist and/or misogynistic, neither of which impacts the individual personally, nor affects domestic or foreign policy.
He did have a habit of shitting on NATO and our longtime allies. A few Americans liked this for some reason. I think pushing around your friends in public is a genuinely stupid thing to do from a foreign policy standpoint and the reputational damage this caused to the U.S. was significant and lasting.
As a conservative, I consider it one of his foreign policy missteps to back out of the Iran nuclear deal Obama made, even though I think the deal was dumb for giving Iran the ability to build the infrastructure to build nuclear weapons starting...next year. But unilaterally backing out of the deal made by a previous leader needs a deal more of a justification than thinking the deal was bad, because now what country will make a lasting deal with us, which might be reversed by a future president?
I applaud you for having a genuine reason against Trump, instead of just hate. I don't like Trump for various real reasons, but it seems like most people only have a visceral hate for him, and then justify it with other things.
One other thing about Trump that I haven't seen in the comments yet: He did make the suggestion about looking into injecting disinfectant (and, in the same session, using UV - on Covid, initially present primarily in the lungs...). Most of us learn not to drink Clorox, let alone injecting it, before adulthood.
I wish DeSantis was the GOP candidate. I'm sure I'd have some quibbles with him, but not that one.
Against this, Kamala Harris is on record, in her own words, as wanting to regulate [censor] speech on social media. I would like to retain my First Amendment rights...
>neither of which impacts the individual personally,
Why does that matter? I once voted to increase my property taxes in order to fund a swimming pool at the local high school, despite neither being a swimmer nor having children. And I guess I not be foolish enough to give money to vaccinate kids in far off lands against polio.
> nor affects domestic or foreign policy
So, there is no relationship between claiming that immigrants are "poisoning hte blood of the country," believing that Haitians are stealing and eating pets, and promises to revoke Temporary Protected Status?* None?
*Note that I am not opining on the merits of such revocation, but rather the dubiousness of the claim that a person's attitudes re race will have no effect on public policy.
If you can point to a policy informed by racism or misogyny, then I agree with you. I know of none, though.
And no, I don't think the Muslim country ban qualifies. It is true that individuals don't define the body of individuals, but they do influence it. When enough Muslims murder enough people and claim to do it for religious reasons, it is reasonable to be wary of Muslims, given the potential consequences of ignoring the correlation.
1. I don't know why you are talking about Muslims. I did not mention Muslims. And note that you are misrepresenting the "Muslim ban" (to your detriment!) It was not a ban on Muslims -- it did not apply to Muslims per se, nor to any of the largest Muslim-majority countries. Rather, as the Supreme Court put it, "The Proclamation placed entry restrictions on the nationals of eight foreign states whose systems for managing and sharing information about their nationals the President deemed inadequate."
Note also that the restrictions varied by country -- eg " For countries that do not cooperate with the United States in identifying security risks (Iran, North Korea, and Syria), the Proclamation suspends entry of all nationals, except for Iranians seeking nonimmigrant student and exchange-visitor visas. §§2(b)(ii), (d)(ii), (e)(ii). For countries that have information-sharing deficiencies but are nonetheless “valuable counterterrorism partner[s]” (Chad, Libya, and Yemen), it restricts entry of nationals seeking immigrant visas and nonimmigrant business or tourist visas."
2. I already identified a proposed policy that at least plausibly is informed by racism -- the removal of temporary protected status for Haitians.
Why do Haitians deserve/have a right to temporary protected status? Is this reverse discrimination?
It may be PLAUSIBLY informed by racism, but it also isn't an actual implemented policy, only a statement during the campaign. What racist policy did he implement during his presidency?
You are correct that you didn't mention Muslims, but others have. I was preemptively heading off that objection.
> the only thing I get is that they think he's racist and/or misogynistic
That, plus the big one you seem to forget, about trying to keep power after losing an election. If that doesn't disqualify someone for president of a democratic country, I don't know what does.
Racist and misogynistic is not a minor thing either. One of the jobs of the president of a country is to be the visible voice of that country, and it helps if that voice at least somewhat tries to sound like a voice of reason. Besides the obvious geopolitical issues about resources and economic power, the other thing that major powers are in a soft war about is *being the kind of place one would like to live in*. And a president who spouts inflammatory, disrespectful rhetoric in all directions, not to mention towards women (that's 50% of your own population right there) obviously does quite the opposite of that.
I am pretty worried that most of his foreign policy people (especially Mattis) left or were fired over disagreements and now seem to consider him very bad. I think Trump's main advantage over Harris is that he's likely to hire more reasonable foreign policy/dod people, but the fact that the last batch of his hires now mostly oppose him is a red flag.
I can see this as a legitimate concern, as one of the bad signs of Trump's presidency was the people being fired or resigning. This is related to one of the bad things of his leadership: he always thinks he's the smartest person around, and thus doesn't always listen well to his advisors, many of which know better than he does. He also seems mired in ideas of the past, such as the cold war, and unable to see how the world has changed since then.
Not only that, the racist/misogynist thing is easily disproved.
But the other thing I keep hearing from the anti-Trump crowd is he's "in the pocket" of Putin, Xi, or Kim. Or from the most conspiracy-minded, all three. Such conspiracy is easily disproved, but that doesn't stop the press from repeating it anyway.
Another angle the anti-Trump crowd crow on about a lot is January 6th, which makes sense given the press it got. And definitely Trump let himself look like a dictator fool there.
Of course, that's nothing that all other parties (specifically, Biden/Harris) do as well. Democrats are no strangers to election denying and election rigging themselves, so I struggle to worry about Trump doing it.
Another anti-Trump position seems to be that he will start (or make worse) trade wars with other countries. His tariffs proposed or enacted on Chinese imports are usually the go-to example. The same person who brings this up will say Trump is in the pocket of Xi, which is one of your tells that this also isn't a thing anyone really cares about.
Basically, the anti-Trump argument set exists, is lengthy, and falls apart under any amount of scrutiny. Trump is an awful person for other reasons that no-one in the press brings up (because it would make obvious deep problems that actually need addressed).
The popular anti-Trump rhetoric is just empty hot air. I suspect by design.
"Not only that, the racist/misogynist thing is easily disproved."
???
Well, Scott has been there: https://slatestarcodex.com/2016/11/16/you-are-still-crying-wolf/
Tl;dr: He was a really awful president for lots of reasons, but "racist" isn't a good word to criticize him.
That's not *disproving* the claim, that's *at best* saying that the evidence for that claim is insufficient.
It seems to me that 1/6 was part of an actual attempt by Trump to keep power despite losing an election. I don't care so much about a riot at the capitol (especially after 2020), but trying to keep power after you lose an election seems like a permanent disqualification for being president.
If you are personally impacted, then it impacts you personally. It was not Trump's policy to end the "right" to abortion; he appointed Supreme Court judges. So you're against conservative policies, which is your right on which to disagree. But do not claim that misogynistic Trump is forcing women to carry pregnancies to term.
Trump was not racist. "Muslim" is not a race, and the list of countries on said ban were originally compiled by the Obama administration.
While I agree that he's not "racist" in any precise meaning of the term, he's definitely on the side of himself and his friends, and supports cheating those with less power. (I was surprised, though, that he even cheated his lawyers.)
"Racist includes...religion and culture"
No. No it doesn't.
"politician who wanted a “Jewish ban” and then blocked travel from Israel, or do you think it would be fair to call that racist?"
Since "Jewish" has two different meanings, it depends which one you mean. If the racial meaning, then obviously yes. If the religious meaning then no, that's not racism. It's religious discrimination. Most medieval anti-Jewish laws were not racist.
Maybe I'm unhinged or something, but I have a strong preference for words to be used according to their actual meanings, not their vibes.
It would depend on the reason for the ban. Your suggested definition of "racist" is so broad as to be meaningless. Like, if ISIS fighters were banned from immigrating to the US, that would also be racist? This apparent view that other cultures can't be criticized or be evaluated in terms of their compatibility with Western ideals is so bizarre to me.
I'm "breaking" thowards considering this post not having been made in good faith.
(Edit)
To substantiate my post: Points 2, 3, 4 are policy disagreements, so whatever, fair. I disagree vehemently, but that's not the point of my comment.
Point 1) I find problematic on a deeper level. A simple web search would bring up all kinds of detailed policy proposals made by the Harris campaign, and reports about them. Doing so would take less time than writing the comment in the first place. That means I find point 1) to be impossible to make after a good faith effort, so I claim that point 1) was not made in good faith. Since author claims it's the most important point to them, I declare the comment as a whole as not having been made in good faith. Which, to be clear, is not a statement about whether it was made in bad faith, or just without any interest in the actual outcome of the debate author requests.
Thank you for this. Assuming I will be taken in good faith allows me to write concisely, and to the extent my words indicate otherwise, I have aggressed against the norms of this space.
What I meant by my point 1) is not that I don't know her stated policies, but that uniquely among politicians I do not believe that her (current, as opposed to her 2019, as opposed to what they will be the day after the election if elected) stated policies either flow causally from her world view, or allow me to predict what she would do differently from what I would guess a median democratic politician would do before they announce their policies optimizing exclusively for internal coalitional consent and personal power. The way politicians generally convince me of that is by advocating for their views in a way that passes a turing test for my model of someone who genuinely prefers those policies. I haven't yet reached an internal equilibrium on why this matters so much to me, but I know that it's a major crux of my predicted voting decision.
Maybe if your model leads you to prefer Trump, you should reconsider your model. Trump is a candidate with many disqualifying features. Trump thinking for himself is just him saying he is right and everyone else is wrong. “I know more about x than anyone else.”
It's impossible for me to believe that Trump believes what he is saying. All legal scholars wanted abortions to be regulated state by state? God is important to him? Tariffs are paid by the exporting country?
I can believe that God has become important to him after July 13. He believes that he was saved by the grace of God.
I think this is also a reason I'm breaking towards Trump. You put it a lot more eloquently/precisely than I would be able to. I think there is seriously something "off" about Kamala Harris in a way I don't feel about e.g. Joe Biden, or Hillary Clinton, or most other Democrats. It all seems very sanitized, like every single word out of her mouth or minor policy detail was cooked up in a committee. When I hear Trump I believe that he believes what he says, and the amount of random gaffes from him saying stupid crap is proof of that; no committee of Republican staffers can control what comes out of that man's mouth.
My biggest fear is that Harris governs entirely by consensus, and simply has no major personal principles except "what words do I say that will get me the highest percentage of coalition support". As someone who does not fit into ANY democratic identity coalitions (but still leans left-liberal on most policy issues) this leaves me in a very awkward place.
I think you may be ignoring the factor where she became her party's frontrunner suddenly with only a handful of months to campaign in. If she seems more scripted than Biden or Clinton during their campaigns, is it not fairly likely due to a strategy decision that at this point in the game she can't afford to be unscripted, can't afford a single mistake?
At least she appears to be of sound mind and hold a belief in the norms of American democracy.
Let me be clearer then because I don't think it's the "scriptedness" alone that bothers me. I thought Obama was very scripted too, but I liked Obama. So I don't know. Maybe it's the fact that each time she goes "off script", I really dislike what I see underneath? Biden when he goes off script seems like a genuinely nice guy. Trump when he goes off script is some combination of gullible, awkward, and funny. Both are very understandable and human to me.
Harris when she goes off script seems like...an incel's caricature of a sorority girl, maybe? I don't even know for sure.
The "belief in norms of Democracy" is definitely a point in her favor, and I used to think I valued this really strongly....but it's surprisingly tough when it's not just a theoretical! How confidently do I think Trump will erode democracy in his second term? I'm not convinced at all that he'll try for a 3rd term or anything like that. How worth it is "punishing" a prior violation of electoral norms? How bad was the prior violation?
And as far as eroding democracy, I'm not convinced that Harris is all sunshine and rainbows there either -- how confident am I that she won't e.g. try to pack the supreme court if she gets a trifecta (especially after e.g. the conservative court undermines a Democratic sacred cow, like Obergefell)? I would consider that a more serious violation of democracy than inciting a riot against the certification of the election.
> How worth it is "punishing" a prior violation of electoral norms? How bad was the prior violation?
Very! How worth it is putting your bishop into a defensive position in chess? How worth it was building U.S. military bases in Germany during the Cold War? Trump is not an effective coup-er or dictator but he's done an enormous amount of harm in pushing boundaries and showing what a person can get away with if they're on a sufficient demagoguery-roll--he's loosened up the norms of American democracy in many people's minds to a dangerous extent, affirming their nascent instincts that true loyalty to America lies in pushing certain policies rather than following the democratic process and the rule of law. I don't think people quite realize the pretty extreme extent to which democracy only works if you (plural!!) believe in it. The Supreme Court issue is extremely important, yes (though it's very hard to imagine Harris being worse than Trump on that, and the sad truth is its true role has been eroding for quite awhile) but it can't compare to this widespread undermining, of which the riot was just a particularly violent, messy, public outbreak.
Bottom line, if you don't punish something like that (and yes, especially its public, violent, highly visible components) with AT THE VERY LEAST a refusal to re-elect, you're rounding off Trump's story into a nice blueprint to follow for the next, more competent demagogue with a long-range plan for power--a nice map of say, the first half of his journey. We won't like the second half much.
I'm very aware (especially in this particular comment section, ha) that this is a boring middlebrow position, not requiring high intellect, deep analysis or subtle observation. I really don't give a flying fig. If you're on a jury and twenty people say "yep it's him I saw him shoot the guy" and there's also quite good footage, it's not really time for your intellectual chops... It's time to be boring.
Do you mean you would vote for another Democrat like Hillary Clinton if she was running (let’s say she was a bit younger) but are considering voting for Trump instead of Harris?
Yes, almost certainly. And yes, I am not unaware of how strange that might sound to some people (though I think it's more common than you would necessarily expect).
Speaking for myself, I would (before having read the comments, am still processing them) vote for
Hillary Clinton (age not a factor, she's younger than Trump and a woman) -> Barack Obama -> Trump ? Joe Biden -> Bernie Sanders -> Kamala Harris
Interesting. I think it is odd that you would vote for two mainstream, “normal” Democrats over Trump but not for a third mainstream, “normal” Democrat over Trump.
> It all seems very sanitized, like every single word out of her mouth or minor policy detail was cooked up in a committee... My biggest fear is that Harris governs entirely by consensus, and simply has no major personal principles except "what words do I say that will get me the highest percentage of coalition support".
Much as I don't like Harris (nor any other Democrat) I don't see her as any different to Biden in this regard.
(Disclaimer: I'm not a US citizen and don't get to vote, I'm just part of the global right-wing conspiracy. While I have complicated intellectual arguments in favour of conservatism, I know that deep down I'm just a single-issue voter and that single issue is tax rates on the upper middle class.)
Biden seems to have at least a few times pushed back against the "System" from what I've seen -- and that's while he's going senile! While Kamala seems much more aligned with the System, especially the bad parts. And let me be clear that I generally *like* Biden as a president (or rather, the combination of Biden + Biden's friends + the amorphous Democratic Party Machine), voted for him in 2020, and would absolutely have voted for him over Trump even now.
(this is a tiny window into the chaotic worldview of a still-undecided voter. Have fun adjusting your mental model of the US electorate to my existence, mwahahaha)
Yeah, they’re both just front people for the System, neither is really in charge. The System had no issue replacing Biden with Kamala, over his vociferous objections. If you like the System then vote for them, but does anyone at this point?
That was my reaction the other day, while playing Scrabble with my elderly mother, overhearing my father's Fox News playing (or repeatedly replaying, or maybe he had a video on his phone and since he can't hear he didn't realize it kept playing) the interview between an anchor dude and Kamala Harris.
She did much better than usual at replying to the guy in a rapid manner, matching his rhythm of speaking, without pauses. Her sentences were all diagrammable and seemed coherent.
But for the most part her answers to his questions re policy were, "My administration will follow federal law" or "We will uphold the law".
Which suggests her coaches urged this speech on her, the locution perhaps also chosen as an echo of the hapless cosplaying coup-doers.
I would find public speaking impossible/alien so I didn't fault her for this, but I mentioned the interview to my husband, and while he hadn't seen it, he had heard it referenced as having been "too hard for her, like a debate, something she shouldn't have been subjected to", and coincidentally his reaction was something like yours. On the order of: "I can't believe we're about to elect as president someone who can't think well enough to speak".
Meanwhile, Vance continues to be interesting in that years of schooling and being around people with very different views (whether truly different, or whether he early on performed a calculation about where someone like himself might be permitted to succeed in politics) - presumably nearly all the people he found himself among - he seems to be at ease with engaging, which I suspect puts watchers at ease. I enjoyed his answer the other day about Venezuelan gangs to ABC News' Martha Raddatz, which was excerpted in the WSJ (the elderly parents ;-) take the papers).
It boiled down to - he called her bluff for pretending that a non-question about Trump - an attack on Trump, since Trump's opponent is not really KH but the media - was a question about Venezuelan gang members. I don't think it had occurred to her that he would take seriously the gang part, since she didn't and has no reason to.
Of course, my husband, by the same token, would say, that's not interesting! That should be normal, that people should be able to talk for five minutes.
Request fewer posts like this; I'm generally against accusations of bad faith but if you make one I'd like you to put more effort into explaining why you think that, partly because it would be useful information and partly as a tax on inflammatory claims.
I edited my post. Was that sufficient for you to withdraw your request?
Fine.
Author’s substack history says he’s a Freddy DeBoer fan with no obvious history of liking right wing substacks.
can we gat a quick reaction to this?
https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamapsychiatry/article-abstract/2825154
I don't think it's surprising or says much we don't already know.
Schizophrenia symptoms can be divided into "positive" (eg hallucinations, delusions, violence) and "negative" (eg depression, inertia, lack of focus). Antipsychotics are pretty good at treating the positive symptoms and pretty bad at treating the negative symptoms. This study finds that antipsychotics are indeed bad at improving cognitive problems, which are a negative symptom.
The only part that surprises me is that clozapine ranks low; I'd heard it might be the rare antipsychotic that at least had a bit of efficacy against negative symptoms.
The new schizophrenia drug Cobenfy claims to help negative symptoms, but is too new for me to have an opinion on whether that's true, and wasn't included in this study.
I remember you once wrote that a lot of schizophrenics self medicate with cigarettes
at the time I thought you meant that nicotine helped with the delusions
but if not then
possible new drug combo ?
here’s your prescription for an anti psychotic + two packs of marlboros
There was a study of smoking in schizophrenics done by Harvard psychiatry at the mental hospital where I did my internship. Their conclusion was that smoking helps relieve the akasthesia caused by many antipsychotic drugs.
A busier week.
"Shipwrecks and Money" [Spain, 16 th Century]
https://thomaslhutcheson.substack.com/p/shipwrecks-and-money
"Fuel Taxes Do Not Fuel Inflation" [UK, contemporary]
https://thomaslhutcheson.substack.com/p/fuel-taxes-do-not-fuel-inflation
Deficits and Tax Expenditure [US fiscal policy, next administration]
https://thomaslhutcheson.substack.com/p/deficits-and-tax-expenditures
Please advertise here less.
The report function on my app doesn't seem to work but please don't do straight-up advertising here
Why? I thought promoting blogs was fair game?
Promoting blogs once or twice a year is fair game, especially if you have a really interesting or relevant article and want to argue for it. I agree Thomas is going a bit far and urge him to stop.
Should I stop posting my bi-weekly COVID update?
Why do women sing more than men and why do they play musical instruments less (unless it is classical music)?
I am mostly thinking about live music (concerts or jams) in bands/orchestras rather than just playing for yourself at home.
I don't see much rhyme or reason with these patterns. The only thing that comes to mind is that women seem to be less into improvisation which leads into them playing classical music more? But outside of jazz/funk/latin music there's usually not that much improvisation going on either and there are not that many women playing in rock bands either (not more than women who play jazz). And there are quite a lot female jazz singers and they do improvise, so this is not it.
One other hypothesis I had is that women are on average more agreeable and conforming and so when parents send their kids to learn the violin or a piano, they are more likely to stick with it. And (non-musician) parents are less likely to send their kids to guitar/bass/brass/drumset lessons, those are more often instruments that teenage boys decide they want to learn themselves. But piano/keyboard is also played a lot outside of classical music (violin is as well, albeit not quite as much) and you don't see a lot of female piano players outside of classical music either.
So I really just don't know :-)
The history of sex limited music roles in Western culture goes back many hundreds of years. I expect the reason, for most of that history, is "because it's always been that way", which begs the question of how it got that way originally. But once it got that way it was self-perpetuating. Things only started to change recently, about the time of 1st wave feminism. If you go back farther in history things were different. Layne Redmond's excellent book "When the Drummers Were Women" documents the ancient Mediterranean world (about 3000 BC to 500 AD) when women played the frame drum. A good quote -
"The first named drummer in history was a Mesopotamian priestess named Lipushiau. She lived in the city-state of Ur in 2380 BC"
There are also lots of classical Egyptian depictions of women playing instruments, e.g. lyres and flutes.
Did a little more digging and found a clue to the begged question, and an answer to Tibor's original post. The change from women playing instruments and drums in antiquity to the more recent cultural limitations dates to the ascendancy of Christianity. The Catholic synod of 576 decreed: “Christians are not allowed to teach their daughters singing, the playing of instruments or similar things because, according to their religion, it is neither good nor becoming.” Of course the narrative of "things were fine and equal before the bad Christians ruined it for hundreds of years until modernity saved us" is kind of stereotypically simplified and over the top, and I would hope the quoters of Chesterton and CS Lewis will protest. One line of attack is to look outside Western culture - what about the Jews? I have no expertise here, maybe someone knowledgeable can comment. My impression is that all the Jewish musicians in the old testament are men - David with a lyre, Joshua with his horn, song of Solomon. And Klezmer musicians were all men, tho that's changing in modernity. I know some women cantors, but maybe that's a modern reform thing? Looking elsewhere outside Western culture (I'm not a real ethnomusicologist, just a wannabe, so this is all my impressions, citation needed) - it's common to find women playing instruments in China, Japan, and in southeast Asian gamelan orchestras. In Indian classical music (raga and all that) the soloists are mostly men, but there is a tradition of having the drone instrument (tamboura) played by lovely young ladies. In Turkish classical music the composers and instrumentalists are male, but it's not clear if that's because of Islam or Arab/Middle Eastern culture. Islam also is mostly down on music generally for both sexes, except for some of the Sufi sects, Sufi musicians are male. In the Balkans, historically there was the same limited roles as in Western culture, but they were also mostly Christianized (Eastern Orthodox), except for small Muslim minorities. Interestingly there are Muslim minority populations in southern Bulgaria (called Pomaks) where the women still play frame drums, likely a remnant of what Layne Redmond's book talks about.
I also learned more about those ancient Egyptians. James Blades ("renowned percussionist and scholar, and for many years Professor of Percussion at the Royal Academy of Music.") reports - “All records from this period (Middle Kingdom) show the performers as women; in fact the whole practice of the art of music appears to have been entirely entrusted to the fair sex, with one notable exception, the god Bes, who is frequently represented with a drum with cylindrical body (frame drum).” And the famous Egyptian Goddess Isis is often depicted holding a sistrum, which is a percussion instrument with zils.
We should distiguish between music played inside the house and outside. Jane Austen heroines are often keen pianists, as indeed was Jane herself. But professional female musicians would have been rare.
Emily Dickinson also. The rise of the piano in the middle class was an interesting phenomenon sociologically. Girls were encouraged to play to increase their marriageability, but, yes, only inside the house.
For boys, singing in a choir is seen as uncool/unmanly in a way that playing instruments isn't (though there's still gendered stereotypes, e.g. flue players vs. percussionists).
My elementary school had a very successful boys choir and part of the strategy was that while the girls choir started in 4th grade, the boys choir started in 2nd: the teacher always said "you have to get boys into choir before they're old enough to realize it's not cool" and she seemed largely correct on that point.
Also, voices change for boys far more than for girls. As a result of that choir, I was a good singer as a kid - went to some invitational choir festival kinda stuff - but I didn't continue in choir in high school my voice changed and I don't really feel like I have any particular talent for it today. I would have had to relearn a lot of stuff when I went from soprano to tenor and didn't.
My guess is the womans instinct to sing comes from singing to children, which is iirc done universally. Mens propensity to instrument comes from the people vs things distinction between females and males
I don't know the latest turns in the debate on whether women speak more than men. But if you believe that, then the steps from "speak more" over "use your voice more" to "sing more" are pretty small.
My hypothesis would be that teenaged boys join bands to meet or appeal to girls. And the corresponding young women don't feel the same pressure (on average!) and so they continue with music for more intrinsic reasons (if they do)
I actually find this the most plausible explanation. It would match the observations that in classical music, there are many more female instrumentalists. It explains more men in rock bands or most other popular genres of music. It still does not explain why there are not many women in jazz. I think nobody expects to meet or appeal to girls by playing in a jazz band. But since the instruments tend to be similar to rock (except for the wind instruments), it could be that the jazz musicians are still largely recruited from that same pool of boys who originally started playing to get the girls. They just realised they're in for the music and that they like jazz better than rock.
Also most formal music education is centred around classical music. Girls tend to be more agreeable and more likely to follow the authorities so of those kids who get music education, more girls will continue with classical music themselves whereas the boys shift to "I wanna be a rockstar" when they turn 14 or something.
And you see more female singers because female voice is inherently different from male voice, so there are just more opportunities and more demand.
I think this is probably part of it, for rock music anyway. Rock is on life support and has been for a while though; even the boys aren't forming bands all that much now. Most of the action in new music are individual writer/composer/performers who's primary instruments are a synth and a computer. This approach though, like the old rock bands, lends itself to the obsessive focus on a narrow pursuit that seems to be more common in the typical male mind. Rock music can also be hard to play. Not difficult due to complexity, but physically hard. Guitar and bass require a good amount of hand strength, bass especially really develops the forearm muscles if played with the fingers. Drums are even worse with many professional female drummers developing bad repetitive motion injuries in their shoulders and wrists while still in their 20s, injuries that are usually seen in male drummers in their 50s or 60s. Singing has none of these physical barriers. Constant singing can be hard on your throat and vocal chords, but does so evenly across both sexes. Upper body strength and endurance really do help with the standard guitar/bass/drums of rock music. Especially with new guitar/bass players, there is a period of developing grip strength and calluses in the chording/neck hand that is challenging for men with large hands to tough their way though.
I play drums myself and if you have injuries like that, then it is because your technique is bad ... or maybe you play grindcore or something like that. It is true you need to train fine muscles to play instruments but the same is true for singing and you need good core muscles and good lung capacity too (though I am always fascinated by the number of singer who are smokers).
Also, this does not explain why there are significantly more female musicians in classical music who play all sort of instruments. It is true, you see fewer female contrabass players because that shit really is heavy, but there are quite a few female cellists and of course viola and violin players. I don't think these instruments are physically significantly less demanding than an electric guitar and in fact arguably you might need more strength in your fingers when playing a cello than with a guitar (especially since it is fretless and the strings are thicker).
Always a pleasure to read someone who talks from experience and knows the nuts and bolts of the subject. Guessing from general ideas and improvising evolutionary "explanations" is a bit of a failure mode for rationalists :)
Is this a real trend to explain?
My guess would be that men are mainly trying to demonstrate their technical skill and women are mainly trying to demonstrate their beauty/personality. Singing is much more personal, given that it uses an individual's own voice rather than just her hands.
So I haven't posted to Psyvacy in a while, mostly due to a combination of just being way too busy and feeling unmotivated to put anything out into the world (for various reasons I don't need or want to get into). But I've recently happened across a small idea which I'm actually kinda interested in exploring a bit more.
Basically, we're all familiar with the idea that we talk about A Thing, and suddenly we're seeing ads related to The Thing even if we don't search for it or whatever, and it's tempting to conclude that we're being spied on through our microphones on our phones or whatever. While I'm not saying that doesn't happen, it seems plausible that a certain amount of the variance there is confirmation bias - if I don't see ads relating to something I was talking about it I don't think twice, so even a co-incidence may be weighted more than we expect it should. Add in the large amount of surveillance we're under, and "my phone is listening to me" becomes a very tempting conclusion even with only weak evidence. I could go through how these kinds of psychological processes work, and how they can throw our thinking out. It's not a big or complicated or new idea, but it seems fun to read and write about.
But I'm having trouble seeing a takeaway. While obviously it's my responsibility to write these things, and ultimately it's mostly going to be driven by personal interest, is there an aspect which anyone thinks could be interesting to explore? Or even an unrelated topic that sits in the nexus of psychology and privacy that you'd be interested in reading a post about?
I think this is confirmation bias.
It is a strange feature of our present world that many things that would have clearly been psychotic delusions a few decades ago are now, at least, technically possible, and we have to seriously consider the evidence for whether Apple/Google etc. really are doing that.
I think it's not implausible that it's true - as Performative Bafflement pointed out, the Snowden revelations meant that a lot of stuff which was previously grounds for a paranoia diagnosis are now just publicly true. But that doesn't mean it *is* true, and even if it is the evidence usually cited is pretty easily explained through confirmation bias or similar
> Snowden revelations meant that a lot of stuff which was previously grounds for a paranoia diagnosis are now just publicly true
I've often wondered at the mindset of the people who were surprised by Snowden's revelations. What did they *think* the NSA was doing, if not spying on people?
It's not that the NSA was spying on people, it's that they were spying on Americans, which is quite illegal (or at least was at the time, it was made legal retroactively). And further that a large number of governments were working together to operate illegal spying systems even within contexts previously thought and asserted to be private *en masse*
Well, I haven’t enabled the feature in Shazam that’s “listen to everything around you all the time so it can identify the music playing in the background”. That definitely is doing that.
====
Back when I worked for Microsoft, the National Security Agency send us a very fancy Christmas present made out of a milled block of metal. We made a lot of jokes about that time the Russians sent the Americans a bugging device that was the seal of the United States containing a microwave resonant cavity, then put this fine present somewhere were it couldn’t hear anything. I have no idea if it was actually a bug or not.
I'd be happy to commit to either writing a report crediting you, or hosting a report you write, if we can agree on a protocol to either prove or disprove it?
Also, on my current research project it is customary for us to start every zoom conference call with a ho to the National Security Agency in case they are tapping the call.
> is there an aspect which anyone thinks could be interesting to explore? Or even an unrelated topic that sits in the nexus of psychology and privacy that you'd be interested in reading a post about?
The ones I find most interesting:
1. First, your phone IS listening to you - above and beyond GOOG and FB, the NSA exists and has outright admitted to spying on literally everyone on earth, omnichannel, full time, with all data stored in perpetuity until the end of time.
So what I think about is once they can send smart enough AI minds sniffing in that data, how literally everything will be revealed. All illegal behavior anyone has ever done, all affairs, all secret nighttime visits to KFC's, secret second families, drug dealers, prostitutes, or whoever.
Since basically everyone is guilty of X-number-of-felonies a day in theory, it really becomes a political question then around who is going to be persecuted for what. What are the real implications when there actually isn't any privacy, but everyone is still human and still commits crimes all the time?
And a tertiary thing - how awesome would that data be for biographers in the future? Obviously a hard sell to convince the NSA, but just imagine we stick a rider in for already dead people in whatever legislation we pass that makes omnichannel surveillance reasonably concordant with actual human nature.
Far from studying a stack of old letters, you'd have real time location data, and all emails and texts and phone calls, propinquity data for any other people / phones around them at all times, and probably some pretty smart G6+ level data mining minds to do automated analysis and collation.
2. It should be really easy to verify whether phones are listening to you. I've always wanted - and don't understand to this day why I've never been able to find anyone doing this - somebody who will Wireshark and packet sniff every packet going to and from their phone, who opens and interacts with whatever apps. FB, Google maps, Youtube, whatever.
I mean, I can see the ~600 javascripts across 30+ domains opening a simple text webpage like Substack entails in any browser - why is nobody doing this for phones??
> 2. It should be really easy to verify whether phones are listening to you. I've always wanted - and don't understand to this day why I've never been able to find anyone doing this - somebody who will Wireshark and packet sniff every packet going to and from their phone, who opens and interacts with whatever apps. FB, Google maps, Youtube, whatever.
Setting up Wireshark to sniff anything going over Wifi is easy - but to sniff everything going over cellular data is much harder. You'd need to root the phone (and then it proves nothing if sufficiently paranoid - maybe the spy protocol can disable itself if it senses the phone is rooted!) or set up a fake mobile phone tower (beyond the resources of most hobbyists). And then thanks to HTTPS you can't see the contents of the packets anyway...
What I can tell you is that 10 years ago, the cutting edge method to build shadow profiles used ads in mobile games to gather/leak information. The rep assured me they weren't using the microphone but explained how some of the "spooky" results were achieved. One example was using search history of anyone else with similar location data - maybe you mentioned to your sister you like rubber ducks, and she googled rubber ducks as a gift idea, then you start getting ads for rubber ducks without searching for it yourself.
But that was 10 years ago, more recently someone on the dev team here didn't understand how (feature) was achievable unless (product) is using microphone data. So who knows.
Oh and for extra fun: Have you heard of Targeted Outdoor Advertising? We can display ads on digital billboards by knowing who is in the area and likely to be looking at them at a particular time, either in an aggregate ("Hey every Tuesday at 7:15pm lots of people with an interest in crypto walk past, so time to advertise coinbase" - it's picked up on the local ACX meetup finish time) or in some cases specifically targeting individuals. So the algorithm figures out you're a whale who likes rubber ducks, now you see rubber ducks everywhere you go! Not a great time to be a paranoid schizophrenic.
I mean, I'd be surprised if someone hadn't done the phone-Wireshark thing. If someone is willing, and we could agree on a protocol, I'd be happy to commit to either writing up a report or hosting a report someone else wrote on the findings.
But the sheer ease of proving it makes me suspect it isn't happening, outside of extremely targeted cases like with Pegasus and suchforth. I'm not ruling out it happening in the future, but at the moment the degree of processing to pull out topics for advertising seems excessive for widespread application. Compared to tracking searches and such, which are already text-based and as such exponentially easier to work with, I mean.
> But the sheer ease of proving it makes me suspect it isn't happening, outside of extremely targeted cases like with Pegasus and suchforth.
Really? I actually lean the other way - there are already capabilities in almost every newish phone to listen passively for phrases like "Hey Siri" or "Ok Google" without running the battery down. Some apps try do this already, like the Shazam example Michael Roe had above. Although many apps don't request this "passive listening" permission (including FB), it is something I would actually expect FB and GOOG to request by default pretty soon.
Also, have you never sat around with friends and family deliberately saying specific keywords with FB open see if it appears in their FB feeds as adverts? I've done this with a few groups, and it never fails to turn up hits. I believe they can do this because it's not "passively listening" if the app is open and foregrounded.
It then become a question of "how often is the app open and foregrounded while in a group that may be having relevant and targetable conversation?" Which I think is probably "pretty often," depending on the individual person and culture, but I think the median answer is likely to be "often enough to be worth it."
I mean, FB already creates shadow profiles for everyone on earth, whether they have a profile or not, populating it with info on your friends, likely device ID's, propinquity, and more. Why wouldn't they do this too, and log targetable keywords from conversations people have had with FB open on some phone in the group?
If it was so trivial to prove, than it'd be easy to find someone running Wireshark to show the packets containing the keywords being sent to Google or whatever.
And the scenario you describe isn't the scenario I'm talking about. I'm talking about your phone sitting locked on your table or in your pocket, you're singing a song or mentioning that you need to buy bananas, and that being picked up by your microphone, interpreted, and that information sent to Google or Facebook or whatever.
And no, none of my friends are on Facebook, certainly not sitting there using it while we're hanging out.
> If it was so trivial to prove, than it'd be easy to find someone running Wireshark to show the packets containing the keywords being sent to Google or whatever.
Yeah, which is why I've always wanted it. Probably less useful now that everything is https everywhere, but you're still sending *something* in packets to servers owned by whoever.
> And the scenario you describe isn't the scenario I'm talking about.
I'm aware - I think to your earlier point though, *psychologically* it's pretty close to most average people. "Facebook spies on me / my friends' conversations via my phone" is the general gestalt, whether it's done with passive listening or not.
> And no, none of my friends are on Facebook, certainly not sitting there using it while we're hanging out.
Yeah, I've spent a lot of time in non-US countries where it's more dominant. But I've had conversations with my mom and sister pretty much exactly like this one that ended with the natural real-world tests of pulling phones out and saying keywords with the apps open, it's the natural next step after a conversation like this (along with Wiresharking everything).
Check out my analysis of all 188 indie sci-fi novels from the SPSFC4. I systematically evaluate all the titles, covers, blurbs and sample chapters to investigate what makes some stand out from the crowd. There were many surprises along the way, and it might help people thinking of self publishing a book themselves freshen up their approach, and maybe you will find a new favourite sci fi novel to read.
https://haldanebdoyle.substack.com
This was interesting and would have been more instructive if I could see/participate in the lineup easily (like I could in the very interesting title vote but if you had links to the others I failed to see them).
If I do it all again for SPSFC5 then I will hunt around more for an online tournament maker where I can share the starting line up for the covers as well so anyone can run through the process themselves.
readscottalexander.com (an online DB of Scott's posts in SSC & ACX that's easy to search) is quietly getting more features since the time Scott promoted it in a previous Open Thread - now with a recommendation engine, links to the podcast version and to the comments, better semantic search, filter out read posts when logged in (soon: without an account too) and faster speed.
I enjoy tweaking it when I have free time, so feel free to check it out or send feedback if you have any!
(Technical details of how it works are there if that's of interest to you: https://readscottalexander.com/technical)
Very nice! Feature request: I would like to (sometimes) filter out the "your book review" and other guest posts when searching.
Thanks! If you click on "Show all more filters" you'll see an "Exclude tag" filter where you can exclude book reviews. I've been wanting to add support for excluding multiple tags for a while but wasn't sure that was useful to people, I'll add it when I get time.
(Note that some tags aren't perfectly consistent and there might be some missed posts, ideally I'd want to re-run the analysis on the whole corpus at some point. But it should be a good first approximation)
This was a super interesting read, especially the part on combining FTS and embedding-based approaches.
Nitpicks:
"using their text-embedding-3-small model" It doesn't specify who they are.
"instead of the cut-off point mentioned above of 0.75" The cut off point of 0.75 is not mentioned above.
Oh great, thanks for your feedback! I corrected the typos and the cutoff values now come directly from the actual code running the search, they'll always be up to date. (The cutoff used to be 0.75 and I apparently didn't update it everywhere)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0bmDXNry9Qo
The video is about how dire things are in North Korea, and specifically that the ten thousand NK troops that were sent to support Russia will never be permitted to come back because even seeing Russia would give them a clue, but the specific thing I'm wondering is that the Kim regime can't last forever because nothing lasts forever, but I can't imagine something realistic that would take it down.
Maybe a sufficiently incompetent Kim heir? What else?
It’s worth pointing out that NK is a headache for everyone but a client state of the PRC who has a captive market and a buffer against the American military presence, they have no interest in a liberated, reunified North Korea. Xi is also reportedly somewhat obsessed with the downfall of the Soviet Union so he would definitely not want to start letting satellites wander off and reunite.
While this makes sense, is there any reason that China wouldn't want their client state to modernise and capitalism-ify, to look a bit more like 2000s China and a bit less like 1950s China?
I think the DPRK's client-ness is very overstated. The DPRK relies on the Chinese for many things but they've always gotten by playing powerful parties off each other (in the Cold War, the Soviets against the Chinese. Related, guess which Communist nation had the distinction of being the only one to get their ambassadorial staff PNG'd out of the USSR *twice*?) and the Norks think they can just do this same play to the PRC and the US. Anyway, China probably can't force the DPRK to modernize and capitalize without invading them and replacing the Kim Regime, and that's a quick step to disaster anyway. And the DPRK has no interest in modernizing and capitalizing because there's already one modern and capital-y Korea, and they'll never be better at doing that than the one that exists.
But there was already one modern and capital-y China, and Communist China went that route anyway?
Have only skimmed the video (will try and give it a full watch tonight), the author seems badly misinformed about the state of the DPRK these days, and running off a modification to the old "Rare Glimpse(TM)!" view of North Korea, which is no longer an accurate reflection of reality (the core songbyun has pretty decent information about the outside world, and Lankov noted enough media filters around that even the wavering/hostile classes have no illusions that the DPRK is better than the South in most metrics, although they don't know the magnitude of it). I should note the entire report is kind of weird and there's thing in it that don't make sense (like the report of onloading NKSOF on ships and transporting them to Russia; why not just fly them?). I would be overall very skeptical of the Youtuber's positions; he's very obviously not informed on the DPRK and just kind of operating off of old propaganda.
As far as the question of "what could bring down the Kim Regime", at this point, if they survived the 90s, it's hard to model out what would do the trick. That's not to say the Kim regime *can't* fall, but it's going to take a kind of black swan event to trigger it (and probably involves China doing something that's very opaque to us).
At this point, I'm no longer convinced the *ROK* would let the Kim regime fall, tbqh
This would make a great remake of Xenophon and the Ten Thousand.
That's my wish-fulfillment version.
What will happen to them if they can't come back?
Some interesting highlights from the Real North Korea Psmith review:
- North Koreans have a pseudo-caste system known as songbyun. It more or less relates to how supportive your family was of the state back in 1945. Those with good songbyun get education and jobs sponsored by the party and extra rations, those with bad songbyun are slaves and human chattel. Songbyun generally can't be changed, unless you betray the state, in which case you get the worst songbyun. So anyone who is thinking of becoming a dissident has to reckon with condemning themselves and their entire family line forever to slavery and torture.
- The economy is mostly supported by black market capitalism, but it's extremely inefficient. Farmers spend all day at their work assignments in agricultural communes, but grow very little due to lack of tools and fertilizer. They sneak off at night and grow actual food illegally in tiny plots in the hills. The guards allow this because it's better to let the farmers grow crops illegally and take a cut to show their superiors food is actually being produced. But the whole thing is really inefficient because all of the fertile land is occupied by these useless farm communes and the farmers have to stay there all day to meet their work assignments.
- In a similar trend, a lot of production is done by women. You see, the men usually have work assignments in the factories. But a lot of the factories are run down or had critical machinery sold off. So the men have to spend their day sitting around in these decaying shells of factories not really doing any productive work. The women who stay at home then have time to produce things on the side or in hidden workshops.
- More directly to your point, Lankov (the author) believes the most dangerous time for the regime would be reform. As long as the people are totally downtrodden and have no expectation of things getting better, they won't revolt. But if they have a glimmer of hope, suddenly the gap between reality and their expectations of how things could be becomes unbearable. Thus the regime, and all of its collaborators with good songbyun, are riding the metaphorical tiger. They know the tiger will eventually turn on and devour them, but any relaxation of their grip will only hasten the end. So they cling on bitterly, and don't dare show any mercy to or attempt to improve the conditions of their suffering people.
This is stupidest propaganda. North Korean workers and students visit Russia all the time, and then go home without any troubles. Also, I believe that people in NK know enough about the world around them, because I heard pirated western and Chinese media is pretty popular there.
Not that there is any credible proof of NK troops in Ukraine. Russian soldiers raised a North Korean flag alongside Russian flag over some village today, but that's just trolling.
As for Kim's regime, it's a wonder it lasted as long as it has, so it's hard to predict its downfall. It appears to have some stabilizing properties beyond normal. Maybe geographical isolation and neighbors that support the dynasty.
I've read a fair amount of analysis lately that implies many elites in South Korea don't even want to unify anymore. It would be a catastrophic drain on their economy and massive disruption of their culture. The two nations have drifted so far apart that they're only really connected by a diverging language and pre-1900 shared history that fades in importance every year. Even the family connections grow thinner and thinner every year. China might be able to integrate NK after a theoretical collapse, but they don't want to and it would probably be a pretty brutal affair overall.
If SK's population shrinks enough they might need replenishment from NK.
A lot of the problems with maintaining the lifestyle that people want out of the ROK long-term do become easier if there were some kind of gastarbeiter program that would allow Norks to work at low-status and/or unskilled labor in the ROK but not be allowed to participate in any of their legal processes. The major obstacle is of course that is extremely unconstitutional, since both countries assert they are fully in control of the entirety of the peninsula and the people therein.
I don't think NK would permit its citizens to visit the SK.
I don't think they'd tolerate it unless they got good assurances from the ROK that the citizens would be forcibly returned if necessary (which isn't as dumb as it sounds; Charles UF above is correct that there's a significant chunk of the ROK population that doesn't want to deal with the Norks and really doesn't want to sacrifice their standard of living for them.
I should note I don't think this is a workable path for the foreseeable future (5 years or so, unless the DPK can oust Lee somehow and start the push for "confederation" all over again). But at the same time, the future belongs to those who show up; guess which Korea is producing more children right now?
Even if they were forcibly returned, actually seeing what SK was like rather than having to rely on propaganda about it would be a big issue.
As someone who isn't a close follower of the war in Ukraine, North Korea or YouTubers, what's the credibility of this guy? Is it worth watching the half hour video?
He reports heavily on Ukraine, I watch him regularly. Primarily he aggregates news articles.
He used to work in South Korea, I think he has a solid background on the situation there.
Sometimes he's wrong on something. This is to be expected.
I'm confident he's relatively unbiased in that he tries to report facts rather than propaganda, and make sensible predictions.
If I was recommending a half hour video of his to watch, it probably wouldn't be this one, unless you really care about this specific detail.
The tl;dr is that 10k NK soldiers won't make much difference. They're probably not very useful, and Russia is losing about 1k soldiers a day, so they're almost a drop in the bucket.
The 'point', he thinks, is to build up concern in the western media, rather than to have a big effect on the battlefield.
He seems sensible to me, but that's hardly proof.
That's weird. I heard they visit China all the time. Is China that much worse than Russia?
Where did you hear that? Might it just be the top elite rather than North Koreans in general?
No, it was like "Major part of North Korea economy is people who work in China and return to their families with money" (But it was about 2000s or so, maybe it's different now, or maybe it wasn't true at all)
I have a vague memory - I heard that China and Russia hire them in large numbers - but they're effectively held captive - sequestered away, often in dedicated factories in the middle of nowhere. Thus there wouldn't be much cultural diffusion.
If the history of Warsaw pact satellite state uprisings and the German reunification is any indicator, NK will shamble along as long as its leadership is willing and able to use their secret services and/or military against popular unrest.
Cuba still seems to be going strong after all these years, minus a blackout/grid collapse or two...
Haven't they had a mass exodus on the order of 10-15% of their population in the past 5ish years? Maybe your comment was meant to be sarcasm and I missed it, but Cuba seems to be in very, *very* dire straights right now.
I'm not sure it's that dire. It's dire relative to our living standards. It's painful to see humans living how they live in Cuba in 2024. But if we compare their conditions to, say, 1900s US loving standards, they're ahead. And it appears that humans are able to live in those conditions or worse which we have had in the past, so I'm not sure things are so bad in some weird absolute sense looking at the last 5000 thousands years.
I'm not praising what's happening btw. I used to believe that regimes like that have to collapse because people want to live in modern, safe, comfortable spaces. But looking at eg. Russia, it seems enough people are OK with living in far worse conditions than possible.
Specifically, in Cuba's case, I hope more people leave, but I don't think that even if eg. 50 % of the population leaves, it will lead to change in the government.
I mean, regardless of what the living standards are, I'm not sure a country can sustain that level of exodus. And even if it _doesn't_ continue, I'm not sure how well that size of exodus can be weathered, given that it's probably not a random sampling of the populace and is, most likely, younger people with more future productivity ahead of them.
The government might not change, but I'm having trouble imagining that things don't just continue to get worse. That's the kind of thing that seems to have a high chance of creating a positive feedback loop (positive in the sense that it keeps getting stronger, not that it's good).
e.g: People live > things get worse > more people leave > things get worse > etc.
From the Government's point of view, the ideal population level of Cuba is probably as many people as it takes to work the sugar plantations, plus a bunch of Communist Party officials to own all the sugar plantations.
There's no need for a modern economy if you can just be a rich plantation owner.
Sometimes an heir *wants* to open or modernize the country, like Mohammed bin Salman has done in Saudi-Arabia. This wouldn't technically mean the end of the Kim regime (not necessarily), but a change of the North Korean model.
Another possibility is a coup. Who knows what's going on in North Korea? Perhaps a handful of high-rank generals are planning to bring down Kim Jong-Un and replace him with a weak Kim figurehead that they control.
I guess theoretically, they might be let back home and then put into camps...
The only credible cause of a regime change would be if the military get sufficiently unhappy about something to stage a coup, but the regime has likely coup-proofed itself well, and it's not obvious anything would change even if it happened.
I am looking for INDEPENDENT sponsors for the innovative AI game TRAPPED.
I already have a working demo here: https://vaaal88.itch.io/trapped
This is basically a new game genre, a psychological-horror thriller vaguely inspired by a qtnm short sotry in which you are talking with a person on the other side, trapped to a chair, and you need to help them just through an old-school terminal connection.
I would LOVE to keep developing the game and monetize it. I think it might get famous given the right marketing. Right now, I am looking for someone that is basically willing to pay me to work on it, as I am currently unemployed and I need a way to sustain myself if I want to keep working on this. I know this is a long shot, but I guess it's worth a trying with this community :)
Asking for an individual sponsor might be just about the least likely route to secure funding. I would suggest either seeking crowdfunding or pitching to the right publisher.
Anyone have any connections to Cortical Labs, the Australian startup with Pong-playing neurons? Or info on how they're doing since Series A a year ago?
Is this a reply to something?