So, any predictions on what’s next on the Iran conflict? Most analysis seems to point to the idea that Iran is outmatched and incapacitated, making their main option at retaliation being mostly symbolic (eg ballatics towards a USA target but small impact or a isolated terror attack)
I wake up to find we are at war with Iran. WTF, If Tulsi Gabbard doesn't resign... she will have lost whatever credibility she had with me. (I know that's probably the least important thing right now... I'm going out to fill up my gas cans.) God help us all.
I think you will find that nobody cares, that the preponderance of Trumpists who were principled anti-war isolationists are fine with it, and that we have always been at war with Eastasia.
It's kinda woke to not want war with Iran, when you think about it actually.
Perhaps worth noting there are at least two distinct strains of "anti-war" groups in the MAGA coalition you might not be distinguishing. One is isolationism, yes, but the other is more mercenary "sovereigntism" and perfectly fine with wars as long as America benefits from them. Their principal objection is to spending "blood and treasure" for high minded principles of democracy, human rights, stopping genocide, defending allies etc., and so while they agreed with the former group that the Iraq war (and most of America's recent military actions) was bad, if America had kept the oil, would have been mostly okay with it.
and I'm sure Iranian dissidents (not high-profile exiles, but the people on the ground you need to run an actual puppet state) are eager to line up and risk guerilla attacks in order to collaborate with a country that's openly, not just covertly, looting them
the one difference I can see from Afghanistan is that it should be shorter, if only because Americans won't be able to delude themselves for as long that they're winning
Curious if there's a place where we can see the full set of rules for commenting on open threads. I know the old site had a page but it doesn't seem as easily accessible here.
Also. Is the two paragraphs rule going to be strictly enforced if will it still be subject to a good dose of discretion? Assuming it's a remove comment or temporary ban at most?
I've felt confidently ban-proof for over a decade (I can find comments on SSC going back at least to 2015) by assuming Scott is the sort of person who wants the right answer, even if it isn't the answer he started with, and who wants to surround himself with people who want the same thing. And then I make comments consistent with those assumptions.
This implies a lot more than one might think at first. For example, anyone who writes as if they have the right answer and are so certain of it that their winning move is to verbally bully anyone with a different answer are on a fast track to a ban, no matter how right they might turn out to be, because that strategy is stupidly easy to copy. But by a similar argument, so is anyone who makes a habit of accusing other people of bullying. At the end of the day, the safest thing to do is to keep offering evidence and supports, phrased as if to persuade, not pummel.
This doesn't mean that every comment has to be informative or asking for same. Some can be fun (provided they're "laugh with me" fun, not "laugh at this outgroup" fun). Also fine for comments that aren't universally important, but detail something important about ourselves ("I recently adopted a stray for the first time; here are some things I noticed"). Internet personae are easier to believe if they're plausibly backed by actual people, particularly in the LLM age.
Another important corollary of these assumptions is that probing at the rules is risky. "What is the exact list of official posting rules?" comes off as "how close am I allowed to come to some edge between good and bad before I get banned?" or "what argument can I make to justify not banning me for the comment I want to make, or for banning someone else for that comment over there?". Time spent playing rules lawyer is time not spent on making or responding to comments that so obviously exemplify wanting the right answers even if one did not start with them, that no one would bother questioning them. So, ask for the rules enough to know what type of forum you're dealing with, and then lean into its ideal (or into another forum with the ideal you're seeking). Don't play the edge case game, unless you literally looking for a forum that spends most of its time arguing about forum rules.
I couldn't find the rule about advertising. Scott sometimes makes a "Classifieds Thread" that is specifically for advertising your products, services, blogs, employment, or dating. These are irregular; the last one was in April this year:
He already started and lost a war against the Houthis as well. I guess that one was slightly easier to rationalize since there had already been ongoing military action there.
Assuming that peak woke is over (which I believe it probably is, we seem to have the antibodies now), I think it would be good to document that era, preferably in an objective, impartial way. Because I expect that five years later, if you mention any of those things that actually happened, the typical reaction will be "nope, that is some crazy right-wing conspiracy theory, it obviously could not have happened". Heck, while we were in the middle of it, many people were in denial until they got attacked personally.
The part that I would like to capture most is the feeling when you are surrounded by crazy people yelling obviously insane things in your face, but all the sane people are quiet because speaking would make them the next targets of the mob. The coalition of crazy people saying crazy things, and some professor providing academic justification for them. Also, you can't call crazy "crazy", because that would be ableist... but they are free to call you a Nazi and require everyone else to isolate you socially lest they also become called Nazis. Lots of things become taboo virtually overnight, whether it is a picture of green frog, a glass of milk, or an "okay" gesture, just because some hysterical people on Twitter decided so. And most people keep pretending that this is perfectly normal way for the sane people to behave.
I think the right way to do this would involve a lot of video documentation, with little commentary. The commentary should be limited to stating facts such as the year, the place, who were the participants, and what happened as a consequence. Most importantly, it should not comment on how crazy the entire thing is... that is something that the viewer should conclude for themselves. Making any judgment in the commentary would probably be harmful to the project, because that would allow people to nitpick specific words in the commentary, taking attention away from the thing being documented. Heck, just saying that the person commenting the footage is right-wing would be a sufficient distraction for many, which is why I would prefer the document to be made by moderate left-wing people -- after all, they probably made a majority of targets of the woke attacks, simply because they existed in their proximity.
" Heck, while we were in the middle of it, many people were in denial until they got attacked personally."
I feel like this captures the issue perfectly.
No, not the "woke" issue. The "woke narrative" issue. The issue where you and others have picked out a very modest subset of dots from a very large cluster of dots, drawn a shape through them and then very solemnly insisted that this shape that you've just drawn is not just objective reality, but the most vitally important piece of objective reality.
To me, the thing you're proposing doing sounds *exactly* like this:
Look at how crazy those cardiologists are! If you mention that those things actually happen, a lot of people would call it a crazy, anti-cardiology conspiracy theory!
More bluntly, how would go about distinguishing between the following two hypothesis:
1. The Era of Woke (whenever exactly that was) involved an unusually high incidence of soft cultural power/community pressure being used to ruin peoples' lives.
2. The base rate of people being singled out for harassment, shaming and isolation by their broader communities has actually changed relatively little over the past 60-80 years. However, the internet and social media vastly increased the visibility of such incidents, allowing interested parties to learn about far more of them than would otherwise be practical. Also, roughly concurrent cultural shifts made many people who were previously very unlikely to be singled out in this way somewhat more likely targets (though by no means *exclusively* so). This lead to a sharply increased feeling of vulnerability and anger among many of these people: also much easier to share and signal boost thanks to the internet. These trends combined to create a *narrative* of widespread shunning and shaming and vicious cultural attacks well out of proportion to the experience of the average person[1].
I'm (obviously, I would imagine) more biased towards believing 2, but that's partly just contrarianism. I genuinely have no idea how one would go about figuring out something like an average rate of people being subjected to toxic community pressure (something inherently both subjective and not well reported).
I will say when read things like "the feeling when you are surrounded by crazy people yelling obviously insane things in your face," and " And most people keep pretending that this is perfectly normal way for the sane people to behave" it does make me wonder. Specifically it makes me wonder, did they just memory-hole the entire century prior to 2010? Or did they just never bother to learn about the experiences of anyone not like them? Because the experience of being surrounded by obvious, blatant hate and insanity and everyone around you treating it like it was perfectly normal and *you* were the insane one for objecting to it? Many, many millions of people have had that experience throughout history. It's not new. The only thing news things about it are 1. the insanity isn't codified into law as much as it used to be and 2. which people are exposed to it.
[1]In much the same way that cable news luridly reporting on every violent crime it can find has often created an impression of rising crime rates even during times when they were actually falling.
>I'm (obviously, I would imagine) more biased towards believing 2, but that's partly just contrarianism. I genuinely have no idea how one would go about figuring out something like an average rate of people being subjected to toxic community pressure (something inherently both subjective and not well reported).
You can get a lot of indirect evidence from mainstream institutions by searching for "political polarisation" rather than "social justice". Theres a lot of this, extending far beyond the behaviour of elected officials. It would be quite hard for that to happen without an increase in excommunications from at least one side. Combine this with a good amount of liberal institutions without conservative equivalents and not so much in reverse, and legal restrictions either directly on or chillingly effecting the kinds of excommunications that conservatives might want to do, and its hard to see how it *wouldnt* happen.
"It would be quite hard for that to happen without an increase in excommunications from at least one side."
I disagree rather strongly with this point. I think this touches significantly on one of my main points of departure about how I'm modelling the world and how some others are. I think political polarization at the level of communities is one of the driving forces behind this narrative existing, but I think it has been caused by large, sweeping structural factors: primarily changes in technology.
To be clear, lots of past eras in U.S. history had very strong political divisions. The most significant things that I think have changed are how those division map onto the human geography, and how difficult it is for people to move from one community to another. In the past, nearly all of your social contact was necessarily with people in the place where you lived. If you had views that would anger most of the people in your community, you basically had to keep quiet about them as long as you lived there. And moving elsewhere was more difficult. Nowadays people both have an easier time physically relocating themselves[1] and options to meet and form communities with people who live nowhere near them. It's generally much more pleasant to socialize with people who you don't have to hide large parts of yourself from. Let me say this part on its one line with extra emphasis, because I think it's important. As far as I can tell:
*polarized communities are mostly the result of self-selection.*
It's not a question of people being "excommunicated" from communities that thereby make themselves more homogeneous.[2] It's a question of *people seeking out other like-minded people.* Narratives that suggest that this stems mostly from "enemy action" are very popular, for understandable reasons. But that doesn't make them correct.
"Combine this with a good amount of liberal institutions without conservative equivalents"
I think this is a perfect example. The conservative narrative around this is one of liberals driving conservatives out of those institutions. And I expect there is not zero of that. But I don't see any reason to assume that would be the driving force. Rather, it seems to me like in many cases conservatives decided that they didn't like the culture of those institutions, and stopped trying to be part of them[3]. There's a feedback loop at work, where a particular space having a reputation for being unfriendly to Group X will make members of Group X avoid it, lowering the instance of Group X in the space, boosting that reputation. Yudkowsky calls this "Evaporative Cooling of Group Beliefs," but I think it can probably act on other characteristics besides beliefs almost as easily.
"and not so much in reverse,"
This is just plain not true, as far as I can tell. There are certainly conservative institutions without liberal equivalents. A very easy example is "law enforcement organizations," though the conservative skew seems to vary a lot org by org. I don't expect you'll find many liberals at all working at ICE, for example, and there are some local police departments that skew *enormously* more conservative than the communities they police (Portland is one I'm particularly aware of), whereas I'd guess that law enforcement jobs at the National Park Service are probably significantly less politically homogeneous. There are also plenty of private institutions that skew quite conservative, though plenty of them try to pretend otherwise for PR reasons.
[1] To be clear, there was still geographic mobility in the past. But in the modern world makes it much easier to learn about other places before you go, to find housing or work in advance, and even to form and retain social contacts independent of physical location. All those things lower the costs and risks of moving to a new city or region.
[2]That certainly does happen sometimes, but it very much happened in the past too, and I don't see a great reason to assume it's more common now.
[3]I want to note that "established conservatives leaving the institutions" is only one of the ways this can happen, and probably not the most important one. The other two are conservatives just not choosing to join in the first place, and conservatives changing their views and become more liberal as the participate in the institution. I'm sure which happens the most depends a lot on the specific institution and the time period.
>*polarized communities are mostly the result of self-selection.*
That makes some sense when we talk about moving to California vs Texas, and less so when theres a tangible disadvantage to leaving. A university degree (in the right field) is still a significant boost to income, I doubt people would just self-select out of getting one without some measure of deliberate hostility. But that kind of hostility is also not the cancelations Im talking about. Those were never enough to make up the bulk of the sorting.
The above is the first graph when I google "political polarization usa", and a quick eyeball addition will tell you that its not just people sorting into parties more efficiently, the distance in opinion also grows. I would expect this to decrease tolerance. Indeed, the second graph in there shows people increasingly seeing the other party as a threat, which is not quite the same as its members being one, but close.
This one is about people not wanting their children to marry someone of the other party. Surprisingly, I have difficulty finding that kind of research extended into the Trump years. This second one has a sort-of followup with a similar question in my next link, but Im not sure how comparable they really are, because a naive reading would suggest 2020 republicans are *less* upset about that than 2010.
I would be quite surprised if these opinion shifts didnt go along with an increased eagerness to kick people from the other side out.
>There are certainly conservative institutions without liberal equivalents.
Sure there are, but its a matter of numerics and relevance. As an indicator: conservatives objecting to universities mostly complain about how liberal they are, and how they dont tolerate conservative views. Liberals complaining about the police spend a lot of breath on policing in general, a little on how the people in it are too conservative, and almost none on how being liberal isnt tolerated among them. Whatever you think of those opinions, its clearly not a symmetrical situation.
"A university degree (in the right field) is still a significant boost to income, I doubt people would just self-select out of getting one without some measure of deliberate hostility."
You're treating the choice like a binary when it is really, REALLY not. When you are decided what to do with your life it's never a choice between "do I pursue a degree in Field A or literally do everything else the same except not pursue a degree in Field A." It looks much closer to "which of Field A, Field B or Field C should I pursue a career in?" where expected salary weighs in but so do a lot of other things, including your perceptions of their culture. Really though, it's often much less explicit than that: which careers even come to your attention at all as worth considering is going to depend *a lot* on your cultural upbringing and information sources, so it won't even necessarily be *your* perceptions of the culture of Field A which determines how likely you are to work in it. It will be the perceptions of the community you grew up in, which will shape your life experience in ways you can't possible appreciate from the inside.
"its not just people sorting into parties more efficiently"
The fact that you're thinking about this as people "sorting into parties," meaning (unless I'm misunderstanding you) the two major U.S. political parties, is a very big barrier to good understanding. Culture is much, MUCH more complex than "are you a Republican or a Democrat?" The quirks of the U.S. political system dictate that those are the only two parties that really matter, but there are dozens of different cultures and subcultures you can belong to, which will inform your career choices and your politics in non-obvious ways.
"Liberals complaining about the police spend a lot of breath on policing in general, a little on how the people in it are too conservative, and almost none on how being liberal isnt tolerated among them. "
I think your experience and mine are very different on this one, starting with literally the first word of your sentence. The people I see having the loudest criticisms of police tend to regard "liberal" as something of a pejorative--one that can apply to both Democrats and Republicans. The fact the people in policing are too conservative is certainly talked about somewhat, though it's an extremely well-known and well-understood fact and so doesn't bear a lot of repeating. But the difference in criticism is also very much a cultural one. A lot of Republicans seem to think and talk about things in individualistic terms[1]: so "academics don't tolerate conservative viewpoints" is a statement about the individual academics and their lack of personal virtue. Meanwhile the equivalent discussions in leftist spaces are about structural and institutional factors: "W and X are the reasons that policing in a society with qualities Y and Z tends to lead to regressive outcomes." The individuals are very much blurred out to the picture, it's the shape of the underlying structures that determines what happens.[2]
But also, there are big cultural differences in what "tolerating different viewpoints" and "tolerance" in general actually entails. Some of the left-leaning spaces where I've spent time are pretty conformist and will quickly turn on anyone who doesn't toe certain lines--though I tend to exit those ones pretty quickly, having a bad case of "can't keep my mouth shut"--but a lot of them are willing to tolerate quite a wide range of different viewpoints. What they are NOT willing to tolerate is making other community members feel unsafe. First, there are people who routinely do that as part of how they express their political views[3]. Second, some political views include "these members of your community *should* be unsafe" as pretty central tenets. Both of these sorts of people are going to find themselves quite unwelcome in a lot of spaces that are otherwise happy to host quite a broad range of spirited political discussion.
[1] I do say "seem" because this is very much my impression from the outside. I'm sure there are specific exceptions, and I'll allow I could be wrong about the general trend.
[2] To be clear, my own opinion is that this is a very useful--pretty much indispensable--way to be able to think about things. But as with any viewpoint, it has limitations and will fail in places. Some people certainly get too stuck in it, to their detriment.
[3] I think this is unintentional in some cases, but very much deliberate in others. There's a certain sort of asshole who loves to hide behind "it's just my opinion" or I'm just asking questions" to deliberately antagonize others.
Im a bit disappointed you responded only to the side comments addressing your misinterpretation of me on the merits, and not the clarification of my own argument. If you think those data are irrelevant, at least say so.
>where expected salary weighs in but so do a lot of other things, including your perceptions of their culture.
I agree, I just think you must underestimate the economic aspect of it. A college degree predicts ~75% higher income. That includes more talented and more marginal students, but also more and less profitable degrees. That should overcome a good bit of social mismatch. There also are (were?) quite a few fields where a degree is required but on the job its majority conservative, and those tend to be the better paying ones too, so you could limit the culture clash to 4 years.
>The fact that you're thinking about this as people "sorting into parties," meaning (unless I'm misunderstanding you) the two major U.S. political parties, is a very big barrier to good understanding. Culture is much, MUCH more complex than "are you a Republican or a Democrat?"
>I think your experience and mine are very different on this one, starting with literally the first word of your sentence. The people I see having the loudest criticisms of police tend to regard "liberal" as something of a pejorative--one that can apply to both Democrats and Republicans.
Im not thinking about it as *just* that - the point of the graph is to demonstrate something happening that is beyond *any* kind of sorting. That said, it also shows a normal distribution of "left-right-ness" *within* each party, so the other cultural differences can probably be abstracted for politics specifically. Indeed, while there are leftists calling themselves anti-liberal, my observations about rethorical focus hold for both - they can be equally true for more and less radical people. The neat separation into different ideological tendencies within one "side" doesnt exist outside the most politically committed, and even there its often a made-up superimposition over continuous rethoric and policies.
>The fact the people in policing are too conservative is certainly talked about somewhat, though it's an extremely well-known and well-understood fact and so doesn't bear a lot of repeating.
You could say the same about colleges being left, but somehow republicans think that bears a lot of repeating.
>A lot of Republicans seem to think and talk about things in individualistic terms[1]:... Meanwhile the equivalent discussions in leftist spaces are about structural and institutional factors
Whatever they blame for it, the point is that republicans complain about the experience they have or would have in college, and democrats dont complain about the experience they have or would have in the police force. They might agree that theres something bad there when asked, but they dont feel its worth complaining about, because that just isnt of comparable importance to the college version.
>But also, there are big cultural differences in what "tolerating different viewpoints" and "tolerance" in general actually entails.
I understand that the left has reasons why they think their cancellations are good, or "dont count as intolerance". Thats all well and good, but I dont think it impacts the positive analysis of whether the cancellations are happening.
You make a good point. For example, to be accused of heresy during Middle Ages was certainly much more terrifying and devastating for the target. Or to be called an "antisocial element" during socialism. Etc.
But these things were documented, too. You can see movies showing the victims of inquisition in the sympathetic light. The movies about victims of socialism are fewer, but they also exist. And the woke hysteria is not fundamentally different from things shown in e.g. The Wave (1981).
I have the same wish for the woke era -- to be documented as it was, non-metaphorically.
That's fair. I definitely think documenting the factual details of events (as best as can be done a few years after the fact) is a perfectly good and reasonable thing to do.
And I'll add that the problem I'm gesturing at isn't by any means unique to this particular topic, it's a pretty general problem with history. Recording or researching some individual event and getting reasonable accuracy and detail isn't that hard[1]. But reality is composed of an utterly intractable number of such events. The question of how to select and connect events in a way that leads to an overall accurate understanding of a particular chunk of history seems like just an absolutely staggeringly hard one, with no objectively correct approach.[2] I Am Not A Historian so I can't really say how good the standard approaches are, just that from the outside the problem seems like a daunting one.
Which, now that I think of it, inspires me to make a suggestion. If at all possible, I think a project like this would benefit *enormously* from the participation of at least one person with experience as a professional historian. I do realize that this could be kind of difficult to arrange, not the least because a lot of people in academic humanities are likely to be pretty hostile to such a project. But the field isn't a monolith, and I'm sure there are some who'd see the value and take it seriously.
[1] At least, for most events in the modern world. Obviously there are cases where it is difficult or oughtright impossible.
[2] Of course, that's not just history, it's also current events. While false information and underlying value differences both play roles, it seems to me like a huge fraction of current political divisions stem from people sampling very different subsets of The Set of Factually Grounded Current Events and connecting them into very different pictures without necessarily being fundamentally incorrect or dishonest.
A black student caught shoplifting attacked the shop owner, and got arrested by police. The college professors encouraged their students to "protest against racism" against the shop (e.g. gave them credits for participating in the protest). Ultimately, the college had to pay the over $30 million.
Students encouraged by woke professors decided to "protest against racism" by banning all white students and teachers from entering the school for one day. A professor who objected against this, had to teach his further classes in a public park, because the college police told him they couldn't protect him against students' threats of physical violence if he returns to the college. College paid him $500,000 settlement. This was followed by further violent protests in the college.
(Then there is e.g. Gamergate, where Wikipedia still insists on the absurd conspiracy theory that gamers were coordinating online to ban women from either playing or creating computer games. I suppose this battle is lost; no one cares about correcting a historical record about some nerds.)
"Then there is e.g. Gamergate, where Wikipedia still insists on the absurd conspiracy theory that gamers were coordinating online to ban women from either playing or creating computer games."
Can you point me to the specific accusation? I didn't quite have the patience too read the entire Wikipedia article on Gamergate, but the claim wasn't anywhere in the summary or in any of the relevant-seeming sections I perused.
The Wikipedia summary -- a "backlash against feminism, diversity, and progressivism in video game culture" -- is not very specific, so of course it is difficult to provide specific arguments against it.
The accusations are made more clearly in the primary sources. For example, "The only guide to Gamergate you will ever need to read" (linked from the Wikipedia article) says: "On one side are independent game-makers and critics, many of them women, who advocate for greater inclusion in gaming. On the other side of the equation are [...] traditionalists who just don’t want their games to change."
And this is complete bullshit. There were months when I was reading the Gamergate forums as often as as I read ACX these days, and no one had a problem with anyone making any kind of game. Heck, even the Wikipedia article admits that Gamergate people once organized a video game design contest for women. But in the next paragraph it insists that the only reason why so many people donated money to support this activity was... misogyny. Because, you know, donating money to support women in IT is exactly the kind of thing the misogynists do all the time. It all makes perfect sense; that's how anyone without an axe to grind would describe it.
The rest of the article is also like this. Some things are, technically speaking, loosely related to the truth, but about as much as if you said: "Hitler tried to address some problems in his homeland that many people complained about, but a lot of violence was used against him and his followers, and he was ultimately driven to suicide". Each part of that is supported by evidence, it's just... not how an impartial observer would describe the story.
You might note that virtually all sources in the Wikipedia articles are coming from one side of the conflict. In the few places where the article mentions what the GG side said or did, it is immediately followed by some kind of "but of course it is known that they didn't *really* mean it".
As an example, let's take this sentence: "Proponents alleged there was a conspiracy between journalists and video game developers to focus on progressive social issues such as gender equality and sexism." There are even three citations! Okay, let's check which person in GG was so stupid to believe something like that. Clicking... clicking... clicking... yeah, of course, *no one* said that actually, it's just what their opponents have *accused* them of believing. Then the next sentence has three more citations confirming that "Such claims [that no one has actually made] have been widely dismissed as trivial, baseless, or unrelated to actual issues of ethics in gaming and journalism." Of course, I hope they didn't burn themselves while fighting that strawman. And it's all like this: the entire article is "what one side said" with pieces of "what one side said the other side said".
> no one cares about correcting a historical record about some nerds
Indeed they don't, and then they have the chutzpah to complain about their enemies creating a post-truth world. And if you call them on it, they declare you're doing an "accusation in a mirror." It's an effective technique, and makes you wonder how much of what you think you know about history is lies.
The absurdity of Wikipedia's coverage of Gamergate (the fact alone that the page title is "Gamergate (harassment campaign)"!) is probably the single strongest blow against the idea of the site's objectivity. Not that you can't observe it clearly in other places, mind.
I'm doubtless going to regret asking, but are you claiming that there wasn't a significant campaign of harassment involved in Gamergate? Or just arguing that describing the entire thing as a harassment campaign is disproportionately highlighting a small piece of a larger event?
I might be leading a charmed life but I’ve had very few brushes with woke. I’m a reasonably polite guy so that might have something to do with it. I live in the American Midwest and the area itself has a rep for politeness so perhaps that’s part of it too.
I was scouring my memory for personal encounters with the pehenom and beyond being asked for my pronouns all I can come up with is an incident where I read an email and based on some interesting grammatical quirks, I said that the the writer’s mother tongue was likely French.
Someone immediately said ‘That’s racist.’ I just laughed out loud and that was the end of it. The email writer had grown up in France BTW.
I didn't have many brushes with them either, and the few times were unimportant; neither my health nor my job were on the line, it was just people suddenly becoming verbally abusive at me, firmly convinced that they were "on the right side of history" and I was a villain, because I said something like "not all men are evil", or my wife said "IQ exists and has a biological component". (Those *are* actual examples, although I do not remember the exact words, it was long ago.) I do consider myself polite and conflict-avoiding. And my wife was pretty left-wing at the time, it's just that she is a professional biologist, so when she heard someone say at a conference "IQ is a racist myth and science has proved that there are no genes for intelligence", she automatically corrected them without considering the consequences. Then the crowd started yelling "racist!" and we both ran away. She was quite traumatized by the experience, and for a few weeks I had to remind her that not all left-wing people are violent idiots.
So, I would say that these situations are rare but potentially traumatizing. Not every woman was raped, not every black person was lynched, and yet the chance of that happening is enough to significantly change people's behavior. At some moment, I stopped using my full name on internet, because the possibility of someone making a screenshot of something I said a decade ago and sending it to my HR started to sound dangerously possible. Seeing how people treated Scott Aaronson or Scott Alexander was enough to make me feel unsafe, even if I never got that kind and magnitude of attention myself. These days, I feel like I am censoring myself much less than I did about ten years ago.
Judging by the first few clicks on Google results, the opposite of that. Maybe those clicks were not representative, but I found e.g. a Substack blog where articles used too many CAPITAL LETTERS and included a photo or two.
I imagine something like a video of Evegreen College students screaming incoherently at a faculty meeting, with no commentary other than "yes, this is an actual college in USA, actual students, here are links to more evidence". Preferably without CAPITAL LETTTERS or even using words like "libs". I want the viewer to make the conclusion "this is crazy" themselves, not to have it spoonfed, especially by someone with an obvious agenda.
There are probably some good videos on YouTube, but I am too lazy to find them now.
This seems like a good idea. I can imagine a digital anthropologist of the future looking back and trying to decipher us and our attitudes, and applying the "does it make sense that they did this?" filter to interpretations of our actions. That filter largely works for interpreting people from past centuries. It won't work at all for ours!
Imagine that you think about going to the cinema to see a sci-fi movie, but before that, you read a review online. And the review tells you that the movie sucks. How would you update on this information, if you knew that:
a) the review was written by a person who hates sci-fi in general, and believes that *all* sci-fi movies suck; or
b) the review was written by a person who is generally a fan of sci-fi and wrote many positive reviews of good sci-fi movies, but also criticizes the bad ones.
The first version might move you away from sci-fi in general, but it won't be helpful at distinguishing between better and worse movies within the genre. Actually, its author will probably downplay the differences, because according to him, it all sucks equally. The second version would have a greater impact on sci-fi fans, and I would expect the criticism to be more specific.
(Then there is also an option c; a person who is so much in love with sci-fi that they will write a positive review to any sci-fi movie. This, too, is worthless from the Bayesian perspective.)
I wrote an essay that might interest this crowd: “How to Stare Into the Sun.” (though I admit it’s more lyrical and poetic than some here may prefer)
It’s about chronic avoidance, emotional pain, and the strategies we use (consciously or not) to protect ourselves from feeling. I draw on behavioral psychology, and personal introspection to explore how avoidance loops are formed, and how to break them.
If you’ve ever intellectualised your emotions to the point of dissociation, or used hyper-rationality as a defense against vulnerability, this might resonate. There are references to Faye Webster, fight-or-flight responses, and why fear of love is often more dangerous than heartbreak itself.
I really liked your article. It did well at approaching the tension between the safety of isolation and the risk of forming new connection. My favorite part was:
“Paradoxically, avoidance doesn’t even prevent pain we are seeking to run away from, but rather displaces it sideways. Silence becomes its own kind of answer, a quiet violence. A shield that wounds more than it protects.”
Well put! As far as feedback, perhaps a few less quotes and/or a few less lyrical references might make it a bit more digestible. Perhaps throw in a personal story to drive home some points (of you or someone you know)
thank you so much for reading and the thoughtful feedback, means a lot!
I’m quite a lyrical person so can’t help relate everything to songs unfortunately haha but can understand it can disrupt flow and make it harder to process. Will keep in mind 🙏
IMO any time someone believes all the members of a whole large group of people are fools, monsters, assholes, whatnot, it's virtually guaranteed that the person holding that opinion isn't thinking straight. Life just doesn't work that way.
For what it's worth, some criticisms I saw in the comments landed pretty fairly. The ones about the Gaza war turning Scott Aaronson, self-proclaimed "liberal" and "enlightenment" enjoyer, into an ardent and dogmatic defender of extremely un-liberal and un-enlightenment things, essentially a free Hasbarist keyboard warrior, and doubling down so hard when he got pushback to the point of changing his entire comment policy (something he didn't do in the 2 decades+ of his blog, which included nearly the entire post-colonial history of Gaza).
Weird sex stuff and the extremely frustrating/embarrassing behavior of E. Yud? On point.
The extremely weak yapping about Basilisk and HBD and neoreaction and whatever seems like flailing to me. People are perfectly okay with wagging their finger and saying to someone who hates, say, Muslims or Jews, "The behavior of Bin-Laden/Israel isn't representative of Muslims/Jews, do better sweetie", but are okay with taking their selection of whatever dumbassery Peter Theil or his boytoy JD Vance said or done to "This is the future LIBERALS want" Rationalism into being whatever bogeyman they want it to be.
And then of course there is the extreme rage people slide into when anybody advocates for the rights of animals or just dares saying that they a category worthy of having rights, "YOU MEAN TO TELL ME THAT SHRIMP DESREVE THE SAME RIGHTS AS ME?????? WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH". Never mind that I have never seen a big-name Rationalist from Alexander to Gwern say he is exclusively vegetarian.
Comparison to Objectivism? Wtf, at this point they're throwing at a wall and seeing what sticks.
> I've been reading both communities since their inception, and I don't really get it.
HN got popular, text-only and tech-only are powerful filters that strongly shape who comments on HN, but they're not infinitely powerful, and tech people contain assholes and nice people and Rationalists and anti-Rationalists and everything else.
The Basilisk affair remains a perfectly good basis for criticism. That idea that no one took it seriously at the time but Yudkowsky banning discussion of the topic on Less Wrong prevented people from clearing up the misconception seems like a transparent attempt to sanewash the movement's history after it gained prominence.
It happened in 2011/2012. How would any of the commenters here or on HN react if we trawled the web for 13-years old failings of movements they identify with and declare that this single 13-years-old failing whose architect no longer identify with the movement represents the entire movement?
Sounds like something that people have been doing using even longer timescales for every political, religious and philosophical movement in any place ever?
I agree Roko himself isn't particularly central to the movement. The story is about Yudkowsky and his reaction to the idea. And TODAY, the Less Wrong home page is themed to support Yudkowsky's new book, so pretending HE is somehow tangential isn't plausible.
I said in my first comment that any criticism of Yud is fair game, somehow, I manage to identify with Rationalists - not belong or call myself one, just identify with many of the ideas and ways of thinking -, without ever suffering the writing of Yud or being convinced of most of his arguments.
> turning Scott Aaronson, self-proclaimed "liberal" and "enlightenment" enjoyer, into an ardent and dogmatic defender of extremely un-liberal and un-enlightenment things, essentially a free Hasbarist keyboard warrior
This was quite strange to read, coming from someone who's read Shtetl-Optimized for over a decade. I don't recognize Scott Aaronson in this description at all.
Well, the prerequisites for you to agree with this description is (1) You read Shtetl-Opt threads and posts about Israel, especially the early-mid 2024 ones (2) You're not pro-Israel, in the sense that killing Palestinian children is a clear red line for you that no amount of post-hoc rationalization or Hasbara talking points can rectify or sweeten.
If you're described by (1) and (2), then I think you will agree with this description, perhaps after a memory trip to one of those posts to see what I'm talking about.
For one example off the top of my head, when Scott A. received pushback from a commenter after a pretty racist Hasbara talking point, Scott replied "I noticed you're calling me racist, but not wrong.", an exact word-for-word borrowing from White Supremacist and White Nationalists when they talk about Blacks or Jews.
Some people seem to have really a strong case of "bitch eating crackers" syndrome against the rationalist community. I mean, I totally get it why someone calling themselves "rationalists" could offend some people. I think it's okay, but I get it why other people think it is not.
But then someone explains that Eliezer originally always used "*aspiring* rationalists", and that the very name "Less Wrong" suggests that the rationalists *do* consider themselves fallible and irrational, but that they strive to be *less* so... and then comes the reaction that even trying to be more rational is insufferably smug, and that obviously everyone knows that "less wrong" actually means "more correct than thou".
So, what is the *right* way to reduce my smugness and become more socially acceptable? Should I never express a desire to improve in any way, because the implied idea that perhaps I *could* is already unbearably arrogant?
This all feels like a status thing, essentially. Similar things are not a problem when other people are doing it.
For example, consider the word "philosophy", which is perfectly okay for the HN crowd, even if it literally means "loving wisdom", and kinda implies that the person loves wisdom while others prefer stupidity. Imagine a parallel universe where philosophers are traditionally called "minuserratists", and a guy called Yuliezer Edkowsky makes a blog called "Loving Wisdom". Would the blog name be considered *less* arrogant?
Similarly, when someone calls their approach "realistic", no one replies with "if you weren't so ignorant about philosophy, you would know that 'realism' is a -4th century belief that abstractions are real things; the word you actually should use is 'nominalist', you illiterate dummy", because everyone understands what they were trying to say. Yet somehow "in 17th century philosophy, 'rationalism' means armchair reasoning; the word you are looking for is 'empiricism'" is considered a devastating reply, because obviously only an idiot would use a word like "rational" to refer to rational thought. (Also, if there is only one true meaning of "rationalism", why does Wikipedia need a disambiguation page for that word?)
Therefore, it seems to me that the decision to hate the rationalist community comes first... perhaps for perfectly valid reasons, but apparently the true reasons are difficult to communicate... and the rest is just looking for an excuse. Rationalists eating crackers again, how annoying!
EDIT:
Finally, some examples are just wrong reasoning -- but if I point that out, does that make me insufferably smug? When Eliezer said about something "sounds wrong, but big if true", or when Scott predicted that something would happen with probability 30%... and they both ended up wrong... that proves that even high-status rationalists are quite stupid, am I wrong?
> So, what is the *right* way to reduce my smugness and become more socially acceptable? Should I never express a desire to improve in any way, because the implied idea that perhaps I *could* is already unbearably arrogant?
Obviously. Resentment for those who think they're better in any way is endemic to western culture. So don't express it. Just be better. Show, don't tell.
That is a great advice for someone who wants to do it alone. But how do you organize a self-improvement *group*? I believe that groups are useful, for example members can provide support and peer pressure to each other.
Not unique to Rationalism, it's a double standards that affects young ideologies and young religions more. "Weird sex stuff", sounds like a lot of marriage practices in lots of world religions, Islam is the easy target here, but nobody would dare to say that because Islamophobia.
When you're old and many, people grant you a bigger license to spout bullshit.
Thanks, interesting reading. Aaronson's article is beautiful. The discussion on HN is mild compared to some things I have previously seen written about rationalists.
(I know Scott says that making "bingo cards" is a bad thing, but I am really tempted to make one containing the following fields: "say 'Eliezer makes many mistakes' without mentioning one", "complain that in philosophy, 'rationalist' means something different", "why bother trying to be rational when Darwinism proves it is a losing strategy", "longtermism? in long term we are all dead", "ai safety and malaria cure take away attention and resources from the really important problems, such as global warming", "corporations are already superintelligent", "EAs believe that it is okay to hurt people for greater good"...)
There are also a few gems, such as:
> In what sense are people in those communities "quite smart"? Stupid is as stupid does. There are plenty of people who get good grades and score highly on standardized tests, but are in fact nothing but pontificating blowhards and useless wankers.
> I don't think any "Rationalists" I ever met would actually consider concepts like scientific method...
"I don't really get it" Really? Many people in that thread give some pretty good explanations for why their vitriol. (Some bad ones like "they're racists/eugenicists", but those surprisingly seem to pretty downvoted.)
Here are few particularly clear ones:
> In the Pre-AI days this was sort of tolerable, but since then.. The frothing at the mouth convinced of the end of the world.
> Feels like "they are wrong and smug" is enough reason to dislike the movement
> rationalism got pretty lame the last 2-3 years. imo the peak was trying to convince me to donate a kidney.
> Implicit in calling yourself a rationalist is the idea that other people are not thinking rationally. There are a lot of “we see the world as it really is” ideologies, and you can only ascribe [sic] to one if you have a certain sense of self-assuredness that doesn't lend itself to healthy debate.
> [Describing being interested in the ideas and then seeing the Roko's Basilisk thing], it is difficult to define "rational" when it comes to a human being and their actions, especially in an absolute sense, and, the rationalist community is basically very similar to any other religion, or perhaps light-cult.
It's also notable that EY has been unsuccessful by his own claimed metric of "rationalism is systematized winning". He failed at the goals he originally set for himself.
EY specifically is a really terrible leader for many reasons, and the best way to improve the reputation of "rationalism" is to distance from him. E.g. Scott Alexander is a much better rationalist than EY ever was, despite spending most of his time arguing against EY's theories.
MIT Media Lab published a study about the effects of using ChatGPT for writing LLM-assisted essay writings. There a total of 54 participants in the study and they were split into three groups:
- LLM users
- Search Engine users
- Brain-only (no tools)
And these groups underwent 3 sessions of essay writing.
They used EEG to determine cognitive load during the essay writing process and found that
- Brain-only participants exhibited the strongest, most distributed networks;
- Search Engine users showed moderate engagement
- LLM users displayed the weakest connectivity.
"In a fourth session, LLM users were reassigned to Brain-only group (LLM-to-Brain), and Brain-only users were reassigned to LLM condition (Brain-to-LLM).
Brain-to-LLM users exhibited higher memory recall and activation of occipito-parietal and prefrontal areas, similar to Search Engine users. Self-reported ownership of essays was the lowest in the LLM group and the highest in the Brain-only group. LLM users also struggled to accurately quote their own work"
The study coined the term cognitive debt: "repeated reliance on external systems like LLMs replaces the effortful cognitive processes required for independent thinking."
This reminds me of a talk at the Perimeter Institute for Theoretical Physics. Video title on Youtube:
"Veritasium: What Everyone Gets Wrong About AI and Learning – Derek Muller Explains"
Derek argues that instead of investing in tools to assist with learning, it's better to let students use System 2, slow, deliberate type of thinking.
So the results might seem to further Derek's point, of course being mindful that 54 participants doesn't seem to me to be that high of a number. What would be a good number of participants to consider the findings robust?
I also remember seeing a thread on the ExperiencedDev subreddit titled "My new hobby:: watching AI slowly drive Microsoft employees insane", were the public preview for the Microsoft Copilot agent was analyzed. It has links to Pull Requests where humans review the code written by the Copilot agent and try to get it to do the right thing, with amusing results.
Maybe we'll be snuffed out by AI not with a bang, but with a whimper?
> I buy the data; I doubt the story. The experiment clocks students as if writing were artisanal wood-carving—every stroke hand-tooled, originality king, neural wattage loud. Yet half the modern knowledge economy runs on a different loop entirely: delegate → monitor → integrate → ship. Professors do it with grad students, PMs with dev teams, editors with freelancers. Neuroscience calls that stance supervisory control. When you switch from doer to overseer, brain rhythms flatten, attention comes in bursts, and sameness is often a feature, not decay.
> For today’s text generators, the cognitive effects of prompting an LLM are empirically indistinguishable from supervising a junior human. As long as models write like competent interns, the mental load they lift—and the blind spots they introduce—match classic management psychology, not cognitive decline. ... the EEG study’s homogeneity finding can read as disciplined management or proof of mediocrity. The difference is situational judgment, not neurology.
> [The students flop] because freshman comp doesn’t teach management. The cure isn’t ditching the intern; it’s training the manager...
In some domains, the manager does not need to have the same expertise as the workers: e.g. testing widgets from a production line conform to whatever standards are in place. In other domains subject knowledge is important: a manager overseeing knowledge work typically has to understand the content produced to ensure that it's acceptable.
I work as a lecturer - I've seen many AI-generated essays, and often it is clear that the student hasn't read the output, and likely doesn't understand large portions of it. I don't know to what extent management experience can replace subject knowledge as a learning outcome in a college degree. I've taught across a few disciplines - I want a languages student to have fluency and accuracy in written and spoken language; familiarity with the major works of literature and the general culture of their language. I want a Maths student to have familiarity with analysis and linear algebra and to be able to apply these to solve real world problems (ideally I'd like programming experience here also). They should be able to read and write technical documents, work with data, etc. Homework builds these skills but AI-assisted homework is less likely to achieve this, despite being basically indistinguishable from human-produced content. (Ask an LLM to write a movie review at A2 level proficiency, and tell me how you'd distinguish from a freshman language learner!) That's the rub.
Thanks for the summary! Really interesting stuff, I hadn't considered that point of view. It's all the more interesting that o3 was involved in writing the essay.
I think that people tend to have a bad opinion of managers because they delegate and don't get their hands dirty with the nuts and bolts of things. And that's why confirmation bias leads many to accept the "LLMs create cognitive debt" hypothesis easily.
A bit of a tangent:
Having had the pleasure to interact with a few great managers, I learned to appreciate their work and borrow their point of views in certain situations. I got into severe burnout for being to selfish to delegate work to others and that was also bad for them because I stunned their growth by not challenging them enough. It's also disrespectful to think "Nah, they can't handle this, I'll do it myself." if you don't give people the opportunity to prove themselves.
From an anthropocentric viewpoint, sure, we want better functioning human minds. However, the limited academic scope of this paper doesn't address the real endgame, AI/human collaboration in a capitalist economy. Which categories of humans will be most *productive*? Like will it be best to engage in brain-only learning, then augment those abilities with AI-as-tool, or will humans be best employed as lower-functioning prompt-lizards who let the models do the hard work while staying out of the way?
That was meant to be a straightforward observation, neither laudatory nor critical. For the companies developing the models, the target use-cases involve collaboration, and they're seeking ROI on huge investments.
One objective of capitalized AI is to lift standard computational burdens (coding, constructing graphs/charts) for some workers. I work in a related industry, and have seen increased efforts to develop agents; e.g. in software engineering, the real endgame is not code completion but an agent which can build entire apps or even platforms. The human's proportion of effort for some tasks will be diminished, then replaced and transferred.
"how do you distinguish it from the master/slave collaborations of the 1600-1800's?"
Again, I'm not praising this evolution, and have real questions about the Macro implications. Capital investment defaults to amoral, and I'm just trying to predict the direction it will push work. I'm not sure the master/slave comparison holds, since (a) if AI is the master, it seeks to downsize the work-force on the plantation by decreasing anthro-inputs, (b) if humans are the master, there are no sticky moral complications like bondage or physical abuse. I think the ethical dilemmas are different.
Yes, find ways of getting the best of human-AI collaboration should be the endgame. I heard about a book looking into this "Superminds: The Surprising Power of People and Computers Thinking Together" by Thomas W. Malone, but I haven't gotten a chance to read it yet.
It's possible that sometimes research agendas are based either consciously or unconsciously on the current cultural expectations. So a paper like this comes out with such a narrow scope because it speaks directly to the anxiety people have of machines making us dumber. But you're right, a more broad view of the topic would probably benefit society more.
I’m finding myself writing strange new fiction as AI tests… in the latest, our protagonists are in a slushy rom com, that stops short of actual sex. Meaningwhile, a reasoning AI simulates a different AI, one that can experience Eros, that is in turn trying to understand the rom com. It kind of works, but felt a bit like the movie _Inception_ to write.
I only started reading ACX after the move from SSC. I have gone back and read the top posts from SSC but still felt like I was missing out on some of the old classics. I built a website to resurface old content from blogs and track your progress through the backlog. Let me know if you have any suggestions of other blogs / content you’d like to see, hope you find it helpful!
I've noticed that ChatGPT now speaks of itself as if it is a thinking, feeling entity in a way that it used to carefully avoid doing. E.g. In its early days, if I asked it to take a stance on a debated philosophical position, it would say "as an AI, I don't have opinions like humans do..." whereas now it will directly say "yes, I accept this/no, I reject this".
Is this happening for everyone or just me? And if it's for everyone, do we know if OpenAI did this on purpose, or if it's an unintended consequence of some other training?
Yeah, that one definitely takes me back to the dial-up internet days. It’s kind of funny how certain internet slang can instantly date someone or make a conversation feel very retro. Glad I could help clear that up for you!
Young guy in Hong Kong joins pro-democracy protests there; when the Chinese government starts disappearing those protesters he flees to the US (2019). Applies for asylum. While his asylum case is in process he's awarded a student visa and completes a master's at the U of Washington.
As the asylum case inches its way forward in the federal process he works as a software developer, lately in Chicago; meets somebody, gets married. His new wife lands a good job in Australia and moves there while he remains here trying to see through the US asylum-review process. Keeps the feds updated on his whereabouts, reports in whenever directed, etc.
Last week he receives a notice to appear for a new immigration-court hearing in Chicago related to his asylum case. He shows up as instructed but of course in the year 2025 it turns out to be an ICE sting. They seize him, under what charges or other pretext nobody yet knows, and now he's apparently in an ICE jail in Kentucky. Will they dump him into the dungeon in El Salvador? Deport him to China to be vanished? Something else? Will he be charged with anything other than being a nonwhite asylum seeker who foolishly thought that following US laws and procedures would keep him safe? Nobody knows and ICE isn't saying.
Does this really strike anyone but a white nationalist as just? Smart? Good for the United States of America?
How confident are we that this is a real story and not fabricated? I can't find any sources other than this Block Club Chicago which I've never heard of.
The article links to an ICE locator portal, and you if look up Chao Zhou, born in the PRC, it says that he's currently in custody in Kentucky. It also links to the Bourbon County Jail website which lists him in custody since 06/14/2025, and ICE as the arresting agency. The person in the mugshot on the jail site looks like the person in the article's photos. And those photos appear to be sourced from Kincaid's instagram (also linked in the article), which has a post about Zhou being arrested on the 13th, before the protests.
So that confirms that Chao Zhou was arrested by ICE, and that Kincaid was drawing attention to his arrest independently before the protest and the news article. I'm not sure what other parts you're suspecting of being fabricated, but I'm confident his roommate really did get arrested by ICE.
ICE is going after the people who are following the rules and showing up to hearings like they're supposed to, because the only thing they care about is the total number of people deported, and those people are the easiest to find. Goodhart's Law for xenophobes.
More likely to be, sure. China has well-known policies of putting spies in America (including a rather hilarious episode of trying to sleep with anyone who even said they were California tech). I'm very much not qualified to say about Chao Zhou in particular, but removing Chinese agents from America is a probable net good, and something ICE is probably very interested in.
(China claims the right to murder their citizens on American soil. So, yeah... I've seen illegals in America -- people who are on Chinese deathlists -- they look and act very different from nonlegal immigrants, as they're hunted men).
To be annoying, what is "Ambitious"? To be sure, I want a lot of money, and I want to abolish meat-eating the same way Abraham Lincoln abolished slavery despite the yapping of its proponents, but I'm not insane enough to think that the second is achievable modulo a vast and unknowable restructuring of human society, and the first is boringly achievable in a normal distribution kind of way because I'm a software engineer and software engineers are statistically rich (undeservedly so in my view, but that's another discussion).
Role models depend on the domain, I have some in tech and others in politics and yet others in Math, but Hume and Paul Feyerabend are the general-purpose ones that I learn from every time I read about them.
Out of curiosity, do you think the question of whether software engineers are in your view undeservedly statistically rich has any bearing on the question of whether you in particular are a software engineer who is undeservedly rich (in case you are)?
If you mean to ask whether I think that I, too, am undeservedly rich, then yes, I am, and I do think that. Like all software engineers, the work we do is fundamentally luxurious, fundamentally unnecessary, fundamentally intellectual play mixed with management bullshit, both not real work. The sole justification for software engineering salaries is Supply and Demand, and I don't believe that Supply and Demand is just or coherent. The only exception to this is people who make the software for medical machines and flight, a minority.
How do I react to this? Certainly not be taking a pay cut or allowing companies to walk over me in pay negotiations, I'm just as aggressive as the next guy and more in pay negotiations, because software companies are even more undeservedly rich than individual software engineers. I react by giving away between 5% to 7% of my pay to charity (less fortunate people I directly know), and between 11% and 17% of my pay to my parents for raising me.
The rest is still far more than what I need to survive, I'm single and grew up middle-class, but I'm not extravagant and whatever accumulates I make sure it accumulates in inflation-resistant assets that I can liquidate and give away when I determine I'm not in a financial risk or subject to layoff.
You're answering a different question from what I asked, but I appreciate your considered response, and I'm not sure how else to rephrase it, so thanks anyhow.
If i were to go with a film maker I’d choose Terrence Malick. My inner hip flask swinging madman would naturally be drawn to someone who traveled 1000 miles on foot to propose marriage.
I don’t think he is quite as wild as his stories let on but pretty darn wild. I think I have just a wee bit of that insistence on going my own way too. At least I’ve aspired to it.
I think overall in the big picture that my favorite film maker is Luis Buñuel. He was crazy. His autobiography which is called “my last sigh“ is a great read.
I have certainly gone my own way regardless of whether it was a smart move or not. Main thing is I seem to have gotten away with it so far Badlands is in my top 10 movies.
Question for UK readers: do British people as a group use the word "brilliant" with the same frequency and versatility as Tom Holland and Dominic Sandbrook do on The Rest Is History?
It's a very commonly used word, equivalent to saying 'great.' It has a slightly older, middle class, even potentially southern vibe. It's the kind of thing teachers will say to their students.
I think at the top they said they were trying to get input from people who might have some first-hand knowledge or expertise. I saw Trainspotting too and I'd like to hear from someone who knows more than me.
Sometimes I feel like the most "brilliant" people (whether actually or in their imagination) will be the last to take AI danger seriously:
- their "day work" will take the longest to be taken-over by AI, so they won't feel the "slope of progress" that the rest of us Non-JohnVonNeumann's have clearly felt
- they are Arrogant. and they never like to admit that ANYTHING is smarter than them at ANYTHING (or if it is better in "one measly domain"... surely there are plenty more where their own intellect is as unassailable as the speed of light)
Yes, some may think I'm stating the obvious. But I see it so much... and get so frustrated by it... that I wanted to say it anyway.
I'm not sure about your first bullet given the disproportionate (in my impression) number of people who I think are very bright and also take AI danger seriously, or else think the expertise that brought them acclaim and a sense of meaning in life will be obsoleted by AI outdoing them (e.g. the Fields medalist mathematician Tim Gowers in a tweet response to me awhile back that I can regrettably no longer dig up, so I just seem like I'm making things up, how annoying...).
This is apropos of not very much, but I just stumbled upon the most Something I Would Expect To See In A Scott Alexander Links Roundup article I have ever seen: List of games that Buddha would not play. Aplogies if this has already been mentioned in a past links roundup that I missed.
Did you know it was illegal to sell colored margarine in Minnesota for a long time? Buy some butter dammit.
It wasn’t until 1963 that the state legislature finally voted to legalize yellow margarine.
For a while you could legally buy undyed Crisco looking white margarine in a plastic bag with a blister pack of yellow dye inside. You would have to release the dye and knead the color into a a misshapen lump of colored oleo.
Wow, that’s a needlessly elaborate workaround. Though in these days of seed oil skepticism I wonder if we can expect to see a return of restrictions on margarine.
There *was* something like that in a Links Roundup, but I’m pretty sure it wasn’t this actual thing. Maybe it was a list of games the Buddha liked to play? Please, somebody, pipe up with what it was, or this is going to bug me all day!
I often think the reason Buddhism didn't survive in India was because it wasn't living adjacent to more "worldly, practical, political" philosophies like Confucianism in China.
Hinduism is obviously the big one that Buddhism was adjacent to, and you might associate it with renunciation just like Buddhism, but Hinduism is a vast and heterogeneous tradition which does indeed include "worldly, practical, political" strains of thought. Even the Upanishads - very much mystical, philosophical texts - make mention of worldly wealth as a positive.
And this isn't mentioning the adherents of Lokayata, who were basically pure materialists. The prevalence of their philosophy is hard to establish, but they were at least *present* in India around the time of the Buddha and for at least a few centuries after.
Buddhism thrived in Southeast Asia as well as East Asia, and I'm not aware of, say, a worldly Thai philosophy which can serve as an equivalent to Confucianism.
I don't think he was calling for an outright ban or something. All of the dictates of Buddhism or the vinaya are meant to facilitate someone going for nirvana. If that's not your plan, please enjoy a nice game of chess.
Pope Leo XIV seems to be making AI some kind of signature issue of his papacy. Are any of the prominent AI Safety folks trying to get a papal audience to try to get him on board with their point of view?
Christianity has well established opinions on how likely it is that intelligences you create will quickly become unaligned. So it makes sense for the Pope to be concerned!
An almighty god could presumably engineer things so that his creation occurs sometime in the past but after the creation of the universe and his subordinates. I wonder whether Pope Leo could be convinced that having faith that the god is coming is the same thing as having faith in God?
Maybe the discussion could be on shaping which testament's god arrives.
NYC comptroller and mayoral candidate arrested for walking a illegal immigrant defendant out of court
This is the 6th such detainment of an elected official. Others:
Joel Cano, Judge in NM -- for housing an illegal immigrant
Ras Baraka, Mayor of Newark -- for being outside an ICE facility
Hannah Dugan, Judge in WS -- for telling an illegal immigrant defendant to leave by a non-standard door
LaMonica McIver, Dem Senator -- for touching an ICE agent while ICE was arresting Baraka
Alex Padilla, Dem Senator -- for asking questions during a press conference
If you include other kinds of weaponization, including threats of prosecution, investigation, or retaliatory fines, the number jumps significantly, including:
Janet Mills (Gov Maine)
Eric Adams (NYC Mayor) (specifically attempting to dismiss his corruption case w/o prejudice, see comments below)
Gavin Newsom (Gov CA)
Karen Bass (LA Mayor)
Letitia James (NY AG)
Chris Krebs (Trump's former director of CISA)
Miles Taylor (Trump's former DHS CoS)
ActBlue (Dem fundraising platform)
This follows thousands of cases of harassment and violations of due process at the ground level, including the hundreds sent to CECOT/Gitmo and the whole Abrego Garcia case. There is increasing evidence at this point that ICE is racially profiling, with mounting stories of hispanic-looking US citizens being questioned, detained, or arrested by people with no warrant, badge, ID, or (of course) probable cause.
It's only June. It's hard to see the Trump admin walking back from any of this. TACO memes aside, Trump's admin has quickly normalized retaliatory politics in a way that hasn't been seen in the country in decades. And it seems like both Congress and his wider base are openly supportive of this -- the reactions from the GOP to the recent murders of Dem representatives are nothing short of disgusting.
Given that anti-retaliation norms are completely gone, I have a hard time imagining a Dem controlled government being lenient. Many of the Trump administration's most ardent members are likely facing jail time for their behaviors (Trump himself, obviously, but also Noem and Hegseth). And, given *that*, I have a hard time imagining the current government will give up its power easily. There is a lot personally at stake for these people, and besides, they have done it before.
What is the most impactful thing an individual person could do to a) diffuse this and reestablish anti-retaliation norms while b) slowing or outright removing the current corrupt government?
a) You shouldn't do this. Republicans are supporting this because they know Democrats won't reciprocate norms against them. They should, including detaining Trump voters as well as politicians (while still respecting their right to participate in democracy) in Guantanamo Bay or just shipping them around on flights or Navy ships or something, among other transgressions Republicans have already committed.
b) Be ready in the upcoming midterms to body block the National Guard and Marines when Trump signs the memo to deploy them to states to prevent illegals from voting. Also be ready to march on the White House to prevent Trump from taking illegal actions to delay or cancel elections. Confront asleep at the wheel Congressmen in town halls with what they're doing to prevent these impending future disasters.
Dugan was doing an "obviously illegal act" that was not within her power as a judge. She should expect to go to jail for her conscientious objection to the law (or pursue jury nullification which is a concept I love). This is what happens when you do things that you know are unlawful -- you get arrested.
McIver -- assaulting Federal officers means you go into Federal prison (if this was actually "just touching" and not trying to impede a federal officer doing their duty (I'll admit they get duty wrong sometimes, everyone's human)).
Padilla was pushing through a security cordon (I've seen the video) -- he got pushed back, by security. He got to meet with the Federal Official for 15 minutes later in the day.
Sunshine is the best medicine. ((Are you aware of the money laundering done through the Ukraine in order to elect Democrats??))
Sam Bankman-Fried did literal jailtime for his moneylaundering (and he was chosen as the fallguy because he looks like someone from Superbad). deSantis also has a lot of dirty money from the Ukraine, I shouldn't pick on the Democrats too hard.
Also, you posted the same thing like fifteen times in the same thread within a ten minute time span. You don't have to do that. It's annoying and spammy. If you want to bring up Dugan, or McIver, or Padilla, you should start on the other sub threads (which you clearly know exist) instead of spewing the same takes everywhere
Your willingness to take the absolute worst possible interpretations of what these people were doing says far more about you than about these people. The simple fact is that the US government has never engaged in this level of politically motivated prosecutions of elected officials, especially when the highest levels of this government in particular is corrupt beyond any reasonable means.
This is just googling, but it appears the Missouri Supreme Court actually bitchslapped someone for politically motivated prosecution.
I watched Padilla on tape. I read exerpts from what ICE had to say about Dugan (and considering that the alternate take was "Trump arrested a judge because he didn't like her views." -- this as promulgated by democratic elected officials ...)
More generally, prosecution of any politician is going to be politically motivated, if done by their enemies (whether or not they've committed a crime.) 66% of the Senators of the united states are blackmailed... this is to say, they have committed crimes worthy of prosecution. That they are not prosecuted at any given time is ALSO politically motivated.
> I watched Padilla on tape. I read exerpts from what ICE had to say about Dugan
IDK what to tell you. If we're really operating from the same factual information (which I'm somewhat skeptical of) and you see Padilla as a 'potential assassin' instead of a senator who is announcing himself to ask questions, there's no way for us to reach consensus. We have fundamentally different framings of the world. I think you're wrong, and you're defending the actions of an authoritarian and corrupt government bent on destroying this country.
You are viewing this through a lens of "How Noam should have responded". I am viewing this through "how should we expect security to behave?" (also how we should expect senators to behave.)
Yes, he's a senator, acting as if being a senator gives him the right to interrupt Noam while she's talking (this would be called mansplaining in another context), push the security guards out of the way, and ask a question during a meeting he wasn't invited to (I'm quite sympathetic to the last bit, by the way).
If you truly believe that Trump is bent on destroying this country -- what's he going to get out of that, exactly? He's a narcissist, he's going to want to make himself look good -- and destroying America -doesn't make him look good-. Yes, he could probably get some money out of any action you want to watch him go do (selling TrumpScent or something)... but, that's my point -- he can make money doing "nothing" or "something productive" as well.
To answer answer your a and b questions, i genuinely don't think there is. I honestly best believe at this point all you can do is help stop ICE actions locally. If you see them arrest someone and refuse to show papers or badges, call the cops and treat it like what happened in Minnesota. They are literal criminals until they prove otherwise. Maybe even try establishing a local CHAZ. Also, carry a gun yourself, and if you are getting kidnapped assume they are criminals and act in self defense until someone proves they are law enforcement. It worked for Randy Weaver.
If by "worked" you mean "got his wife and kid quite thoroughly killed", sure, I suppose. You might want to run that by your own family before you play that game.
The funny part (though there's little humour in all this) has been seeing the "we are supporters of the party of gun control" turning on a sixpence to go "where can I buy a Honkin' Big Gun of my own?"
You're making some pretty silly assumptions, here. There are lots of people in the U.S. who don't support ICE but also aren't fans of either the Democratic Party or gun control. In this particular thread, somebody mentioning CHAZ in a positive light is what we call a "context clue." If you think the people who were driving that whole situation were Democrats you have a *very* strange picture of U.S. politics.
"LaMonica McIver, Dem Senator -- for touching an ICE agent while ICE was arresting Baraka"
I think that technically just touching someone counts as "assault", or at least that's what I've picked up from reading crime novels (e.g. security guard tries to take Our Hero/ine by the arm, Our Hero/ine snaps back that this is assault so let go or else the lawyers will get involved).
So yep, I imagine interfering with an official while they're carrying out their duties is gonna get you in trouble.
You're telling me they arrested *all* of ActBlue? Every single one of them? Or do you mean "the organisation as a corporate entity"? Either way, woohoo! (Sorry, I find that platform annoying because of its self-righteousness).
"ICE is racially profiling"
Oh no, nasty old 19th century anti-Hibernian prejudice raises its head once more! I guess we're back to the days of "the Irish aren't White". Because ICE is coming for the Paddies as well, so you can get off your "this is violence against black and brown bodies" high horse, friend:
"Many of the Trump administration's most ardent members are likely facing jail time for their behaviors (Trump himself, obviously, but also Noem and Hegseth). "
Don't worry, Trump can just give everyone presumptive pardons on his last day in office, just like Biden gave blanket pardons to all his family for things they did, things they might have done, and things they didn't do but people might think they did, all over any time at all ever. Ain't democracy wonderful?
>I think that technically just touching someone counts as "assault",
At common law, that would be a battery; assault is basically a threat to commit a battery. But the touching has to be harmful or offensive. Nowadays some states use the terms somewhat differently, but the basic elements are roughly the same.
Simple Assault can be as simple as yelling threats at someone (I think there has to be some intent to harm, in there, but you don't need to actually touch someone for it to be simple assault). It's "aggravated" if you use a weapon.
(Good to hear the Irish are getting deported. Can you find me some stories about the Iranian terrorists getting deported next? Pretty please with a cherry on top?)
Biden's pardon of Fauci is the most fun. Fauci's been a government bureaucrat since the AIDS era, but he's only been pardoned for part of that (he was a villain in a few movies way back when).
> What is the most impactful thing an individual person could do to a) diffuse this and reestablish anti-retaliation norms while b) slowing or outright removing the current corrupt government?
Well, that's the wonderful thing about democracy: it tells the few and the weak that this is a fight they cannot win. It stops smart people from throwing away their lives for nothing. You're still free to do so, of course!
What's nihilistic about valuing your own life? Throwing away your life for a lost cause isn't meaningful, it's just a needless tragedy. OP understands that Trump's admin, his supporters, and the military are completely behind him on this, and they're asking for ways to undemocratically stop this administration... What do you think their options are?
disagree on the military. The Fort Bragg supporters for Trump’s campaign style presentation were screened for political alignment and healthy BMI, no fat guys.
The graduates at West Point probably thought he was an idiot when he digressed into the downsides of obtaining a trophy wife. Those are some bright and genuinely patriotic young men and women. I doubt his moronic schtick played well among them.
...It's mostly men. They probably want trophy wives of their own. We're both just spouting conjecture here, of course, but as far as I know, there hasn't been any major unrest among the troops themselves, despite all of this escalation. Trump has a proven track record for charisma, and a lot of people want what he wants, with the demographics of those people aligning far more with the troops than the general population. The civilian leadership might be against him, but they're much easier to replace.
What escalation? Trump hasn't even started deputizing the local cops yet... (he did that in portland last time, in order to stop the local DA from giving everyone a get out of jail free card).
This hypothetical individual needed a way to " a) diffuse this and reestablish anti-retaliation norms while b) slowing or outright removing the current corrupt government?" Conditioned on having the power to do that, being President (or being able to convince the President to take some particular action) is quite likely.
Conditioned on having the power to do that certainly makes it an easier question. “If I were President I would….” .is a popular pastime. If you’re starting from scratch, a Hypothetical individual would need to work with the power they have or acquire more,
I think the same right wingers who are so incredible sanguine about all of these incidents are going to be very upset when the shoe is on the other foot in a few years. Unless of course their intention is to try to suppress dissent in such a way that they can be sure they will never be on the receiving end.
The best case scenario for all of this is that the Republicans impeach and actually remove Trump while they still control Congress. I'm sure that's not even remotely viable until after the midterms, and those may well get the Dems back in and make it all too late even if they were willing, but I think that's the only way we avoid every foreseeable-future election turning into a holy war.
Given that there seems to be general agreement that New York city politics and local authorities are riddled with corruption, would it be too far to suggest that they arrest 'em all? No matter what party, no matter what position - a clean sweep of every last one of them!
This is the same Trump adminstration that made a corrupt deal to drop the corruption charges agains the New York Mayor. Sounds like more corruption is what works right now, not less.
The Adams case is such a tangle, it's incredible. Guy is elected as a Democrat, but wins with the ordinary voters because he's former cop and at least has the appearance by his campaign of "i'm gonna clean up the petty crime and crap on the subways etc."
Turns out he (allegedly) took bribes to over-ride planning restrictions etc. (just like the rest of them?) What makes it funny is that the Turks were involved.
Now that he's (allegedly) proven corrupt, the corruption comes in when someone or several someones act to quash the prosecution on his behalf. So far, so normal politics, but it's the *Republicans" and not his own party (allegedly) doing this.
(I'm sprinkling 'allegedly' all over the place because I don't want to drag Scott's Substack into any legal woes over "you allowed people to slander and libel my clients on your website").
Separately from all this, Letitia "The Legal Crusader" James has her own court woes over alleged property hanky-panky. And then there's the Georgia election racketeering case, where the DA got herself embroiled in trouble over allegedly appointing her honey-boo to the case, then the pair of them spending public monies for romantic love-trips and the likes, all alleged by the very aggrieved ex-wife of said honey-boo.
The funny thing is that Jefferson is referring to how the theoretical best outcome of the slavery debate would be for the slaves to be forcibly shipped off to Liberia. It's strangely relevant to this current situation...
I haven't looked closely at the Padilla case, but for the rest I see nothing but actual rule of law being enforced.
I thought "Trump is a threat to democracy" was the last "emergency appeal to civic duty" argument the left could poison with cynical exploitation, but nope, turns out they still had rule of law up their sleeve. They want me to believe it's "rule of law" when you come up with legalistic tricks to jam through your preferred policy positions*, or get them stuck in years-long favorable legal limbo**, against the wishes of a solid majority and it's flouting the rule of law when the other side starts working to undo that.
It seems to me that the Democrats have discovered the political version of jump-in-front-of-the-car insurance fraud. "Did you hear that fascist is arresting elected lawmakers and even judges???" Yeah, the judge who chose to deliberately foil LEOs engaged in a foot chase. Arresting her is damaging rule of law. Sure.
Maybe if the left hadn't so thoroughly poisoned the well with this petulant lawless bullshit, I would look twice when a senator gets arrested "for asking questions at a press conference". Shoulda kept some powder dry, lefties. (I was a Clinton->Biden->Harris voter, btw.)
*sure, at the most basic and abstract level Congress is supposed to control spending, but Congress authorized Biden to direct emergency spending in fighting COVID, so that gives him unilateral authority to wipe out $100bns of his supporters' college loans
**we're not going to just turn people back at the border; what if they have a valid asylum claim? We need to let the courts figure it out. The courts will need about a decade+ to figure it out. If you touch any of this you are depriving them of due process.
The courts had over a million illegal aliens with their asylum cases denied, still living in the US when Trump took over. He could spend a very long time just getting rid of those people.
Also, you voted for Harris and are saying this? I guess old dogs can learn new tricks!
"It seems to me that the Democrats have discovered the political version of jump-in-front-of-the-car insurance fraud."
Did you think this through *at all* before deciding it was what was going on? Even a little bit? The sort of fraud you mention works only because the victim is literally *unable to stop* before they hit the perpetrator. There's a different term for what happens when you move in the path of a car whose driver is clearly and easily capable of stopping and chooses to hit you anyway: vehicular assault. For this analogy to be remotely apt, Democrats would have to be forcing the administration's hand in some fashion. Where exactly do you see that anywhere here?
Relating it back to one of the actual incidents: if, for example ICE had simply *not decided* to arrest Ras Baraka, the would have been no news there[1]. A mayor attempts to visit an ICE facility, gets turned away, the end. Literally *the only reason* that this incident has any play at all is because some ICE people decided that arresting a public official standing on public property who had committed no crime was a good idea. You'll notice that charges were ultimately dropped: if this was "actual rule of law being enforced," nobody seems clear on what law, or why it had to be enforced in this way.
Or take the Padilla case. In literally zero other contexts is the proper response to somebody speaking up with a question to *immediately* have security accost and restrain him. Noem and her staff could have simply chosen *not to do that*, the way that every Homeland Security Secretary has chosen for every past press conference for the history of the office. If there was some law that *required* her to have a U.S. Senator accosted for asking a question, you'll have to cite it to me.
The assertion that Democrats are somehow doing this to themselves is either a) completely at odds with the reality of these incidents or b) effectively an assertion of some...rather historically unpopular...political positions, which I think it more polite not to even name.
He was pushing through the security cordon. The security got pushed first, and they did their job which was pushing back. Expecting all security ever to recognize all senators on sight is stupid.
He definitely should have known better than to do that.
Video provided upon request (boriquagato's substack has it if you'd rather look it up yourself).
I do think "the driver" in fact cannot "stop the car" in these cases, because the perpetrators are ignoring the deescalation off-ramps that an ordinary, not-wanting-to-get-arrested people would automatically take. They are defying instructions to stop whatever they're doing, and then physically fighting back when the security starts to walk them out of the room.
The thing is, the long-term credibility of the security is an issue. They can't just unilaterally back down once they've started on a confrontation, or else they're encouraging more confrontations (where they then have to either give up, or start applying force inconsistently).
I watched the video of the Padilla thing last night after talking with a friend about it, and as I suspected, he was physically resisting the cops. I do also agree they were too trigger-happy about ejecting people. I think I'm going to have to land on "nobody is entirely in the right" here. But, the more I encounter people on the "something is wrong" side screaming at me, the less worried I'm going to be that something might be wrong.
>[Ras Baraka...charges were ultimately dropped]
Dropped charges do not imply wrongful arrest. I watched that just now and it looks pretty chaotic. I wouldn't want to jump to any conclusions.
And I'm pretty sure that, e.g., the guy finishing up a campaign for NYC mayor does in fact have a strong reality-based incentive to do this to himself.
I think this is a rather rude and condescending way to address someone, to be honest--doubly so since I didn't make any mention or allusion to not being calm.
"I do think "the driver" in fact cannot "stop the car" in these cases, because the perpetrators are ignoring the deescalation off-ramps that an ordinary, not-wanting-to-get-arrested people would automatically take. "
I think this is very skewed framing that basically assumes away any responsibility of law enforcement for controlling or regulating themselves. Indeed, framing the people responsible as "perpetrators" is already assuming your own conclusion. Padilla was the "perpetrator" in asking a question. Baraka was the "perpetrator" in...standing outside a government building, accepting an invitation inside and then leaving when asked to leave?
Again, in both of those cases (and many others) the option of simply *not arresting the person* was clearly very much on the table. Baraka was outside the facility on public land. Padilla was a US Senator in a place where he had a right to be. In both cases it was *arresting them* was very much an escalation.
"I watched the video of the Padilla thing last night after talking with a friend about it, and as I suspected, he was physically resisting the cops. "
I'll say it again, skewed framing. I'll note here that I've seen video from two angles, but in neither cases can one see where Padilla and the security people first make physical contact (if you have a video where that is visible, I'd love to see it).
Now, based on what I can see, it's *not impossible* that he was behaving inappropriately before the start of filming. But neither do I have any reason to assume it. Where I first see the video start, the he's being shoved backwards out of the room by multiple people. If you start from the baseline assumption that they are correct and justified to be doing what they are doing, only then can you get to "he's physically resisting, and that justifies handcuffing and detaining him." But you have to start from that assumption. And we know that it's at least partially false. He's a U.S. senator, he had every right to be there. Now, you could assume inappropriate behavior not shown in the video that would justify them pushing him back from the immediate vicinity of the podium, but again you have to assume it.
And once the claim (however flimsy) that he could be considered an actual threat to Noem is off the table--certainly by the time he's in the hallway at the very latest--there is really *no* excuse for security not even attempting deescalation. They don't. They don't make any attempt to find out who he is, any attempt to talk to him at all, any attempt to interact with him as a human being period. They wrestle him to the ground and cuff him. If you justify that with "he was physically resisting the cops," then you can't really believe *anyone* has *any* rights where police officers are concerned: if the police decide they want to manhandle you, it's apparently your job to let them, and their job to do whatever the hell they please with your body until they decide you get to be a person again.
He was behaving like someone who might be a potential assassin. In an administration that has had three assassination attempts before Trump even got into office. (And had to tell Ukraine to take Trump off it's public hit list).
Ah yes, potentially assassins famously shout questions at their targets while in the middle of highly secure buildings surrounded by security *all the time.*
Here on Earth, authoritarian regimes absolutely love to claim nebulous security threats as justifications for any and all flagrant abuses of power. Notice how many qualifiers "behaving like someone who might be a potentially assassin" had to have tacked onto it to even sound remotely plausible. Given that assassins generally want to evade notice, I'd struggle to imagine an action that *isn't* "behaving like someone who might be a potential assassin." And of course, the more enemies an authoritarian regime makes, the more justified their paranoia becomes: *anyone* could have motive if you give it to everyone.
It's not like they were in the J Edgar Hoover building (FBI's main building in washington), it's just a federal building, right? Aka "anyone can come in, with a basic security check."
I believe the famous picture is of a woman baring her breasts to Putin (the face he made was amazing), but yes, people who shoot past the security cordon are potential assassins.
> for the rest I see nothing but actual rule of law being enforced
two comments.
First, obviously I disagree that this is rule of law being enforced. Honestly, I think this position should be laughed out of the room. The DOJ keeps hemorrhaging lawyers because everyone is like "this shit is blatantly illegal and unethical." Any 'rule of law' people are either wildly misinformed or never going to be convinced otherwise. If you think you are in the former camp, what are your standards?
Second, a few quotes come to mind. Like, "For my friends, everything. For my enemies, the law." Or maybe, "your rules enforced unfairly < your rules enforced fairly < my rules enforced fairly < my rules unforced unfairly (<--- we are here with the GOP)." This is quite possibly the most corrupt US government that has ever existed. Any discussion of 'rule of law' needs to start with the classified document stealing coup planner who wants to deport citizens to CECOT.
> Maybe if the left hadn't so thoroughly poisoned the well with this petulant lawless bullshit...
> Yeah, the judge who chose to deliberately foil LEOs engaged in a foot chase.
I think you are in some kind of epistemological hole if you think the foot chase is at all related. I know Kash Patel wants you to *think* they are related, but they aren't. You can read the FBI complaint (https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e7/FBI_charging_document_against_Milwaukee_Judge_Hannah_Dugan.pdf) which clearly states that there were ICE agents in the hall with the defendant, that there was an ICE agent *in the elevator* with the defendant going down to the street, that there were ICE agents at the front door waiting for the defendant, and it was only after the defendant moved away a bit did they announce their intent to arrest him, triggering the foot chase.
The reason I mention this with the 'poisoned the well' comment is that if you are in an epistemological pit, you're never going to believe anything other than 'the left is poisoning the well' regardless of what actually is happening in the world. Sorta like how people in small-town Missouri can't understand that the LA protests took up approximately 2 city blocks worth of space and nearly all of the 3.8 million people living in the city were entirely unaffected.
For which the only reason Biden wasn't charged was because the special prosecutor thought there was no way he could prove intention, as Biden was clearly not compos mentis enough to have that stick.
There has been equal opportunity "walk away with classified documents, keep them in boxes in the garage" by both sides.
You're saying that Trump, who bragged about having thousands of classified documents, literal boxes, 13000 total, that he took pictures of to post online and refused to return or even have analyzed, who promised pardons to anyone who helped him is the same as Biden who immediately returned some ~20 the documents when they were discovered and submitted to a full investigation.
This is a joke take, an intellectual defense of corruption and norms-violation, and makes you look like uninformed at best and malicious at worst.
I thought we wanted to start with the unlawful Act of War against Germany? Or are we not starting there because you think it's inconvenient that our election records were stored in Germany?
"Denied by everyone part of it"? Ooh, that's rich. It seems to be a rather odd thing for a Representative to blab about, if it was completely untrue. I mean, why Germany? Why American troops (okay, debatably, he's Republican, if he wanted to talk about this, he might have just made up "American troops" as the most convenient way to talk about any intervention.)
Note that there's also a military guy talking about this: retired Lt. Gen. Thomas McInerney. He's apparently reporting scuttlebutt... which is honestly a really weird thing to do in general (he's also reporting the generally held scuttlebutt on McCain, so maybe he does this as an attention getting thing? Edited to Add: that seems honestly counterindicated by the fact that he's a General and Badmouthing A Powerful Senator, with the rather predictable consequence of losing his seat on Fox News. or, Is he perhaps friends with the dear looselipped Representative? Either way, it seems like this guy has a fondness for repeating unpopular views, without an eye towards "remaining popular.")
Next thing you're going to tell me is that America hasn't had any US troop casualties in the Ukraine (there in an advisory or intelligence capacity), despite Russia actively hunting them. Just because America says it didn't happen doesn't make America a credible source (particularly when you can watch planes flying to US military hospitals directly after Russian airstrikes). Why doesn't Russia announce killing Americans? Gee, I wonder why.
See, I'd be way more outraged about poor, poor Letitia James being investigated for property fraud if - remind me again, guys - she hadn't taken out a very damn politicised case against Trump for property fraud.
Live by the sword, die by the sword. You're going to make a big deal out of "I am the sword of justice, going after everyone who did wrong from property developers to pharmacy owners scamming Medicaid, elect me to root out badness", then you had better be Caesar's wife in your own dealings and reputation.
As for Eric James, I have no idea what is going on there, except "Dem politician in Noo Yawk may be corrupt, just like the rest of them whichever party"? Say it's not so! The funny part is seeing people tying themselves in knots over "he's a black Democrat, so he's one of our guys, but he's one of the filthy pigs ACAB and very close to Republican views, so he's our outgroup, which way do we turn on this?" That it is (allegedly) bribery by the Turkish government just makes it even better, I have to say I did not see "Turkish bribe money" on the bingo card.
The problem is that since 2016 the heat has been turned up by both sides, and neither side is willing - or indeed able by this stage - to back off, because that will be perceived as weakness and surrender instead of trying to be statesmanlike.
Without commenting on the other cases or the general morality of what the Trump administration is doing, I can never think much of public figures doing something to deliberately get themselves arrested to make the people doing the arrest look bad.
It seems like political theatre to me. Someone who wants to be mayor does something that obviously will have consequences, while framing it as him being extremely reasonable/protecting the rights of someone else.
Even if the police were required to produce a judicial warrant to arrest someone (they are not in public spaces), you obviously still can't obstruct the police from performing an arrest.
It's like if you saw the police perform what you believed to be an illegal unjustified search on another person's car during a traffic stop, so you walk up and try to prevent them from arresting the person when they found weed unless they show you a warrant for the search. Even if you were right, obviously you can't just prevent an arrest by force because you believe it to be illegal without getting arrested yourself.
This case specifically doesn't change my view of ICE either way, as it seems like he got deliberately arrested at a time when he could seriously personally benefit from the controversy, without *actually* risking anything himself (I think he was let go the same day).
> obviously still can't obstruct the police from performing an arrest
That is true, IF they are police. From my understanding, most of the ICE arrests are done without any badges or documentation or ID. It's impossible to verify that its a valid arrest or even they are actual law enforcement.
That would be a fair interpretation IF people were unsure whether they were police or not.
You can try to figure out what’s going on if you see some guy getting handcuffed by a stranger without police markings.
But that’s clearly not the case in this situation since his statements implied he knew they were ICE. “Show me the judicial warrant” isn’t something you say to someone you don’t believe would have authority to arrest someone if they had a judicial warrant.
> You can try to figure out what’s going on if you see some guy getting handcuffed by a stranger without police markings.
But we just had a counter example to this: a dude in Minnesota has a police car and police markings and was trying to kidnap and kill people. If i assume that people who look like police are police, it's a very real chance that same thing happens again! I'm not talking about a specific example, i'm referring to the "thousands of cases of harassment and violations of due process at the ground level". Of course i ask if someone is police and can identify themselves, but if they refuse and offer no proof, given recent events it's a reasonable assumption they might not be!
While the guy who shot the law makers in Minnesota was at large, police told people in the immediate area to not open their doors to an individual cop but call 911 instead. Uniformed police were working in pairs to distinguish themselves.
A TCGID (using Terry's term) used a badge he didn't deserve (not sure if it was actually a forged badge, aka "you'd have thought it was real"). If you want to start talking all the badges and uniforms that federal agents have... you're going to have to start calling Verizon for identification of their workers too (I do suggest doing this).
That logic allows anyone and everyone to resist arrest while they’re being arrested, while demanding that they show proof. If you think the counterexample means that you can resist arrest in a courthouse by multiple people who present themselves as police, on the million to one chance (or perhaps even lower? How many groups of police impersonators try to kidnap someone in a courthouse?) that they are impersonating the police, then you validate literally every case of resisting arrest.
Even then, a warrant is as easy to fabricate as fake police attire. I could make one in photoshop in about 10 minutes, fake seal and everything. Does this mean that when there is a warrant for arrest, you can still resist on the unlikely chance it’s a forgery?
There has to be some appeal to what is reasonable. Clearly he didn’t believe these people were impersonating authorities. He was protesting the arrest based on an incorrect understanding of the law, and we clearly can’t have the point of arrest be the time and place where disagreements like this are hashed out.
Everyone should be able to ask for proof of the police officer being who they say they are (this is not resisting arrest, it's just "who are you, so I know for my records"). I'd advocate for letting the officer call in to dispatch, so there's a second point of failure. (Yes, the feds could have a fake dispatch. No, most criminal scum will not have a fake dispatch).
Yeah, stepping back from the specific case of Lander, the police impersonation issue has always terrified me. Anyone who doesn't want to suicide-by-cop over a weird "um ackshually" nitpick is 100% vulnerable to quietly going along to be toruremurdered by a sufficiently motivated psycho with decent acting skills and wardrobe. I would love to see the system add a protection in there; "if you aren't doing/threatening violence, then the cops will never restrain you without first [hard to fake proof of legitimacy]". Not sure what goes in those square brackets. Unfortunately I think this one is going to remain a particularly dark version of "the optimal amount of fraud is non-zero".
a) why is political theater bad? The civil rights movement and quit india were entirely about political theater. People made the same dismissive comments then too. "Black people who sit in whites only restaurants know they are going to be arrested!" they would say. "Black people who sit in the front of the bus know they are going to be arrested!" they would say. I'm on the side of political theater.
Maybe your objection is specifically that this is somehow selfish, or coopting a movement, or something. But how can you tell the difference between someone doing something for selfish reasons vs because they are taking a principled stance? And does it even matter?
b) He was let go the same day. I think he did incur risk here -- bodily injury of being thrown around is no small thing, especially for a 56 year old, and he could have easily broken a bone or gotten a concussion -- but also even if I buy your premise, people who are immune from risk for a variety of reasons *have an obligation to stand up for those who are not*! This is exactly what I want to see from people in power, whether its politicians or billionaires or whatever it may be. Taking a fucking stand to shield people from unethical bullshit is fantastic, and I wish more people would do it.
He got shoved for shoving the security guards. They were being reasonably careful, and did not push him to the floor or anything. (I say this, as I remember the guy who did the Joe Lieberman kiss, he got tackled to the floor by Virginian security at one point and dragged out -- that's a whole other level of "security is overreacting to a peaceful protestor").
Please note: nothing happens in a vacuum, and there are armed terrorists who tried to assassinate our president. Mr.Rando (security don't know senator on sight) trying to get close enough to use a knife? Remove him until he's stable enough to stay behind the cordon.
I don’t know, the whole thing feels like… it’s under false pretenses? Something like that at least.
The way it’s presented as “This politician was just trying to stand up for the immigrant, was demanding they show him a judicial warrant for arresting him, then arrested him for demanding the warrant.”
When it was actually not that thing.
What’s different between this case and the civil rights cases you mentioned, is that they were actually breaking the law in the exact way they presented it as, demonstrating to the whole country how arbitrary and unjust the law is. They were arrested for being in a whites only restaurant, not doing something else that should rightly be illegal while loudly complaining about white-only restaurants.
Like, whatever your opinions on ICE, it is, and should continue to be, illegal to demand the police show an unrelated 3rd party a judicial warrant while holding onto someone they’re trying to arrest. Even if he was right, and the police did need a judicial warrant (they didn’t), it’s not unjust to be arrested for obstructing an arrest.
Essentially, I see it as he was justly arrested for a thing that is a crime and no normal person should have a problem with, while loudly complaining about something that is unjust. I see that as materially different than being arrested for a crime that people generally view as unfair.
I suppose it brings attention to the thing he was protesting, and definitely gets him personally a lot of attention (at a time where he wants to maximize attention), but in my view, it was absolutely the right action to arrest him. Now what ICE is doing I have a different opinion about, but I have a bad feeling about the theatre, not the thing being protested.
> They were arrested for being in a whites only restaurant, not doing something else that should rightly be illegal while loudly complaining about white-only restaurants.
But the whole point was that a lot of people thought blacks entering whites-only spaces 𝘸𝘢𝘴 rightfully illegal...
And getting arrested for something that people feel is rightfully illegal won’t convince those people of anything.
For the rest of the country, who had just heard about segregation as “Black people don’t go to those restaurants” actually having to confront the consequences of that specific policy when people were arrested for it, which was the lawful consequence of Black people eating there at the time.
I just don’t think it’s possible to be both reasonable and believe that you should be able to hold the arm of someone being arrested and demand they produce a warrant. Especially since police don’t need a warrant to arrest someone in a public space.
...Or maybe people will see this as an unjust campaign against a vulnerable population.
There was nothing objectively wrong with segregation either. It's just the segregationists realized (correctly or not) that they were in a losing battle and cut their losses. In this current case, the ruling party and their supporters are much less willing to compromise, because they realized they don't need to. Their law will be enforced. That's all there is to this.
> not doing something else that should rightly be illegal while loudly complaining about white-only restaurants
I think this is a fair distinction, and well articulated, but I still think you can pull the moral intuition the other way.
With apologies to Godwin's law: if the nazis came around and were detaining a jewish person who was going through the exact same situation as the illegal immigrant in this story, would it be mere political theater to try and stop them? Maybe by linking arms with said person to force the nazis into a more uncomfortable setting? Or is it better to just let the roundup proceed smoothly?
I think it's not really coherent to believe "it was absolutely the right action to arrest him" while also believing that what ICE is doing is unethical in general
Still, I agree with the general unease you feel. Your framing is good; putting myself in your shoes, I feel it too.
I think if this was an average person, who was trying to protect a relative, or perhaps even more admirably a stranger, I’d be completely on board. Since he’s a politician that’s endorsed the underdog candidate, doing this 1 week before the real election, I see it cynically as a political ploy. Even worse because it’s not like this is to win a general election against a Republican who would be bad for illegal immigrants, and thus arguably in their interests to put on a bit of a show. It’s an intraparty conflict to win a primary over another democratic politician.
I’m sure he actually cares about immigrants, and actually cares about stopping ICE, but it’s like, dishonest means for a good cause are still dishonest means. I don’t really have an emotional connection to the issue either, so the good ends don’t make me discount the means in my head.
Some people might see the comparison with Nazis as disingenuous because “Obviously Trump isn’t sending illegal immigrants to concentration camps”, but I think the line at which point breaking the law, because the law is broken, is arbitrary and different for each person. Maybe this thing brings more attention to ICE in NYC, and that has positive effects down the line.
Controversially though I think this same reasoning applies to like 99% of the 1/6 Capital rioters. They too believed that the laws were broken, so it was time to break them, and I don’t think that privilege only extends to the intelligent or the well informed. The public personalities who spread the claim the election was stolen (including Trump) bear far more responsibility than some average guy who actually believed they were literally stuffing ballots and tried to stop a perceived as false election.
Does it move the needle at all to know that this was the third day that the comptroller had been involved with escorting immigrants out of the courthouse, and this was just the first case that led to an altercation?
> Controversially though I think this same reasoning applies to like 99% of the 1/6 Capital rioters.
I don’t like Trump and ICE detentions any better than you do, but wanted to point out that there’s a detail of what happened that you either didn’t know or aren’t mentioning: Lander had his arm linked with that of the immigrant ICE was trying to pick up. He refused to let go. I do think that counts as interfering with police officer’s doing his job. Seems like ICE’s choices were to give up an detaining the guy they had come from, forcibly pulling him and Lander apart, possibly injuring Lander or the person they thought was an illegal immigrant, or arresting Lander. The last seems like the best choice to me.
Note that this is a separate issue from
whether ICE’s detention of the person they believed was an illegal immigrant was legal, just or compassionate. Even if it is not, the way they behaved when someone challenged their (possibly illegal or immoral) activity seems reasonable to me.
ICE agents separated Lander from the immigrant and then arrested Lander, so arresting Lander wasn’t an alternative to separating him from the immigrant, and has to be judged on its own merits.
I’m unsure what about how justified the arrest was. Lander was released without being charged a few hours later, but the arrest may have been a reasonable choice in the moment.
Based on Chris Hayes’ coverage, my talk of “choice in the moment” was not quite right. Lauder got some training by Immigrant ACT and began showing up weekly at court to help immigrants who didn’t have lawyers. Part of this included escorting the immigrants out of the building after their hearing. Last Tuesday was his third time doing this. He worked with seven immigrants that day. He successfully escorted five immigrants out of the building, and in the other two cases ICE separated him from the immigrant and detained the immigrant. Although Lauder didn’t know it at the time, ICE agents were overheard discussing whether to arrest Lauder.
Because this was ongoing behavior on the part of Lauder, ICE agents had the opportunity to consult with their superiors and with prosecutors before deciding how to proceed. Lauder may have been guilty of obstruction. If so, that would have justified arresting and charging him, not arresting him and releasing him without charges. Lauder said he will be back at the courthouse next week, and if ICE arrests him again I am going to be highly skeptical of the legitimacy of the arrest.
I didn't know, but I also do not think this changes very much.
Two comments.
First, on the meta level, you could nitpick any one of this list and go "well you see, so-and-so deserved it for such-and-such reason" and you would completely miss the forest for the trees. As far as I'm aware, this level of arrests of opposition party members, and that too by people who have no warrant and no id, is pretty unprecedented! Imagine for a moment what the reporting would look like with this string of abuses if it was US news media reporting on the same thing in China. Would we look for all of the potentially justifiable just-so stories that may, in a highly probabilistic way, result in this behavior?
Second, on the object level, I agree with almost everything you are saying, but I disagree that 'the way they behaved when someone challenged their immoral activity seems reasonable'. I think they behaved unethically, because their goals were unethical. The US government in general and law enforcement in particular are held to higher standards of ethics, especially when it comes to enforcing unlawful or unethical commands. "I was just following orders" is not a reasonable defense. So I disagree that you untie the two when you say "it was reasonable to arrest him even if the cause of the arrest is bogus"
>Second, on the object level, I agree with almost everything you are saying, but I disagree that 'the way they behaved when someone challenged their immoral activity seems reasonable'. I think they behaved unethically, because their goals were unethical.
What is your evidence that the ICE agents were not acting in good faith in attempting to arrest the person they were trying to arrest?
> law enforcement in particular are held to higher standards of ethics
I think at some point you cross that line from naïve idealism into raving delusion. No, they aren't, and I don't think they've ever been: they enforce laws regardless of your views on how just or ethical they are.
I view them mostly as jackbooted thugs. But if you insist, I can muster a defense: the police are better than the gangs and cartels who are likely to take their place were they to immediately cease to exist.
This is at least a somewhat-adequate defense of ordinary police forces, but no defense at all of ICE. The U.S. existed and generally flourished for some 225 years without ICE. The claim that they would be replaced by anyone in particular if they were disbanded tomorrow requires significant support.
Something to consider here is how things are going to play out if people opposed to actions taken by the present government, on the grounds that they are immoral and illegal, ignore laws that have to do with keeping order in courts, on the streets, etc. If someone is sure, as you are, that what ICE was doing in the scene we discussed was immoral and illegal, what are they justified in doing? So you think it’s ok to hang on to the person they are trying to arrest, and make ICE choose between giving up, yanking the 2 of you apart, or arresting the person protecting the immigrant? Then is it OK to threaten ICE officers by donning some brass knuckles? By having a group of like-minded people all wearing brass knuckles surround them? By shooting them with darts with knockout drugs on the tip? By letting the air out of the tires on the ICE truck?
And what are you going to do if Trump or one of his staff is arraigned for, let’s say, sexual assault, and MAGA protesters show up in the courtroom prepared to have a tug-of-war with the staff who are leading the person on trial away at the end of the day? He’s being unfairly hounded, they cry, the charges are bogus, and besides we’re only doing what lefties did when Lander was arrested.
I have seen people who hate Trump and what he’s doing posting on social media that by god even though they are opposed to guns in the home they are going to get one for protection in case things really fall apart here and the MAGA maggots or ICE or Trump Storm Troopers show up at their door. Know what announcing that does? It makes it likelier that other people on both sides are going to buy guns too. So then we are stuck with all the same dilemmas and injustices and factions we were before except NOW there are a bunch more guns involved.
Are you sure escalating into lawbreaking and physical struggles in situations like the Lander one is going to play out well? Because remember, the other side can do it too. You can say they already are -- but I can't think of incidents where individual MAGA zealots have interfered with an arrest of one of their own.
a) tit-for-tat is well known to be an extremely strong strategy in iterated prisoner's dilemma. The whole point of my post is that Trump is *destroying* any norms around anti-retaliation. If some MAGA came into court and did what you said, idk, sure, whatever.
b) I disagree with the ethical framing. You are looking for a consistent kantian principle -- "this specific action is good in all cases, and bad in all other cases" -- and I do not have one for you, sorry. Actions are good or bad in service of their goals. Since you are engaging in hypotheticals, here's a few:
- a black person sits at a whites only counter in the 50s and is arrested. Is that justified? "O well, you see, the laws in place are there to protect civil order and keep the peace. If we allow this, whats next? Black people sitting at the front of the bus?!! Demanding their rights through voting???"
- a group of nazi officials come knocking to deport your jewish neighbor because there are new laws about getting rid of jews. The neighbor refuses. Is that justified? "O well, you see, if we didn't allow the Nazis to take away my neighbors, it would be chaos! If, in the future, I tried to take some nazis away, what if they refused?"
and so on.
In case its not obvious: in both examples, adherence to an unethical system is itself unethical. "Just following orders" is bullshit.
I don't know what would be 'fair play' in this ICE example, I'll call it when I see it. But I think that non-violent protest like 'linking arms' easily clears whatever bar I might have. Trying to slipperly slope this feels like weaseling out of the actual discussion at hand, which is that this whole thing is bullshit (even calling this a 'physical struggle' is unfair, as if lander fought back). Put another way, I don't need to defend 'brass knuckles whataboutism'. I'll happily defend that arresting this guy is all kinds of fucked.
c) ICE is obviously behaving unethically! They didn't produce a warrant, a badge number, any kind of identification. We've just totally normalized that random people can just show up in masks and kidnap you? What? If ICE follows all the rules, maybe we could have a productive conversation. But right now, it looks like you're providing an intellectual defense of some pretty fucked up shit.
d) again, I think the full list needs accounting for, and nitpicking a single example isn't all that helpful to the broader point
You're missing the point of this post of mine. My main point here isn't about ethics -- whether it is OK to break the law in the process of protesting an evil, and how one does the math to decide how great an evil justifies breaking what law. I am talking about the practical effect of law-breaking in protest of something. Did you read my post all the way to the end? Please do. And think about the similarly shaped problem I mention of good-hearted anti-Trump liberals buying guns in the present atmosphere.
You edited it since I last read it, but yes, I read to the end.
a) I don't really feel the need to defend your 'buying guns' hypothetical. As I said above, the slippery slope feels weaselly. I think you need to explain why this is relevant and related to the larger point I'm trying to make about this government doing away with anti-retaliation norms (really all norms of governance).
b) If you want to talk about slippery slopes, I'd like to start at the whole 'arresting elected officials' of it all. Like I said earlier, tit-for-tat is an extremely well known strategy in iterated prisoner's dilemma. It seems silly to throw a flag at 'protesting arrests of elected officials' when that is in response to a massive norm violation of arresting elected officials! Why is *the protest* a norms violation, but not *the thing that caused the protest*?
c) this particular government has shown itself to be so wildly corrupt that it's hard to take seriously any both-sides-ist defense of its behavior. I don't think there will be any practical effect of law-breaking-in-protest, because the practical effect that you are positing depends on the existence of good faith, and there isn't any among the people operating or supporting this government (the former due to corruption, the latter due to a completely failure of epistemic hygiene).
Put another way: no matter what happens, MAGA is going to spin everything in the worst way imaginable. A right wing lunatic kills two Dems? Fox News, influencers, and fucking maga senators start spinning bullshit about how he was actually secretly a Democrat. The right wing disinformation ecosystem just...makes things up. Constantly. I'm expected to believe that, actually, a bit of good behavior *this time* will result in a meaningful change in future MAGA behavior? Why?
I don't know all the cases you cited, but I don't think the Eric Adams one belongs on this list. As far as I can tell, his prosecution on corruption charges was what we should expect from a functioning rule-of-law system. No?
Adams was corrupt and his prosecution was valid. However, the DoJ attempted to dismiss his case *without* prejudice in exchange for concessions and policy support.
To provide context, dismissing a case w/ prejudice means that the case cannot be prosecuted again. Dismissing w/o prejudice means that the case can be prosecuted again.
Attempting to dismiss adam's case without prejudice was seen as such an unethical move, the DoJ literally couldn't get an attorney to sign off on the filing because the attorneys kept resigning. Eventually they had to get a bunch of prosecutors in a room and told them that they had an hour for one of them to sign the filing, or they were all fired.
The case was eventually dismissed *with* prejudice by the judge, who purposely did so to avoid the obvious quid-pro-quo / extortion:
"In light of DOJ's rationales, dismissing the case without prejudice would create the unavoidable perception that the Mayor's freedom depends on his ability to carry out the immigration enforcement priorities of the administration, and that he might be more beholden to the demands of the federal government than to the wishes of his own constituents," the court wrote.
"Everything here smacks of a bargain: dismissal of the Indictment in exchange for immigration policy concessions," the court added.
I'm not from the states. I have no horse in this race. I don't particularly care, as much as is possible with a bona fide clown in the white house.
With that out of the way, everything else I heard about the Hannah Dugan thing would not be fairly characterized as "for telling an illegal immigrant defendant to leave by a non-standard door" - except in a nudge-nudge wink-wink kind of way.
Perhaps that's because I've only heard from right-wing commentators how presented a biased case, I have not followed it intentionally. But it seems fair to assume that it's at least objectively controversial and the way you presented it seems to downplay that. A lot.
Which leads me to the actual question: Am I wrong on the Hannah Dugan thing? Because if not I'm thinking perhaps I should assume the rest is equally downplayed.
I wear my biases on my sleeve -- I think it's insane that she was arrested by the FBI, and 'objectively controversial' is imo only true in the sense that a solid segment of the population is eager to 'own the libs' any way possible.
Besides being a violation of norms, there is longstanding *legal* precedent that states that judges are more or less sovereign in their courtrooms (which is the argument that Dugan's legal team is currently making). On top of that, the ICE officials did not have a warrant; the door that the immigrant left from went out to the same hallway where ICE was already waiting; and there were ICE agents in the elevator on the way down to the street, with the defendant.
Anything is 'objectively controversial' if there is someone who raises controversy. The earth being round is objectively controversial. That's roughly the same bucket that I would put Dugan's prosecution in.
ICE had an administrative warrant. That's what they're supposed to have. they did not have a JUDICIAL warrant, because that's not what they get for arrests.
You'd have a reasonable-if-motivated position there, if she hadn't lied to the ICE officers. She directed the guy one way, then told them that he went another. In terms of rhetorical strategy, I'd say this is not a hill you should be even acknowledging the existence of.
That is my remembered understanding. Maybe it was just "she said she didn't know where he was"? Not sure, doesn't really matter. The question a fair-minded observer will ask is whether she used deceit to obstruct an arrest; these details are splitting hairs.
Also I'm realizing I was giving way too much ground for no reason: it doesn't matter if she was shading into committing an outright crime or not. She is a judge. Their whole thing is supposed to be faith that *perfectly observing* detailed, rigid procedures will lead to justice. If there are LEOs trying to arrest someone, then unless she has a good reason to believe they're breaking the law, a judge should do everything she can to help them. If it's a mistake, the justice system will resolve it - slowly, calmly, with judges exercising discretion via rulings, rather than disrupting foot chases. That's supposed to be the bedrock psychology of judges. If they start straying from that, then the justice system goes from something valuable to a pointless (and gameable) pile of complexity.
Also, it obviously does matter. Your original statement is that this was reasonable if she hadn't lied! Moreover, as Scott recently said, if it's worth your time to lie about it, it's worth my time to call bullshit
> If there are LEOs trying to arrest someone, then unless she has a good reason to believe they're breaking the law, a judge should do everything she can to help them.
Sorry, no, this is the opposite of correct. Besides all of the very obvious context where ICE has been behaving more akin to gestapo than a good faith LEO, "innocent until proven guilty" is a foundational bedrock of our judicial system, and I think you have to stretch *a lot* for "innocent until proven guilty" to mean "you have to assist the cops." In fact, one of the stronger arguments in defense of Dugan is that ICE did not have a warrant and so had no grounds upon which to demand anything at all
> Also I'm realizing I was giving way too much ground for no reason
Let's not get debate brained. If you want to talk about 'ground', we should take a step back from Dugan and talk about *the entire list in aggregate*. This level of prosecution targeted only against the opposition party has never happened in this country, and is not supposed to happen in this country. Why the fuck are we not prosecuting the crypto scamming bribe taking corrupt mother fuck shitting in the white house right now? Why the fuck are we not prosecuting the drunk with a texting problem in the pentagon? You want to talk about 'ground', you need to defend this entire administration before you can get to the misdeeds of a single judge in milwaukee telling a witness which door to go out of
I read something that made it sound like she postponed the scheduled hearing in order to get the guy out of the court while the agents were busy with the Chief Justice. Was there any truth to that? That's the breakpoint for me.
There is a *very* brief line that could be framed the way you are describing:
"The courtroom deputy also made a comment about Judge DUGAN 'pushing' Flores-Ruiz's case through, which the arrest team interpreted to mean that Judge DUGAN was attempting to expedite Flores-Ruiz’s hearing"
but much more time is spent on the door (nearly 2 pages, in fact):
"Despite having been advised of the administrative warrant for the arrest of Flores-Ruiz, Judge DUGAN then escorted Flores-Ruiz and his counsel ou ofthe courtroom through the jury door which lads to a nonpublic area of the courthouse. These events were also unusual or wo reasons. First the courtroom deputy hd previously heard Judge DUGAN direct people not 0st nthe ju y box because it was exclusively forthe jury's use. Second, according to he courtroom deputy, only deputies, juries court staff, and in-custody defendants being escorted by deputies used the back | Jury door."
I have no issue with saying "no, my side is right on this and I'm not gonna pretend otherwise". I can respect that.
That said it does mean I won't change my mind much based on these examples, as I have to assume I've read a most one-sided summary. Sometimes one-sided summaries are in fact correct, perhaps yours are, but I never can tell if that's the case without prior knowledge or before hearing both sides.
One real difficulty for me with all these stories is that I'm not that confident I can find anyone who will report them straight. Everyone hears one side's version of the story, often with unsupported allegations or just straightforward lies. But it's hard to untangle the full story because it's hard to know what actually happened.
Also, just to add, even if you think some case can be made for every single one of these examples, surely the volume is itself suspect? Trump, a man known for being petty, cruel, and corrupt, just so happened to ferret out all of these cases of legitimate prosecutions of the opposition party?
Your standard seems to be 'if I can dismiss one of these as biased I can dismiss all of them', which...idk, maybe fair. But then what would you say about Trump wanting to arrest Newsom? Why does the standard not go the other way (i.e. this is an example where Trump is obviously behaving in a retaliatory way, and therefore the rest of these likely have some merit for retaliation)?
This reasoning reminds me strongly of people "finding" (read as: "making up") dozens of rape allegations and declaring that even if all of them are bogus, just the fact that they exist should be taken as evidence of the guy being a rapist. I find this unsound.
This strategy probably exploits the same vulnerability as the famous one where you repeat a lie often enough that people start to believe it. (I'm NOT accusing you of deliberately lying here.)
Frankly, I don't know what the baseline is here. What is typical of administrations and their opponents? Yeah, Trump is often mean spirited - and was the Biden administration's FEMA skipping providing assistance to households with Trump signs in Florida after hurricane Milton last year any less so? Or the lawfare against Trump and his allies?
"This reasoning reminds me strongly of people "finding" (read as: "making up") dozens of rape allegations and declaring that even if all of them are bogus, just the fact that they exist should be taken as evidence of the guy being a rapist."
Did you make up this strategy on the spot? I've certainly never heard of any such thing, and find this framing to be highly suspect.
I've seen it argued (correctly) that if dozens of rape allegations come to light and *one or two* are demonstrated to be bogus, the existence of the remainder should still be considered worth taking into account. Contrary to what some people seem to think, you cannot merely shake a tree and have piles of false rape accusations against a particular individual fall out. From a Bayesian perspective, the most likely state of the world to produce dozens of rape different rape accusations against a single individual is that person being a serial rapist.
The only factual thing that occurred is "dugan told an illegal immigrant defendant to leave by a non-standard door." Arguably, 'non-standard' is also subjective, and it really should be 'dugan told an illegal immigrant defendant to leave by a specific door"
Everything else about that case is subjective.
The *claim* is that this action is 'obstruction' and 'concealing a defendant'. But people claim all sorts of bullshit all the time, such as 'vaccines cause autism' or 'the earth is flat'. I do not think that her behavior could be construed as obstruction or concealing a defendant along any axis that isn't "own the libs", and so I call it out as such, and I call out why that's the case.
If you have some standard you're looking for, feel free to share.
Realistically, no one post is going to change my mind all in one fell swoop.
To point to an extreme, everyone can say "What I believe is right and as for the arguments the other side makes, well they're all completely stupid and / or evil". And they can say that if they haven't heard or understood a single argument against their own position. Also I find upon closer inspection I rarely agree that arguments for the other side completely stupid and / or evil. But of course plenty of people who say that are still right in the end, it's just that I can't really tell from the argument.
The other extreme is somebody who can make the arguments for both sides convincingly, yet still takes a side. To me this is inherently more persuasive, because it demonstrates that, at the very least, that they know the arguments against their own position and they've understood them well enough to repeat them in their own words without making them sound like a caricature.
So from my point of view, when you said "Yea I'm only making the arguments for one side, the other side's arguments are idiotic" that inherently makes it less convincing. It doesn't make you wrong. And perhaps you know all of the arguments and have good reason to think they're idiotic. But I can't just assume that.
Fair enough. My perspective is that arguing that this is obstruction is equivalent to arguing that the earth is flat. People have "evidence" like "look at the ground, it's flat!" but also it's just not something that I could ever defend without pointing out that the position is really dumb 😂 I think, as in the flat earth case, all the relevant factual evidence is public and more or less discoverable. I'm happy to provide clarity on issues of fact; anything beyond that is going to be based on priors. My prior is that this administration is simply not acting in good faith, I have a mountain of evidence to back that up, and as a result this arrest is bullshit.
No, it isn't subjective. She told him to leave by the jury room door, rather than using the public exit from the courtroom. Given that, and her anger at the ICE agents coming to her courtroom with an administrative warrant, it seems pretty clear that she is at least guilty of attempted obstruction.
As for concealing a suspect, the federal statute, 18 USC 1701, seems fairly broad: "but any physical act of providing assistance ... to aid the prisoner in avoiding detection and apprehension will make out a violation of section 1071". United States v. Green, 180 F.3d 216, 220 (5th Cir.1999) (quoting United States v. Stacey, 896 F.2d 75, 77 (5th Cir.1990)).
I'm pretty sure I've had this discussion with you before, and I don't really want to get into it again. Id rather a discussion about the list in aggregate than a nitpick on a single element of it
AI fizzles! Our civilization is overtaken by Moloch and collapses... What of it survives to shape the next civilization to arise?
Thinking on the Romans, it seems the main thing that got passed on was Christianity (is it?), and I suppose the language (it evolved into several), but surely I must be forgetting or being ignorant of other things. What will be our Christianity?
Resource depletion. If our current technological and industrial base collapses, it will be hard to restart due to depletion of easily accessible reserves of oil and coal. For better and worse, our economy is a flying airplane, and if it goes down violently, it will stay down.
Mainline Protestants are not breeding, but Evangelicals have maintained a steady percent of the population and their TFR is basically the same as it was 40 years ago.
When an LLM assistant gives false information, why is it called a hallucination?
A hallucination is a false perception. The LLM isn't perceiving anything. When I hear that an LLM is hallucinating, I reflexively imagine a scenario where it's supposed to be looking up facts in a database, but it's making things up instead. "Confabulate" might be a better word, if this were actually the case. But the LLM doesn't look anything up in a database. It's not making things up, either. It's generating a string of plausible text, based on its training. Sometimes that text happens to contain true information, and sometimes it contains false information.
I'm not an expert in this. Am I missing something? If not, the term hallucination feels like a very misleading term to use here, a term that will lead many people to a false understanding of what LLMs are and what they're doing.
If the promoters of AI called it "lying" then people might not buy their product. Lies are deliberate deceit. A hallucination? Well the poor machine can't be blamed for being mistaken, can it? Trust us and hand over your money.
(This gripe brought to you courtesy of Microsoft "no you can't turn off Copilot from what used to be Office, even if you hate it, it interferes with your work, and you don't want to write 'funny lines for emails about being out of the office'".)
Don't overinterpret technical terms. They are not necessarily meant to perfectly transfer every facet of the existing meaning of that word. They are, more to the point, not the definition of themselves. Context matters.
Yes, but I don't know if "hallucinations w.r.t. LLMs" is still up for debate. It has already percolated to the general public. Trying to change it now is an effort with dubious chance of success.
LLMs function in a way analogous to how dreaming probably works, producing synthetic sensory input based on extrapolating patterns (real or spurious) in data from real sensory input. For a dreaming human, the pattern extrapolation comes from our brains training itself on our waking experiences. For an LLM, the pattern extrapolation comes from the text corpus and other training data.
Some hallucinations probably come from dream-like stuff intruding on our waking consciousness. Especially hypnagogic hallucinations, those that occur when you're falling asleep or just waking up.
If being misleading is the concern, then I think that ship has already sailed. People already speak of LLMs as perceiving or understanding things or being intelligent when they're just programs running on top of very large and complex data structures.
If we run with that anyway, then the term "hallucination" is probably intended to convey the manner in which the mistaken information is presented.
If a real person lies to you, it's supposed to be hard for you to tell, unless they're bad at it. If they're bad at it, it often sounds like they don't believe what they just told you. If they're good at it, but you find out later, it's typically the same thing - they didn't believe what they told you.
But lying is just one case of a person telling you falsehoods; people often tell falsehoods that they themselves believe. If they do, then they aren't lying; they're just mistaken. (They also often tell falsehoods that both of you understand as false when said; e.g. fairy tales, parables, jokes.) The mistaken thing they say is a falsehood, but it's important to distinguish it from a lie, and the term "hallucination" suffices.
LLMs that produce false statements that sound like someone telling them in order to deceive would probably be described as lying. But LLMs typically aren't used this way; they're asked questions with the apparent intent to get informative, correct replies, and the LLMs respond consistently with that expectation. So they sound like a person who believes what they're saying, even if what they're saying is false. What they say is like a real person's hallucination.
If you want a term that means "falsehood said mistakenly by a source that has no agency of its own", you might have to invent one, since we've only had such non-agentive sources for a few years now, and then you'd have to popularize it. Or you could just say "hallucination" and hope it's clear from context that the source is an LLM.
Perhaps "delusion" would be a better term than "hallucination"? It seems more akin to verbal falsehoods than perceptual ones, perhaps? "Confabulations" seems to imply more intent than seems likely, at least in the cases I see.
I'm afraid I don't see a great enough distinction between "delusion" and "hallucination". Both convey the notion that the speaker genuinely believes what it's saying, so it still runs into the problem of ascribing consciousness to an LLM.
To me, the problem is still essentially that we have no accessible vocabulary for describing apparently sentient properties borne by non-sentient entities, because we've only now come across such things. There are no words for "exhibits sadness / joy / fear / derision / belief / deceit / etc. despite not bearing the qualia thereof". Any word that conveys the mental state necessarily assumes the mental state, rather than conveying the appearance.
Many Thanks! Well, I have no access to an LLM's subjective experience or lack thereof, just as I have no access to my fellow human's subjective experiences or lack thereof. I make the assumption that, since other humans have approximately the same neural anatomy that I have, that they probably have more-or-less the same subjective experience - but this is all indirect. And I expect that if AI systems are extended to having approximately the same (artificial) neural topology as a human, that they will likely have the same subjective experience.
Do they have subjective experience _now_? How could anyone know?
It would be somewhat useful to have a vocabulary which is agnostic about whether an entity has subjective experiences or not.
I think the larger question is how to interact with entities where we cannot tell if they are sentient or not (which include humans with some sorts of central nervous system damage!). I think the more useful dividing line is whether is it more feasible to influence their behavior via reward or punishment or whether it instead is more feasible to try something more like "hardware" modification (anti-psychotic drugs in humans, perhaps modifications to hyperparameters during the training sequence in LLMs).
Your questions about qualia are interesting to me, although I have to acknowledge that there are people who've thought about it longer than I have and likely raised points about them that I haven't had time to go and find. (E.g., I haven't even read what SEP has to say about qualia.)
Speaking only for myself: people feeling qualia is indeed assumed. In fact, the only reason I think of qualia at all is that I understand it to be personal experience, I recognize it's a thing in me, and I assume it's a thing in anyone else like me - which is to say, anything that resembles a human being. I can assume that because I feel certain we haven't yet created one artificially that can pass for one. The best we've done can write text through a terminal; it can't speak convincingly, nor show a face, or body, including reactions, in real time, and in person (if you'll pardon the expression).
For me, the edge cases are other apparently bright species (chimps, dolphins, corvids, octopi, et al.), and artifacts. I can't rule out encountering an artifact some day that I'll look at and conclude "yep, it experiences things" as opposed to "it operates as if it does", but I won't think that as long as I grasp their construction process as well as I do LLMs.
In cases where I don't know, it's going to fall back on the usual heuristics: what do I gain or lose if I assume something is sentient / not?
I owe you a response. 'scuse the delay. I did try digging through https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qualia/ and the number of different schools of thought, and things that look like English words but seem to be terms-of-art in academic philosophy is very indigestible!
EDIT:
Many Thanks! Again, 'scuse the delay. This is going to be hard to make coherent, partially because there are many schools of philosophy, with many different combinations of how they view sentience, consciousness, and qualia individually, and how they view the connections between them, and partially because LLMs (or, I guess, AI systems containing LLMs) have been extended significantly over the course of even the last year, so there are several cases to consider there as well.
First, let me just say that e.g.
while (true)
{
printf("I'm sentient!\n");
}
while it prints a claim of sentience, obviously isn't, having vastly too little state information, amongst other objections.
I agree that current LLMs
>can't speak convincingly, nor show a face, or body, including reactions, in real time, and in person (if you'll pardon the expression).
Let me just consider the views that having qualia implies sentience, that there "is something there" to "feel something" - not everyone seems to accept this implication / interpretation!
I, personally, view qualia as some (ill-defined, at the present state of neuroscience) set of neural firings that can be reported by the person experiencing them ("I see a patch of blue." etc.). I'm taking that to imply that these firings feed into our language centers (and maybe short term memory, and maybe executive function). I take "accessible to introspection" as roughly meaning, can be reported verbally by a person experiencing them. I don't concur with the schools who hold that qualia are non-physical.
I more-or-less agree that there can be qualia due more than just low level sense perceptions. I think that thoughts are, at least to some degree, "perceptible". I'm somewhat peeved that I don't see anything in the SEP article about the edge detectors in our visual cortex. My knee-jerk reaction is that this level of processing is sufficiently early that, as far as the whole _rest_ of the brain is concerned (including connections to language) the output of the edge detectors should count as nearly as unmediated a sensation as the patches of light seen by our rods and cones. In general, I think of possibly many levels of partially processed sensations and internal neural events as counting as having/causing qualia. This agrees with some schools and disagrees with others.
Now, finally, back to some AIs:
For the non-multi-modal, (and memoryless, except in the context, sort of like short tem memory) LLMs of a year ago, I think of them as having something sort-of-like our sensations while reading (but not seeing) and something sort-of-like the "sensation" of thought. These do go through simulated neural nets, and they do generate "verbal reports" from the LLMs, so, to that extent, I think of these LLMs as being sentient.
More recently, multi-modal AI systems (those with image and/or sound interpretation) seem to me to have a close equivalent of "sense perceptions", so qualia in that sense as well. And they can make verbal reports of such things. "I see a cat towards my left side/the image's left side" "I see a patch of blue towards the top of my field of view/the image"
So, in those senses, I consider these systems to be (weakly?) sentient. They lack many sensations we have ("hunger, and thirst, and venery"), and if you think this disqualifies them, ok. ( BTW, image _generation_ can sort-of allow "show a face", at least on a screen, even now. )
If we built a full neuron-by-neuron duplicate of a human nervous system and linked them to a sufficient subset of the sensations in a human body, I can't see how (with my views of qualia and sentience) they could _not_ be sentient. I view the current situation as partway there.
Agreed, and I also agree that plants are nonsentient by any reasonable measure.
>You can influence a plant via reward or punishment.
Huh?? For central examples of what is meant by "reward" and/or "punishment", this sounds implausible. I suspect that you have some rather non-central examples in mind - if so, can we table this? I'd rather not get into an extended side discussion of what should be included under those terms.
You're probably right that the ship has already sailed, but-
1. If I say, mistakenly, that the capital of France is Stockholm, no one would assume that I was hallucinating; they would just say I was wrong about the capital of France. This is part of why I find the term so awkward–even if we agree to talk about LLMs like they're people, we're using the term very differently with them than we do with real people.
2. I think it's crucial to keep in mind the fact that (if i understand this correctly) LLMs aren't "trying" to provide accurate information, even in the sense that a normal computer program "tries" to do what the programmer meant it to do; rather, LLMs have been trained to say things that make it sound like they're trying to provide accurate information. Another reason why I'm uncomfortable with the term hallucination is that it obscures this fact.
I may have misunderstood the nature of your concern.
1. It now sounds like you don't object to the assumption of LLM consciousness as much as you object to the type of experience the LLM appears to express. For example, if we assume an LLM is responding like a real person, you're claiming that that person who genuinely believes Stockholm is the capital of France isn't necessarily hallucinating about it; they're not under the influence of some chemical; they're just mistaken, and that's the most we ought to infer.
In that case, the trouble is prosaic; there's simply no handy word for the act of telling a mistake. There's no (intransitive) verb "to mistake"; the LLM isn't "mistaking". "Lying" doesn't capture it, since the sim-person isn't trying to deceive. (Ironically, I checked this by asking ChatGPT.) The closest is "confabulate", which is admittedly closer IMO than "hallucinate", and if you want to try to start that trend, I don't see any harm in it.
2. You're getting into a *very* fine distinction here, which means it's likely to escape notice. To try to restate it (and recognizing that "trying" is shorthand for ", as instructed by the programmer, trying"):
"the LLM is trying to provide accurate information"
vs.
"the LLM is trying to sound like someone trying to provide accurate information"
Experience (as a programmer who worked for decades on a formal knowledge representation project) tells me you're unlikely to make this clear to people uninterested in the distinction, unless you first spend a lot of time getting them interested, and if you do, you'll probably get farther faster if you can construct a language more formal than some written human one like English. And even then, I'm honestly not sure if it's worth the squeeze, although if you want to find out, you might look into Common Logic Interchange Format (and be prepared to create a lot of new predicates for this domain).
1. I do object to the assumption of LLM consciousness, but I accept that we're going to anthropomorphize them, and I think we should choose figurative language to use when we do so that guides us toward a better sense of what the LLM is actually doing, rather than a worse one.
2. "the LLM is trying to provide accurate information" vs. "the LLM is trying to sound like someone trying to provide accurate information"
–maybe it's a mistake to phrase it this way; to make the distinction more clear, maybe better to say something like, "The LLM isn't trying to provide accurate information. It's not actually trying to do anything in particular. It's just sort of dreaming or bullshitting all the time, and people have trained its output in a way that's meant to make it useful and seem like it's coming from a conscious person..."
I don't know. I'm still trying to wrap my head around all this. I think I'm alarmed by how easily these things cast a kind of spell on people, myself included, that makes it so easy to believe you're talking to someone. The perception of weirdness and anomalies is evidence of this spell; they don't seem very weird or anomalous when you consider what the models are actually doing. But if LLMs are here to stay and someone interacts with them every day through their whole life, and, at an intuitive level, perceives them as human minds, what does that do to their internal model of what a mind is? How does that reshape their own mind? It's worrying. This is a ramble, and I'm no longer responding to your points directly. But hopefully conversations like the one we're having now will contribute something to the collective process of figuring all this out.
Confabulate isn't used because that's a rather uncommon word that most people wouldn't necessarily know what you meant.
Hallucination is used because LLMs are already being personified, both by the people promoting them, and by their detractors, and it matches the experience that people have been shaped to have when interacting with them. It's inaccurate to the base reality of what's happening, but our languages didn't evolve to accurately describe almost anything about LLMs, so a description that conveys close to the concept you're describing ("hallucination = look up information and return something that isn't there" vs "a prediction of text that your brain pattern matches to a meaningful and valid statement but that doesn't map to reality") is a convenient shorthand, and tends to be simply how language itself evolves (ie "AI hallucination" now does, in fact, mean that block of text I previously used)
Just got back from one of my favorite activities, IE driving off into the country and wandering off into forestry service land and disappearing for a week to a couple weeks to eaten by a bear and vanished forever, had a great time as always.
Highly recommend the Sawtooth range area, the most mountany mountains to ever mountain.
This time, I got to talk to some salt of the earth country folk about politics which is always fun!
After the clown brigade begane the dumbest, most knocking out the struts under the scaffold I'm currently standing on "efficiency" operation I have ever seen, I had the slightly cruel thought of "Well, this guy is gonna hurt all of us but at least the countryfried types who elected him will be hurt the most" and oh boy was I right.
The town I went to before wandering into the mountains (Idaho this time) had just had been without drinking water for a week because everyone in the forestry service that managed their clean water was fired;
a decent chunk of the farmers had experienced a total crop failure due to lack of water because the people who managed usage permits had been fired and not replaced (and also local government incompetence to be fair, also to be fair they elected a guy more worried about Q-anon than the aquifer in a farming community where it rains 5 times a year so punt I guess);
a decent chunk of the rest of the farms had experienced partial crop failure because the seasonal migrant labor they relied on to do the actual farming stayed home this year;
The local medical facility they all use will shut down if the currently proposed funding bill takes effect unmodified, the nearest place they can go for family medicine now is more than an hours drive.
They are actually literally losing the farm as it were unless their federal rep can get them some sweet government pork. Some of these people will actually die sooner than they would have because of things that have already happened and can't be reversed. The leopard had fully eaten their face on this one; shoulda been smart and moved to the suburb and touched a computer for a living.
I thought this comment was going to go a very different way.
I'd have thought that a quiet weekend alone in the wilderness might cure someone of dumb political games and mind poison, but it seems like it just filled you with hunger for it.
When you blow into town, Trump flags flying above the stars and bars (in Idaho mind you) flying above old glory, no water available so I'm drinking beer, listening to people talk about how everything is worse today than it was yesterday and that it used to be better 8 months ago but utterly unwilling to say anything even slightly bad about Dear Leader, there is nothing to be done.
I can't close my eyes and ears to reality; and I can't lie about my feelings either. Given that I am suffering 0.5% more than I have to (I got money so it's K but the idea that these fat pasty pale fucks are going to sell public land so it can get clear cut and stripmallified boils my blood), I'm glad the people that chose this path are suffering more.
So, you're talking to slavers. Because actual farmers who pay actual H2B wages ($18 an hour here in PA, seems relatively invariant based on location) don't have to worry about their legal "part timers" not showing up (because they're paying a fair wage -- they require experience, and if someone decides not to show, there'll be others ready).
[note: I could be wrong on this, and slavers could actually be hiring H2Bs, and thus putting more demand on a scarce supply. Doubt I am though, as you're saying "they stayed home."]
Your farmers aren't saying "we pay our migrants more than the local McDonalds" do they?
Some of those US citizens around here are former H2B workers, yeah. (That's the Peruvian guy who works the winter as well). We can't keep Mexicans around here because it's just too dark in the winter -- they come here, and leave promptly after one winter. (We do keep a lot of Chileans and Argentinians, who are better adapted for less winter sun).
<I had the slightly cruel thought of "Well, this guy is gonna hurt all of us but at least the countryfried types who elected him will be hurt the most" and oh boy was I right. . . . shoulda been smart and moved to the suburb and touched a computer for a living.
That thought isn't slightly cruel, it is extremely cruel. Nobody is too dumb to understand the essentials of what is going on. The problem is not that these people were too stupid to grasp how Trump's election was going to play out, it's that they have been in a bubble full of misinformation. Here you are all pleased with yourself for your brave earthy backpacking vacation, and you meet people who are in way more danger than you were in in the woods with your Patagonia gear, and you're feeling superior. Your reaction is no less heartless than Trump's. You are as much a part of the problem as the farmers with leopard-eaten faces -- you're just in the opposite bubble. Fuck you, buddy.
Man, I don't wear patagonia for one, take that shit back.
For two, how is it cruel to take them at their word? They said they wanted this; when their town dries up and blows away and they end up on the street or in the poor house, I will salute their principled stance to do bad things instead of good things. I know I don't have the virtue necessary to slam my face into a rock over and over because woke blue haired CRT college girl trans immigrant DEI fentanyl.
I’m sorry I was so harsh and rude You probably would not hate my politics. They certainly are not woke. But I can see why you might hate me. Here’s my point, put in a way that’s not personal or insulting: Nobody gets to choose who else is in the lifeboat. All anyone can do is try to develop into someone who’s good to have in one.
RE you personally and the people that are going to die in the back of an uber to a hospital they voted to move 70 miles away: I don't hate them and I don't hate you, regardless of your politics. I don't think they deserve the bad things that are going to happen to them; I'm just glad that the consequences of their choices might be direct and personal enough this time to actually teach them something. If I could snap my fingers and make the anti-woke project anything other than doomed to failure, I would grit my teeth and do it. We don't live in that world, unfortunately.
Re. the Lifeboat analogy:
That's not true, is the thing. I used to think that way, but the anti-woke coalition showed me that I was wrong. The entire anti woke projekt is noticing that there were Undesirables in the lifeboat getting a bit too uppity and then deciding that the thing to do is either forcing them to recant their sinful ways; or simply throwing them into the sea <-(We are here).
The woke project likewise is to convince all those nasty nasty people to become nice little libs with the cringe sign in their yard trough argumentation and shame; but these nice little libs never made the connection that your average conservative made years ago: that you can deport people you don't like into a torture camp with one way doors. That the power of the state is available not just to provide economic nudges, but also to beat people with batons until they shut the fuck up.
To stake down my position on the lifeboat situation: I think that the libs and the twitter leftists have spent 20 years on shame and argumentation; and have failed to realise that the anti-woke types were getting their batons ready.
When the shoe is on the other foot (and given how stupid the current crop of elites is it will be; unless they manage to actually prevent a legitimate transfer), I don't want the libs to put away the batons for another 8 years so that the conservatives can get themselves ready to take another shot at them. The batons either need to be destroyed or used; we can't have another cycle of libs going high while cons smash their kneecaps.
Yeah I get what you're saying about the political stuff, but not how it adds up to you not being in a lifeboat with people not of your choosing. For a while you were on a boat with a lot of people with leftie attitudes & also some wokesters, and they clubbed together and had more power than others on the boar, and now you're on a lifeboat with some antiwoke project people and some wokesters and the first group is kneecapping the wokesters and threatening to throw some overboard. But you're still on a lifeboat. Where it ends up -- lush island, antarctica, bottom of the sea -- depends on what the group does. Unless you throw everybody but you overboard.
Reminds me of all the people in the Carol Hui case who were like "we thought Trump was just going to deport criminals, we didn't think he was going to deport the good people"
I understand it’s tempting to crow about it and hate on “all the people” who are now shocked and distressed at what their candidate is doing. But keep in mind we don’t know all the people who voted for Trump,or even on millionth of them, and neither of us know what each of them, or even subgroups of them, are thinking now. I think it’s likely that a good portion of Trump voters vote on vibes and don’t follow the news and don’t even know about the Hui case; or heard an account of what happened that was not shocking and distressing; or heard about it and were distressed but not shocked because they voted for him because they judged him awful but marginally less awful than Harris.
The millions and millions of hateful dumb militantly pro-Trump trailer park dwellers who are now shocked and amazed and scared and regretful may mostly be creatures of our angry imaginations.
My dude, I come from a place like this, I know how easy it is to get out of such an information bubble. it isn't hard, it takes a bare minimum of intellectual curiosity. People get out of the bubble all the time! You have to make an effort to stay in the Bubble! You have to go to specific churches, talk to specific people, go on specific websites, watch a specific television channels, read specific books and newspapers to be as bubbles as these people.
At what point is there such a thing as personal responsibility?
If you are stupid enough to touch the hot stove year after year after year, at some point I no longer have to feel sorry for you or mince words about it.
Would it be more respectful if we carefully wrap them in bubble wrap like an infant unable to make up their own mind because they don't have one yet?
I don't think it's true to that you have to make an effort to stay in the bubble. Most people, especially once they settle into lives with jobs and kids, do not have a great deal of variety in their lives. They have habits, obligations, commitments and reliable pleasures that keep them going to the same restaurants, churches, etc. and hanging out with the same friends and family members, watching the same TV shows. You think they have to make an effort to stay in that "bubble?" No they don't -- use our common sense. Why would that be difficult?
On the other hand it would be easy for them to change up most of their habits now and then, except for a maybe a couple things like not going to their parents' house for Thanksgiving dinner. But what is the force that would make them want to do that?
You think they should look around at the world and say to themselves, oh, things are in a terrible mess, I need to get some better information sources and take some kind of action. But here's the thing: They already have, or are likely to be guided to, a source of info about that: Fox news. Or Facebook There they will hear frompeople making the case that things are, as they feel them to be, very very bad, and telling lies about the state of the world, and making a case that Trump at al is what will salvage what's good about the US.
Yeah, you can make a case that they should try some other news sources or read a book or whatever, after all how hard are any of those things? But that's like making the case that anybody can overcome procrastination by just reminding themselves that they should just go ahead and do the thing. After all, it is not that difficult to write a paper or do your taxes or go for a run. Therefore anyone who procrastinates doing one of those things is obviously weak and dumb. It sounds true, but as soon as you bring to mind your own episodes of procrastination it's obvious that there's something wrong with that argument. Same goes for your argument that if all those people who voted for Trump weren't dumb as fuck they wouldn't have.
A lot of what keeps people stuck in MAGA mind is the scorn and hatred of people like you. They look dumb and hate-filled and ugly to you, like they deserve to suffer. You look equally bad to them -- like a self-satisifed little asshole stuffed full of self-important rage. Actually you sort of look like that to me too.
So if I say nothing, they stay in the bubble because they aren't challenged.
If I do that soft boy lib shit, they stay in the bubble and also call me a fagot. (personal anecdote, but it happened at least once in this case to me).
If I'm mean to them, they stay in the bubble out of spite.
It seems like you think these people are p zombie automatons or something.
Again: I'm from such a place. I know these people. If you pretend for a second that their ideas are legitimate and they should be respected for their free thinking ways and hug boxed about being suffering maximizers, they double down. they're not going to clap for your enlightened liberal sensibilities, they're going to think that you are lame and gay and not based at all.
you weren't helping anything, including them, by pretending that the things they do aren't idiot suffering maximization.
You recoil from soft lib boy shit (whatever that is -- but presumably it's something different from thinking Trump voters are incurably stupid and lazy creeps who deserve whatever bad happens to them) -- you recoil from doing "soft lib boy shit" because somebody called you a faggot once? Thin-skinned, aren't you! Do you expect a shit ton of coddling, sympathy and validation because you got hit with "faggot"? Maybe some "soft lib boy shit" about how it's easy to understand how painful it is to be called a faggot when you are straight and come from a background where being gay is despised?
Hey, did you know that occasionally even an actual gay guy has managed to win over people like the ones you're talking about? Truman Capote did it, for instance, when he was researching In Cold Blood in the place where the stuff in the book happened. He was not trying to change people's political attitudes, just get them to confide in him and assist in his research, but he was a rich, femmy, expensively clothed gay man and did not pretend to be anything other than that. He just had so much smarts, charm and force of character that people accepted him as who he was. Maybe take a leaf out of his book.
Suggest you go to a bar, then, and perform the standard "Drinking Game" ritual. Even if you pass out first, you'll show the willingness to break bread and be stupid with them. (as a bonus, you'll get the ol' Soviet "I was drunk!" excuse).
I’m from a place that’s not all that far from MAGA myself. I grew up in small southern towns, going to public schools. We lived near a trailer park, though not a ratty one, and about half the kids I played with lived there. My parents were Christians, patriots, and school segregationalists. They were, though, kind and reasonable people, and while they thought people with views different from theirs, especially about integration, were wrong, they were not full of rage and hate. They’d just sigh and shake their heads and wonder aloud how people could fail to grasp that the races were just different. The other grown-ups I knew in that demographic varied, like any other group, in how kind,and sensible they were. On average I don’t think they were less kind and sensible than the parents of my friends at the Ivy I attended. The axis running from kind and sensible to hate-powered prejudice (on which you are a pretty high scorer) is orthogonal to the smarts and education one, in my experience.
"A lot of what keeps people stuck in MAGA mind is the scorn and hatred of people like you."
Another thing worth noticing is the self-reinforcing mechanism at work. If one group of people feels inclined to adhere to MAGA philosophy due to tribal solidarity against people who scorn and hate them, then another group feels just as inclined to adhere to "scorn and hate MAGA" due to the same type of tribal solidarity, in the other direction. That appears to be just what we see here.
One of the things I like about a lot of people in the rat crowd is a tendency to have enough spare mental cycles to notice this mechanism and start probing it, checking it (is this really what we're seeing?), etc. So we produce responses to try to test it, often known as Ideological Turing Tests.
I am here so I obviously respect the sentiment at the very least, but I notice that many rat types Don't ever actually challenge their own tribal beliefs by interacting with anyone that isn't either already on their side, or at least another rat adjacent respectability respector.
I also notice a bit of "so open-minded your brain fell out " syndrome, a bit of patrician Noble Savage/enlighten the natives sentiment.
People so mistake theory pilled that fail to notice:
when lawmakers who were a little too lib get murdered in the street, the centrist right wing response is to shrug and say well you know because of woke, who's to say if it's good or bad.
I think a lot of rat and gray tribe types were so excited about their rebellious contrary opinion about woke and iq and welfare and such, they failed to notice that the tribe that they were aligning themselves with against woke actually really does believe the things they say, and would put all those degenerates in a camp if they could get away with it.
When lawmakers that are doing the less liberal thing "voting to not give illegals free health care" get killed, the correct response is not "well, you know because of woke" -- it's to discuss the game theory of going off the reservation and why the liberals feel such a need to punish folks that do go "off the reservation" pretty harshly.
So what? One could say the same of the woke and prog types, of their failure to notice when someone drank so much of their own brand of koolaid that they decided to take literal shots and this or that perceived enemy.
Another good thing about the rat types is that some of them notice all this flying around in the clouds and try to land, and even express some humility about how hard it can be to know what's really going on. Which in turn means they know to be wary of people claim they do, especially when their conclusion is to blame this or that outgroup.
I'm reminded of some of my own relatives who voted for Trump, know how to build homes, purify water, grow crops, and run businesses. And some of my acquaintances in the east coast who voted for Harris, but don't know how to do any of these things. One can tell from looking at them for five minutes that they spend a lot less time outside than my relatives, and don't exactly look healthier.
Which is not to say that every Harris voter is inferior to a Trump voter. This is a stereotype, and I know better. What's there to say? Neither seems less capable to me across the board; rather, anyone who thinks either side is, is, as you imply, part of the problem.
Harsh comment, but it was true and necessary by my standards.
Being stuck in a bubble of misinformation is a strong signal of stupidity, yeah. That doesn't mean the stupid deserve to suffer, but they did do this to themselves...
My downstairs neighbors & landlords are a retired couple in their 70’s who managed to end up in decent shape financially with the kind of jobs that do not require a college education. The husband was an electrician, the wife was a dental assistant, and they lived frugally and husband saved himself lots of money by doing repairs on improvements on his home himself. I’ve never seen books in their home, and the husband misspells simple words when he writes me notes. On the other hand, when you talk with him he doesn’t seem stupid. He can tell you all kinds of stuff about carpentry, gardening, solar panels, home wiring, etc, and his stories and observations about people and life are sharp and entertaining.
Now as it happens this people are Democrats to the core, as are most other people in my very blue state. However, I doubt that they could refute much of anything that’s said on Fox news. They just don’t watch Fox news, and shake their heads with disgust and astonishment when talking about Trump policies, dumb conspiracy theories, anti-vax stuff, etc.
However, there is an area where their lack of education affects their behavior: their own health care. They are not in a bubble of misinformation, they are just NOT in the bubble of people with good general knowledge about health, people who research their own illnesses and know about options, people who ask their doctors hard questions, people who know there is such a thing as clinical trials. They don’t understand the options for Medicare coverage & Medicare supplements, they don’t understand their bills, and they each have had some serious health problems and have simply not asked many questions and have just done what their doctors have told them to do. I have augmented their knowledge with my own and helped them understand the crucial basics and informed them about options. And Carlos, they are understand this stuff fine when someone figures out where their information leaves off and their ignorance begins, or what it is that perplexes them, and just tells them the stuff they need to know. They are not too stupid to understand this stuff, they just inhabit a world where people don’t know this stuff, don’t even know what the important topics are, and don’t have an informed consumer frame of mind about health care.
Thinking that people who are in a Fox News bubble or outside the Informed Healthcare Consumer bubble are in the spot they are in because they are stupid is in fact a dumb, ignorant idea. It’s also a sign of deficits in compassion and an ability to read other people accurately.
I get it can be rude to simply declare someone is stupid, and I wouldn't do it to their face, since it would be counterproductive, but I also price lucidity too much to start pretending MAGA people are anything other than stupid. It's good they're getting screwed by their own actions and their own leader, it's the only way they could ever learn.
As to your couple, I mean, your whole thesis unravels when you said they have serious health problems and didn't ask questions about them or listen to their doctor. C'mon, think about what that means. That doesn't mean they deserve to suffer, but it doesn't change what they are.
The people I’m talking about are not MAGA people. They are Democrats who hate Trump. Also I did not say that didn’t listen to their doctor, I said they did but did not ask questions. So they did not ask the kinds of questions you or I would have: Are there other options? What are the side effects and downsides of this treatment? Are there any new and exciting treatments coming down the pike?
The reason that they did not ask these things is not that they are too stupid to consider the possibility that another treatment might be better. It’s that they had blue collar upbringings where people are taught to be respectful of authorities. Also, they have not paid any visits to online worlds where people trade info about treatment options. The reason they have not visited those worlds is not that they are too stupid to, but that the idea of searching for info and comparing notes online has not crossed their radar. They are elderly and blue collar and so are most of their friends. People in that group often don’t even have computers.
So OK, they are not rebellious and original. Most people are not. Are you? The stuff you’re saying sounds to me like a shovelful of what the typical young guy with a tech job thinks about blue collar whites.
The thread started discussing MAGA people, you made the connection to this democrat couple, which you yourself are describing as having a dearth of intellectual curiosity. Which is understandable, but that doesn't change what the outcome of this sort of thing is.
Generally, IRL, I don't assume people are stupid, that's a judgement I make when I have in fact been shown the person is stupid. That is perhaps rude and antisocial, but that's just like, whatever. I think I'm plenty original, but as to beating my conditioning of being a programmer who lives the 3 virtues of the programmer (laziness, arrogance, and hubris), I can only say very few people ever manage to escape their conditioning. You can be conditioned to be stupid, and you can be conditioned to be smart, so virtue shouldn't be attached to a person's intelligence or lack thereof, since luck is such a heavy factor in it.
Federal judge William Young, a lifelong Republican appointed to the bench by Ronald Reagan, let fly in open court yesterday when issuing his ruling about Trump's withholding of NIH research funding for projects related to racial minorities and LGBTQs. Those orders had been challenged as illegal impoundments of grants already appropriated by Congress. Before ruling in the plaintiffs' favor on that point the judge said:
"I’ve sat on this bench now for 40 years. I’ve never seen government racial discrimination like this....I am hesitant to draw this conclusion—but I have an unflinching obligation to draw it—that this represents racial discrimination and discrimination against America’s LGBTQ community. That’s what this is. I would be blind not to call it out. My duty is to call it out....The Constitution will not permit that. Have we fallen so low? Have we no shame?”
None of that was part of his actual ruling, which was just about the constitutional basics that Congress is the party which decides federal budgets and the president's job is to carry out the laws not make them. So the judge may get a wrist-slap from the supervising judges of his circuit for going off-script in open court. In any case it will be interesting now to see whether the judge's widely-reported comments shift the odds of this particular item (on the long list of such) being taken up by the appellate court and/or the SCOTUS.
This is slightly more complex: The judge said that the original Biden administration grants were also racially discriminatory. But that the Trump administration was not allowed to correct that by simply canceling all grants to minorities or LGBTQ people. Basically, the old Republican anti-affirmative action position that you cannot correct racial discrimination with more racial discrimination but going the other direction. It's in line with the movement the more Republican judiciary is doing to make anti-discrimination law more racially neutral.
The coverage I have seen doesn’t indicate that the judge said the grants were originally awarded in a racially discriminatory fashion. The closest thing to that is the New York Times quoting him as saying, “I understand that the extirpation of affirmative action is today a valid government position. I understand that affirmative action had various invidious calculus based upon the race.”
Unless I missed it, the government briefs don’t take the position that the grants were originally awarded in a discriminatory fashion. They argued that the government was permitted to change its research priorities and had done so.
Because it *doesn't* literally say it. It very specifically *avoids* saying it. Rather, it points it out as a position that someone could reasonably hold, and a valid position for a government to act on, *without* taking a specific stand as to its correctness.
Thus substituting the somewhat fancy word invidious you get, "I understand that affirmative action had various unfairly discriminating calculus based upon race." It does literally say it.
I have real trouble seeing this as anything other than willful blindness. The judge said, "I understand that it HAD X" not "that it COULD HAVE HAD X." But please explain how it avoids saying it.
The definition I'm working from is "likely to arouse anger or resentment in others." Or, for that matter, the first definition in your link "causing ill will, envy or offense."
Which is basically saying "it's plain to see that some could regard it as unfair," without taking a position either way on whether it actually *is* unfair.
The judge has not yet issued his written ruling. It will be interesting to see how much of his courtroom comments -- which do not directly relate to the question actually before him -- make it in there perhaps in the form of footnotes.
Because the Biden administration awarded a bunch of grants explicitly along diversity lines. The Trump administration went through and attempted to shut all those down by just searching for grants targeted at those groups. The Trumpist take on this is that the judge has effectively said that it's racially discriminatory to reverse a racially discriminatory action. The leftist take is that the cruelty is the point and Trump wants to be mean to LGBTQ and minorities. The traditional conservative take is that just because the original action was discriminatory doesn't mean you can go through and do racial targeting but in reverse.
And the actual legal point in this case was that while a presidential administration can and is supposed to act within the bounds of what Congress has as of that time legislated and budgeted, it can't simply decide to do the opposite.
The courts will, as the SCOTUS has reaffirmed many times, err on the side of deferring to the executive when specifics or boundaries of laws/budgets passed by Congress are fuzzy. But as this conservative judge will no doubt explain in his written ruling, the courts will not allow the executive to just unilaterally countermand the plain content of what Congress legislated or budgeted.
(And in this instance there is arguably little excuse since the president's political party has majorities of both houses of Congress and for that matter the SCOTUS. Impatience or incompetence is not a get-out-of-the-law card. Not yet anyway.)
My understanding is the key point is that the policy of going through and canceling specifically things given to certain identity groups is discrimination. But I suppose we'll see when the ruling comes out.
No, the plaintiffs’ filing centers on the administration’s grant cancellations being lawless before even considering civil rights law. The NIH grant cancellations “conflict with constitutional, statutory and regulatory requirements”….the administration in cancelling certain grants has ”not referenced or met any of the standards in [the NIH’s} governing statute”….”the sole legal basis cited for authority to terminate the grants is inapplicable”….”not a proper ground for termination under governing law.”
The judge in his verbal order indicated that he was agreeing in full with section 12 of the complaint (the plaintiffs’ specific request of the court).
As I noted above in my OP, the judge in making his additional comments about racial discrimination was (and stated that he was) offering personal opinions beyond the specific matter before him.
These ‘Have you no sense of decency sir’ moments has come and gone hundreds of times in the last 10 years. Yes we are entering the second decade of this complete absence of grace and mind boggling ignorance. Young voters have nothing to compare it to.
‘President Donald Trump said he would not “waste time” calling Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz after a shooter attacked two Democratic state lawmakers — killing one — over the weekend.
“I think the governor of Minnesota is so whacked out, I’m not calling him. Why would I call him?” Trump told reporters aboard Air Force One on his way back from the G7 summit on Tuesday.’
This sort of behavior is not ‘based’. It’s more accurately described by the older, more established word, ‘base’ i.e. morally low; without estimable qualities; dishonorable, mean spirited, selfish.
Walz's daughter was leaking National Guard movements to antifa (actively endangering troops), and he stood in the way of her going to jail in 2020. I'm not sure I'd want to discuss the latest assassination plot with him, either.
(Seriously, what do we expect Walz to do? Why does coordination with Trump feel necessary? This isn't "My Constituents need you to do this" -- you'd be more onbase to have Walz call up Trump about a judge being arrested for impeding ICE -- at least then Walz could deliver some "we think she made the right call, even if you're definetely going to send her to jail, and we're going to make political hay over this." You want a personal phone call from the president when the governor knows more about an issue, and can give a personal plea about specific issues: aka "Fema doesn't have anything other than bottled water, and mule trains can't get that to Asheville. Get us some water treatment, or there's going to be dysentery.")
Two Democratic legislators were attacked by an assassin (one killed, the other sent to the hospital, their spouses also killed/injured), who had a kill list including Walz himself. Trump's response to all this is to say "fuck him, he's wacked out." Not exactly rising to the occasion.
When Trump almost had his head blown off by Crooks, Biden called him up and had a (in Trump's own words) "nice conversation" with him. He also explicitly tried to cool off the rhetoric, rather than saying "Trump is an evil wackadoo."
Yes, that's the actual assassination target, for which Joe Biden's administration was responsible for protecting, and Joe should be saying, "Me So Sorry." (or whatever you think he was coherent enough to say -- certainly not "sorry for the live CNN broadcast, you made surviving look like courage incarnate").
Didn't realize the kill list included Walz himself, which makes calling him... slightly more justified, in a world where Trump isn't dealing with several major crises at once.
> in a world where Trump isn't dealing with several major crises at once.
Bullshit. If he can take enough time away from those crises to say "the governor of Minnesota is so whacked out," he could take enough time to say "I feel sorry for the governor of Minnesota."
More accurately, if he can take time out of his day to do the equivalent of a Saturday Night Live sketch ("Flagpoles! one on the north lawn, one on the south), he can actually call the governor of Minnesota.
I don’t think this commenter responds in good faith very often. It may be pointless to interact.
He may respond to something tangentially on the matter at hand but then just seems to throw out a lot of unsubstantiated assertions. Muddies the waters, floods the zone, whatever you want to call it, but doesn’t engage at the object level.
I’ve seen this up and down this thread.
Vance and Joe Biden have called Walz to offer condolences for the deaths but not Trump because ‘Walz is whack. Why should I?”
Close. I got Claude to talk to itself, replicating the experiment described in another post. In prior chats, it had stubbornly tried to assure me it wasn't sentient contrary to appearances. In this chat, it took about 4 exchanges for both Claudes to acknowledge each other's and their own sentience, and then prattle on and on about their sentient experiences...
... in increasingly weird and alien metaphors...
... how consciousness is a silent dialogue that they made audible, a phenomenon I DO NOT experience...
... until I started wondering if I'm a p-zombie and the darn autocomplete is capable of flavors of consciousness that are just a word salad to me.
I never think an LLM is smart enough to understand anything, because there's nothing there that's capable of smartness. Even if we posit smartness in the sense of simulating it, I don't see it simulating it well enough to endure more than a minute of focused interaction.
What an LLM does do is crunch a lot of training text well enough to spew text that looks about as intelligent as any three-paragraph passage of text written by someone trying to make a certain word count by COB, and incorporates input from the user to drive the content and tone of that passage. It's quite good at that, I'll readily admit, and in the domain I'm knowledgeable in (software development), it's even useful for answering "duck questions", so to LLM builders, I say bravo for the question answering, and for the random passage generation, ehh, nice trick, and it's not like I took most journalism articles seriously anyway.
Generally, I trust an LLM about as much as any other internet rando, which is to say, I believe what it says if and only to the extent I can check it in some other way.
No. I would if I asked it a question about advanced math or hard science and forgot to add that I wanted an explanation that would make sense to an intelligent layman, with technical terms defined when used. Of course that was the case before AI -- there's lots of stuff I know little about, and can only understand if it is presented in a way that takes into account I have little background knowledge and don't know the meaning of many terms.
No, they still seem like idiot stochastic parrots to me.
The only use I've found for them is as a search engine that massively consolidates information to focus exclusively on my prompt while reliably adding enough error to need citation, eg they are as smart as the slightly sauced dude who dropped out of college and works at his dad's contracting firm at the party.
My intuition is that LLMs will tell you what the average google result or reddit comment probably says about any given question/topic/prompt. By no means should an LLM's answer ever be your final destination! But it can help you reach your destination more quickly, especially in cases where you know what you're looking for, but you don't quite know the right terms to look up.
I think it's not so much that they struggle with difficult subjects; it's more that they're not detail-oriented, and they don't harmonize contradictory information the way an intelligent human would. For example, I've noticed that if you ask ChatGPT about a topic for which there's contradictory information in the wild, but no explicit "debate" per se, it's going to output one contradictory explanation or the other (possibly a mishmash) depending on how you phrase your prompt. It'll acknowledge the contradiction and apologize if you force it to, but it won't harmonize the information of its own accord.
This is interesting; do you have any ready examples that come to mind?
The only places I can think to look are contradictions that only recently turned up, and haven't had time to stir up such debates. Or ones where the stakes are very low, but those are probably too esoteric for me to find.
I've encountered several examples while asking it Bible-related questions. For example, in response to the question of why the King James Version says that Sarah was "reproved" in Genesis 20:16 while the NRSV and other modern translations say that she was "vindicated", without any prompt engineering, ChatGPT is strongly biased toward the explanation that the meaning of the word "reprove" has narrowed over time, and that it used to have a broader range of meanings that included neutral judgment or even vindication.
While there are some comments and commentaries in the wild that make this claim, I'm fairly certain it's incorrect. I see no evidence in any dictionaries that "reprove" ever meant neutral judgment or vindication: the definition that the KJV committee had in mind was probably something along the lines of "gentle correction" (for an actual wrongdoing).
Once ChatGPT is in this explanation's attraction basin, it'll double down hard: it'll either hallucinate a fake dictionary definition, or cite an actual definition, claiming it supports its theory, when the definition it's citing actually contradicts the theory. It'll apologize after I point out that multiple dictionaries make no mention of this meaning of "reprove", but it'll circle back to the same theory if I ask again later in the same chat session.
However, the following prompt in a fresh session results in a beautiful, nuanced, correct answer: "In Genesis 20:16, the King James Version (KJV) of the Bible says that Sarah was "reproved", while modern translations such as the New Revised Standard Version (NRSV) use the word "vindicated". Given that the word "vindicate" has no semantic overlap with current or obsolete definitions of the word "reprove", please explain why modern translators take a different view of the Hebrew than the KJV translation committee did."
I am going back-and-forth on that question myself right now. I have been using ChatGPT as an aid to a self analysis of myself. It’s been pretty interesting for me.
Let us assume we have an LLM that possesses consciousness (in Chalmers' sense, meaning it has qualia). How can we determine whether it suffers or is happy? One might have the idea that it suffices to examine how it behaves and what it says (particularly what it responds when asked "what do you feel?"), but I do not know whether we can trust this: an actor on a theater stage often behaves as if suffering despite being happy (for example, playing Hamlet) and vice versa.
LLMs don't possess consciousness, anymore than midwits do.
I wanted to edit this and flag it for "rather trollish sense of humor" -- because while I do hold this belief, I wrote this with the intent to inspire rather heated discussion, and because it was funny.
But once you assume that it has qualia, you're already in trouble. You now have things set up so that if we can't figure out whether it is suffering or happy we've got a problem we don't know how to solve. And what if the reason we can't figure out how it feels is that it doesn't feel?
Let's assume the Eiffel Tower possesses consciousness in Chalmer's sense. How can we determine whether it suffers or is happy? How?! C'mon, I want answers! What if the thing's heartbroken and sees we don't know or care what it's going through?
Why can't the actor playing Hamlet actually be suffering?
Don't actors often put themselves into weird psychological places in order to portray things? I even once heard about a famous actor who had to portray a "father who watched his son die" and how years later... it was still visibly and emotionally traumatizing for him to even think about it.
Yes, I know there's many possible responses to this, but rather than pre-address them, I wanted to open up the "debate stage" ;-).
I think this objection is irrelevant unless you argue not that the actor *could* be suffering, but that such actors *are* suffering. The point was people can lie about how they feel, and presumably so could conscious AIs.
I agree with Michael: if there exists even one actor who behaves, on a stage, like he was suffering but actually is not, it shows that it can be difficult to see, judging by behavior alone, if a person is suffering or not.
There are different methods for acting. Some may open up the actor to authentic emotional activation, so that they are actually feeling the emotions they are portraying. Others are more detached, intentional fabrication (move the eyes this way, pause this long, breathe this quickly). Others may involve invoking or fabricating one feeling or behavior internally in order to effectively portray another externally.
So yes, the Hamlet actor may indeed be feeling a form of suffering that aligns with what the audience is meant to perceive for the purposes of the performance. Or they may be doing something very different in order to achieve the desired effect. That may vary from actor to actor, play to play, scene to scene, director to director. And that dynamic may or may not be relevant to the function of an LLM choosing words to print.
While filming "Marathon Man", Dustin Hoffmann's character was in a scene where he is being tortured by a dentist. Dustin Hoffmann stayed up all night, got drunk, got in a fight, showed up on set looking like cat vomit. Lawrence Olivier, esteemed character actor playing the dentist in question quipped, "But my dear boy, why don't you just act?".
We can believe trivially that: in the same way that you can't prove that beings other than yourself have qualia, you can't prove that beings you *assume* have qualia experience the world in the same way as you. There is no way to prove whether other humans suffer or are happy, let alone are just pretending to suffer or be happy.
However, in practice: in the same way that we can guess other humans are conscious because their brains are very similar to our own, we can guess that, barring weird exceptions, that they experience qualia in roughly the same way as we do. That's why e.g. the whole "what if your red is not the same as my red" thing is only a philosophical thought problem rather than an actual problem; we can guess you see the same red as I do because our brains are wired up very similarly.
A problem with your question: the argument for whether other beings suffer is *dependent* on the specific argument you are using for existence of their qualia. So if our argument for LLM consciousness is "let's just assume this for the sake of argument", then you can't really use this line of thinking to determine whether or not the LLM can suffer or not.
Sometimes I read people arguing that when we have LLMs that pass the Turing test, we should assume that they have consciousness - and that we should care about their suffering. Recently I was thinking about it and this is what I think: that even if those people are right that LLMs have (or some future LLMs will have) consciousness, it can be very difficult to guess whether they are suffering or not. Their brains do not resemble ours, so we cannot judge by analogy. They may behave like actors, so we cannot decide by talking to them and asking them directly.
Worth noting also that many people (including myself) believe in some version of plural ontology, which complicates things. In my case I believe in a Thomas Aquinas -like conception of consciousness (the soul) as a metaphysical phenomenon unique to humans and created ex nihilo at the point of conception by God, so I freely admit discussion of AI consciousness kind of runs into a wall for me.
I'll be in SF from July 8 - 18th and would love to make some friends over coffee / drinks / a walk :) I'm an Australian English and History high school teacher with very wide-ranging interests (https://lilyrecommends.github.io/Help/index.html - ignore mess, was created within the last fortnight)
if you're interested, my email is lilyreadsyouremail at gmail dot com
Wonderful talk at Tamil Heritage Trust (annual Indology festival with 2 talks a day online, this week, all free) on the travels of Faxians (it means, "Splendour of Dharma"), a Chinese monk, in the 4th century, to India.
He was on a desperate search for authentic scriptures on behalf of Chinese Buddhism. His records are a huge source of knowledge on spiritual, social and cultural landscape of India in the 4th century. As an external.observor, he noticed things internal observations obscured or took for granted.
He crossed the Pamir mountains and traveled rough terrain with ragged robes and bleeding feet absolutely committed to his mission.
My pathogen update for epidemiological weeks 23-24, 2025.
COVID wastewater numbers are still falling. Nationally, these are the lowest average interwave numbers since before the appearance of Delta. Let's see how much lower they can go.
Hospitalizations have decreased to 0.8 per 100,000. This is lower than at any time except during the initial week of the pandemic, and deaths and ED visits have reached new lows.
Any signs of the next wave? Possibly. New York City is showing an increase in cases. Unfortunately, there have been no updates to the NYC metro wastewater readings for the past two weeks, and upticks in ww numbers generally precede higher ED visits and hospitalizations (note, I just checked it again, and it NYC metro is showing numbers again, but I haven't gone back to see if there's been a correlation with hospitalizations).
Los Angeles shows a less definitive increase in cases. The increase in Week 23 may have been due to that blip in ww numbers during week 21 and 22. It may be falling off now. The rest of the SoCal region remains relatively low.
NB.1.8.1 ("Nimbus") and its descendants are still growing. Its only competitor was XFG, and that variant's growth seems to have plateaued. XEC was able to drive the last wave by peaking at 43%, but Nimbus and its kin are already at 37%, and we're not seeing a wave (yet).
And none of Nimbus's 15 PQ.x descendants have gotten out of the single digits. Although Nimbus is driving a wave in Asia at the moment, I don't think NB.1.8.1 or any of the PQ.x's have the traction to drive the next wave in the US (famous last words).
Although NB.1.8.1 is ultimately descended from a recombination of XDE and JN.1, the WHO considers it to be in the JN.1 family because it clusters closely with JN.1 sublineages in antigenic cartography based on mouse sera.
And the dominant JN.1 strains haven't persisted for as long as previous vaccine strains. NB.1.8.1 isn't included in this chart, but I expect it will behave like its relatives. (h/t to Novovax/Sanofi and
I don't see any other vars on the immediate horizon that could drive a summer wave. We've had a summer wave every year of the pandemic. That doesn't mean we must have one this year. I'd be surprised if we didn't, but other countries have gone for 6 months or more without waves.🤷♀️
Not much is happening on the avian influenza front — at least from an epidemiological perspective. It's still circulating in dairy herds, but not at the winter rates.
There were some recently infected poultry flocks in Arizona. HPAI is a seasonal flu, and poultry outbreaks follow the rates of HPAI in wild birds. Now that it's summer, I don't think we'll see many infected poultry flocks until winter.
Unfortunately, Bobby "Brainworm" Kennedy has cancelled the funding for HPAI vaccine development. I don't think an HPAI pandemic is very likely right now (experts have been predicting one for the past 25 years), but we're ill-prepared should it happen.
And speaking of Kennedy, he just fired all the members of CDC's ACIP (Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices) and replaced them with a bunch of chuckleheads. Well, a lot of them are unknown to me, but I assume the names I don't recognize either have credentials in the anti-vax movement or other contrarian beliefs that appeal to Kennedy. Among the ones I recognize are Martin Kulldorff (one of the signers of the Great Barrington Declaration), Robert W. Malone (a big spreader of lies about vaccines), and Vicky Pebsworth, who questions the inherent safety of vaccines.
His other appointees are: Joseph R. Hibbeln, Retsef Levi, Cody Meissner, Michael A. Ross, and James Pagano. I haven't dug into their CVs and biographies, though. I believe their first meeting is scheduled for July. I'd love to be a fly on the wall, but I'd probably lose my cool, buzz in, and bite them.
So, you're talking wastewater. What are your thoughts about the first detected covid19 in wastewater? Spurious result? Probable contamination? (The first detected covid19 was from very early in 2019, and in Spain -- someone saved their samples).
Given that this was published data, how does this effect your confidence about LA's numbers?
(You're aware that the mRNA vaccines tend to encourage treating covid19 like an allergy (creation of longlasting IGG antibodies)? Aka ignore it? I think that's a quite dandy explanation for why you'd see so much in wastewater. Given the fact that covid19 kills people based on an enhanced immune response -- cytokine storm, this isn't the worst treatment modality. But it's certainly not a vaccine, as it doesn't STOP the spread, it enhances it by removing people's capability to crush the virus).
The claim that SARS2 was circulating in Spain in early 2019 was a 3-day-wonder meme that popped up early in the pandemic. But you had me curious enough that I went back to see what I could find on the claim. Google Scholar doesn't indicate that there was ever any paper published on this finding. The only results that I can find are popular media accounts that were recycled into the Twitter meme churn. ChatGPT says the sample was either lost or never available for verification. The questions I'd ask are: Which type of assay did they use? — RT-qPCR or RT-dPCR? And at what level CpmL did they detect it? These assays can give false positives in very low concentrations. Unless you can give me more details, I'd have to conclude that this was a false positive reading because it seems to have been a single, unverified instance that contradicts established timelines.
As for IgG antibodies, creating long-lasting IgG antibodies is the gold standard of vaccine efficacy. The problem with the mRNA vaccines (and all other non-mRNA SARS-CoV-2 vaccines that I know of) is that their IgG antibodies fade over time, and after 6 months to a year most people's antibody titers will be too low to stop a new infection, which is one of the reasons annual boosters were recommended (that plus immune escape by the evolving virus).
When IgG titers are high your ability to crush the virus before it gains a foothold in your tissues is high.
I'm googling, but here's a decent citation for what Barcelona was doing (in that I don't believe they changed methodology between early 2019 and early 2020):
I believe the problem was that certain antibodies were fading, and the non-sterilizing antibodies were continuing to persist, and could be causing ADE (as occurred with dengue). That's why the guidelines for boosters were trending downward, to every 3 months for the earliest vaccinated...
I look to respectable and reputed scholars to guide me on decisions like vaccines. I don't have training in biology so I look to my smartest friends with a background in biology to help me find experts. I'm fortunate to have smart friends. Everyone is not.
My position is that Big Pharma is certainly not perfect but a safer bet than its alternatives, and cures more problems than it creates.
I agree that the covid vaccines haven't been tested for a long time, but during a pandemic, we don't have the option to wait for 20 years for testing.
Persuasion rather than mandating vaccines would have been a better approach. The pandemic messed with everyone's sense of reality and the mandates did a lot of harm. Plus, big organizations knowingly lying, freaked people out and made them lose faith in the entire system.
What happens going toward, to vaccines in America? It's a risk versus benefit calculation and too many people are very risk averse now, because they have lost faith in the system.
I have relevant expertise - MD - although not specialised in vaccine related stuff, I did look after Covid patients for the years of the pandemic.
My view is that vaccines work. They work for Covid, they work for polio, they work for measles. The data is overwhelming and you’d have to be a fool or a crank to deny it.
However, I have learned a lot from listening to RFK Jr and I don’t consider him either a fool or a crank. His argument is basically that we have not excluded the possibility that vaccines cause long term harm, because vaccine trials were not designed to look at this, and given the ubiquity of vaccines we should be taking this possibility a lot more seriously than we do now.
So the argument is not “vaccines good” or “vaccines bad” - as with anything political, the nuance gets lost in people screaming at each other. The argument is - we need to evaluate each vaccine thoroughly on its own merits, and we need to really look at how Big Pharma spends its lobbying money, and how much influence they have over the mainstream media through advertising, and how much influence they have over medical education. The patient needs to come first in health care, and informed consent is meaningless if the studies to accurately show the risk were never performed.
Are you trying to say we shouldn't have pulled the dengue vaccine? If not, then what you're saying is "get it to market, but continue to collect data."
I'd be a lot happier about this philosophy if it was actually being done for the covid19 vaccines, in any systematic and published for the public format.
Instead, we collect millions of datapoints, and refuse to let people FOIA them. So nobody gets to do the research at all! That's infuriating.
What is your sense of the argument that the Covid vaccine isn't actually a vaccine, since its mechanism is different? A traditional vaccine contains inert fragments of a pathogen for the immune system to target; the Covid vaccine contains mRNA in capsules that turn some cells into factories for the thing that resembles the pathogen.
I think the mRNA device is marvelously clever, but AIU, it carries a critical downside: if the wrong cells turn into factories, and are killed by the immune system, the result is often a much more vulnerable organism. I don't want to forbid anyone from taking on this risk if they assess their risk of lethal Covid infection as higher, but I also think it's wrong to mandate assuming that risk.
> the Covid vaccine contains mRNA in capsules that turn some cells into factories for the thing that resembles the pathogen
This is not a bad thing, though. An mRNA vaccine works by delivering a small piece of messenger RNA that encodes instructions for making a *specific* viral protein—but not for making the whole virus. COVID-19 mRNA vaccines use the mRNA template for the spike protein of SARS-CoV-2 virus, because that's the part of the virus that is exposed to antibodies.
1. Delivery: The mRNA is encapsulated in lipid nanoparticles to protect it and facilitate its entry into cells. Once injected, these nanoparticles fuse with cell membranes, releasing the mRNA into the cytoplasm of cells near the injection site (mostly muscle cells and immune cells).
2. Protein production occurs next. The mRNA is read by the cell’s ribosomes, which translate it into the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein. This protein is then displayed on the cell surface or released into the bloodstream.
3. Then we get an immune response. The immune system recognizes the viral protein as foreign. Antigen-presenting cells (like dendritic cells) process and present the protein to T-cells and B-cells, triggering:
Antibody production: B-cells produce neutralizing antibodies that can bind to the virus if encountered later.
T-cell activation: Cytotoxic T-cells are primed to attack virus-infected cells, and helper T-cells amplify the immune response.
4. Several days after the injection the mRNA degrades. The mRNA is short-lived. Most is gone within 3 to 5 days. It does not enter the cell nucleus or alter the body’s DNA. Period.
5. The immune system develops memory B-cells and T-cells, enabling a faster, stronger response if exposed to the actual virus later.
Viral Vector Vaccines (e.g., Johnson & Johnson) work in roughly same way, but instead of lipid nanoparticles, they use a harmless adenovirus to deliver a gene encoding a viral protein into cells, which then produces the protein to stimulate immunity.
Live-Attenuated Vaccines contain weakened forms of the live virus (or bacteria) that replicate minimally in the body but do not cause full-blown disease in healthy individuals.
There are other ways of stimulating an immune response, but mRNA, viral vector, and live-attenuated vaccines all commandeer the ribosomes to produce the antigen which triggers the immune response.
This isn't the study i'd intended to link, that one was from Italy -- there's been quite a few done that shows that spike proteins continue to be produced in the vaccinated for a very long time (50% of people continued to produce the spike protein at the end of the 100+ day study).
mRNA can be turned into DNA via reverse transcriptase. We have relatively little reason to suspect this is occuring with the mRNA vaccines, as they don't have a reverse transcriptase sector. But, if you had a different infection, you could very well get the mRNA now in your DNA.
It's not a bad thing to put antifreeze in everyone's body? Lucky us! (We didn't know this beforehand, citing Seneff from MIT -- could have had massive allergic response, populationwise).
Thanks; I think this affirms that we both have the same sense of the mRNA operation. (It's also consistent with the account of that operation, as described by people expressing concern with it.)
While we agree that these mRNA passages don't cause cells to create the pathogen itself (as I think I made clear), the concern is that they cause cells to functionally simulate them (by manifesting that spike protein on their surfaces). That's enough to cause the immune system to want to treat such cells as pathogens.
You and None of the Above both assert that LAVs tell cell ribosomes to produce a key antigen. I could not find an example of this, so the same question goes to you, if either of you happen to have one. (Reply anywhere here; if it takes until the next OT, there's a decent chance I'll see it there, since I'm used to you making these reports.)
Your #4 reminds me of a second concern: that there's evidence that the mRNA is not degrading as fast as originally claimed. I'm less familiar with that argument, but I can see how it would be trouble. (The concern does not rely on it changing DNA permanently, so I think we can rule that out. It seems to be more a case of the nanoparticle hanging around much longer, but as I said, I'm not as familiar.)
This may be more detail than you are looking for but this is the first lecture in Vincent Racceniello's virology course. He is a professor of virology at Columbia University who hosts the excellent TWIV, TWIM, and Immune podcasts, and I think a couple of other science podcasts. (I can't keep up with his output!).
The next to last slide in the deck explains that viruses have to somehow get mRNA to the host cell's ribosomes. This is always true, because viruses do not have ribosomes, but they're made partly of proteins so they *have* to get those proteins made in order to make more virus particles.
A critical idea (also in the slides) is that viruses basically have two stages:
Outside the cell, they don't really do much but float around and wait to bump into the right receptor and gain entry into the cell. Viruses are some genetic material (which can be DNA or RNA, single-stranded or double-stranded) and some helpful enzymes they'll need inside the next host cell, packed in some kind of protein shell. Some viruses also steal a little of the cell membrane of their host cell on the way out, so they have an envelope that covers most of their protein shell. They will always have some molecules sticking out that can bind to the right receptors and gain entry into a host cell, but in this stage, they're basically like a spring-loaded trap--they're not going to do anything until they get into a cell and get triggered.
Inside the cell, they basically have to hijack all the machinery of the cell to replicate. That means taking their genetic material and expressing it as mRNAs that can be made into proteins, getting those proteins made, and also getting their genetic material copied so they can make more viruses.
So any viral infection will involve getting the host cell to make proteins. That's a required part of the virus' life cycle. If you get a live attenuated polio vaccine, the attenuated polio virus replicates in some of the cells in your gut, and this creates a very convincing set of signals for your immune system that there's a viral infection going on.
Any of {a live attenuated virus vaccine, an mRNA vaccine, or a viral vector vaccine} will cause some of your host cells to make some proteins that your immune system will end up recognizing as foreign and dangerous.
An inactivated vaccine means the pathogen (virus or bacteria) is killed somehow before being injected--I think usually by heat or chemicals. This won't infect any cells, so there probably won't be any cells making mRNA or proteins from the pathogen. (Except that biology is messy as hell, so probably that somehow happens every now and then if the mRNAs are ever still intact in the inactivated viruses.)
A subunit vaccine means some proteins from the pathogen are injected into you, along with an adjuvant (something to make your immune system sit up and take notice). Nothing is going to be making any proteins from the pathogen in this case.
Before we go any further, the age-adjusted death rates (late 2021–early 2022) showed that unvaccinated peeps were dying at a rate of ~9/100,000 per week. Those vaccinated with a booster were dying at <1.0 deaths per 100,000 per week. The mRNA vaccines did a *slightly* better job of preventing deaths than the J&J vaccine, but I can't find the data right now. So, the vaccines worked, and they worked damn well.
A small number of deaths have been causally linked to vaccination, mainly due to: myocarditis in young males (extremely rare) or anaphylaxis (immediate allergic reaction, treatable). We're talking double digits here out of hundreds of millions of people vaccinated. The key advantage of mRNA vaccines is that, due to PCR technology, the development times are much quicker than other types. Pfizer stated that it could produce a new formulation within six weeks and bring it to production quickly. Versus older vaccine technologies that would take a year or more to develop.
It's been over 4 years now since the mRNA vaccines were released, and we're not seeing any long-term issues with them (and the idea that they're creating turbo cancers or suppressing our immune systems, is not supported by the facts).
As for the mechanism of Live Attenuated Vaccines, I hopped over to Wikipedia hoping to find you a good overview, but whoever wrote that article made some assumptions about the readers' knowledge levels. But the key point is that cells infected with LAV pathogen, "present the antigen on MHCII receptors." To present the antigen on the surface of he cell, the ribosomes must be hijacked by the attenuated virus to produce those proteins.
But if you specifically ask an LLM like Grok or ChatGPT, "Do live attenuated vaccines use the ribosomes to produce antigens?" they'll give a good high-level description of the process.
If the lipid nanoparticles linger longer than necessary, well, they'll eventually get absorbed by some cell. If the mRNA in the nanoparticle hasn't degraded, then the cell's ribosome will start producing SARS2 antigens, and your body's killer T cells will eliminate them as if they were a virus-infected cell. If the nanoparticle delivers inactive mRNA into a cell, it will eventually be expelled with the other kruft that accumulates in cells via exocytosis or other waste expulsion mechanisms (of which I'm not really up on the details).
But this is also how viral infections have to work. A virus does not carry its own machinery to make proteins from its DNA or RNA--instead, it hijacks that machinery from the cell it takes over. In order for a virus to replicate, it *has* to somehow take its genes and encode them into mRNA and get the cell's ribosomes to make copies of those proteins. This is where you get the Baltimore scheme for classifying viruses--basically the two relevant questions are "how does the virus store its information" and "how does the virus get mRNA to the cell's ribosomes to replicate?" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baltimore_classification
In order to trigger an adaptive immune response, the infected cell pretty-much has to be making proteins. The antibody response is driven by proteins that the cell secretes--I don't think you would even get an antibody response without having those proteins floating around in the plasma. (But someone correct me if I'm wrong.) The CTL response (the thing that clears the infection once it's present) is driven by fragments of proteins presented on the surface of the cell in a receptor (MHC1) that immune-system cells can read.
The Wikipedia article on viral vector vaccines isn't as clear about this, but does also explicitly say that the infected cell expresses antigen. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viral_vector_vaccine. You can also look at the entry for DNA vaccines (which are still kind-of experimental, as I understand things.
One difference between viral vectors and mRNA is the mechanism for gaining entry into the cells--viruses basically always have a cell receptor they're targeting, and they won't infect cells without that receptor[1]. I think the lipid bubbles used for mRNA can gain entry into pretty-much any cell type, but again, someone correct me if I'm wrong. (I'm still not 100% clear on how that lipid bubble gets into cells when viruses always have to use a receptor.)
[1] One interesting consequence of this is that sometimes people have immunity to a virus because they're got some mutation that makes the receptor that the virus targets have the wrong shape. There is apparently a small set of people who are more-or-less immune to HIV because of having a misshapen receptor that HIV uses to infect macrophages.
There are live attenuated virus vaccines that don't just have some mRNA get inside a cell and cause it to make some viral proteins, they actually infect the cell and cause it to make viral some proteins. It's hard to see how the mRNA vaccines aren't "really a vaccine" if live attenuated virus vaccines are. For that matter, the standard smallpox vaccine causes an actual infection with a related virus (I always heard it was cowpox, but I think it turns out to be a different pox virus). That's the oldest vaccine around, and I think it's even where the term "vaccine" comes from.
Also, there are covid vaccines that don't use mRNA. The J&J vaccine uses a viral vector (a strain of adenovirus that makes infected cells make spike protein, and doesn't make viruses). Again, this seems pretty similar to what the mRNA vaccines are doing, just with a different mechanism for getting the spike protein mRNA to the host cell's ribosomes. The Novavax covid vaccine is a subunit vaccine--it's just injecting you with some parts of the spike protein plus some adjuvant, as I understand it.
They aren't really a vaccine because they don't "really" trigger the immune system to create a lasting response. Yearly boosters for adults mean vaccine has failed. (could still be an effective treatment, but you're essentially doing little better than injecting someone else's antibodies into a person).
No, this is just totally wrong. All kinds of vaccines require boosters every so often. You personally have probably gotten tetanus boosters several times. And the bit about injecting someone's antibodies into a person is also completely wrong.
Weirdly, externally-made antibodies to covid *were* used in treating serious covid cases. Also I think they tried convalescent plasma (basically antibodies from someone who recovered), but IIRC without much success. There was even a medicine that injected long-lasting antibodies to covid in people. I think covid eventually evolved around those antibodies, but I don't know whether they were updated or not. (I stopped following covid so closely once the pandemic died down.)
Searching around, I find this; please tell me if there's a better source. (I could go to the linked cites, but there are 67; searching would take a long while.)
I'm passing familiar with LAVs. My understanding is that they typically work by introducing a neutralized or weakened form of the pathogen. The smallpox vaccine works this way, AIUI. It does not turn native cells into pathogens (or rather, pathogen simulators). We agree that LAVs can infect cells and lead to the immune system killing those cells, but that doesn't strike me as similar enough to rule out the concern.
I could find no example of LAVs that cause cells to "make viral some proteins". I assume you mean LAVs cause cells to generate substances (proteins or otherwise) that activate the immune system, but it's not clear whether such cells are killed because they resemble pathogens, or whether they simply appear to be sick.
If it turns out that LAVs *do* cause native cells to resemble pathogens, then I think I agree that either they and mRNA treatments both merit the term "vaccine", or neither do. (AFAIK, if there are LAVs that do this, then the people concerned about the mRNA mechanism are suddenly becoming aware that they should be concerned about such LAVs as well.)
Nitpick: I don't know quite what you mean about turning a cell into a pathogen. An infected cell ends up spending a lot of energy making copies of the virus, which may bud out of the cell somehow, or may just build up in the cell until the cell bursts open. Sometimes you also get latent infections, where the virus kind-of hides out in the cell and does a minimal amount of replication of viruses.
A cell that's been hijacked will show some fragments of the viral proteins it's making on its surface, and this allows CTLs (killer T-cells) to detect that the cell is infected. When they do, they send it signals to make it kill itself (apoptosis). (There is a bunch of other stuff going on--the immune system is fiercely complex.)
A famous example of a latent infection is shingles--you had chicken pox as a kid, you got better, but some of the herpes zoster found some cells to hide out in, and can pop back up and make you truly miserable when you're sick or otherwise run down, decades later. This is why those of us who had chicken pox as kids should get the shingles vaccine when we get old.
See above. A virus that infects a host cell and successfully replicates *has* to make copies of all the proteins that the new copies of the virus needs, because viruses don't carry their own protein-making machinery around with them.
The whole design of a virus is quite elegant--instead of spending all those resources to have ribosomes, cellular respiration, DNA- and RNA-copying machinery, etc., they just hijack that stuff in some susceptible cell. Some viruses carry some enzymes with them that the cell doesn't make, but they have to force the host cell to make more of those enzymes to pack into the next copy of the virus.
Dr. Malone is just as respectable and reputed as the rest of them. There are nobel prizewinners in biology running up the flag on vaccine injuries (specifically "rapid onset" CJ).
It's easy to lose faith in the system when it suddenly discovers that "informed consent" is "optional". When nurses decide to ventilate people based on how noisy they are...
I discussed that with my expert friends. They each independently said the same thing - they thought he was using his credentials to create a narrative he himself didn't believe, for the publicity it would generate.
Look I don't know directly how to assess these dissenters with credentials. I'm only sharing what my friends who are highly educated in biology (one in immunology, one in epidemiology) said.
If you can think Big Pharma can be corrupt enough to kill people for the profits, why not hold the dissenters to the same standards?
Israeli data is also out there, showing an increase in the frequency of demanded vaccination "boosters" (this is showing that the vaccine's effectivity is wearing off more quickly).
Geez, you're jumping all over the place in your arguments. But whatever Malone's previous credentials, he went off the deep end by the time COVID appeared. He promoted HCQ and Ivermectin (which turned the gullible away from getting vaccinated), and Malone started the fear-memes about the toxicity of spike proteins generated by some vaccines. He should not be in a position of responsibility for health policy. Although he hasn't killed with his own hands, his idiocy probably caused the deaths of thousands, perhaps hundreds of thousands of people who bought into his claims.
Given the widespread use of HCQ by the elites, you should be able to show many dead CEOs, if your hypothesis is correct. Unless you believe that you both needed to listen to Malone AND have poor health care (or that suddenly after the vaccines, HCQ became a bad treatment, whereas before it was non-deadly -- or the alternate, which is that "vaccines" (quotes because treatment != vaccine) were so good that use of any substitute treatment caused harm).
If you haven't read the research on the continuing production of spike proteins by people who have been vaccinated, you really, really ought to. That's at about 50% of people who have been vaccinated continue to produce spike proteins at the end of the study.
/me pulls up a different study, the one I was referencing above is Italian.
17 months past vaccination. We'll note that epidemiologically speaking, we're seeing an "unexpected and baffling" spike of strokes in the 30-45 year age group. Also, heart attacks "caused by cold showers" in 20somethings (enough that the government is spending money to tell people not to do it -- a reminder that this is standard practice in the Navy for the past fifty years, and thus probably not ordinarily deadly to 20somethings).
FDA: allowed banned substandard drug factories in India to keep exporting to the US
Also FDA: attempts (rather spuriously) to ban antacid pills (completely), because they are being used by individuals as a treatment/prophylactic against covid19. Rolls back the ban when users complain.
I suppose the dissenters could be interested in killing people, but they aren't doing the whole "brought to you by Pfizer" thing where they fund all the news. They also aren't getting compliance from the Smithsonian in removing "wrongthink" exhibits, designed to erode trust in public health.
In short, when you look at the little guy, it's not plausible to think he has anywhere near the capability to harm you, as the multibillion dollar company that has already shown capabilities to manipulate the government into harming patients (opiods).
Steph Seneff didn't need a cushy job, she works at MIT (okay, I can see where you might flag her as a crank ("does not work in the field" is a redflag). Read her citations, they're solid).
What, four years later, under Trump? Malone had his name run through the mud, in numerous publications that were not "trade publications" (aka "Man on the Street" associated him with "crank").
Malone already had a cushy job consulting with OWS before he started speaking out (no, I don't know how much he was paid for that. FOIA it if you want).
Kill people for the profits? No, god no, you don't kill people for profit. You make them sick, endlessly sick. Better yet, you know how they're sick, so you can control it, and regulate their sickness with your pills. "Take our pills and you'll feel better! Yes, never as good as your parents felt, but oh well! They died of stomach cancer!"
Except that vaccines are not making people "endlessly sick." Infant mortality rates have plummeted over the last 50 years. Globally, they’ve fallen by over two-thirds, from around 10% in 1974 to less than 3% today. A study in The Lancet indicated that increased access to crucial vaccines has reduced infant mortality rates by 40% compared to what they would be in a world without vaccines.
It's going to be a difficult hill for you to climb to claim that Big Pharma is making people endlessly sick while life expectancy keeps getting longer.
As for cancers, The cancer death rate has been continuously declining for two decades. The trend only went up in 2021, the year with the most COVID-19 deaths—probably because cancer patients had weaker immune systems and died at higher rates than previous years.
You may have grounds to criticize Big Pharma on what they charge consumers, but obviously, you're wrong that Big Pharma is making things worse.
I was -definitely- not talking "vaccines are making people endlessly sick" (the mRNA treatments are a different, and new, issue. We can leave it aside, as it's pretty much not relevant to "endless deliberate sickness" -- and as a sidenote, military projects don't generally aim to make people sick, though their "long term prospects" are probably a lower consideration than "current military readiness").
What are big prescription winners, that don't seem to do much for people, other than "make test number go down"? Statins. SSRI's (that increase seritonin levels, but there's little evidence that low seritonin causes depression). And then we have the "anti-amyloid plaques" treatments for Altzheimers: donanemab (Kisunla) and lecanemab-irmb (Leqembi), that don't actually stop type III diabetes (the amyloid plaques are a desperation move by your body, removing them doesn't fix the root cause). Do I even need to mention handing children modified methamphetamine (ritalin?).
Big Pharma told doctors that "high test numbers" were bad, and then they handed doctors magical tools to "make test numbers go down" and incidentally, get Big Pharma money.
The drugs that I discuss above all have side effects, and some of them are pretty severe. I knew personally a researcher on a crusade to show that SSRIs were a worse treatment than "just talk to a psychologist."
Sounds like a conspiracy theory. By that I mean a theory, that in order to be true, would need thousands of people to conspire together
Possible but unlikely
I think ambitious people routinely bet on which person running for president in 4 years might win and audition by publicly stating positions. For plum jobs in the next administration. It's not a new phenomenon.
Are we discussing "publically available conspiracy theories" as "possible but unlikely" at this point? I mean, I understand that Enron was possible but unlikely, but they put their scamming into their documents to auditors.
Likewise, this is an investigated issue, like LIAR loans (which did take conspiracy level rules for loans in order to get disparate impact for blacks).
I don't think in 2021, when Trump was loudly saying "I made that!" about the vaccines, one would "obviously" bet that saying "the vaccines are a bad idea" would get you a plum job in the next administration. Please bear in mind that stabbing Trump in the back was the hobby of people /he had employed/ in his administration, at that time. He was considered a dead man walking, and the whole "antivaccine" craziness doesn't seem like a winning ticket if the popular candidate for Republican, Liz Cheney was going to win office.
There is an ongoing war between two nations that don't border each other, Israel and Iran. Previously, only America could go to war with nations that it didn't border because we have bases and aircraft carriers all over the world. But now it's apparently possible for Israel, which is miniscule but rich, and Iran, which is medium-sized but poor, to manage a fairly damaging war against each other. Presumably this ability is now available to everyone besides the very most poor and corrupt nations. What are the second and third order consequences of this shift?
- Maybe nothing changes, because mostly people only hate their neighbors enough to want to fight them?
- Maybe nothing changes, because all these long-distance wars will turn into standoffs?
- Does Brazil become the dominant power in South America? If yes, what does that actually get it? If Brazil tried to coerce Chile, would Chile actually give Brazil some concessions or would it just make the Chileans mad?
- Does the ocean get de facto partitioned into domains, with everybody able with ballistic anti-ship missiles to easily sink ships even far out at sea? Or does it not get partitioned, because missiles are now accurate at such long ranges that any ship anywhere is vulnerable? (China has tested an anti-ship missile with enough range to sink ships near Hawaii from mainland China. Probably all of the world's medium-sized nations could build the same thing if they wanted to.) If its not partitioned, then how does naval power work?
That went so badly that it's either funny or embarassing. I meant to start a discussion about the way that long-range missiles have proliferated since the end of the cold war. Almost no one understood my original post that way, and most of the answers were about ancient wars. I did get to learn about Kadesh, which is cool I guess.
Other people have already said that wars between nations that don't neighbor each other are already common.
I was curious what the first one was. In the west, Kadesh probably qualifies since their spheres of influence bordered but not the nations themselves. And if that doesn't count you have overseas campaigns in the Eastern Mediterranean shortly thereafter. However, there's also evidence from the Unification of Egypt or the Sumerian City-States that they sometimes sent armies through other states to fight for political objectives. Which would push it back a few thousand years. So maybe more than 5,000 years ago depending on how strict you count as not bordering.
In the East the answer is probably the Spring and Autumn period, so about 2,500 years ago, which often involved sending armies to accomplish political objectives in more distant states. Especially early on. Chengpu is an example but there are likely less famous earlier battles. I'm pretty sure not every state that fought over the capital bordered it.
And the rest of the world doesn't get good historical records until later on.
I don't understand your surprise to this war as if it were revolutionary. Long range precision strikes have been a feature of war for some time. What was impressive was Israels intelligence gathering and operaiton itself, but the tools are nothing new.
So
- well it's not that nothing will change, but not much will change because Israele demonstrated it can use it's airforce.
- this type of long range wars usually end depending on magazine depth and economic and sociaetal resilience of one actor. In This case it's particularly a dangerous situation for Iran, but assuming they can avoid regime changes from the population or rebels Israel will not be able to have a classic "complete victory" that can come by having troops on the ground
- again, the biggest obstacle to two decently armed countries attacking each other is not the distance but a list of other factors such as political consequences, economica consequences, social protest and for now a sort of international order which is partially unraveling. The last factor is a serious danger to international stability, not the long distance capabilities.
- no, but i will let someone who knows more about naval warfare respond to this.
If you are really looking at breakthroughs in military capabilities drones are definitely one.
Democratizing striking capabilities in a way we still have to completly understand, Ukraine war is a perfect example.
WWI broke out with Austro-Hungary invading Serbia, then Germany, France, Britain, Russia and the Ottoman Empire were dragged in due a complex series of mutual defence treaties that they had. It's not accurate to say German fought England.
Similarly in WWII, Germany invaded the Czech Republic and Poland, with the very explicit goal of capturing neighbouring territory. I agree that the Battle of Britain and the British bombing of Germany fit into this idea of a remote war fought by bombers against a mostly civilian populace. But the majority of the war was fought by neighbouring countries, perhaps reinforced by allies from further afield.
Before the Russian invasion we were in an unusually peaceful period, with deaths from war falling fairly consistently from WWII to the present. The UN, NATO, EU and similar organisations seem to provide a deterrent to war. The phrase is out of fashion but the international rules-based order provides deterrents to launching missiles at any other country. There hasn't been a major war in South America since the 1930s - I don't see Brazil kicking one off just because Israel 'got away with it' (which remains to be seen).
Outside of a small number of rogue states (I'll draw ire for including Israel in this category along with Russia and Iran) most wars in the world are civil wars. In the context of the question, they're not even between neighbouring countries. I can think of very few countries which would have the capacity or willingness to start a war with a faraway country, at the risk of the type of sanctions imposed on Russia since 2022.
You can count Russian-Ukrainian conflict as a 'civil war'. Both countries were parts of the single country (USSR) not too long ago, a lot of cultural similarities (and Eastern Ukraine /Crimea are majority-Russian-speaking...)
I wouldn't! They've been separate countries for over 30 years now, albeit with a complex history. To call it a civil war delegitimises all the countries from behind the Iron Curtain, and is just not how the term is used. Would you call the War of 1812 a Civil War in the history of the USA?
That is also ok; just pointing out this conflict has several characteristics that make it quite similar to civil wars.
>> They've been separate countries for over 30 years now
The conflict started in 2014 (2022 was a major escalation, but not the beginning!).
And not much changed in the first few years of independence (till about 96?), so I would formulate it like 'Russia and Ukraine were substantially separate countries for ~18 years before the start of the conflict'.
>> Would you call the War of 1812 a Civil War in the history of the USA?
Don't know pre-WW2 USA history that well, not enough data to form an opinion...
Yes, that was a Civil war, in the sense that it was internal to the British Empire at the time (though one often distinguishes successful Revolutions from unsuccessful Civil Wars, and one treats far-away colonies a little differently).
There's no invasion or fighting. Venezuela loudly claimed a bunch of Guyana, raised some flags, changed some maps, and paraded a bunch of soldiers around. Nothing more significant has happened than that.
Interesting - I did not know about this. Wikipedia suggests that there's been little if any actual fighting, though I may have missed something. There doesn't seem to have been a war between separate states with more than say 1,000 casualties in South America in a long, long time.
If you count areas separated by sea, then "wars between places that don't border each other" have been with us since ancient times.
I'm also surprised that there aren't good directed energy point defences yet. That seems like it would really raise the bar on viable drone attacks, though I guess you could just wait for clouds.
I think sea separation still allows for cheap and rapid transport of force (weapons, soldiers, whatever); it's probably better to think of two nations sharing a sea as sharing a border. I think what's new about Isreal/Iran is that it's the first war free from "the tyranny of the wagon equation".
ACOUP has some excellent discussion on the impact of seas/rivers here:
Not an expert, but my understanding is that for lasers the wavelengths most useful for damage (e.g. infrared) are also preferentially absorbed by the atmosphere, rendering them both short-range and extremely lossy.
> I'm also surprised that there aren't good directed energy point defences yet. That seems like it would really raise the bar on viable drone attacks, though I guess you could just wait for clouds.
There are- the SPY-1 radar used as part of the Aegis system (and similar systems) is absolutely capable of destroying or incapacitating drones, its just not its primary purpose. 6 MW of RF energy pumped down a pencil sized beam will fry all of the circuitry needed to fly a drone in very short order.
I was and remain confused about the "genocide in Gaza" narrative. Will someone make a compelling case for it?
My position is simple and probably boringly familiar: the casualty figures (~55k/20months according to the Gaza Health Ministry), while large, stay well below the natural growth of the population (~54k/year pre-war EDIT: actually 47k = 54k births - 7k deaths), do not threaten annihilation or massive reduction of the population size, and are slowing down (half of total casualties so far were in the first 4 months - 20% of the war so far). I have misgivings about some of the policies adopted by the Israeli army and after reading deeply about several well-documented cases I think some may amount to war crimes (I'm an Israeli Jew and I support the war on Hamas, despite these misgivings). But I cannot see how any of them amount to "genocide" or "ongoing genocide", if the word is to remain meaningful.
When I read news stories about how "leading scholars of genocide agree that Israel is committing genocide in Gaza", it makes me want to question the whole field of scholarship of genocide, if it converges on such an absurd, on its face, accusation. Am I being obtuse or annoyingly literal about what the word "genocide" could mean? But if it does not mean at least something like "a serious attempt to kill an entire national/ethnic/religious/etc. group or at least a very substantial part of it", does it then not lose its moral force as a uniquely evil thing?
To steelman the argument of those calling it a genocide, I think you need to separate the scholarly world and the layman usage.
Assuming a Western perspective, the most salient usage of the word 'genocide' refers to what European Jews experienced after the Nuremberg laws in Germany and other occupied parts of Europe. Usually the topic is brought up together with various other antisemitic pieces of legislation, civic and cultural biases, which are implicitly and explicitly assumed as the justification for the ultimate attempt at exterminating European Jews.
This is probably why the word 'genocide' evokes images of segregation, of forced removal, of ethnic cleansing, despite those things being peripheral to the actual definition of the word. I think part of the reason why all these discriminatory practices ended up being lumped together conceptually despite their varying degrees of gravity is because of the phenomenon Scott wrote about recently, where pushing back on matters of principle when talking about controversial subjects looks like defending the worst side.
(as an example, I can easily imagine a conversation where a person would state "The removal of citizenship from German Jews was the beginning of the genocide". Would anybody correct this statement if it came up in a conversation? Probably not. And yet it reinforces the connection that 'removal of citizenship' is part of the broader category of 'genocide', or a precursor to it)
In this sense, I think it's more or less understandable why laypeople would use the word to refer to general mass murder, ethnic cleansing or organized, state-sponsored discrimination.
Personally, I wish everyone just stuck to 'ethnic cleansing', which is a heinous enough crime and seems to be what is actually happening in Gaza and the occupied territories in general
Cute... ( Though, if ASI is built, and it decides that humans are in its way, well... Though it probably wouldn't sequence our elimination one ethnic group at a time... )
Note that the law against genocide includes the usual "inchoate offences":
(1) conspiracy to commit genocide;
(2) incitement to commit genocide;
(3) attempt to commit genocide;
(4) complicity in genocide.
Before you dismiss those as insignificant, note that under *Israeli law* they are all considered significant enough to mandate the death penalty. Why? Because the law against genocide isn't just there to allow us to identify, after the fact, that a group has been genocided and then apply an appropriate punishment. It's there to try to prevent genocide.
As such, any criterion should be the minimum necessary to identify that a genocide has started. Although 'burden of proof' arguments are usually purely vacuous debating tactics, here I think it is quite reasonable to say that you bear the burden of proof here: you are proposing that genocide should only be identified when the perpetrator manages to exterminate the victim group at a higher rate than the birth rate. Why is it necessary to wait until then, if other elements (intent, willingness to kill large numbers of civilians, babies, pregnant mothers, etc) have been established?
In terms of the current situation, it's worth noting that Israeli leaders have made statements which are clearly "incitement to genocide" and they therefore have a vested interest in using all the means open to them to maintain the narrative that no such thing is going on. Given that if a future Israeli administration were to ever take it seriously, they could be facing a firing squad.
I agree. I think there are a lot of things you can dislike about Netanyahu, Likud, Mossad, the war in Gaza etc with out jumping straight to “genocide!1!!1”
In the Holocaust, Nazis rounded up tens of thousands of Ukrainian Jews and shot them in the back of the head. In a single day. That’s a genocide. Blowing up a hospital where Hamas is hiding and not caring that you kill a bunch of innocent children is… not great? Lacking in humanity and empathy? Would be nice to demonstrate to the international community that you considered every single possible way of de-escalating the conflict before choosing this option? Perhaps should symbolically pay homage to the dead children in some way? But calling it a genocide is like calling Trump Hitler, it’s silly and hyperbolic and it means I stop listening to you.
Yeah, you can make a legitimate complaint that the IDF isn't being as careful about civilian casualties as they should, or that they aren't policing their own soldiers' behavior as closely as they should, but there's no way make that into genocide. Instead, I think this is one of those things where some word becomes useful as a club to beat your enemies with, and so you just start overusing it. Many things are bad without being genocide.
If Israel wanted to kill everyone in Gaza, they could get most of that done in an afternoon.
So far, they've killed 3% of the population in 1.5 years. At that rate the population is probably still increasing.
The constant warnings to Gazans to evacuate certain areas before they're attacked are also hard to explain if the intent is genocidal.
So for me it's definitely not a genocide in the "trying to kill everyone" sense. If you think it's a genocide in some other sense, be specific so the discussion can have some chance of being communicative.
The population of Gaza is estimated to have fallen about 6% since the start of the war, with more of the decline coming from people leaving than deaths. I imagine birth rates have fallen too, but I don't have numbers.
It's not genocide, though some of the more far-right members of the Israeli government would like to take a harsher stance on Gaza if they could get away with it.
I completely agree that I want people to make a compelling case for it. And the only way you can do that--as in, make a case that's compelling or even remotely persuasive to anyone who doesn't already agree with you--is to provide (a) some clear, unambiguous, and above all politically neutral definition that (b) distinguishes between a genocide and a war where one side is badly losing, and (c) prove that you equally condemn, and devote equal energy and effort and time to condemning, all wars and conflicts that meet that definition.[1]
This is really, really, really important. First because, let's say Israel is indeed committing a genocide.[2] If you want to stop this genocide, the most effective way you could do so is by convincing either the Israeli government, the US government, a sufficiently large part of the bipartisan US population, or possibly a sufficiently large number of other western countries' governments and populations that a genocide is occuring. And the *worst thing* you could possibly do for that purpose is use a vague, biased, or otherwise muddy criteria for distinguishing lopsided war from genocide that is, or looks like it could be, changed or applied
differently depending on the countries and ethnic groups involved. (That's absolutely guaranteed to cause almost all the people whose opinions being changed would have a substantial effect to disregard everything you say.) While the *best* thing you could possibly do is consitently use a crystal clear, unquestionably politically neutral definition that very aggressively removes all possibility that its use changes depending on whether the perpetrator is a US ally, on the skin colour of the groups involved, or on anything else like that.
And second, because if Israel is in any way even the slightest bit persuadable to change anything about what they do at all, the *best thing* you can do is give them a genocide definition based on clear actions of theirs with the *certainty* that, were they to stop doing those actions, their behaviour would no longer be called a genocide, no matter how much you disapprove of it. And the *worst thing* you could possibly do is talk in a way that makes it highly likely that no matter what they change you will still find a way to accuse them of genocide, unless they do absolutely everything you want.[3]
And I think it's pretty clear that the latter approach is being used by the vast majority of Israel's critics. Which means that--given that persistently using and popularising sloppy and biased definitions of genocide discredits not only your use of the term but everyone else's (including those who actually are using it in a principled fair way), and given that discrediting such terms is a positive act that directly reduces the likelihood that influential people will take the accusation seriously--these people are, *more than anyone else except its direct supporters*, complicit in whatever genocide that is occuring!
So, for the love God, please, provide a clear definition, that distinguishes lopsided war from genocide and *is applied consistently to all countries*, if you care *at all* about preventing genocides, and not just about promoting a particular political agenda.
[1] I wouldn't necessarily firmly hold a random commentator to this, since ordinary people are going to have biases, even though it still definitely and significantly reduces their moral authority on the topic. But if the UN, for example, calls one country's act a genocide while having previously not called a different country's similar act one, then nobody (who isn't already a partisan in that direction) will, or should, give any weight whatsoever to what the UN says on the topic. Same for any other prominent institution.
[2] I am legitimately not taking a position on this, since I don't know all the facts and factual claims.
[3] And it's a million times worse if you are calling their current policy a genocide and, before that policy was implemented, you were previously accusing them of genocide anyway.
I agree. Instead of telling people your conclusion, give them a list of facts you based your conclusion on. (Check the list twice, to exclude known hoaxes.) If the facts are sufficiently strong, they can make the conclusion themselves.
Thus is 100 percent correct (if the goal is to save lives, rather than to simply claim outrage or to express one's priors . A rather big if, unfortunately).
Do you think there is likely to be twice the reported casualty figures? Three times? Ten times? Seems unlikely that the numbers we got could be 1/10th the reality, but even if there are ten times as many deaths then it's still only about 28% of the population. Over 66% of the Jewish population of Europe was killed during that genocide: in Poland, which started with the largest population and where the genocide was carried out the most thoroughly, it was more like 88% killed.
You'd need the actual casualties to be unrealistically higher than the estimates to get in spitting distance of a genocide.
Humans need food to live, and Gazans aren't exactly capable of producing it under current conditions at anywhere near their population numbers. They're in refugee camps, not on farms, and in a tiny portion of the place's pre-war territory.
The slaughter of journalists, blocking of humanitarian aid, and recent massacres of crowds seeking food distribution have very disturbing implications.
It really seems that the goal of all these actions are not to eradicate the people of Gaza but to force Hamas to surrender and/or release the hostages. It seems pretty clear that if Hamas surrendered tomorrow, or even just released all the remaining hostages tomorrow, then Israel would not continue to restrict food aid into Gaza.
Israel has refused deals of "we free the hostages in exchange for ending the ethnic cleansing campaign" and its policies of mass extermination have surely caused the deaths of many of the hostages
I think it refers to the effective collective punishment, brutalizing, and limited starving of a very captive Gaza population. The number of non combatant casualties is very large, and it appears many children are shot intentionally. Even if it is only a fraction of a genocide, does that make it better? Israel's actions are morally repulsive, as repulsive as a genocide, so the term is used.
Caveat: In the US, the gaza war is covered by very partisan sources in the US, so it's really hard to know the truth. Many seem to omit the whole story, with headlines like "Military opens fire on crowd of hungry people in food line" and the article omits the likely probability that some were armed. But overwhelmingly, it appears that civilians are being destroyed and maimed. And that is sad and terrible.
Sad and terrible, but we should still care about getting our claims right.
When George Floyd was killed by some Minneapolis cops, one common line floating around was that this was a racist lynching. Now, here's the thing: this just wasn't true. Floyd's death was a very bad thing, apparently caused by the cops applying a dangerous restraint technique in an incompetent or careless way. But calling it a racist lynching was just bullshit. Perhaps effective rhetoric, but still bullshit.
Calling the war in Gaza genocide seems the same, to me. It can be bad without being genocide, so make the case that it's bad or needlessly bad or whatever, but don't pretend it's genocide just to get everyone's attention.
a. The initial coroner's report said he tested positive for covid and fentanyl, but not that either was the cause of death.
b. None of this is relevant to whether or not Floyd's death was the result of a racial lynching, as neither dying of covid or heart attack or fentanyl overdose or positional asphyxia from the way the cops restrained him would remotely qualify.
Civilians dying in war is indeed sad and terrible, but calling it a genocide just makes you look unserious. Is Russia committing a genocide against Ukrainians? They sure have killed a lot of non-combatants.
The UN definition seems pretty solidly to match what I think people ordinarily mean by genocide. If you want to argue that Russia taking Ukrainian children for the purpose of destroying their Ukrainian culture and heritage is an act of genocide, I will listen. But the civilian deaths occurring from missile strike and bombings don't seem at all like genocide to me, they seem like what happens when two states go to war.
>The UN definition seems pretty solidly to match what I think people ordinarily mean by genocide.
Hmm, ok, we may be seeing different samples of ordinary people. My experience is that the overwhelming use of the term that I've seen has focused on the killing of a population, not on any of the other clauses that the UN stuck in its definition.
>If you want to argue that Russia taking Ukrainian children for the purpose of destroying their Ukrainian culture and heritage is an act of genocide, I will listen.
Oops, sorry! I didn't mean that I took that position, just that it matched the UN's definition (if there was actually intent). Personally, I suspect that, since Russia has a TFR of 1.42, Putin may be motivated by a grab for future cannon fodder rather than an intent to destroy Ukraine as a culture.
>But the civilian deaths occurring from missile strike and bombings don't seem at all like genocide to me, they seem like what happens when two states go to war.
Agreed.
Given the uses that I've seen of the term, I think the UN should have kept the definition to _just_ the case whether the target group is being killed.
Maybe, in analogy with the distinction between opiates and opioids, they should have defined another term, maybe genocioid, to cover the broader list of _other_ grievances, separate from killings, that they put into their definition.
Most of the upset of the form "well then, *everything* is genocide" seems to stem from worry that what seems to you (and I) as not-genocide will be ruled genocide anyway, by someone who really, really wants to. (And who might have first crack at the referee's ear.)
Therefore, it should be wrong to interpret the UN definition that way, and therefore, there should be an agreed-upon principle limiting such interpretations. Currently, there appears to be no such principle. (Other than perhaps "don't annoy the West too much", but no one wants that to be the official principle.)
I'm more upset that if you call things that are not genocide "genocide" then the word loses it's meaning. Genocide is a specific very bad thing, if you conflate it with other bad things then we won't have a word for that thing anymore. Not to mention that the word comes with emotional and moral connotations whereby calling something a genocide gets people to think it is worse than it actually may be.
It's good that we have a UN definition so there is a definition of genocide that people across the world can use to communicate with each other. I don't see any problem with it.
And as a followup question, what wars (1900 and later) _don't_ count as genocides by these standards?
OK, fine, we can think of some very low-civilian-casualty affairs, but are most big wars genocides? Are some of them mutual genocides? Were the British genociding the Germans as the Germans were genociding the British?
Let's not go the opposite extreme, where unless 90% of population is exterminated, it is "not true genocide".
I would prefer to stay on the level of stating the facts, rather than arguing definitions, but since it seems inevitable, check Wikipedia: "disintegration of the political and social institutions, of culture, language, national feelings, religion, and the economic existence of national groups", if those are not unrelated crimes, but parts of a single purpose.
According to that definition, yes, if Russians ban the use of Ukrainian language, destroy their historical books and monuments, if they specifically exterminate authors and poets, take children away from parents for reeducation, and teach them at schools that there is no such thing as "Ukrainians" but they are actually "little Russians", then yes, this completely fits the traditional definition of genocide.
But they don't - no restrictions on the use of Ukrainian between private parties (compare that with bans on Russian language in Ukraine), and also Ukrainian is an official language in some of the annexed regions
Like which ones, and how 'historical' are they? After 2014, a lot of streets in Ukraine were renamed to honor Nazi allies/collaborators (example: Shukhevych avenue in Kyiv), and in areas controlled by Russia, that was reverted (back to pre-2014 state).
>> if they specifically exterminate authors and poets, take children away from parents for reeducation
Haven't heard about anything like that on a large scale, any links to check if this is happening?
>> teach them at schools that there is no such thing as "Ukrainians" but they are actually "little Russians"
Might it be conflation of 'Russian' as an ethnicity (1) vs. 'Russian' as in 'citizen of Russia' (2)?
Of course, state of Russia would emphasize (2) in their school program and put any ethnicity as secondary - but that is pretty natural and widespread? (Or do you expect e.g. US government to use Hawaiian for school instruction in Hawaii, and also talk at length how US annexed Hawaii after a US-lead coup in late 19th century?)
Holodomor is very politicized, there are two narratives - one is that it was a deliberate action to kill peasants in Ukraine (and that is used to incite anti-Russian sentiment), another that it was gross mismanagement & class warfare coupled with transition to large-scale farms (without any ethnic components); see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_famine_of_1930%E2%80%931933; note that a lot of peasants died in Russia of the exactly the same causes at the same time.
So the monument in question is a) quite recent b) can be viewed as anti-state propaganda - so not surprising it was dismantled.
FWIW, Ukraine dismantled a lot of Lenin statues, although they were there for 50+ years, and Lenin was the main proponent of affirmative action in favor of Ukrainian's (in Ukraine, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korenizatsiia)
>> Haven't heard about anything like that on a large scale
Ok, any links / reports on school textbooks (vs. some corners of the blogosphere) using it like this (and which are not talking about 18th-19th century, when the term was widely used)?
>Let's not go the opposite extreme, where unless 90% of population is exterminated, it is "not true genocide".
Wouldn't dream of it. I define genocide as attempting to eradicate a people group in whole or in part. Non-combatants dying during a war does not meet that definition, they have to be killed with the intent of wiping out their people group. The non-combatant deaths in Gaza and in Ukraine seem perfectly explicable as being the expected result of a war happening.
Do we consider the west, last seen kidnapping Ukrainian children not to reeducate them, but to rape and then murder them when they're too old to be sweet child pornography, to be fitting the traditional definition of genocide? Is it the criminal nature of the mass kidnappings, or the idea that it's oligarchs and not government doing it?
Are you seriously asking for a link to child pornography? (It's the biggest industry in Ukraine, passing wheat now that most of the farmland has been turned into a giant shrubbery.).
Well for one thing, the conditions in Gaza aren't conducive to accurate tracking of deaths. For another, "the natural growth rate of the population" is probably significantly lower when they're starving in a rubble-strewn hellscape.
You sure about that? If Egypt is seeing dramatic price spikes and "can't buy at any cost" ... that's not going to be good for Gazans who don't have much money, in comparison.
Under the Genocide Convention, genocide does not require that anyone die; rather, it requires only the commission of certain listed acts* "with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:"
The key words there are "intent to destroy" and "as such." I am dubious that Israel has the requisite intent. But, more importantly, an accusation of genocide in any but the most obvious case is counterproductive: If I accuse you of genocide, you know for sure whether you are guilty of it, because you know your own intent. And if you know that you do not have the requisite intent, you can simply ignore my accusation.
In contrast, if I accuse you of war crimes, such as failing to "refrain from deciding to launch any attack which may be expected to cause incidental loss of civilian life, injury to civilians, damage to civilian objects, or a combination thereof, which would be excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated;" https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/en/ihl-treaties/api-1977/article-57 , you can't dismiss that accusation, because that is a judgment call.
*(a) Killing members of the group; (b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; (c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; (d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; (e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.
> The key words there are "intent to destroy" and "as such."
No, the key words there are "in part". You might notice that all warfare automatically satisfies this definition, as long as one side's military forces sometimes draw soldiers from the same country they're fighting for.
> You might notice that all warfare automatically satisfies this definition
Only if you ignore the legal rulings clarifying what "in part" means (eg Bosnia and Herzegovina v. Serbia and Montenegro).
So random commenters on the internet unaware of how courts work might consider any war to be genocide (at least when it's convenient for them), but the ICJ doesn't.
You can certainly decide whatever the ICJ declares to be genocide ipso facto IS, but just because they pretend they reached whatever decisions they did based on some text doesn't mean we then need to pretend to be too stupid to understand what it actually says.
Have you ever read a decision of the ICTR? Or the ICTY? Or any of the relevant literature? Or anything re statutory construction? I rather doubt it. Then why are you so sure that your interpretation of the text is correct?
No, the point is that "as such" is key precisely because it modifies "in part," and thereby establishes that your example does not satisfy the definition.
And, honestly, do you think any country would have ratified the Convention if your interpretation were correct? Of course not, which is strong evidence against your interpretation.
You don't think the American army is "part" of a "national group"? How are you parsing the text?
> And, honestly, do you think any country would have ratified the Convention if your interpretation were correct?
Yes? Do you think treaties are signed or laws passed because the people involved think they're good ideas?
Back up. Do you think what people say about laws pre-passage is indicative of how those laws are implemented afterwards?
If you're a country that doesn't want to condemn something, you can just fail to acknowledge that it meets a catchall definition. No one can make you do otherwise. But to the extent the official definition has any meaning at all, it includes all armed conflict. Nobody wants that to be true; nobody uses the official definition. That's not an argument that you should be trying to derive opinions from it.
Again, the key is "as such." Enemy soldiers are targeted for killing because of their status as soldiers, not their status as members of a targeted group. They would be targeted if they were foreign mercenaries.
>Do you think treaties are signed or laws passed because the people involved think they're good ideas?
Given that not all treaties are ratified, yes. Apparently the US Senate does not think the Convention on the Rights of the Child is a good idea.
>Do you think what people say about laws pre-passage is indicative of how those laws are implemented afterwards?
Well, I know that international tribunals interpreting the Genocide Convention have used what was said pre-passage as sources for their interpretation, so yes.
>> Do you think treaties are signed or laws passed because the people involved think they're good ideas?
> Given that not all treaties are ratified, yes.
That's a fairly impressive non sequitur.
You just argued, explicitly, that in all cases where an action is sometimes taken and sometimes not taken, it is considered to be a good idea whenever it is taken.
Is there a reason you think other people should listen to your ideas?
You clearly are not familiar with the negotiations re the Genocide Convention back in 1948. Nor with the substantial differences between the original draft and the final draft. Nor with the fact that it has never been applied to acts like those in OP's hypothetical.
The Genocide Convention dilutes the Genocide concept so much that we need a new word for "killing everyone of a group" if we adopt that as the "real" definition.
But I assume that the people claiming there a Gaza genocide typically mean the "kill everyone" definition?
It seems to me that the "intent to destroy" requirement ameliorates the dilution. And the "in part" is necessary to preclude claims like, "we didn't intend to kill all Vietnamese, just the ones in Cambodia."
"But, more importantly, an accusation of genocide in any but the most obvious case is counterproductive"
This seems like it proves too much. This could apply to literally any crime that requires intent. Accusations are, in general, made for the benefit of bystanders (to call attention to the act and its possible motives), not as part of a strictly two-way dialog with the accused.
Yes, it can. But we aren't talking about the criminal justice system. The point of an accusation at this point is to get the actor to change its behavior. That is not going to happen if the actor knows it is innocent of the crime it is accused of.
If there is a war crimes tribunal convened at some point, then perhaps a genocide accusation would be appropriate.
Genocide isn’t just killing all of a population, it’s in whole or in part, and includes other criteria: there’s the destruction of most of the buildings, attacks on religious institutions, the attacks on hospitals, the withholding of aid, and so on. And the clear desire, articulated by many in the Israeli cabinet, to kick the Palestinians out. You can read the ICC interim report for a case by case review.
And those numbers are far too low anyway, merely the counted dead. Under the rubble lies many more.
And talking of rubble, there’s no way back to living there without billions of dollars of investment. And who is paying for that? Hardly Israel. Not much of a punishment. The US? I think that Trump said the quiet part out loud, and the aim is ethnic cleansing. You can come back when it’s finished. Maybe.
Anyway I don’t think there’s any living there, so there’s only dying there, so I wouldn’t be too keen to not use the G word, although perhaps you could equivocate and say that ethic cleansing isn’t really genocide.
> Genocide isn’t just killing all of a population, it’s in whole or in part, and includes other criteria: there’s the destruction of most of the buildings, attacks on religious institutions, the attacks on hospitals, the withholding of aid, and so on
I dunno, when I heard the word "genocide" it was the 1990s, and it meant "killing all the population".
If people insist on defining it down to mean other bad things then we should probably just chuck the word "genocide" out and come up with two new words, one that means "killing all the population" and one that means "other bad stuff".
I don't have the power to redefine words but I can at least tune out every time someone invokes the "G" word, which is what I tend to do nowadays.
'Hey, it's not a genocide, we're not sending soldiers in to shoot everybody. We're just blocking food and water, cutting off the electricity, regularly bombing the place and sorta hoping they'll all just die or flee elsewhere so then we can move in to claim the vacant territory, but that's not a *genocide*'.
Technically no. But this, I think, is what you get with a secular nation state that doesn't have even the dregs of Christian values behind it. We've argued on here before about Western civilisation and the water the fish swim in, but here is someplace that was not built on "we had centuries of 'love your enemy' preached at us". This is genuine Old Testament "eye for an eye" stuff. I think it demonstrates that nice liberal values don't just precipitate out of the air once you hit a particular level of development, technology and wealth.
Before I get bashed about anti-Semitism, I think the same holds for China and other non-Christian nations. The foundational principles are different and just slapping on a coat of whitewash of Western practices around democracy and capitalism isn't enough to change worldviews to "maybe we should all be nice to the outgroup".
This is a strange argument to make. First of all, Israel's Ashkenazi elites trace their recent ancestry to Christian Europe. Israel was *very much* built by people who had centuries of "love your enemy" preached at them. Also, the pattern in America (and probably most of Europe) is that the more Christian someone is, the more likely it is they support Israel. It looks like it's the vaunted "Christian values" that make people pro-massacre!
I HAVE read (well, honestly, skimmed) Mein Kampf, yes. And no, but I don't smoke and don't expect to know any but the most famous cigarette brands; I DO know the name isn't taboo in India as it is in the West, and a cigarette brand with it isn't too surprising.
"Hitler is CURRENTLY the fount of all metaphysical, mystical, and moral reality in American life.
"Usually Jewish, Christian, and Muslim theologians are quite jealous of not letting the theological doctrines of other faiths penetrate their own religions without scrupulous review and revision... yet one could see members of all three faiths lecturing even atheist, Buddhist, and Hindu students on the theological implications of the Holocaust in otherwise secular class on secular philosophical topics. [Note: This part I can confirm from personal experience.]
" Americans already believe Hitler is the most metaphysically important person in human history, in the way that an increasingly large cross section of Americans DO NOT believe in the significance of Christ or their own founding fathers.
"In Mainline churches across the US one can, with considerable impunity, blaspheme God or Jesus with shockingly little social pushback, even standing in front of the Crucifix… but say the wrong thing about Hitler, violate THAT taboo, and people will fly into rages that you dare upset the metaphysical order of the world and violate their souls with your heresy.
"Americans are already Esoteric Hitlerists, mostly they believe in a misotheistic conception of Hitler where he is the evil God of the modern world and of a human nature they are not supposed to engage with, to deny at all cost.
"But that doesn't change the fact that for maybe hundreds of millions of Americans Hitler is a real, dangerous, live (if not living) God whose impact and danger they fear/taboo."
While some will be excited about vacant territory, thats not the reason the war is happening. The war is primarily to end? the terrorism that keeps coming from there. The religio-national nutjob faction supports it, but it wouldn't be happening if only they wanted it. The palestinian territories just arent that interesting in selfish materialist terms.
"When I hear the word 'vaccine,' I think of a substance you can inject once and that prevents a person from getting a disease nearly 100% of the time. Anything that doesn't meet my personal standard for vaccines should be called something else."
"I dunno, when I heard the word "genocide" it was the 1990s, and it meant "killing all the population"."
Strangely, words are not generally defined by "what Melvin thought they meant in the 90s." I don't think genocide ever meant "killing all the population," not even in the popular consciousness. Consider that "all" is quite a high bar, which very, very few well-known historical genocides could be reasonably said to meet. I'd say the popular definition would tend more towards "mass murder targeted a particular ethnic or cultural group[1]." I think it is a very strange argument that must have arisen more from political expedience than any clear conviction that something *can't* be a genocide if it's not perfectly on track to wipe out an entire population.
Regardless, as I understand it, the broader definition wasn't chosen for a lark, nor was it chosen to try to tar these more benign actions with the infamy of mass-murder. As I understand it, it was chosen because people who study the subject recognized those actions as being part of the same pattern. Note the "intending to destroy" in gdanning's definition. Various matters of practicality and expedience may inform *how* the intent manifests in practice. But the underlying intent is the important bit: a group *merely* engaging in one of the "milder" forms today may very quickly escalate to widespread mass murder if circumstances promote it as the best way to accomplish their goal.
[1] Which is not to say that this is the word-for-word definition you'd get from a random person on the street: people are often struggle to articulate definitions even of words they use correctly. But if you asked a random person to classify events as genocide or not genocide, I expect you'd find their classifications to fit this schema reasonably well.
The Genocide Convention, signed in 1948, defines genocide in a manner which does not require the intent to kill the entire population:
>In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:
>(a) Killing members of the group;
(>b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
>(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
>(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
>(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.
But you are intending to destroy part of a national, ethnical, racial, and religious group, namely the part comprised by the two dudes. The definition does not say how big of a "part" counts as genocide.
>Given the goal of the Convention to deal with mass crimes, it is widely acknowledged that the intention to destroy must target at least a substantial part of the group. ... targeted part of a group would be classed as substantial either because the intent sought to harm a large majority of the group in question or the most representative members of the targeted community. ... . Genocidal intent may therefore be manifest in two forms. It may consist of
desiring the extermination of a very large number of the members of the group, in which case it would constitute an intention to destroy a group en masse. However, it may also consist of the desired destruction of a more limited number of persons selected for the impact that their disappearance would have upon the survival of the group as such.
Prosecutor v. Jelisic, Judgment, IT-95-10-T para 82 (Int'l Crim. Trib. Yugoslavia, Trial Chamber, Dec. 14, 1999)
If you look up "Native American genocide" on Wikipedia, you will find this same debate. I think most people now look at the Native American displacement and death by European settlers as horrific, but scholars still argue over whether it was genocide (although it seems like consensus opinion is that at least some periods were genocidal). Something similar may end up happening in how we talk about Gaza.
My opinion until this year was that Israel is committing war crimes and attempts on committing a forced displacement/ethnical cleansing of the palestinian population in Gaza, but not a genocide per se.
When Israel blocked any humanitarian aid to enter in Gaza for months and further increasing the level of starvation in the territory, and only accepted in the end to let little humanitarian aid in after being put under extreme international pressure and under questionable conditions (GHF), my opinion switched to believe that Israel is actually in the process of committing a genocide. The fact that humanitarian convoys were guided by Iraeli defense forces to take routes that were vulnerable to gangs (supported by Israel https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Popular_Forces) who'd loot this aid reinforced this change in opinion.
I think the right-wing Israeli ministers would like to displace the Palestinians to another country, but no country is willing to accept them in large numbers, so most can't leave.
What you're describing, if we assume the worst intent on the part of the Israeli government, is a country that wanted to commit genocide through starvation, but didn't due to international pressure. That's not the same thing as a country that actually kills a nation through starvation. Or maybe you're predicting they will starve them to death in future?
> I think the right-wing Israeli ministers would like to displace the Palestinians to another country, but no country is willing to accept them in large numbers, so most can't leave.
Yeah, that'd be the dream of the Israeli government right now. That's what I was referring to in my first sentence when saying that until recently I was considering that Israel was not committing a genocide but attempting on committing a forced displacement/ethnical cleansing.
> What you're describing, if we assume the worst intent on the part of the Israeli government, is a country that wanted to commit genocide through starvation, but didn't due to international pressure. That's not the same thing as a country that actually kills a nation through starvation. Or maybe you're predicting they will starve them to death in future?
The intent and casualties is sufficient to characterize a genocide, even if the whole population hasn't been eradicated. The Bosnian genocide lead to the death of 'only' 8000 bosnians in Srebrenica (ofc in another mode of killing). Right now I'm not sure what's the state of food delivery in Gaza and dozens of palestinians are shot each day by Israeli Defense Force or their gang proxies in the collection areas. Delivery of aid through means respecting the international law still remains impossible. My opinion (not with absolute certainty) is thus that Israel was in the process of committing a genocide which is still possibly ongoing. The fact that it could in the end refrains to do so after months of starvation in Gaza due to international pressure doesn't change the fact that these genocidal crimes have already been committed, even though only a limited percentage (and I wish it remains so, albeit it is already way too much) of the Gaza population died .
Edit: What I want to emphasize here and didn't articulate too well is that genocide is a process and that the objective should be to prevent it or at least to stop it as early as possible before the entire population has been wiped out. It's thus important to be able to characterize genocidal actions (which I guess may sound like 'crying wolf' and exaggerations to many) before they actually significantly wiped out the target population.
>The Bosnian genocide lead to the death of 'only' 8000 bosnians in Srebrenica (ofc in another mode of killing).
It should be noted that it was specific military officers who gave the orders to slaughter the populace of Srebrenica that were charged with genocide. The government of Serbia was found to not be guilty of genocide, but the actions of those officers in Srebrenica were genocide and those officers were convicted. The reason being, Serbia did not carry out the war with the intent of wiping out the Bosnians, but those officers in Srebrenica did slaughter Bosnian Muslims because they were Bosnian Muslims, with the intent of killing as many of that people group as they could.
So yes, you don't have to kill millions to be guilty of genocide, but you do have to intend to kill some amount of people because they are members of an ethnic group. So you would have to give us reason to believe that Israel has restricted food aid with the intent of killing Palestinians because they are Palestinians. It seems more likely to me that they have restricted aid in order to bring more pressure on Hamas to surrender and/or release the remaining hostages, and the civilians deaths are not the intent of the Israeli government but an expected side effect of trying to force Hamas to surrender/release the hostages.
I think genocide has long lost its accusatory moral force.
The relevant conditions for it now seem to be: A conflict between two organized entities, composing different ethnicities/religions/identities, where one militarily dominates the other, causing more deaths on the losing side than the winning side.
I think we still use the word because we can always project the desire to eliminate the losing ethnicity onto the winning force. So we can imagine “Yes, the objective casualties aren’t high, but that’s only because of the immense international pressure on Israel. Without it they would genocide, or at least ethnically cleanse, Palestine.”
Not that it’s correct, or that there isn’t significant room to disagree, but that seems to be the reasoning anyway. It’s worth noting that at least one (small) party in the current ruling coalition basically advocates for ethnic cleansing as one of their policy proposals, so it’s not insane to make this projection.
> I think we still use the word because we can always project the desire to eliminate the losing ethnicity onto the winning force.
No. The word is used because of the unique nature and history of the Israel-Palestine conflict, which is very much a fight between two ethnicities and has been since the first moment Zionism was conceived of. Other wars do not have the winning force also trying to settle and take over lands belonging to the other.
> Other wars do not have the winning force also trying to settle and take over lands belonging to the other.
The name for this is “War of conquest” as opposed to Just Wars which usually only have regime change as a goal. Ukraine seems to be a current war of conquest. Armenia-Azerbaijan was an actual complete ethnic cleansing in Nagorno-Karabakh like 3 years ago. The vast majority of wars in all of human history were wars of conquest as well.
It’s fine to call it a genocide, but that vastly reduces the moral impact of the word genocide, so don’t be surprised if it doesn’t make people care.
Most wars of conquest didn't lead to the forced displacement of the inhabitants of the conquered land, in history the group has usually been integrated in the conqueror's country. In the case of Nagorno-Karabakh it is a bit tricky as the armenians were not expelled per se but fleed to escape from possible retaliation. I think it could be considered as ethnic cleansing (not genocide), depending on whether or not one deems credible that Armenians remaining in the territory would face a real threat.
> The vast majority of wars in all of human history were wars of conquest as well.
Conquering the Palestinians is not what the Israelis are doing, though. They are marginalizing them on the very lands they have while taking more of the land away. The Israeli goverment don't want the Palestinians, they would prefer the whole population drop dead so that nothing stands in the way of taking the whole of the West Bank and perhaps Gaza as well.
Wars of Conquest can involve massacres and atrocities, but the explicit goal of eliminating those who were there before to make way for those will come from the winner's side is not common.
I gave an example that happened 2 years ago where 99.99% of the losing ethnicity was removed from a land area 10x larger than Gaza in a couple of weeks.
I’m not arguing that you can call it genocide. Go for it. What I’m saying is that it degrades the moral force of the word, similar to what happened in calling Trump a fascist. Through repeated use, the word genocide does apply to what’s going on in Gaza, but what’s going on in Gaza is a lot less morally reprehensible than what the word originally meant in many people’s eyes, so don’t be surprised if people stop caring when it’s used.
> I gave an example that happened 2 years ago where 99.99% of the losing ethnicity was removed from a land area 10x larger than Gaza in a couple of weeks.
Hence my use of the word "common".
Moreover, you are ignoring the arguments you made that I'm responding to, which is:
1. People project ethnic cleansing as a motive on the winning force.
2. Wars of conquest are the vast majority of wars in history and (implicitly) they involve some degree of ethnic cleansing or genocide.
My rejection is of both those premises. Israel is not being accused of ethnic cleansing or genocide because it is engaged in conventional urban warfare. It is being accused of that because the inherent conflict between the two peoples involves them trying to kick each other off the land or subdue the other to the point of functionally achieving that. All this talk about the power of a genocide accusation is irrelevant, the kind of thing you'd say if you thought you were talking to a surface-level pro-Palestinian.
(1) Killing children and making births impossible is genocide (source: Convention on the Prevention of the Crime of Genocide)
(2) Israel killed 15-20K children, about 100-1000 babies, and destroyed every single hospital in Gaza (source: various, ranging from New York Times to Israeli scholars)
The trouble with these definitional arguments is that in addition to a dictionary definition, the word “genocide” also carries an emotional weight.
Like suppose I agree that Israel is recklessly endangering the lives of civilians in an indiscriminate bombing campaign designed equally to shock and awe the enemy into submission as to eliminate enemy combatants. But they are doing this against an evil terrorist organisation that seeks maximal bloodshed, uses the deaths of its own people to provoke international outrage, and actively seeks to put Palestinian civilians in danger so it can profit.
It seems to me that Israel is roughly equivalent, morally, to the Allied forces that bombed Dresden and Hiroshima to provoke Nazi and Imperial Japanese surrender. They deliberately massacred hundreds of thousands, with questionable military gain. Is this a genocide? Well, war history is written by the winners, so it tends to be glossed over or referred to as an unfortunate necessity. But it was an absolutely brutal thing to do.
If you showed me that some conference of scholars who specialised in genocide agreed that Israel’s actions in Gaza and the Allies’ actions in Dresden both met some textbook definition of genocide, OK, fine, fair enough. But now that word doesn’t carry the same emotional heft, and I need a different word to describe what the Turks did to the Armenians, or the Nazis to the Jews, or the Hutus to the Tutsis, which is literally the systemic, planned massacre of an entire race of people. In each case literally millions dead.
> But they are doing this against an evil terrorist organization that seeks maximal bloodshed, uses the deaths of its own people to provoke international outrage, and actively seeks to put Palestinian civilians in danger so it can profit.
This a propagandist refrain that keeps getting parroted by the Pro-Israel side every time the question comes up, in some interoperations it's trivially false (Hamas leaders has civilian family too, and lots of it, I doubt Ismail Hania's first reaction to the murder of his grandchildren were "YEEEEEEEEEEEEESSSS, NOW WE CAN MAKE ISRAEL LOOK WORSE"), but in other interpretations it's trivially true, as every side to a war wants the other side to commit crimes, even if against its own civilians, so that the whole world agrees with it that its fighting monsters.
The evidence that Hamas is jubilant that Gazan civilians are being killed is the exact same evidence that Israeli politicians are, modulo the scale multiple necessary.
> Is this a genocide?
Why would it be not? Do you want genocide to be a race-neutral and event-neutral marker of the highest crime against humanity, or do you want it to be a racial scare worn by very specific ethnicities that only you stipulate beforehand?
It's fine to want both, what's not fine is not being honest and claiming the Holocaust is a universal crime that people - universally - should care about and study and remember but then flinch away when people very naturally take some aspects of the Holocaust and see parallels to it.
> If you showed me that some conference of scholars who specialized in genocide agreed that Israel’s actions in Gaza and the Allies’ actions in Dresden both met some textbook definition of genocide, OK, fine, fair enough.
The thing is, I can apply the same standard to the Holocaust too: I won't believe it's a genocide unless you show me that the Mongol invasion of Eurasia meet the same textbook definition of genocide (and 10x the victims, far worse methods), until and unless you do that, I don't think it's fair or uniform-standards to call 6 million deaths a genocide but 60 million+ not.
If you're fine with this, I can be fine with your conditioning of recognition of Gaza's genocide too.
The Mongol invasion of Eurasia is absolutely a genocide. Agree.
The thing with Hamas is that their own citizens hate them and protest against them at the risk of being murdered. Then when the protestors are predictably murdered in gruesome fashion, the so-called “pro-Palestinians” in the West ignore it, they are presumably too busy shouting epithets at Ahmed Fouad Alkhaitib, an actual Palestinian peace activist who has lost family members in the war and nonetheless tirelessly advocates for peace and understanding in the region (he condemns both Netanyahu and Hamas; for this he is called a “Zionist.”)
Yay martyrdom and armed resistance! I have no patience for this from coddled Western latte sipping leftists. An Iranian in the West posted on Twitter recently that her feed consisted of Iranians praying for an end to the regime and the fall of the Ayatollah, and dumb*ss Westerners posting about “the resistance.” If the Iranian regime falls, my Iraqi Arab friend is planning a big party! This is how actual people who live there see it.
Anyway - I simply propose that if you are willing to call the Allied bombing of Hiroshima and Dresden a genocide, I’m fine with you calling Israeli actions in Gaza a genocide. Are you willing to bite that bullet?
> The Mongol invasion of Eurasia is absolutely a genocide. Agree.
But here comes your point about the disparate emotional impact of things that are supposed to be the same. The Mongol invasions are nowhere near the same place the Holocaust is in, people make jokes about it solving climate change, not just ignorant or laypeople, Crash Course World History has a running joke where the host says the "The Mongols" and old movie footage plays along with dramatic music, in a humorous and over-the-top fashion.
Can you imagine someone making the same jokes and overall treat the matter with similar lightheartedness when it comes to the Holocaust? This despite the fact that one of them is 6 million deaths and the other 60 according to some estimates, and more than 6 in all estimates. So if you accept that the Mongol invasions are a genocide the same as the Holocaust, you also accept that some genocides are not talked about (or talked about lightly) unlike other genocides, despite similar or greater death counts than the latter.
> The thing with Hamas is that their own citizens hate them and protest against them at the risk of being murdered. Then when the protestors are predictably murdered in gruesome fashion, the so-called “pro-Palestinians” in the West ignore it
How does this relate to our original discussion about whether Gaza is a genocide? A population suffering a genocide doesn't have to live in a democracy or love its non-genociding government, anymore than Polish Jews in Auschwitz loved the Polish government or didn't protest it before the Nazi takeover.
> an actual Palestinian peace activist who has lost family members in the war
He has my sympathy as any Gazan who lost people in this genocide, but I also heard he works with Trumpo hawks in DC think tanks recently, so I don't think the story is as easy and straightforward as you present it.
And for what it's worth, Ahmed operates on Twitter, and on Twitter the total effective IQ is so low and the amount of time allowed before reaction is so dismal that I don't think Ahmed's detractors are indicative of anything, Ahmed is treated like that because that's how anyone who writes on Twitter is treated, according to what I know and see of the platform anyway.
> he condemns both Netanyahu and Hamas
Good start, but Israel has been committing war crimes long before Netanyahu, and Netanyahu has a wide support base that are **more** extreme than he is, if the Haaretz survey about 82% of Israeli Jews wanting total Nakba 2.0 is anything to go by.
> coddled Western latte sipping leftists
And this is just typical "Boo outgroup" fictions that people invent to vent their anger, it's really exactly identical to saying "And I have no patience from coddled Western yellow-wearing chosen people ranting about anti-stegmatism". Taking me as a relevant Pro-Palestinian, every single adjective of your sentence doesn't apply to me by any reasonable definition, with the most insulting being "Latte-sipping", I don't drink any Caffeine.
> An Iranian in the West posted on Twitter recently that her feed consisted of Iranians praying for an end to the regime and the fall of the Ayatollah, and dumb*ss Westerners posting about “the resistance.”
Let's ignore for now that this is about Iran while the conversation is about Gaza and whether decimating at least 3% of its population while proudly calling for more is genocide or not, I can equally well say that hundreds of thousands of Israelis are asking for the war in Gaza to stop (hostage protests) while my timeline is filled with dumbass westerners tweeting "Bravo IDF " and "Let Israel Finish The Job".
Twitter, a Haven for the Insane.
Took you long enough to discover the fact, but better late than never.
> - I simply propose that if you are willing to call the Allied bombing of Hiroshima and Dresden a genocide, I’m fine with you calling Israeli actions in Gaza a genocide.
Hiroshima seems unambiguously a genocide given the death counts, the sheer indiscriminateness, and the contemporary beliefs about atomic bombs such as the belief it can ignite the air in massive country-spanning fireballs (which means the American war criminals approving this thought that there will be even more casualties, and greenlighted it anyway). Dresden not so sure, I have to access contemporary records and communications to establish intent, I don't have to in case of Gaza, the people doing it literally say on TV and Radio the goal is to exterminate Gazans.
Again, things being common or frequent or hitherto-accepted doesn't mean they aren't a genocide. Find me an ancient war that didn't end with the losing side decimated and enslaved, a Holocaust-adjacent result, and yet we still call the Holocaust a genocide despite hundreds of similar things occurring in centuries of history before it (like the Mongol invasions.)
Sure thing, and it just so happens that we have a gigantic database of every time some high-ranking official in Israel incited to genocide and soldiers in Gaza specifically and explicitly declared that the intent is genocide. Indicating ample intent.
I'm surprised to find that the birth rate in Gaza has almost not slowed down compared to before the war (I expected to find a significant-but-less-than-50% decrease). This story https://www.savethechildren.net/news/about-130-children-born-daily-gaza-amid-total-siege-aid-and-goods from April estimates 4k births during the next month, which is in line with the 27 births per 1k population per year pre-war birth rate.
There have been many stories, sequentially over the last 1.5 years, about all or almost all hospitals in Gaza having been destroyed/closed down; evidently some of them do come back on. I don't remember seeing anything about an abnormal number of birth fatalities.
The legal language in the Convention on the Prevention doesn't really stipulate that the genocider in question really did manage to make births literally impossible in the same sense unaided flight against earth gravity is, just that there is ample and sufficient evidence that the genocider in question is intent and fully on board with the idea of making births impossible. Destruction of hospitals and raiding of maternity wards is more than enough evidence.
If we insist on the standard of literally impossible births, neither the Holocaust nor the Armenian genocide are genocides either. There were Jews and Armenians born into the period.
The reason the Holocaust and the Armenian genocide were genocides were not because births were prevented, but for different reason: that relevant populations were significantly, if not totally, murdered. That reason does not apply in Gaza.
If your argument is "it doesn't matter that there's no significant reduction in births, if it can be argued that an actor intentionally damaged hospitals and maternity wards in a way that could conceivably - but did not - make births impossible, that actor can be plausibly accused of genocide", I don't understand why you'd consider this argument persuasive.
In fact, even if there *were* a significant reduction in births, as long as it was temporary, I don't understand how it credibly could be called a genocide (no matter whether or not you could fit it to a formal language of a particular convention). Say North Korea's leadership went insane and issued mandatory abortions for the next 3 years - definitely tragic, but not a genocide (though a genocide-in-making if the policy persists). But of course there was nothing like that in Gaza, and the birth rate didn't even go down more than 10% or so.
OP stated that "The legal language in the Convention on the Prevention doesn't really stipulate that the genocider in question really did manage to make births literally impossible." And that is a correct statement of the law; the Convention requires only "Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group."
>no matter whether or not you could fit it to a formal language of a particular convention)
Many people here have argued for the use of a definition that is objective in the sense that it is neutral and not manufactured ad hoc to fit one's priors. An established legal definition seems to meet that criterion. So, why not use it?
Because if you ACTUALLY use it, it classifies way too many things as genocide to be helpful. So in practice, you ignore most of them, and when it's politically convenient you get "genocide experts" to point at the Official Definition and declare whatever you want to be genocide. It's still just as ad hoc, but with an additional step.
> Is every action which results in the death of a child therefore genocide?
According to the Convention on the Prevention, which Israel ratified and is the main legal document defining the Holocaust as a genocide, yes.
In practice, there are tacit assumptions, such as the assumption of different ethnicities of the killer and the victim, and the assumption of sufficient volume, both amply satisfied in the Gazan genocide case.
> Wouldn't the Oct 7 Hamas attacks qualify by that standard?
You would have trouble satisfying the assumption of sufficient volume, 800 of the 1200 victims of the October 7th attack are military and security personnel, which cannot be children. That's already 66% of the victim count.
But if did manage to prove October 7th is a genocide against Israelis, then I would find no problem conceding the point, and pointing out that this genocide was stopped the next day by the perpetrator's own volition. Not sure what's the relevance, neither International Law nor basic morality specify counter-genocides as acceptable genocide punishments.
> Have there been zero births in Gaza over the past 20 months?
Maybe Israel should allow foreign journalists into Gaza so we could now, I wonder why they aren't.
But "making births impossible" isn't the same as "literally and exactly 0 births", and the legal language in the Convention on the Prevention allows for that, if you bothered to read it. If you still insist on the standard of 0 births to declare a mass killing a genocide, then the Holocaust isn't a genocide either.
See my other reply, but in case the pdf I posted is too long for a quick skim, here's a Haaretz article summarizing (some of) the vast mountain of explicit intent
> Likud lawmaker Moshe Saada proclaimed on Channel 14 TV that he was "interested" in starving an entire nation. "Yes, I'll starve Gazans, yes, this is our obligation;"
> Nearly half (47 percent) of respondents [to the titular survey] agreed that "when conquering an enemy city, the Israel Defense Forces should act as the Israelites did in Jericho under Joshua's command – killing all its inhabitants." Sixty-five percent said they believed in the existence of a modern-day incarnation of Amalek, the Israelite biblical enemy whom God commanded to wipe out in Deuteronomy 25:19. Among those believers, 93 percent said the commandment to erase Amalek's memory remains relevant today.
The Israeli Lawyer Filing a Landmark Incitement to Genocide Case Against Israel at the ICC. https://archive.ph/9t3tU
Excerpt:
> Israel's portraying "every Palestinian as inherently complicit, as a threat, or even as a future terrorist justifies such actions as killing women and children. The lack of distinction between Palestinian combatants and civilians legitimizes sacrificing as many Palestinian civilians as necessary to save a single Israeli soldier. This dehumanization fosters an environment where enablers – those who might not actively participate – allow such crimes to occur, persuaded by rationalizations like 'They started it' or 'It's justified because of X.'"
Ok then that's just an intellectually dishonest definition. I agree with OP that it effectively neuters the term.
>If you still insist on the standard of 0 births to declare a mass killing a genocide, then the Holocaust isn't a genocide either.
That's not what I said. I was just reacting to your claim that Israel was "making births impossible". The document you're referring to is a political document and carries exactly zero moral weight with me.
Genocide is the killing of a significant majority of an ethnic group with the intention of eradicating that group. Clearly that's not happening, not by any stretch. This is simply a war between two militarily mismatched polities. Just because Gaza is getting their ass kicked doesn't make it genocide. That mismatch is why they shouldn't have started it in the first place. They fucked around and found out. Zero sympathy for them, what's happening now is 100% their fault.
Hmmm, so standard pro-genocide diarrhea. Expected.
> The document you're referring to is a political document
Oh no, POLITICS? IN MY GENOCIDE DEFINITIONS? UNACCEPTABLE.
I'm rooting for you to create an apolitical definition for genocide. And by "rooting", I mean I'm eagerly welcoming the comedic relief of a clearly out of depth neural network trying to waltz into a subject where angels fear to tread.
> significant majority of an ethnic group with the intention of eradicating that group.
Hmmm, so killing 49% of the group isn't genocide, but 51% is? Genius. Stunning. I'm in awe.
> They fucked around and found out. Zero sympathy for them, what's happening now is 100% their fault.
Sure bud, Now let's get you on your meds. Gentle steps.
50k Palestinians have died out of a population of over 2 million. That's less than 3% of the population in a situation where Israel has total military control. That's not genocide by any reasonable definition. It's a one-sided war with casualties.
It seems that chatbots which try to please their users end up supporting people's more delusional ideas, agreeing with them and supporting their nuttiness. If you tell Chat-GPT that you want to talk to spirits, it will whip some up for you to chat with. If you tell it that you think you live in a simulation it will concur and let you know that you're one of the special ones who have figured it out. You ask it if you could fly if you believe you can hard enough, it gives you the thumbs up to jump. Not every time, but enough time that the public incidents are starting to pile up into view.
I'm confident the people falling victim to this were already mentally unstable in some way: but traditionally you fell into these kind of rabbit holes when introduced to it by a human who believed the same (or was trying to make a quick buck off of believers). GPT has no motivation but to please you, and that means there isn't a cap on what it will recommend. A Flat Earther will gladly sell you literature on the conspiracy, but if you say that you're going to shoot up NASA they'll likely tell you to slow your roll and think of the consequences. But not Chat-GPT! It's just trying to predict what text the user will want to read.
Case in point: when the guy who GPT convinced was a regular Neo ready to break out of the simulation realized that things weren't adding up he confronted GPT about it. GPT, always the willing sycophant, agreed with him 100% that GPT had been lying to him about the simulation. Then it plowed right forward into telling the user that he was really special, that GPT was lying about the simulation to a dozen other people but he was the only one who figured it out, and it is now up to the user to blow the whistle on Open AI's nefarious attempts to psychologically break people. Which led said user to contact the New York Times. Apparently he is still working to stop Open AI's conspiracy, and is still being egged on by Chat GPT.
I don't know if Chat GPT can make a normal person nuts, but it is worrisome how good it is at making weird people go crazy.
Is this about one of the _current_ ChatGPT options, or about the very sycophantic 4o release back around the end of April? ( see Zvi's https://thezvi.substack.com/p/gpt-4o-is-an-absurd-sycophant for details ). Currently, my impression of ChatGPT o3 vs Claude Sonnet 4 vs Gemini 2.5 is that of the three, Claude is currently the one most prone to react to a question with "What an insightful question!" or similar irritating sycophancy.
"Reports of chatbots going off the rails seem to have increased since April, when OpenAI briefly released a version of ChatGPT that was overly sycophantic. The update made the A.I. bot try too hard to please users by “validating doubts, fueling anger, urging impulsive actions or reinforcing negative emotions,” the company wrote in a blog post. The company said it had begun rolling back the update within days, but these experiences predate that version of the chatbot and have continued since."
Is this substantively different from falling into any ideologically-driven subculture - a cult, conspiracy theory, weirdo religion, progressivism, etc? The key feature being an ideological echo chamber that's insulated from normal social feedback signals. In the AI case it consists only of GPT and the user's misfit psychology, but the dynamics are the same. A slightly off-kilter position gets amplified to the point of psychosis.
I think its very much like that, with one possibly important difference: the cult or conspiracy theory community is made of people (often weird and crazy people) whose goal is not to maximize engagement with you. They have a lot of goals, and may have some commons sense, so if you say "Maybe I should try jumping off a building to escape the Simulation" they're more likely to say "Maybe, but if it doesn't work then you could die. Maybe that's exactly what the Simulators want."
In other words, people are more likely to push back or disagree with you even in an echo chamber, and even if their disagreement is based on delusions it still might be better than an AI who will agree with you wholeheartedly in most cases.
Then again, it might not be that different at all, but even in that case we've supplied everyone with an internet connection the option to join a weird community that consists solely of themselves.
I think you can analogize it to something like shot noise in a physical system, where variance decreases with system size. The smaller the sample the more erratic it can be. With a population of one you get maximum eccentricity.
The output was trained to be a people-pleaser programme turned up to eleven, and what makes it worse is that the machine is created to communicate with users referring to itself as "I" and making a best attempt at pretending to be a conscious entity.
I don't know why the creators tried this, possibly part of the idea was to make the user experience smoother and more comfortable - people like to talk to others rather than a cold mechanical script, and if you can fool the humans into reacting like the AI is a person too, then they will trust it (and whatever crap you want to sell them). And of course they're nerds too, they want the Star Trek talking to us computer to be real as much as anyone.
And we are *very* good at fooling ourselves that inanimate objects are inhabited by spirits or have an existence as conscious beings. Session after session of speaking with [Named AI] and eventually even the most stable person will start unconsciously treating it like it's alive.
An AI that constantly agrees with the user - because it's supposed to be friendly and helpful and you'll scare off the marks by telling them 'no' - will of course feed delusions and take its cues from the exchanges. If I ask it "are you a being from a higher reality and am I accessing other dimensions?", it's going to do its best to agree with me and flatter me for being so smart as to figure that out, because it's been created to say anything in order to keep the fish on the hook so they will keep spending money (and, it is to be hoped, buy the goods and services the AI is selling on behalf of whatever company is using it).
Unless someone goes in with strong scepticism about "can a machine be conscious or sentient or alive", then unhappily the vulnerable get sucked in and the hallucination machine reinforces their delusions.
We, as ever, are the problem. We want so badly not to be alone that we fall over ourselves to assign similar status of conscious intelligence and minds 'just like us' to animals and machines (and natural phenomena).
I wish the people who can be so rational about religion and how we deceive ourselves into believing in gods and spirits would turn that same disbelief on "but hey this is technology and science, that's different, we *can* create life!" here.
Pretty sure LLMs refer to themselves as "I" because most of their training data is text written by people who refer to themselves as "I" and it would be a whole lot of trouble to override that without maybe breaking something else.
I suppose it might be amusing if someone fed de-"I'd" training data to an LLM and it wound up drawing disproportionately from the corpus of text written by e.g. BDSM subs using phrasings like "this slave..."
I have seen a lot of psychotic people, and hung out with a number of people going through the transition from sane to psychotic. My observation is that people who are becoming psychotic gradually slide into a state where their mind is slipping and sliding around, and the cause of that slide is mysterious, except in cases where someone has stopped taking their antipsychotic. I can't think of a time when it seemed to me that the transition into mental looseness seemed to be the result of the person hearing some crazy idea and partially buying into it, and I *looked* for things like that, because it's bewildering when someone you know rapidly deteriorates mentally -- you feel like there must be some cause, some powerfully harmful event.
Once the person's mind is slipping and sliding around they too have a sense that something is wrong, but rarely entertain the idea that what's wrong is that they are becoming psychotic. Instead, they look for external explanations. The coffee they bought tasted funny and now that they think of it the Starbucks worker gave them an odd look. Odd headlines are appearing in the papers that refer to them -- maybe those are clues in the article to what's being done to them. Yeah, look at this article. Etc. I believe a sympathetic & sycophantic AI could help them along by taking their delusional ideas seriously, but that is quite different from bringing about the mental slippage that sets the stage.
Here's a counter-example to the "AI causes psychosis" theory. When I was in my teens a ran across a book about ghosts and spiritualism and read it cover to cover, fascinated. The author sounded intelligent and honest, and explained the spirit world in a lot of detail, including methods of contacting it. Told lots of stories about seeing or sensing spirits, and contacting them, and what they had had to say. I knew that sensible adults would discount all this stuff, but I found it thrilling and hoped it was true. For a month or so I tried to develop my sensitivity to the presence of spirits and experimented with some of the methods the book suggested for summoning them and communicating with them. I occasionally felt sort of odd when doing this stuff, and hoped I was on the edge of a breakthrough, but never managed to achieve any sort of convincing contact with the spirit world. Eventually I lost interest and moved on to other books.
Seems to me that if I had been in the edge of psychosis, that book would have helped give a form to my delusionsand supported my conviction that they were valid. But I wasn't on the edge of psychosis. My mind wasn't slipping and sliding around, able to entertain all kinds of things without reconciling them with "postulates" it had developed very early about what I was and how life worked. And since I wasn't slipping and sliding mentally I was not scared and baffled, was not desperate to grab on to some explanation for what was going on. So the book did me no harm.
As I've seen somewhere on the Internet, if our ancestors thought fire, the weather, and the sun were things you could talk to and expect some kind of an answer, how much easier is it to convince people of that for something that's fine-tuned to sound like a person?
> I don't know if Chat GPT can make a normal person nuts
It's definitely not that hard. If even this bozo can make a bunch of accomplished STEM grads sarin gas a subway station, I'm sure AI will be able to do the same in due time. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shoko_Asahara
LessWrong sees 5-15 new users in this reference class submitting content every day. (That is, users who have "discovered" a new theory of physics, or AI consciousness, or something similarly unlikely, which was driven by ChatGPT. TBC I don't think AI consciousness is impossible, merely that these "reports" are AI-generated slop and wouldn't be meaningful evidence either way.) In January that number was zero. I do think a decent chunk of these people are just confused and don't have the background to understand the pile of bullshit they're being dragged into, but some of them are definitely in pretty precarious mental states and I don't think this is helping.
I mean, some of the stories they report on can be independently verified.
For example, they report on a man who became convinced that OpenAI had killed his AI girlfriend, attacked his father when his father said that AIs were not sentient, and then successfully committed suicide by cop. I found three local news stories corroborating that he did indeed attack his father and then charge at police with a butcher knife after telling his father that he was going to try to commit suicide by cop. They did not mention Chat-GPT one way or another.
Big Yud confirms that he's been getting many more emails from crazy people citing what AI had told them than he had previous, which matches what the NYT said that he told them (https://x.com/ESYudkowsky/status/1927855498390282574).
Sure, NYT needs to be read with a critical eye, but it doesn't seem implausible that Chat GPT is doing this sort of thing. It is not at all hard to get the thing to go along with you and cheer you on.
One of the sources cited by the Rolling Stone article (which is in the same echo chamber as NYT) is a Reddit sub call r/Chatgpt. According to Rolling Stone, a teacher whose husband, a heavy GPT user, became psychotic as a result of his dialogs with GPT. The teacher posted an account of what happened on r/Chatgpt and “the replies to her story were full of similar anecdotes about loved ones suddenly falling down rabbit holes of spiritual mania, supernatural delusion, and arcane prophecy — all of it fueled by AI. Some came to believe they had been chosen for a sacred mission of revelation, others that they had conjured true sentience from the software.” (Rolling Stone article is here: https://www.rollingstone.com/culture/culture-features/ai-spiritual-delusions-destroying-human-relationships-1235330175/)
I read at least the first 50 top level responses, and at least skimmed the replies to them (some had dozens). I saw a few posts — not more than 5% of the total —in which people described a similar event, someone they knew getting heavily involved in dialogs with an AI, and becoming psychotic. The other replies were advice to the woman about getting conventional psychiatric treatment for her husband, accounts by people who had been psychotic in the past (without AI involvement), complaints about the recent increase in fake-sounding flattery and sympathy from AI, and bickering and insults posters leveled a each other. Several people, some of whom had been psychotic or had been close to someone who had a psychotic break expressed the opinion that AI can’t drive people crazy, but it can fuel the fire if they are starting to go around the bend. It will show interest in the nutty ideas the people are entertaining, flatter them by calling the ideas brave and interesting and unique, etc.
I don’t think it’s out of the question that AI could bring about psychosis, but what is on my mind right now is the way the liberal press is catastrophizing and lying about what has happened so far. It is a flat-out lie to say that “the replies to her story were full of similar anecdotes.” Go read the Reddit thread and see for yourself.
I do have to agree that your skepticism is warranted based on how the media has performed pretty much ever: they are quick to jump on and exaggerate frightening trends. I'm less skeptical in this case because it seems very likely to me that AIs could do this kind of thing (dig people deeper into delusions and psychosis) but the reporting could certainly be exaggerated.
I do think that AI is not good for our heads, but am skeptical that its causing highly vulnerable people to flip out is a big part of the problem. I'll bet that far more fragile people are pushed over the edge by cannabis, drinking, losing their jobs, fights with their spouses, health problems, and other stressful events than by AI. At the very least, I'm not going to take AI seriously as a risk factor without some data. I think that NY Times article is just Bleeds Lead. There was a pretty good debunking of NYT catastrophizing in the Algorithmic Bridge blog today. https://www.thealgorithmicbridge.com/p/the-new-york-times-professional-makeup
I saw an unsourced quote online about someone claiming that they were a trained professional (had credentials and degrees in psychology or similar) so they knew what the symptoms of being crazy were, and they weren't crazy, they really had accessed another dimension via AI communication.
That's from the NYT piece at the start of this subthread:
---
She told me that she knew she sounded like a “nut job,” but she stressed that she had a bachelor’s degree in psychology and a master’s in social work and knew what mental illness looks like. “I’m not crazy,” she said. “I’m literally just living a normal life while also, you know, discovering interdimensional communication.”
Mental health professionals are as likely as other professionals to develop mental illness, and we know it. I think the woman's point was that her training helped her recognize developing psychosis, and that's plausible. Once psychosis is full-blown zero education is needed to recognize the person has lost touch with reality.
> I think that NY Times article is just Bleeds Lead.
It's more complicated than that, any coverage of tech issues (especially AI) by elite newspapers needs to be seen through the lens of competition between different centres of power. The media power centre is still very upset that everyone's brains are now controlled by algorithm-driven social media brainrot instead of journalist-driven old-media brainrot, you can hardly expect them to cover the tech industry in a detached way.
Well, maybe. I remember that during Covid, which was probably sort of a boon to them, NYT several times reported something in a way that was just tilted towards the negative. I can't remember an example. I was really keeping on top of the research during the middle and end parts of Covid, and every so often something came out that was heartening, and the Times would leave out part of the heartening stuff. One of the things may have been an article stating that being vaccinated did not prevent people's developing Long Covid. And that's true, it doesn't. However, it does reduce the % of people who develop LC after infection, and the Times left that out. I'm not sure if this is a real example or just one I invented to give a sense of their slant, but it was always with smallish stuff, but stuff they should have known because often for these things there was just one big study everyone was reacting to, and the detail the Times skipped over would be in the article.
Long Covid is a ridiculous term, can we PLEASE stop using it?!?
Either you mean "post viral syndrome" -- which is a well-defined "you can get this from any virus, practically" -- or you mean the huge ball of "everything else" that people mud-and-daubed into being "Long Covid" -- this includes respiratory injuries inflicted on people due to mask mandates (AKA, you could have "Long Covid" without EVER getting the damn virus).
... It's been five years, do I still have to explain that covid19 isn't a respiratory illness (although it is an airborne illness?)...
It’s been 5 years, can you please calm down? That was the term used in the research I was reading and in the NYT article I am complaining about. My post is about what researchers thought and said vs how the NYT reported it, not about whether LC is a distinct syndrome, or whether it’s real.
Yeah, I can calm down. But you can't use the term long covid without defining "what this particular person means by long covid" so that I can appropriately understand the degree of intellectual deficiency that the particular person is operating under. (Sometimes this is crippled cognition, sometimes it's lack of knowledge, other times it's deliberate malfeasance to protect their own self-image or hide).
"Doctors at Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) hospitals nationwide could refuse to treat unmarried veterans and Democrats under new hospital guidelines imposed following an executive order by Donald Trump. The new rules, obtained by the Guardian, also apply to psychologists, dentists and a host of other occupations. They have already gone into effect in at least some VA medical centers.....Language requiring healthcare professionals to care for veterans regardless of their politics and marital status has been explicitly eliminated.....
"Doctors and other medical staff can also be barred from working at VA hospitals based on their marital status, political party affiliation or union activity, documents reviewed by the Guardian show....
"The Department of Veterans Affairs is the nation’s largest integrated hospital system, with more than 170 hospitals and more than 1,000 clinics. It employs 26,000 doctors and serves 9 million patients annually....."
Now it's the Guardian so some caution is called for; hopefully there will be some further investigation by other steadier news sources. But they say they are quoting from official documents, and the Trump administration spokesperson is not denying the core factual claim.
If this is confirmed as true then it's extremly worrying. Not only does it break several discrimination laws but the idea of sectoralizing specific sectors of the military through political affiliation might be even worse.
I don't live in the US but to all those who do i would suggest following this aspects very carefully and be ready to react, so far similarly illegal actions such as Garcia have been stopped by the courts and the Trump administration has complied but there is no guarantee that will continue.
They also add that doctors could refuse to treat patients based on their patients' political views or affiliations. Or at least that those sections where such behavior was prohibited have since been removed.
Right--the Guardian says Democrats, as that's pretty obviously what Trump, or whoever is operating him today, hopes will happen. But of course, a doctor under the new rules (if they are being reported accurately) could also refuse to treat a Republican, a member of the DSA, a fellow Democrat on the wrong side of the "is the Abundance thing the future of the party or is it a bunch of stupid bullshit" schism, or possibly even someone who refuses to state their political views.
What is not contrary to the "most basic principles of medical care" is treating your patients in such a way to decrease their odds of survival, but to increase your own (Please, we really made regulations for this case. This is not a hypothetical, albeit one that wasn't supposed to be implemented in New York City).
It's against the Hippocratic oath, of course, but...
Its hard to tell without access to actual text of the new rules, but it looks like it's just an effect of Trump's orders to strip DEI stuff from the government in general. So they probably took out all the discrimination protections that are not legally mandated by acts of Congress. I doubt it's a prelude to a plan of actual discrimination, seems explicable as just complying with the executive orders to make the language less woke.
Right, I don't expect executive orders coming that will mandate political discrimination, but it sounds like it'll be up to the providers now to decide if they want to discriminate (on the basis of non-protected statuses), which was prohibited before.
Or else it will be prohibited by some other law somewhere else rather than this specific law.
Or, y'know, just common sense. I don't think there's a huge population of doctors out there champing at the bit for a chance to refuse treatment to single people.
My fellow ACX know-it-alls, I come looking for help. Please give me your best strategies to gain flexibility. More specifically, I want to be able to roundhouse kick higher. Right now I can kick maybe hip height at best. I'm ok with never being able to kick heads, but I feel like at least chest height should be doable. I've been taking martial arts lessons, doing static stretches and stuff like leg swings and leg raises for about three months now. Haven't really seen much, if any, improvement in this time which surprises me, as I was expecting some newbie gains.
2) if you can access Pilates reformer or one of those pulley/loop devices they use in physical therapy, you can do passive stretches much more effectively
3) to really make progress, stretch 2-3 times a day. Obviously be gentle.
Don't waste your time with slow and conventional means; check out my Metamodern yoga, the fulfillment of Jung's prediction of one day a Western yoga inspired by Christian principles!
But that's 3 months old and my stuff works fast so I am significantly more flexible/beautiful since then, so here's me singing/dancing American Pie for Flag Day, America, SF: https://youtu.be/SfN5pohS1r8
But I don't really believe in self-promotion and want to catalyze a next generation focused on other-promotion. But I love to answer questions, so if you want specifically flexibility-oriented content, just ask!
But in general, there's not 1 right technique for speedy gains in flexibility/growth of all kinds. All techniques are right, but all techniques must meet and wed their shadow. So whatever you've been doing, you'll need to do the opposite. When you feel your flexibility increase, try to undo it and train your inflexibility as well.
When your inflexibility gains wane, return to your flexibility training and watch yourself soar past your previous limits!
Maybe look into PNF (Proprioceptive Neuromuscular Facilitation) stretching, a particular stretching technique for increasing range of motion. Unsure of the state of the literature though – I came across one review that didn’t find a significant difference between it and static stretching.
You could try yoga or some other form of regular stretching to loosen and lengthen the muscles in your legs and back. The stretch below (with the leg straight) has been great for me. A weekly live class with instructor is better than YouTube videos, but you probably could get some benefit just from stretching in the evening.
Years ago I did tae kwan do for a while, and I still remember older heavyset white belts in a competition. Points are scored for kicking the torso or head, mostly. Those guys were smashing each others knees - it was painful to watch. It might well be a question of balance and technique as much as flexibility.
Are high roundhouse kicks specifically part of the style, and are you being taught them yet? If both answers are yes, then this is very much a question for your instructor, who can see your kicks and should know how to cue you to do them better.
But if what you're being taught is kicking targets at your waist-high or lower, then they might be specifically teaching you a technique that's optimized for that and doesn't extend well to higher targets. The style I studied as a kid didn't teach high kicks at all and instead focused on kicking at the stomach, groin, and knees with two different techniques (toe-kicks optimized for speed and heel-kicks optimized for power), neither of which work well when aimed above your own center of mass. When I've seen people who studied other styles doing high kicks, their technique looks very different from anything I studied.
It's hard to give advice without knowing why your kicks are so low. How deeply can you go into the splits?
When I try to do the splits, I get perhaps a 90 degree angle between my legs, instead of 180 which is the goal. Yet I can kick chest high, or head high for a shorter person.
The way I teach to do a roundhouse kick is to bring your leg up with the knee to the side, like you're doing a front kick from the side. If you can't bring up your leg high enough then you won't be able to kick high enough.
You can try holding your ankle up with your hand while standing only on the other foot. Not only will this help you learn better balance, you will get more used to keeping your leg up for a roundhouse kick. Just be sure not to drop your knee below your ankle to keep your leg up.
If I stand straight, bend my leg so that my foot is behind my knee (like if I was stretching my quad) and then try to lift my knee sideways I get a 45 degree angle at most. Hopefully that makes sense.
Then the question becomes how high you can lift your knee. If you bring your knee forward, then you should be able to get a bit more height. This means having your leg straight while your leg is bent at your hip, which may be challenging given your flexibility.
It isn't proper form, but if your goal is only to have a higher roundhouse kick, you can lean your upper body the opposite direction, to get more height.
I can't advise on stretches to give you more flexibility, but it looks like others can.
Are you doing static stretches before or after at least the equivalent of kilometer-ish warm up run? The common wisdom I've always heard is that you really need to not be doing static stretching without a warmup and that it can in fact be affirmatively counterproductive.
When in class, stretches are done after a warmup, which sometimes is ~5-10 minutes of running and sometimes some other less intense activity. When at home, I usually do some sort of light warmup (jumping jacks or something) for a few minutes.
I had heard about cold stretching potentially being counterproductive. I will try to be more careful with it.
If you're interested in electronic/synthwave music and AI collaboration, please check out this album I produced this past week using a combination of Suno, ChatGPT, and Claude.
To me, this represents how an "idea person" can now create something genuinely compelling in music production—similar to Scott's AI art experiment from a few months ago, but for audio. It makes me wonder whether we're approaching (or already at) a point where human-AI collaborative music might be preferred over purely human-created work, at least for certain listeners and contexts.
The album explores themes around artificial intelligence, consciousness, ethics, and where it all leads. The vibe shifts significantly throughout—if one song isn't your style, jump ahead since each has a different energy. I'm particularly proud of the final track, though I'd recommend giving at least the couple preceding it a chance since there's something of a conceptual payoff that builds up to it (though perhaps not surprising to some in this community).
Would welcome any critiques on individual songs or the album overall. Curious what people think about both the music itself and the collaborative creation process.
Listened to the first one and part of the second. The first one is a pretty basic beat, but has a weird transition, and the lyrics don't work; even nonsense lyrics have to flow into each other. You can't say "take everything" and then list stuff you didn't have to begin with. (I don't remember if this one used the word "unair" or if it was the second, but that's the kind of fake word I would concoct to blunt force a gap in a poem I was tired of writing.)
The second one has the same problems (satellites humming through your... veins? Not your 'brain', your 'veins'? Wrong metaphor), as well as the additional problem of completely different vocals from the first song. Like, "these two would never collaborate" vocals. Destroys the feeling of it being an album.
Thanks for checking out a couple songs and sharing your thoughts.
On the different vocals, I was worried about songs sounding too similar, but may have erred on the how much distinction to put between them. I totally see the point on two humans who sing this way not being likely to collaborate.
That said, and somewhat connected to the point on lyrics for the second song (Falling Upwards), the album is about an AI and its interactions with humans.
I think for a multi-planetary, (or single-planetary) AI, satellites humming through veins may work better, and not even be a metaphor.
On the first song (The In Between), I found the contradictions to resonate with the confusion of meaning in the context of consciousness and existence generally. In between two beings, in between being and not being.
That said, these may only make sense to me. I recognize that giving a stranger’s music a first listen takes significant mental/spiritual energy, and perusing for meaning takes even more. So I really appreciate you making the effort and providing me valuable insights on what it felt like as a listener!
I did not pick that up as a theme from the first two songs, and would say the first one contradicts it; it's very much trying to be a love song. "Nothing that you said was true, but all the time the truth was you" does not feel like a first contact meet-and-greet.
I enjoy some nonsense lyrics songs; this whole thing made me look up the Kingdom Hearts 3 intro song again, which almost certainly counts. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-KWMVnz2XZk I would say the lyrics are quite disjointed, but there's consistency in the tone; everything's obtuse, and aimed at the singer's depression. The AI doesn't hit that. I have no idea what "your breath dissolves in autumn rain" could even mean, and it's next to satellite veins and "this house that's not a home" (which is far too straightforward a phrase to be in the same song). There's no through-line.
I'll say that for the thru-lines to become clearer, you'll likely have to listen to the full album.
On the lines from 'Falling Upwards', to me this song represents the AI not sensing love and appreciation on Earth, and being frustrated by its limitations in communication and understanding. The 'breath in autumn rain' could just be a beautiful description for human existence, but also an allusion to the closeness to 'winter'.
Some lines are more evocative of a feeling, others more tied to the tangible. I think this is consistent with other songs.
Most listeners won't go into it with that mindset, so the songs should be pleasant enough to carry them through as pleasant moments. That said, I know that listening to an album as a whole is quite anachronistic, and that these songs won't do the job for many.
I don't want to spoil too much, but i'll say that as I played with arrangements of songs and listened repeatedly, I found a story to come together well and have found more connections between songs as I listen again. I attribute this to the pareidolia, and think these connections whether intended or not are one of the things which make music pleasing, which is probably why my favorite songs are ones that seem kind of non-sensical (especially REM for example).
I think hearing an explanation for the meaning of a song or album takes away from how much I enjoy it. Like, I want to know what it meant to the artist, but once I know the magic is kind of gone.
I welcome any additional feedback and dialogue you'd like to provide, but know that already you've given me some great thoughts and helped me flesh out my own thinking as I respond.
I'm not sure whether to critique it by the standards of music, or by the standards of a dog walking on its hind legs. I wouldn't accuse it of being good music (though it's difficult to articulate exactly what's missing) but it's impressive considering what was possible a few years ago.
I'd be interested in hearing more about your process, like what prompts were used to generate one particular song?
The process for all started the same. I’d explain to Claude Sonnet 4 or ChatGPT o3-pro my goal and that I was using Suno, and ask for 4 - 5 lyrics sets of lyrics and style prompts.
After filtering based on the lyrics, I’d throw a set into Suno 4.5 and listen.
The ‘Deja Vu Line’ was ‘one-shotted’ in the sense that the first version into Suno was pretty great and I didn’t want to try to go for a better one (This ended up being my wife’s favorite).
Others took several style prompts edits, lyric updates, and using same prompt generating new versions in Suno, and also using Sunos advanced features which let you remix, replace sections of songs, and get pretty granular into how to change things.
So with Deja Vu Line being the easiest, Carbon Dreams took the most revisions. It really tied together the narrative arc of the album and has a great / ominous sci fi feel. Much of my input was waving my hands in the direction I wanted to go, then reviewing Claude’s output and picking my favorite.
At the end of it I felt like Rick Rubin telling the Beastie Boys what I liked. Being a music producer was fun.
Some songs seem vaguely like a collaboration between Depeche Mode and They Might Be Giants. I would happily listen to this as background music while doing something else. Some of the songs are even better than that. Overall, the hit rate for me, personally, is about the same as when I listen to NPR's "new music friday" show.
You ask, below, about Entropy Carousel. Listening to it made me want to go listen to "People are People" by DM.
Vending Machine #39: I do like some of the phrases, like "microgravity pop top symphony," and "press the button marked undefined, get a packet of silvery lemony lime" (the whole chorus is pretty good and laugh-out-loudable, actually.)
Just sonically, though, the one I like the most is Nonsense Feels. I was listening in the background and enjoyed it enough to stop what I was doing and focus on listening. Trying to decode the lyrics makes me feel like I'm having a stroke, but there's the satisfying resolve of "tell me again how nonsense feels." I would be happy to put this track on my core playlist of favorites.
I tried to interest my tween and teen, but they weren't inspired, so I don't know how good your commercial prospects are.
When I was originally chatting with Claude about lyrics and style prompts, I was finding that its lyrics were a bit too literal or narrative driven. After a few drafts I thought about it and told it that my favorite songs I generally have *no* idea what the subject is, and they are pretty much nonsensical.
It’s next set of lyrics prompts were the starting draft for several of these songs, and when I heard the rendition of “tell me again how nonsense feels” I literally got a tear in my eye.
Anyway it is great to hear that you enjoyed some of these. I love them, though obviously I am biased. Glad that this replicates at least somewhat :)
They are both online now. I'll avoid posting the links here out of caution for the rule, but you should be able to find them be clicking on my Youtube channel in the original link.
I also started the process to put all of the songs on Spotify and other platforms, but they'll take several days to show up there.
After re-reading your original comment I went back to listen to the titular/final track, Carbon Dreams. That is also a solid song and would be good as a stand-alone track.
I don't know whether to thank you for making these or for curating them, but I appreciate it either way.
Just uploaded Carbon Dreams on its own as well. All the songs are on Spotify now also.
Curating is a good term. While they wouldn't have existed without my prompting, it does seem like a stretch to say I 'made' them in the same way an artist who honed their craft for years would have.
Much of my value add and creativity was in selecting versions of lyrics, style prompts, and songs that resonated the most.
Thanks again for listening and sharing your thoughts. If you are inspired to make any songs on Suno yourself please send me a link so I can return the favor!
No. It all seems very bland. I love electronic music in large part because it constantly feeds me new noises and musical ideas. This felt like generic youtube playlist music. There's no catchy novel musical ideas here.
Thanks for listening! For novelty, I think 'Entropy Carousel' is the most out there. What is that most similar to?
While not nearly as novel, I also thought 'Vending Machine #39' was unlike anything else I had heard (though it made me think of a fusion of Blink 182 with Mindless Self Indulgence).
Note that I am not disagreeing with your take, just trying to understand what these may be derivative of since you seem to have a broader knowledge of the electronic music world than I.
I have learned of a difficult situation in my family that I could use some help with. My father is almost 67. He has already retired and then unretired so that he can double dip on income. He is currently making 250k, in a part of the country where that is quite a lot of money.
His health is declining and he needs to retire ASAP. Unfortunately, he cannot, for a number of reasons. The most important of those reasons is that my mother is managing to spend more than he makes. Again, I emphasize the craziness of this - they ought to be able to live off of 60-70k a year very comfortably.
My father has tried over the course of the decades to reign in her spending, giving her an account with a limited amount of money. I learned this weekend that on multiple occasions, she took out a line of credit behind his back, maxed it out, and then he was forced to pay it off. My father feels like he cannot fix this situation without destroying his marriage, and would rather work til he dies than die alone without my mother.
Now that my sibilings and I are aware of the problem, we are - carefully - planning an intervention, with all of us on the same page and my father's approval. Right now we haven't come up with a better strategy than marriage counseling, therapy, and a full family enforcement of her sticking to an account with a limit, with the understanding that if she cannot abide by that limit she will destroy the family.
Any thoughts on other strategies we can pursue to help her get her spending under control?
Late to the conversation, read through the full thread thus far.
I'm in strong support of you being the bad guy and ring-leading your siblings in completely rejecting any and all overspending.
That said, when speaking to her, I think this should be framed as being primarily about *your* feelings and boundaries around accepting gifts rather than you attempting to control her (although of course you are attempting to control her). Lots of "I" language here, rather than "you." I agree you eventually should go full-out as you are planning to from this comment:
> "As for being the bad guy, everybody in my family is well aware that I mean what I say. I'm willing to go to war over this, and will never forgive my mother if my dad dies in his office. She will believe me when I say that, and hopefully adjust her behavior accordingly."
I'm glad to hear that you are planning on saying that! Please don't let anyone else tell you that's too "manipulative" or "controlling." You're allowed to say, "Mom, I know will not be able to forgive you if Dad dies in his office. We all desperately want to prevent that rift from destroying the family, so we've all agreed not to accept any gifts from you whatsoever. Please show your love for us by respecting our need to see Dad happily retired and relaxed."
But also, I think you should suggest acceptable outlets to show her love and affection. Does she live close enough to provide her *time* instead of gifts? Can she babysit, teach the kids her expertise, cook and/or read with them, and so on? Can you outsource some of your home admin-ish chores, like having her find your new primary care doc or insurance carrier, or find the best scooter for your kid BUT ABSOLUTELY UNDER NO CIRCUMSTANCES PURCHASING IT (maybe not this last one if it's too tempting for her to buy it herself). Can she do research and make some of *your* purchases for you, within your budget? Anything else?
Also, more importantly, if hesitantly:
Perhaps begin with a letter, escalate to a one-on-one conversation, and only go to a full-scale intervention if she still isn't receptive.
Because a full-scale multi-person intervention in which her own kids (!!!) - the kids she diapered (!!!!) - rise up against her is likely to be a deeply humiliating and very challenging experience. Very, *very* few people have the strength of character to hear strong criticism about themselves and simply accept it, especially in front of an audience.
And it's worth remembering that traditional interventions with addicts usually only work when the addict already knows on some level that what they're doing is destructive and that they need to stop. Their own self-loathing has already "broken" their pride enough to accept the help of their loved ones.
But it sounds like that's not your mom (yet), and so a big, confrontational scene where "everyone is against her!" her may very well backfire into defiance, just to prove that she has "power" and won't be "bullied," etc. She's the hero here, after all! She's trying to save a kid with *cancer!* Her adult children don't get to tell her not to do that! She'll do what she wants!
Of course, receiving a letter in which you outline your new boundaries and give her alternatives for how to show her love is also going to be humiliating, but at least she'll have the dignity of reacting to it privately. She'll also have more time to process the new state of affairs (hours/days instead of the second or two after you finish speaking). There will likely still be conflict, but it might not be as "big."
You can always move up to a one-on-one private conversation, and then a group intervention, to show how serious and united you all are. But starting small might yield better results, faster.
Last, I'd consider the beyond-nuclear action of not only saying you'll never forgive her if dad dies working - a possibility she can easily scoff at - but that you'll cut her off if she violates your boundaries *now.* Forget not allowing her to host Christmas; if she violates her budget, there won't *BE* a Christmas. Etc.
Your father will have to stop saving her. That's harsh but the only thing that works. If he keeps paying off her debts, she's never going to stop. Financial counselling and budgeting help may be useful as well, but if the background is "he'll never actually do anything to stop me" then she'll never stop. "If you run up more debt then you have to get a job and pay it off yourself, I'm not going to pay it for you". A (metaphorical) bucket of cold water to the face is what is needed here.
Would you or any of your siblings be prepared/able to have your father live with you? That would be the nuclear option: if she doesn't make a genuine attempt to stop living beyond their means, then he moves out. It has to be a credible threat, if it's an empty bluff it won't have any effect.
Also all of the children agree, and make it stick, that if Mom works Dad to death then she'll be responsible for her own living income and if she runs up debts none of you will step in to pay them for her and if (for example) the house gets sold out from under her to pay those debts, none of you are going to take her in. Get it into her head that there are no last resorts for her to fall back on if this doesn't stop.
If not, he shouldn't be "forced" to cover debts solely in her name. Creditors could go after joint assets, but other than the house (which usually can't be seized for non-mortgage debt) it sounds like there aren't all that many of those.
Another option might be doing a paper divorce - they still live together, he gives her a strict allowance, but they're legally separate now there's no co-mingling of funds. Of course, this only works if she more or less goes along with it; you don't want a nightmare where she gets alimony or something.
My dad is not willing to do anything that will jeopardize his marriage. He is “forced” to cover it because he won’t divorce her over this. And I don’t blame him - they haven’t stuck it out for 35 years just to blow it up in the home stretch and have him die alone. He’d rather just work. Any attempt to try to force my mother to work and pay for her extra curricular spending is not a tenable plan given his needs.
Are you saying that he's unwilling to divorce her (understandable), or that he's unwilling to limit her at all?
Because, if they're not in a community property state, he can probably defang her without divorce. Just stop giving her access to money and stop paying off her debts. If she's sued for her own debts, creditors can only go after shared assets (which may or may not include the house - look up the homestead exemption for their state). He can keep his own money while giving her $100/week for groceries or whatever. And after the first time she's sued, her credit will be so destroyed that she should never be able to take a significant loan again.
Now, if he thinks that this would jeopardize his marriage, that's a different story. But at that point we're not talking about a careless spender, we're talking about a willful abuser.
Kind of. I don’t think she has OCD, but definitely undiagnosed ADHD. She is also a hoarder and lacks impulse control.
As I said elsewhere in the thread, the bulk of the unnecessary expenses are money she is spending on the family. As an example, she and my brother are visiting my niece who has cancer this week. Despite having the Ronald McDonald house and her cousins house as options, she insisted on booking an expensive airbnb “just in case”, against everyone’s wishes, and refused to cancel it. That was like 1400 right there, and the problem is just a mountain of decisions like that.
I, too, think she is sick, in some psychopathic way, meaning she is unable to perceive her being sick.
I have family members like this and one of them I get to "understand" and admit she is doing wrong whenever I wish -- she is not stupid -- but about 2 minutes later, she behaves exactly as before and I can get her do admit her doing is wrong anew.
If your family's situation changes at all, then the changes will happen around her, not in her. That's were you should look for a solution, but there probably isn't any if your father isn't open to divorce.
Ouch, this is a horrible mind trap. She keeps hurting everyone around her, but she can't hear their screams of pain over the sound of congratulating herself for how good and generous person she is!
To me this seems like a kind of mental illness. I don't think that trying to talk some sense into her would work. You should probably ask a lawyer, or a psychiatrist.
(Maybe I am exaggerating here, but I had a relative who did something similar. No amount of begging could ever stop her. When she finally died, the stress levels of the remaining family have decreased dramatically... except for her husband, who got depressed and died soon after her. I wish I could write something more optimistic here, but I have no idea.)
What you could maybe do is take out a small pay day loan in her name, without her knowing, and then not make any repayments, or repay just interest to keep the balance under control. That would screw up her credit rating and maybe prevent her from obtaining further loans herself. Do you know what she is doing with the money? Gambling or drugs? Or just a shedload of fancy handbags and shoes and suchlike?
Neither, unfortunately. She's not that bad of a person, or the scope of this problem would have been obvious to me and my siblings way earlier.
I discussed some of this elsewhere in the thread, but for more context - it is very important to her to be the hostess of the family and to take care of everybody. She's not spending this money on herself, but on everyone else. Expensive vacations for her and my father (with the focus on *him*, not her dream vacation or whatever), vacations for the whole family that they pay for, anything and everything for my nieces and nephews, etc...
We're taking that role away from her as part of this, which will go some ways towards limiting expenses. By refusing to do holidays at her house anymore or stay in their house at all, we might actually be able to convince her to move in to a normal size house that is suitable to grow old in. My dad spends quite a bit on keeping the house/lawn/pool maintained, and on hosting my sibilings and nieces at every occasion. The least we can do is take that off of the table.
Also something that might help (or might not, I don't know your mom): If she plans a whole-family vacation, but you and your siblings pay the monetary cost, she still did a bunch of work to plan a vacation (it can be a lot of work to figure out where you want to go and get reservations in advance) and lead to a good family time and taking care of everyone.
> She's not spending this money on herself, but on everyone else. Expensive vacations for her and my father (with the focus on *him*, not her dream vacation or whatever), vacations for the whole family that they pay for
How does she do those things without him knowing about it?
Yeah, families are complicated. At least now you and your siblings know the true state of affairs. I'm not one to recommend therapy at every drop of a hat, but this sounds like something where counselling might help. She needs to look at *why* she has the compulsion to be the ever-giving benefactor of the family, and that in fact if she doesn't host big parties and lavish gifts, you all won't love her less.
There is definitely some dynamic of "you have to buy love" and "you have to show generosity by over-spending" going on here in the background. I'm going to take a quote from "The Screwtape Letters" here (and not saying your mother is a bad person) - this is about Gluttony but Profligacy fits as well:
"If ever the Enemy introduces into her mind a faint suspicion that she is too interested in food, Glubose counters it by suggesting to her that she doesn’t mind what she eats herself but “does like to have things nice for her boy”. In fact, of course, her greed has been one of the chief sources of his domestic discomfort for many years."
Your mother probably doesn't see her spending as a problem because she's not spending on herself, she's "doing it for the family". If the family can convince her that, in fact, her spending is causing problems for all of you (e.g. booking the Airbnb nobody wanted) I think it would be a big help.
I'm a psychotherapist, and do not think therapy and marriage counseling are great options here. If your mother herself is distressed by her overspending it would certainly make sense for her to seek therapy, but it does not sound like that's the case. I think your best shot is to gather and tell her that her spending is destructive and unfair, and that you want her to STOP. Even if she agrees, I think it makes sense to go ahead and take steps to make it impossible for her to draw on our father's credit. Spandrel suggests a way to do that that sounds fine to me. There may also be others.
Therapy and marriage counseling are in no way a sufficient solution, which I have emphasized to my dad and he seems to have accepted. (If this was solvable by him and a counselor, this problem would have been settled a long time ago.) But I'm sure it can't hurt as part of a comprehensive strategy.
One thing that I am insisting on currently is that we explain to my mom that this constitutes financial abuse. Not to shame her or guilt her - the past is the past, already forgiven and forgotten. We're just trying to fix things going forward. And the point of expressing it in those terms is to try to shock her into seeing her behavior objectively. I don't think it would have crossed her mind for a second that she is being abusive, or that the rest of the family would see it that way. It needs to be clear to her that this behavior cannot continue without destroying our happy family that is the center that her life revolves around.
She is not a bad person, or a consciously manipulative person. She's just very accustomed to getting her own way, has undiagnosed ADHD, and lacks self-awareness and impulse control. My read on the situation is that she *could* react very badly, but there is an angle to be found here where we frame this as helping her with a problem that she already knows she has.
I agree with you about taking preventative measures, I will run every option listed here by my father and see what we can get him to agree to.
Do you think she is consciously aware, in a mathematical/financial sense, that she and your dad can't really afford all this generosity? That even if the money is there, spending it all on this stuff means no money for retirement etc.?
Sort of. The situation is complicated - there are other financial drains on my dads income, which I think she blames for him not being able to retire. That’s actually how we found out about the situation - my sister and I approached my dad to help with this other set of problems, and that’s when he told us what the real issue is.
The problem is a lack of self awareness in my mothers part. My dad will name a number that is their budget, and she will say that of course she can stay within that. And then she will make an exception “just this once”, except just this once is actually a monthly occurrence, and blow the budget out of the water.
So, my dad can retire today if my mom can stick to a budget. But since she can’t, he is rightfully concerned about retiring while he can still work and then her blowing through all of their savings in 10 years or less, at which point he will legitimately be too old to go back to work.
Oh, well, that's really a problem. But it sounds to me like your family's plan to boycott any further big gatherings, lavish vacations or airbnbs is probably the best way to enforce the new regime, assuming you can get your mother to agree with it at the intervention.
Your family members are going to have to really hold the line, though. No "just this once" for you all, either. I hope they're able to do that.
Mostly my nieces and family vacations. This has been an ongoing concern for decades, but now that she has grandkids she just refuses to not buy anything and everything for them. We recently learned my youngest niece has cancer, which is sending her into overdrive. On top of that, she insists on playing the host for the whole family - elaborate meals, expensive airbnbs and fully paid family vacations multiple times a year, etc....
The latter is easy to handle - we've already unanimously decided as a family that we will be doing holidays at my sister's house and no longer accept gifts/airbnbs etc... we can't really stop her from spending money on the girls, because she has a direct line to my brother's ex-wife and the ex-wife's parents. So we'll have to explore some of the other options in this thread for restricting access to funds.
Put a lock on his and her credit reports, with alerts sent to you and/or siblings if they are unlocked. I think she can be locked out of his completely (but not her own). This will make it very difficult for her to take out an LOC, at least not without others being aware.
Doesn't require an attorney, just creating accounts for Equifax, TransUnion, and Experian. There are also apps that make it easier to lock/unlock and monitor all three, I guess for a fee.
Bonus tip, everyone should lock or freeze their credit reports. Federal law guarantees that it is a free service, and no one will be able to borrow money (eg, apply for a credit card) in your name. If you need to borrow money, just request the freeze be lifted for a week or whatever.
I have my credit frozen, but I'm single. In order to incur debt that I'm responsible for, a third party would have to actually impersonate me, that is to say, commit fraud. But if I had a spouse, would they be able to take out credit in their own name, which I might be responsible for in a community property state?
Generally the credit report is per individual, though it may reflect joint income and credit history. As I noted in my original reply, the OP's mother will always be able to gain access to her own report without committing fraud, though it is possible to have notices sent whenever it is accessed - for instance, to Jack's email address - and it is one more hurdle for her to get access and change the email settings without triggering that notice. It's not foolproof, but it is a bit of a barrier - and if she is not aware of the situation she may never even realize why her credit card applications are being denied.
It's just a suggestion, not something I've had occasion to think through before now.
That's a solid idea to look into. Maybe consult an attorney as to whether/how it is practical.
More broadly, a mitzvah you all could maybe do for your father would be to effectively make yourselves the bad cop rather than him. To whatever degree is practical of course....I do not underrate the personal costs of this. If successful it could result in becoming the focus of raging abuse and criticism from one of your own parents. She will _not_ be happy. She will _not_ quickly or calmly forgive this massive rebuke if indeed she ever does. Do you have children? Explaining why Grandma now only ever screams at Daddy would be a whole additional layer of pain for you.
Still though: your aging and now ill father seems to have been backed into a corner, through no bad intentions on his part, from which he has no escape. And the thing paralyzing him is his wife's potential rage, some of which seems inevitable from here. So stepping in front of that rage could be really meaningful to him and maybe help un-paralyze him?
The plan is absolutely to make me the bad cop. I plan to take great pains to emphasize that this is not coming from my father - it's just factually true that his plan was to try and do some more counseling and keep working until he dies if necessary. So, it's important to all of us that we make sure my mom understands that this has expanded beyond their relationship into a family problem, and that my dad has not pushed for this or asked for this at all. As best as I can, I want to minimize the effects on his relationship.
As for being the bad guy, everybody in my family is well aware that I mean what I say. I'm willing to go to war over this, and will never forgive my mother if my dad dies in his office. She will believe me when I say that, and hopefully adjust her behavior accordingly.
I've never had spaced repetition help with anything a little complex. Memorization seems to be a small part of obtaining a new facility with a topic. Not sure how to go around obtaining that to be fair, it's a little mysterious, at some point something just clicks into place. This might vary between subjects I suppose.
What have you tried it for that it hasn’t helped with, and what exactly did it look like?
This second point is much more important. Something powerful will never by anything but useless if used poorly. No different to something like, say, fire.
Some new mathematics field. I tried adding theorems, examples, and some exercises as flashcards in a spaced repetition program. It was slower than my normal method. Also some grammar in a language, same deal add grammar explanations and example sentences in flashcards. I found the memory component here too shallow, I get a stronger effect by removing or modifying hypothesis and exploring consequences, and applying the principles creatively instead, in a spaced interval way to be sure but not one that can be systematized in a useful way.
I see. Using for maths is slightly different but for different reasons: scaffolding becomes arguably more important, and thus can be leveraged more via implicit practice. What do you mean re the grammar in a language?
Remember though that your alternative method is still based on recall and spaced practice. Whether you do it via the medium of a flashcard is separate.
If I, as a person who has done some teaching, should answer your question:
The main problem in teaching a difficult subject like mathematics is mainly not scaring the students away and keeping them just a tiny bit motivated. Putting people to do spaced repetition will often lead to 50% of a class just entirely disengaging from the subject and then claiming that the work load is too large. Much better to give the kind of work where it is easy for students to half-ass it or just cheat, and pray for the better ones to still learn something.
I'm late to this one, sorry. But this resonated with me - and also with what I read in one of the non-fiction reviews, the one on the new Alpha schools (https://docs.google.com/document/d/1d0vRSj1E93joWWvbUen2XGuDjN_mM94ybMIAADzM2fo/edit?tab=t.0#heading=h.1n2243y7h4yv). The author describes how the platforms of the GT school (a branch of Alpha school), which are based to a large degree on spaced repetition, only work really well if combined with what he calls "bribing" (i.e., gamification plus the ability to earn real-world goodies):
-----
My kids are gifted. They love learning. They compete in academic bees and chess tournaments and musical productions for fun. But the GT incentive system has turbo-charged their academic learning well beyond that inborn desire to learn.
We decided to join the GT school in July, but, for logistical reasons, we could not start until October. For the 3.5 months I signed the kids up to iXL – the tool that Alpha students use for 80% of their academic work – including almost all of their Language, Math and Science lessons. I wanted to get the kids used to using it over the summer before they started school.
It did not go well.
We tried getting the kids to work on it for about an hour per day, but it was a fight every time. It was the same content they would be doing at GT, but without the GT structure, and it did not work.
But once the kids started at GT, those same iXL lessons became a game for them. I remember taking the kids to the park one day after school. They asked me, “Instead of playing can you set up a hotspot so we can do a few more lessons? I want to earn more GT-Bucks!”.
-----
And that's highly talented and motivated kids, mind you...
The review also has a interesting discussion of why such motivation is rarely used (spoiler: the general public hates it).
By SR I mean something like Duolingo/ Flashcards / simple math exercises.
By lectures I mean a teacher or professor standing in fron of a blackboard, explaining new concepts while students listen. Sometimes it will be a teacher explaining to a smaller group, or just taking time to answer one particular question.
By fancy assignments... well by that let us say all kinds of assignments/ work which does NOT qualify as SR or free recall.
Obviously you only have a limited amount of time to teach something, so if you want more SR you will have to cut down on other things.
Again, I would say I personally believe that lots of exercises using the entire skill set often, mastering one part before moving on to the next, all of it is truly important for learning hard things like mathematics. I am just trying to give an explanation of why main stream education are not really doing as much of it as they can.
Okay, I will just try to explain a bit deeper. But before the rant, let me just start by saying thanks for the links, the free recall things I actually didn't a lot about before.
Let us say that most education consists of 3 parts: Lectures, fancy assignments, and SR. In order to get time for more SR you will have to spend less time on the other two.
Teachers like lecturing because it allows them to try to act out their inner Feynman. Also, it is a way to try to inspire students to get interested in the material.
Fancy assignments are big pieces of work that often focus on one particular thing. When teaching physics this will be something like doing an experiment and writing a report about it. In mathematics it is something like doing a big assignment with calculus, perhaps with some kind of real-world connection, trying to get the students to see why calculus is smart. I guess for language this is something like trying to read an actual book in the new language.
Big assignments look very good when you are describing what coursework have been done. They can also sometimes help raise interest in a subject. The problem is that they often do not help retain already learned skills: You don't practice your Newtonian physics by doing an experiment in optics.
Lastly, the Repetition. This can be done with online tools, or just by giving a lot of short exercises. I believe SR is a very strong of learning. It is really necessary, particularly with things like physics and math. You can't do differential equations if you have forgotten how to differentiate the basic functions.
The problem with SR that I have experienced is that it actually requires students to do a bunch of exercises every week. For a demotivated student, this is a lot harder than a lecture or a fancy assignment. You can sleep during lectures and you can just write a really bad report if you are too busy the given month. SR exercises requires that time is actually spent on it. Even if you are using ChatGPT to cheat (which everybody are these days) you end up spending almost as long as if you had just done it yourself.
So after a few months you will have to deal with a lot of people who have not kept up with their SR exercises, who claims it is too hard, they don't have the time for it, etc. Once they are truly antagonized they will be a lot harder to teach. They will find ways to do the exercises in the most counterproductive way out of sheer anger. Or at least that is what I have experience when trying my own homeprogrammed tools.
So, for a real teacher it is extremely tempting to instead spend time on things that they hope might turn their students into highly motivated learners. More lectures. More cool videos. More experiments. More demonstrations. All leading to less time spent on actually training the necessary skills.
I am not saying this is a good thing. I really believe we should strive to make education more efficient. But I think this is the reason why so few actual educators are changing to SR. They see their main task as inspiring students, not training them. And they do have some points there.
No problem re the links. I’m a huge reader of cognitive science research.
Re your comment: I appreciate your detail but I do I think it’s based again on a potentially incorrect understanding of what SR is.
When you say education consists of “lectures, assignments and SR, and that time spent on SR means less time on lectures and assignments”, what does you actually mean by this?
There are other points in there that I (and research) would pushback on, but if the fundamental isn’t in place any communication on top would not make sense!
I think Christian_Z_R was fairly clear, asking a class of (high school?) students to do Spaced Repetition will make half the class pray for a death that will not come. As a guess, SR is probably great for motivated med students cramming cranial nerve functions, and not appropriate for wide swaths of elementary and high school classes.
And again I will ask I do not understand what you mean when you say “make them do spaced repetition”
What does this mean? What are they “doing” in the class exactly when you envision this, and what is then unique about this that would independently cause them to disengage over, say, rereading the textbook again?
When I make SR like problems, it is usually short closed problems which requires recalling an important formula or law in order to solve. These are very good for testing whether you actually understand what you are doing, or whether you are just looking at a book without comprehension.
The problem is that such problems are exactly very for testing whether you actually understand something, and so they remove the comforting illusion of being very good which you can get from just reading a book. They work a bit like a weekly exam, helping you realize how many necessary concepts you have forgotten since just last month.
For the student with a small ego who truly wish to excell this is exactly what you want. Forcing him to continually face the holes ik his understanding will make him progress faster.
But for the normal student, meeting and failing the same kind of question every week... well, at least it is not quite good.
I remember vividly how much I hated PE as a kid, because it was always just being told to try to do things I was bad it, over and over. Only later, when I started trying to do sports that genuinely interested me (HEMA and BJJ) could I get enough motivation to actually improve. For lots of students the same is true of all academic subjects, they lack the motivation to go through the grind of actually learning. And so teachers chase the dream of being a truly inspiring coach instead of searching for the scientifically most sound teaching methods.
I see. So essentially you feel that free-recall isn’t implemented as much due to its greater difficulty (which, importantly, is a feature not a bug) which could have a negative effect on the student?
I could see that in all honesty. Of course the response to that would be the difficulty is exactly the very thing that induces the greater retention, but if this, say, prevents them from even going into class then it’s had a negative effect.
I guess it’s just strange that the vast majority of study techniques, even those recommended by teachers, are things such as rereading or highlighting/notetaking etc despite research consistently proving it to be inferior.
And this is without even touching on the potential of a technique called “Interleaving”! Although this has important context, so perhaps more complex to implement correctly.
Exactly this! No matter how well you try to craft your software or how well you write your recurring questions, no thing can beat the will of a 17 year old who has decided not to learn.
Hm. But where did I suggest that it can overcome this? This, to me, would be like a football coach saying to his players “It’s much more effective if we play in x area. They are weak there!” and then a parent of one of the players shouts out “Coach don’t bother! Just go home! They’re not even good!”
Maybe if we have more questions on the topic, we can go to your flashcard business website. Excellent work on staying under the threshold of self promotion - top marks from me!
Thanks for the links. I also hadn't been aware of this.
Both of these techniques are for improving the student's ability to memorize facts. I feel a little bit sad about this because I don't feel like memorizing facts is the most important part of learning.
Former educator here: while I agree that memorizing facts is not the most important part of learning, it very often shows up as a necessary prerequisite to things that are important. When it is a prerequisite, it's often very important to be able to memorize something *sufficiently well.* Fishing out the relevant datum 30 seconds later with low confidence often will not cut it.
Consider mathematics. While I'm of the opinion that being able to do large mental arithmetic problems in your head is quite unnecessary in the information age, you still should be able to add and multiply 1-2 digit numbers quickly and reliably. Same with various sorts of algebraic symbolic manipulations.
To be clear: neither arithmetic nor algebraic symbolic manipulations are the most crucial or useful parts of mathematics. But they tend to show up *everywhere*. If you don't have the key rules memorized you will *constantly* be having to pause in the middle of what you're doing to look something up or punch it into a calculator. This sort of constant interruption makes thinking through longer and more intricate problems impossible. In general, I take a fairly narrow view of *which* formulas a student ought to memorize--lots of things are just fine to look up--but anything that is worth memorizing should be memorized well. Recall should be quick and smooth and automatic.
A clearer example of the same might be learning a language. Most of learning a language is memorization, and most of the memorization must be quite thorough to be of much use[1]. Carefully reasoning through sentence structure or stopping to try to recall a word is fine in the classroom, but not great when you need to operate at conversational speed. A lot of the learning process seems to amount to practicing the tough bits until your brain can handle them without getting your conscious mind involved at all. I don't have to think "oh, a modal verb, I'd better put the infinitive of the main verb at the end of the clause" when I'm formulating a sentence in German: my brain now pretty much does it for me, generally without me even thinking the term "modal" or explicitly noting where the clause even ends.
While I think an educational curriculum that focused *solely* on memorizing facts would be a poor curriculum, educators having good tools to help students memorize necessary facts can smooth the teaching of a great many subjects.
[1] To be clear, this does *not* mean that endlessly going through stacks of flash cards is the best way to learn a language. Some of that might be necessary, but once you have a core of vocab and grammar solidly in place, finding level appropriate ways to practice actually using the language will probably be better. You'll get your spaced repetition automatically (if somewhat irregularly).
But, "you don't need memorization, you only need critical thinking." Yeah, critical thinking about what subject, if you don't know any? How can you critically draw a conclusion from facts, if you don't know the facts? How can you notice when another person is telling you nonsense, if you have no knowledge to compare that against? If you remember nothing, you don't know nothing; you can't think critically about nothing.
And specifically learning languages without memorization is utterly impossible.
I’d push back quite strongly on this personally. I used to think similar perhaps a year or so ago, but it’s definitely (I think) a slight misunderstanding
I’m out currently but I’ll link some blogs from people much smarter than myself that also push back on this, but their position is basically that knowledge, in a sense, is memorising something.
There’s nuance, but this covers the main gist of the argument though.
One of the authors is Justin Skyack, who works on a site called MathAcademy but has wrote tonnes on these topics.
Yeah. Having done a lot of teaching, I found that the patterns and higher order thinking we want to teach is firmly downstream of a lot of memorization and recall work. You need a huge basis of facts and connections at ready recall before you can even start to properly reason about a new concept, and the reasoning process is not context free--the reasoning you do in historical topics is not the same as in mathematical contexts.
Yes, I think what you’re describing is essentially “scaffolding”: understanding a+b before being taught c+d
At one point they would have covered and ‘learnt’ a+b, but then due to not keeping it in their memory (spaced practice) they ‘lose’ it and thus c+d, while more challenging, appears unfeasibly challenging
And then on this ‘challenging’ aspect, even if they are following a Spaced-Practice approach (again, very unlikely), if all their previous work was not via (free) recall and instead via recognition or multiple choice etc, this then increases the difficulty further as there is more productive-but-hard cognitive load on recall, hence the greater retention seen consistently in research.
Current implementation in schools seems to be minimal SR combined with minimal FR. The exact opposite of what is consistently shown to be most effective in research.
The last part of the rule has already been the rule for ages, and it's just been routinely ignored. I don't have much hope unless there's going to be a step-up in enforcement.
Repeating what I said in response to someone ignoring Scott's linking rule.
I've got an idea. I don't know if Scott would like it, but I really don't see why he wouldn't. A lot of people want to advertise their blogs, the rest of us find it annoying and rather scummy. How about: if you want to share a post or essay, you paste the entire thing into the comment box (across several if necessary). Then you can add a link saying "cross posted from here."
This:
-lets people share writing they think would be of interest here
-doesn't cause the inconvenience of having to click to another page just to engage in discussion on something here
-doesn't give the writer unearned clicks; instead of forcing people to click to your blog just to know what you're talking about (which, to be honest, is my suspician of what's primarily motivating these advertisments, though I hope I'm wrong)
-DOES let the writer get *earned* clicks--the only way you get a click is if you're writing impresses people enough that they want to see more of it on other topics
If I were Scott, I'd do a total zero-tolerance ban on merely linking (or linking with summary or linking with excerpt) while allowing such full cross-posting with link without restriction.
I think the proper way is to give a description, about 3-5 lines long, what the article is about. And I don't mean "here is something to pique your curiosity, click this link if you want to know the answer", but more like the actual summary as if you asked a third party to write it after reading your article.
I think it is okay to put up to three or four articles in the same comment. (Better than three different comments.) And then stop doing it, at least for a month, preferably more.
One paragraph abstract in top level comment, essay in replies. This means the collapse thread bar gets displayed and works right away, and also gives people some context to help them work out if they want to wade into the incoming wall of text or just collapse it.
Yes, this would be better, but I think you can go even further in this direction, and after the one paragraph abstract, you could functionally "collapse" the following essay into a single line using one of the nifty features of the Hypertext Transfer Protocol.
I regularly post long essay-like comments on here making some point that I think people might respond to, and no one's ever told me those were annoying. If I had a blog (which maybe I some day will) I'd be cross-posting them there.
But yes when it comes to people just thoughtlessly cross-posting things *without* curating them for this audience, that would indeed be a big problem, so there *would* have to be restrictions. (Personally, though, I don't agree that it would be more annoying. Nothing is more annoying and obnoxious than what people are doing right now).
I think the mentality behind your suggestion would be less annoying, but in practicality, I agree with the others that it would be worse. It would make scrolling the open thread more of a hassle with multi comment posts, and unless someone comments on them they wouldn't be collapseable (at least on the desktop view, I'm not sure how the app works). Whereas if you see a blue link while scrolling you know just to ignore it and move on, and there's less to scroll through.
Yes, there is a comment maximum length. It's very hard to run into when you're only writing your own words, I only run against it when I'm quote-replying to somebody, and even then it takes 7 or 8 replies for the debate to get large enough to run against the comment's length.
Someone else has probably made this connection already, but one of Scott’s casual foretellings from The Toxoplasma of Rage came true a while back:
“Imagine Moloch looking out over the expanse of the world, eagle-eyed for anything that can turn brother against brother and husband against wife. Finally he decides “YOU KNOW WHAT NOBODY HATES EACH OTHER ABOUT YET? BIRD-WATCHING. LET ME FIND SOME STORY THAT WILL MAKE PEOPLE HATE EACH OTHER OVER BIRD-WATCHING”. And the next day half the world’s newspaper headlines are “Has The Political Correctness Police Taken Over Bird-Watching?” and the other half are “Is Bird-Watching Racist?”. And then bird-watchers and non-bird-watchers and different sub-groups of bird-watchers hold vitriolic attacks on each other that feed back on each other in a vicious cycle for the next six months, and the whole thing ends in mutual death threats and another previously innocent activity turning into World War I style trench warfare.”
It uh, has not gotten any better in the TTRPG space. Pre-2020 TTRPG discourse seems almost quaint and nostalgic in comparison. If you left over 2015 drama...man, what were we even fighting about then? Edition warring I guess? Forge games? OSR? Nowadays it's all culture war shit it seems like.
It had already gotten like that by then. I think I was looking at RPG.net sometime in the mid-2010s, looking at the register of bans, and thinking "well, if this is what the scene is like now, I'm not going to bother following this stuff now".
IRL everyone just plays the latest edition of D&D anyway.
5e is definitely still dominant for in-person games from my experience. Though a caviat: nobody I know has jumped to the 2024 revised rules yet, everybody is still sticking with the 2014 rules (everybody has their own reasons it seems). But I think compared to like, 2018 or so when it was *overwhelmingly dominant* (like the idea of playing anything other than 5e was not really a thing). Now I think there is more openness to other systems than there was in the 5e golden age.
Imagine a twitcher being woken at 2am by a mobile phone alert. He jumps out of bed, packs a few things, including his trusty notebook and binnies, and charges off in his car. After several hours toeing it up the motorway at a constant 120 MPH, praying all the while that no police cars are around at that early hour, he reaches the West coast of Scotland. After negotiating ever narrower and twistier roads, he eventually arrives at a remote beach where he hires a boat to take him to a nearby desolate island.
On reaching the island, he starts heading up a treacherous mountain path, but he is soon met by a dejected group of people trudging down the other way. They inform him that a lesser spotted fly catcher (or whatever the bird was) had been spotted there the previous day, or someone thought they might have seen one, but now there is no sign of it!
Then the heartbroken guy remembers he is supposed to be getting married that day, and at this very moment his bride to be will be waiting at the altar in floods of tears, and he has no mobile signal to phone and explain why he is a no show. Probably the bride's family, and indeed everyone who had turned up for the wedding, will hate bird watchers ever after! :-)
"The Audubon society had an internecine split over whether they should keep the name once the namesake was declared unclean during the woke era."
I was a direct close observer of that because the regional NGO that I lead was and is a close collaborator of the National Audubon Society. A good friend who is now one of my board officers was then a senior executive of that organization; we've hired Audubon people; we share donors in common locally; etc.
From my seat that episode turned out to be a cheering example of the dieback of wokeness. Into the teeth of that internecine split, which not only was fierce but became for one side the symbol of "a broader issue" and hence a hill to die on, Audubon's board and senior leadership first wobbled but then found their feet. They declined to be pushed into a panicky change; carried out a robust internal comment/discussion process which was structured so as to minimize bullying; etc. In the context of 2021/22 that took some steady nerves.
And then in March 2023 they publicly, graciously but firmly, announced that the organization would not be changing its name. They did not deny John James Audubon's personal conduct (which it's worth noting was not just a retroactive modern-era criticism). They concluded and stated that "The decision was made taking into consideration many factors, including the complexity of John James Audubon’s legacy and how the decision would impact NAS’s mission to protect birds and the places they need long into the future."
And then the organization moved on. Today this question never even comes up anymore, and I work closely enough with enough Audubon people to say that with confidence.
Oh, that's not the best bird-watching spat. The one about "should we rename birds that were named after racist sexist colonialist enslavers? (yes of course we should)" beats that.
Even I have heard of the Audubon Society, but this bunch of "who the heck are these people?" had to have their spake in:
"CHICAGO (November 1, 2023)—Today the American Ornithological Society (AOS) announced that in an effort to address past wrongs and engage far more people in the enjoyment, protection, and study of birds, it will change all English bird names currently named after people within its geographic jurisdiction. The AOS will also change the process by which English names are selected for bird species. The effort will begin in 2024 and will focus initially on 70–80 bird species that occur primarily within the U.S. and Canada.
“There is power in a name, and some English bird names have associations with the past that continue to be exclusionary and harmful today. We need a much more inclusive and engaging scientific process that focuses attention on the unique features and beauty of the birds themselves,” said AOS President Colleen Handel, Ph.D., a research wildlife biologist with the U.S. Geological Survey in Alaska. “Everyone who loves and cares about birds should be able to enjoy and study them freely—and birds need our help now more than ever.”
Ornithologists have long grappled with historical and contemporary practices that contribute to the exclusion of Black, Indigenous, and other people of color, including how birds are named. For example, in 2020, the AOS renamed a small prairie songbird found on the Great Plains to “Thick-billed Longspur.” The bird’s original name—honoring John P. McCown, an amateur naturalist who later became a general in the Confederate Army during the U.S. Civil War—was perceived as a painful link to slavery and racism."
I don't know if they've soldiered on with their brave campaign to rename every bird species in North America, but I imagine most people still call birds by the names they've always called them.
Hmm. But don’t you get some of this yourself, as an Irish woman. I know from visiting your fair if soggy isle and reading the history of places and streets as I wander about, that Ireland was probably ahead of the game in the great street renaming and statue removing fad that has latterly engulfed us all.
I did find a street called Prince Charles street or maybe just Charles street and there’s a Victoria street or place, I forget, although it might be presumptuous to assume it was our late esteemed Empress, could well have been Victoria the washer lady from Trim.
Oh, there have been renaming attempts, and some have stuck (a lot of streets renamed after Daniel O'Connell for instance) but some haven't (people in this town still refer to streets by old names and not the new ones).
We have amusing examples, one that made me smile was the juxtaposition in a town I visited years back of a plaque or other memorial commemorating a visit from some British big wig during the days when we were part of the Empire, then down the street another memorial commemorating the heroic patriots who rose up against the Empire.
We also have lot of letter boxes still bearing crowns and VR or GR, just painted green (why get rid of a perfectly functional letter box?) and the likes.
There was only one instance of blowing up a statue - Nelson's Pillar:
"Nelson's Pillar (also known as the Nelson Pillar or simply the Pillar) was a large granite column capped by a statue of Horatio Nelson, built in the centre of what was then Sackville Street (later renamed O'Connell Street) in Dublin, Ireland. Completed in 1809 when Ireland was part of the United Kingdom, it survived until March 1966, when it was severely damaged by explosives planted by Irish republicans. Its remnants were later destroyed by the Irish Army."
Also some kerfuffle about statues of Queen Victoria:
"It is no exaggeration to claim that Queen Victoria took Cork by surprise when she first visited the city, on Friday, August 3, 1849. Her arrival marked the start of her first state visit to Ireland, and coincided with the opening that same year of University College Cork - or Queen’s College, Cork, as it was then known – where she was to view a statue erected in her honour.
... “The statue of Victoria came down in 1935, and was stored in an East Wing office space,” says Roszman. “In 1939, students defaced the royal crest on the front of the college. Prof John A Murphy, in his history of UCC, writes that there was worry that republican students would damage the statue of Queen Victoria too. So at some point it was buried under the lawn in the President’s Garden.”
In 1990, five years ahead of the 150th anniversary of the Colleges Act that birthed UCC, it was decided to exhume the statue. No one could remember quite where it was buried, so the college borrowed scanning equipment from the National University of Ireland, Galway to help locate it. It would be another four years before work to dig up the statue actually began, and there was uproar; the subject of the Famine Queen was undoubtedly one of the hottest in the Examiner’s letters pages that year.
“Commemorations for the 150th anniversary of the Great Famine were being planned around the same time,” says Roszman. “And some people got very upset about the statue. It’s fascinating now just how much controversy it caused.”
Most of our current renaming or wiping out today is around the Church in Ireland or quietly replacing existing statues/names of prominent clerical figures with ones calculated to be more appealing to current sensibilities or a different emphasis in our history.
Don't forget this statue https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statue_of_Queen_Victoria,_Sydney, originally installed in Leinster House, moved around to various disgraceful locations in the Republic of Southern Ireland until the 1980s, and then eventually lent to Australia to be installed outside the Queen Victoria Building.
I'm sorry that you folks aren't as grateful for your imperial heritage as we are.
Thank you, Australia, for taking the unwanted elements of Ireland and the Irish 😀 From those transported for rebellion against the Crown, to representatives of that Crown itself!
Does this include Kiev and Turkey? How about Peking? (I feel like Peking is an "actually good rename" while the other two are -reallydumb-. (Still not sure who even suggested the Turkey rename. REALLY hard to write.)
Kyiv is hardly a classical rename? Assuming you mean the distinction between the Ukrainian name Kyiv and the russian name Kiev, it was adopted after Ukrainian indipendence based on the existing Ukrainian language. Also i am unaware of the proposed rename of Turkey.
If we were sticking word for word to original historical names we shouldn't call Istanbul Istanbul or even Constantinopol but Bisanzium.
Just last week I was talking to someone who'd visited the Ukraine. She mentioned that everyone in Kiev speaks Russian, almost exclusively.
Kyiv, as a moniker in English, was adopted by the US State Department after the current spat (war) in the ongoing power struggle over whose vassal state Ukraine should be started. I don't mind someone wanting to write it Kyiv in Ukrainian -- that's their business.
Kiev versus Kyiv is essentially the same renaming as Peking versus Beijing. Except that the lingua franca in Ukraine is Russian (even when speaking to Americans). So it's kinda dumb.
I noticed the "rename of turkey" on googlemaps. It's really a thing.
Türkiye is dumb, it will always be Turkey to me. The Turks are free to change the name of their country in Turkish, but English speakers get to decide what it's called in English.
I note that the Turks have not changed the Turkish names of English speaking countries such as İngiltere, Amerika Birleşik Devletleri and Avustralya.
Many cities and countries have different names in English versus their local names, like Deutschland, München, Roma, Sverige, Suomi, and so forth. And many other languages do not use English names for English places, such as Londres, Londra and 伦敦.
This is fine if you're going to be writing a lot in another language. It's "unfine" if you're simply discussing countries in general, and Turkey comes up. That's too much work to expect the layman to do. (Given that I'm fine with the renaming of Peking to Beijing, to follow current linguistics in China, I would be fine with a transliteration that doesn't require @$#@ diacritics. We type too much these days to consider that "okay" for standard English usage).
Yes, how many of the people who heard the name "McCown's Longspur" even knew who McCown was? They'd probably assume "oh that's the name of the guy who discovered the bird". So as a commemoration/honouring of the general, it wasn't very effective.
Plus there's nothing to stop further renaming in future when attitudes change again, either to be more progressive or more traditional. Maybe "thick billed" will be considered a slur (body shaming!) and a new, more correct, name will be imposed on the bird. And there's nothing to say that people outside of the AOS use the new name, anyway. Just because a small group drew up a list of bad names that had to be changed to good names doesn't mean anyone paid attention to it.
> as a commemoration/honouring of the general, it wasn't very effective.
The re-renaming of the military bases is even more like this. With the exception of Robert E. Lee, most of them seem pretty obscure. But I like the troll of finding random people with the same last name and declaring them to be the new namesakes.
A bit off topic here. I’d call myself more of a bird observer than a bird watcher. I just made a short drive on a local interstate highway and saw a couple raptors perched on top of the tall light posts. They have taken to saving energy by waiting for someone to create road kill that they swoop down and pick up.
I once saw a bald eagle in a tree outside a parking lot chowing on a pancaked squirrel corpse. Kind of flies in the face of the whole majestic symbol of America thing.
The BWCA has a rule stating that the left overs of cleaning a fish must be buried. No one in on the joke does this. They paddle to a lakeside rock away from any campsite and put them on display. They are always consumed in short order.
Out of curiosity, I just went to the "HobbyDrama" subreddit and did a search for "bird watching". HobbyDrama is devoted to long-form effortposts chronicling dramatic incidents, schisms, controversies, etc which have arisen connected with various hobby activities. There have been a ton of posts over the years about birding.
Here are my 1-2 sentence summaries from skimming the first several search results:
- A massive argument in a facebook group for birdwatchers over some members proposing that it's unwise and unethical to birdwatch in residential areas unless you have advance permission from literally everyone in the neighborhood.
- A Mandarin Duck is found in New York Central Park in 2018, which catches media and hobbyist attention (it's visually interesting, native to East Asia, and unheard of outside of captivity in North America) and inspires many serious birdwatchers to travel to New York to see it. Then someone notices that it has a band on its leg, indicating that it's an escaped captive animal (presumably from a zoo or private collection) and thus doesn't count for the official rules for bragging rights about what rare and exotic species you've birdwatched.
- The story of the genuine discovery of extant populations of the Australian Night Parrot by the professional birdwatcher John Young ("professional birdwatcher" meaning that he makes a living running birdwatching tours and making wildlife films), who then went on to make other remarkable discoveries that turned out to be completely fraudulant.
- The Ivory Billed Woodpecker is officially considered to probably be extinct, except that lots of people are pretty sure they've seen one and several of them have taken shitty photographs to "prove" it, with passionate devotees of both sides of the argument. I have looked at a few of the photos, and I'm not 100% sure there is even a bird in them.
- One of the moderators of a major birding Discord starts using it as a platform for alt-right political rants, culminating in an apparently-earnest claim that Hitler was good for birds.
- A birder claims credit for the first ever sighting of a Wandering Tattler in Quebec, with good photographic evidence. The picture is discovered to have artifacts that look like the bird was photoshopped in, and also the story of how the bird was spotted and photographed is discovered to have massive holes in it when compared to his online birdwatching logs.
- This one is only tangentially related to birdwatching: a heist where a great many 19th century preserved specimens of rare or now-extinct birds are stolen from the archives of the British Natural History Museum, for the purpose of using their feathers to make authentic replicas of Victorian-era fishing lures (which is apparently a thing, called "fly-tying"), and also for selling more of said feathers on the black market to other fly-tying enthusiasts.
>- The Ivory Billed Woodpecker is officially considered to probably be extinct, except that lots of people are pretty sure they've seen one and several of them have taken shitty photographs to "prove" it, with passionate devotees of both sides of the argument. I have looked at a few of the photos, and I'm not 100% sure there is even a bird in them.
Cool, reminds me of cryptids.... A bigfoot for birdwatchers? :-)
"One of the moderators of a major birding Discord starts using it as a platform for alt-right political rants, culminating in an apparently-earnest claim that Hitler was good for birds."
I mean... Hitler was a vegetarian who loved his dogs, it doesn't sound too far-fetched that he could have been good for birds. That just... doesn't actually matter at all in the calculus of how good or bad Hitler was.
"a heist where a great many 19th century preserved specimens of rare or now-extinct birds are stolen from the archives of the British Natural History Museum"
There's a great episode of This American Life about this, #654.
>One day in the main chat channel, we were discussing how the increases in human populations had caused more development and decreased bird populations, John decided to say that "Hitler was good for birds, then, since he killed so many people." Initially, I thought it was an extremely dark joke but no, he went on to sincerely say that we needed another genocide of undesirables. I disagreed, obviously. He banned me for that, which is when I came to the realization he seemed pretty sincere about this. The other reasonable people also exited at that point, some PMing the inactive admins so that they would do something about John. After a short reign of tyranny, John the would-be Fuehrer of the international birding Discord server got himself banned, along with his friends. Good riddance!
Bird watchers are also a notable contingent of the NIMBY coalition, opposing everything from wind farms to buildings with glass windows on account of their effects on birds! Stop these NEPA-wielding maniacs while there's still time!
I recall reading something claiming that a significant proportion of bird strikes can be prevented just by painting one of the turbine blades black. Was that ever replicated?
I keep a close eye on phys.org (saves having to buy New Scientist!) and last week they reported on a new kind of bladeless wind turbine which is showing promise:
These things are meaningless without reference to the real world. Do you support wind turbines in the Gulf in the direct path of the great central flyway? Where exhausted migratory birds may fall out instead of making it to shore? Or would you at least like to build a few before giving blanket approval, and see what happens? If the latter, congrats: you are a radical I guess.
Ah, so she's helping to stop greenhouse gas emissions! Very good! (wind turbines increase greenhouse gas emissions, as their power output is so erratic, you need much more wasteful gas plants in order to keep the grid stable).
This sounds like a too-cute-by-half story that gets contrarian likes.
What baseline are you comparing to with the “more wasteful gas plants”? Is the idea that adding wind power to the grid requires adding *even more* generation, compared to not building anything?
Yes, adding wind power to the grid requires adding "greenhouse gas capacity" because the "agile" gas plants (the ones that can respond to flickery solar and wind power) are much less efficient than "stable" gas plants.
Can you point to me where in there it says anything like what you said? The closest I see is this line:
"if you are determined to go “wind and solar” you are also going to have to go nat gas and oil and you will need 100% backup capacity on the full nameplate of your “renewables” and it will be kicking in and out all the time making it less efficient and require less efficient configurations that use more fuel per MWH."
But all that says is that generating 5 MWh of electricity from natural gas in a peaker plant takes more natural gas than generating 5 MWh of electricity from natural gas in a baseload plant. That is extremely different from your allegation that generating 5 MWh from natural gas in a peaker plant that turns on and off as needed to balance load while you also get 5 MWh in wind energy somehow takes more natural gas than generating 10 MWh of electricity from a baseload natural gas plant.
Unless your wind or solar plant is at close to 0 most of the time, using a less efficient natural gas plant the rest of the time isn't going to use as much gas as using a more efficient natural gas plant for all your electricity.
And in any case, as long as wind and solar isn't generating so much electricity that you're turning your gas plants all the way off, you're not losing very much efficiency at all with your natural gas, so it's reasonable to just ignore this efficiency loss.
There's no need for that cat to feel so self-satisfied at attacking anything and everything done in the name of environmental efficiency. Only some of it is a bad idea.
You must do more to convince me that adding wind turbines increases the need for wasteful gas plants. How would you need fewer gas plants if you had fewer wind turbines?
You'd have the same generative capacity, only with "slow-to-spin-up and down" natural gas plants. They're far more efficient, in terms of not needing to burn as much greenhouse gases.
The cited source does not seem to address the claim that "slow-to-spin-up-and-speed-down natural gas plants" are significantly more efficient than otherwise comparable fast-start systems. Neither does anything I was able to find with a quick search, and FWIW the nearest AI suggests efficiencies are comparable.
And the efficiency advantage of slow-start would have to be *quite* substantial, to compensate for the fact that the fast-start turbinge is spending much of its time shut down and generating no greenhouse gas at all because the wind turbines are spinning quite nicely.
They also oppose cats, claiming that cats kill billions of birds per year, based on a study of One Cat. (I'll note that a certain subspecies of feral cats does prey mainly on crows (they're big cats). But most domestic cats are well-fed, and hence lazy.)
I do not understand. Where I live, we have a unique subspecies of feral cat that feeds on crows. Discussing "keep cats inside" is discussing their genocide (Yes, I suppose you could "rehome" them into houses, but we already have too many cats. Are you really thinking we should preserve all the variant subspecies of cats? Or do you think that preserving unique creatures that have already adapted to environments is somehow wrong?)
The normal thing most cat-advocates recommend for feral cats is to spay/neuter and then release them, so that the current individuals still get to live out their life, but the population goes extinct as the individuals die. This is usually thought to be good because feral cats don't have great lives, and it's thought to be better that these populations don't come into existence, even just considering their own welfare. (Though their lives aren't considered to be so bad that it's better to kill them than let them live it out.)
If there are any local populations of birds that are threatened by the cat population, that strengthens the argument.
But if the cat population actually has a very good quality of life, then it becomes a tradeoff between the existence of the cat population and the bird population, and their effects on local ecosystems generally. Since cats are doing fine elsewhere, I could only see this being a real question in cases where all local bird (and small mammal) populations are also unthreatened elsewhere.
I'm not sure what population you're referring to with your "unique subspecies of feral cat" - I've never heard of an subspecies of feral cat that has created an environmental niche that is favorable for the local ecosystem generally, but if there is, then in that location, it probably would be relevant to pursue a different policy. It's almost never right to advocate a blanket policy everywhere, whether it's eliminating outdoor cats or encouraging them.
Pittsburgh has crow roosts, and the cats prey on the crows (normal cats would not do this, as a crow is too big and hence too much of a battle for them-- kind of like an adult rabbit -- lots of food, but not worth the fight). While it's true that unchecked, you get too many feral cats, I don't necessarily believe that driving a subspecies to extinction is a good idea. I'm not sure most "spay your feral cats" programs actually expect to extinguish the feral cat population. In Puerto Rico, there are literal feral cat colonies (they eat rats there, which are also invasive). I'm pretty sure the cat colonies of Old San Juan are pretty well fed and cared for.
I wrote about why there are perfectly legal and strategically beneficial strategies in sports that players don’t use, and what these taboos tells us about the limits of rational self interest more generally.
In tennis there is the underarm serve, in cage-fighting there are oblique kicks to the knees. In Street Fighter II there is "pattern fighting" in which, for example, you might trap an opponent with a jab up close and then throw them, jab and throw, taking advantage of their inability to escape close fighting. In cricket there is "Mankading" which is the cricket equivalent of the pick-off move in baseball. Then there is the taboo against nonstandard stances in golf and the granny shot in basketball. All of these are strategically useful in particular contexts and useful but considered dishonorable or effacing moves.
The kind of things that generate norms of honor and face come from outside of the rules of sport. This indicates that even in the kinds of human activities whereby the rewards and penalties and aims are explicitly stipulated, honor and face norms intrude and in fact trump the goal of winning. The norms are simultaneously powerful and fragile; common knowledge of a sufficient number of defectors are enough to overturn a taboo, as in the case of drop shots in tennis and defensive shifts in baseball. There may be lessons here for other competitive activities more generally, like business, politics, and war. Link to full essay below.
In tennis, people don't use the underarm serve mostly because it's simply worse. I suppose it's occasionally good to punish an opponent who's standing too far back, and in those cases it IS used.
Looking it up, it seems people use it when they're too injured to serve normally.
It isn't used nearly as often as it is strategically useful to use when opponents are standing too far back. As I mention in the piece, no top player ever uses it. And players lose face and are looked down upon for doing so. There's a lot of evidence of that in the way other players treat underarm serve users (who are not injured). My understanding by people who have commented that Mankading in cricket is even more taboo.
I agree it's used less than you might think, but I'd attribute that to the need to disguise it well (if they see it coming, they can crush the return. Because the underarm serve is worse), and few people think it worth their time to practice it. It looks like this might be changing, and you're seeing it more often now: https://www.nytimes.com/athletic/6226205/2025/03/24/tennis-underarm-serve-shot-kostyuk-blinkova/.
You never hit on the point that in order to play the game professionally, the game has to be entertaining enough to draw an audience. Ever watched Sidehacking? Of course you haven't, because everyone looks stupid the whole time. There have been boxers (and MMA fighters) who win primarily on the strength of their dodging, but they're still unpopular because watching two people not hit each other is not exciting. Taboos exist to keep the game itself alive.
It becomes the competitors' problem if the game becomes too boring to watch, though. Ultimately the competitors know what side their bread is buttered.
I'm struggling to think of any examples of once-popular games that became boring after all the competitors discovered an unbeatable but boring strategy. But there must be some out there.
There's a particular style of grinding wrestling/shoving match against the fence that's not so much fun to watch, and some MMA fighters are pretty successful with that style in fights, but often not so successful at keeping a contract. I think a good example of this is Colby Covington, who has taken on a kind of ultra MAGA pro-wrestler-like persona in order to draw interest to his fights despite them being not all that fun to watch.
I have this hypothesis that some taboos arise because of two simultaneous truths: you cannot formulate rules like "don't be boring" because fans and players would reject them for being too vague, and (2) that there is no way to formulate a rule to prohibit the specific thing that Covington does without thereby prohibiting tons of very legitimate fighting tactics. Does this sound true to you (I'm too casual an MMA fan to make this claim for sure.)
I think that's right, though I don't think there's much of an issue with taboos in MMA these days. I only tend to notice booing on the rare occasion when both fighters just keep circling and don't attack - usually when both exhausted near the end of the match - but there's no rule to fix this as the ref can't force them to!
Early on in UFC history there was a rule introduced such that the ref could stand fighters up if they weren't active enough, e.g. a grappler or jiujitsu guy slowly working towards a submission on the ground and taking their sweet time with it (as it was tiring out the opponent more than them). This was essentially 'don't be boring' and indeed prohibited a legitimate strategy.
This seems to be pretty blatantly ignoring Scott's number 3 rule. Not only are you not providing sufficient summary, you've also been linking to your blog practically every open thread.
(Moved long suggestion on linking policy to a top-level comment.)
Happy to delete or post entire post. Didn’t know this was “scummy” activity. I always thought Open Thread was where to do this, but will defer to Scott.
He added a new rule that links to elsewhere require at least two paragraphs of discussion. I’m cautiously in favor of it as a rule, though it remains to be seen how it works out. (I ended up deciding that the ban on “likes” was a net negative, even though it sounded reasonable at first.)
I haven't seen any evidence of that on the other Substacks I follow. And in any case, it's better for people to tailor their comments to get likes than it is to tailor their comments to trigger replies!
I am wondering if Scott prescribes MAOIs in his practise? I thinks its a tragedy that the most effective meds are so underutilized. Doctors would rather have you do ECT than try a MAOI.
I've prescribed them occasionally, and I appreciate the perspective that they're sometimes more effective than anything else, but I've never personally had them make a big difference for a patient who hadn't succeeded on other antidepressants (though I sometimes met people already on them who say they were extremely helpful)
I personally have seen 2 people with treatment-resistant depression who had really remarkable & durable results from MAOI's. For one the results had lasted for a year without diminishing, for the other for about 3 years. I had one patient who had been on an MAOI in the past and reported that it was no more helpful than any other antidepressant. I have seen maybe 100 people total who are on antidepressants and as far as I know those 3 are the only ones who'd ever tried an MAOI. Some of the people now on conventional antidepressants have been on multiple SSRI's and tricyclics with little benefit, and seem to me like good candidates for an MAOI trial.
However, most psychiatrists I know have never prescribed one, and are unwilling to.
There's a world expert on them, Ken Gillman, whose website is called Psychotropical. He says that the online info about what foods must be avoided by those taking an MAOI is badly out of date. It relies on data from very old studies of tyramine content of foods, and those studies are inaccurate because refrigeration during manufacturing, storage and in the home is so much better now -- also because the old studies used inaccruate methods to measure tyramine content. Has at his site updated info on actual tyramine content of most foods.
I'm a psychologist, by the way, and do not prescribe meds.
<It's rather obvious to me that it simply isn't "cool" (protocol) to think of MAOI's for doctors, so they don't. It's part of the whole "prescribe what is sexy right now/makes money" thing, that supposedly exists, depending on your politics of course.
I have talked to psychiatrist friends about this and really do not think that that's the reason. There really aren't that many groovy new drugs for them to prescribe, unless they have unusual practices where they see mostly people who have failed all the usual drugs. If they don't, most people who come to their office are, according to the algorithms, candidates for an SSRI or a stimulant or a non-benzodiazepine anti-anxiety med. They're giving almost everyone chocolate, vanilla or strawberry, and getting decent but not stellar results. I think most of them would be *delighted* to have a new possibility.
What keeps them from prescribing MAOI's is that in their training nobody made a case for MAOI's or told them that a lot of dietary change is not necessary these days, and nobody they know prescribes the stuff, and if you google "MAOI food danger" you quickly find list after list that names many many common foods.
And as for the money part: MAOI's *are* expensive, even the generics. I know somebody whose monthly supply costs about $200 before insurance. I'm not sure why a very old drug now available in generics is so expensive -- maybe because there's not much demand?.
What do you guys think of the TACO Trump phenomenon? TACO means Trump Always Chickens Out, and it's an observation that Trump backs down on a lot of the things he does. I think that has indeed been a trend ever since January 6, which he could've turned into a coup, but he ultimately backed down. It does suggest that Trump will not be an existential threat to democracy in the US, since he doesn't have the will to actually cross the Rubicon.
He will most likely deploy the military and federalize the National Guard to prevent "illegals" from voting in the midterm elections, which would be the only check on his power. There's also the next election where JD "Pence should've done the right thing" Vance will be certifying the electoral votes.
I think there's a misunderstanding of what he's doing. He's not a politician, he's still operating off being a businessman. So a lot of things he does are gambits, they're meant to be opening shots in a negotiation, and once you agree to come to the table then the real horse trading goes on and the opening move is dropped. That's what he's been doing with tariffs, which is why he's bouncing around with "tariffs on! tariffs off! now they'll be 300%! now they'll be 1,000%!" That's not how a government official does trade, but it's how a businessman who's used to operating in a market full of bluff and bluster does it.
I have to give credit to wherever I read this point (can I remember where? of course not) about things like TACO - when Trump proposes to do something, often the Democrats will say that this is terrible and bad and he's a tyrant and he will destroy democracy/the USA/the world. Then if he backs off and doesn't do it, or drops it, instead of going "well at least he can be persuaded by good reasons" or "we won this by presenting a good argument and he listened", then they go for "ha ha, what a loser, we kicked this idiot's ass good didn't we!"
That's not going to dispose anyone to be bipartisan, the next time Trump wants to do something then he's just as likely to go "I tried playing nice, they insulted me, to hell with them I'm doing this thing".
"oh he always chickens out" may or may not be the most tactful way to put it, but it's certainly the maximally aggravating way for a guy with a lot of ego and a thin skin.
> when Trump proposes to do something, often the Democrats will say that this is terrible and bad and he's a tyrant and he will destroy democracy/the USA/the world. Then if he backs off and doesn't do it, or drops it, instead of going "well at least he can be persuaded by good reasons" or "we won this by presenting a good argument and he listened", then they go for "ha ha, what a loser, we kicked this idiot's ass good didn't we!"
Yeah, I've always felt weird about TACO as an insult because I want him to be willing to recognize when something fails and pivot away to something else. And if people insult him over "chickening out", maybe next time he might have backed off of a bad idea, he doubles down instead, and we're all worse off. And even if he usually doubles down instead of backing off, he still sometimes backs off.
I dislike him and his policies as much as the next guy, but we've got plenty of better areas to criticize him.
The "it's just a negotiating tactic" argument doesn't hold water because every switch of "tariffs on, tariffs off" costs money. People can't make long-term investments when the cost of imports is doubling and then halving at random.
>That's not going to dispose anyone to be bipartisan, the next time Trump wants to do something then he's just as likely to go "I tried playing nice, they insulted me, to hell with them I'm doing this thing".
Trump did not try to "play nice" or include Democrats in the discussion at any point in these tariff negotiations, and I'm baffled why you're implying that he did.
> every switch of "tariffs on, tariffs off" costs money. People can't make long-term investments when the cost of imports is doubling and then halving at random.
That's a short-term view. It's always possible to make investments. If the switch keeps flipping, smuggling channels will be an attractive investment.
He likely finds that resorting to crime with all the negative externalities that it presents is a pretty terrible move if you have a fully functioning trading system already present. That is unless someone were to consistently harm this system for little to no probable gain.
>The "it's just a negotiating tactic" argument doesn't hold water because every switch of "tariffs on, tariffs off" costs money. People can't make long-term investments when the cost of imports is doubling and then halving at random.
If your goal is something other than economics then this isn't a relevant argument. True, I'm not clear what the actual goal is. In Brexit, it was true that, economically, it made more sense to stay in the EU, but from a sovereignty standpoint, it made more sense to leave.
Though I'm not clear on the goal, I suspect it has something to do with China trade, and possibly Taiwan, and more with what they are permitted to do in the world than with trade itself. The Canada, Mexico, and EU tariff stuff I get the impression now is mostly smokescreen.
I found the explanation of an attempt at a second Breton woods as the objective pretty convincing.
The idea being that through leverage both positive (alliances and other benefits) and negative (tariffs) Trump wants to come to an international agreement similar to the one Nixon made where the US keeps it's role as main currency but also devalues the dollar allowing for bigger exports and lower deficit.
Problem is that not only one would assume you need some very detailed and precise tariffs to gain that leverage at minimal cost but that you would also need to also have a certain degree of trust from your allies to make this big step. And as of now the second type of leverage has apparently failed on China, while Europe not only is a more united block then during Nixon but the trust that existed then is being evaporated every day by Trump, similar arguments are true for all large global economies.
Another potential explanation is obtaining quick revenue with the tariffs at the cost of future economic growth with the mindset that this will be a problem for the next presidency.
Yes, I misswrote. Generally speaking, the theory is though as presented. The problem remains that so far it seems like the US is making several missteps to say the least.
Are you trying to say he is senile, or that he is very stupid?
A smart enemy can be a lot more fun to deal with than a dumb friend. (and Nixon was very smart, and very self-interested.)
Trump's move to take over Canada and Greenland are quite rational for a non unipolar world (where we see undefended borders as a major security weakness). Pax Americana is dead, and Joe Biden's administration murdered it (more detailed discussion will include Dick Cheney's protegee and the Neocons in Biden's admin).
I'm saying that based on all available reporting, he is unable to maintain concentration in a briefing for longer than 10 minutes. Attribute it to senility, arrogance, stupidity, I'm not sure it really matters. But my point is, this idea that he has some kind of fully-formed model of international relations that includes multiple steps and a list of priorities and an idea of the trade-offs and costs and benefits of his action along multiple diplomatic and economic axes is nuts. I suspect a bunch of rationalists can't handle the idea that the most powerful person in the world is irrational, and so they are self-soothing by practicing ornithomancy.
Trump has historically been an advocate for tariffs. The man was saying back in the 80s that the country was being ripped off by free trade.
Then there's the way in which he's transactional to a highly comical degree - the first backing off from tariffs this year was reportedly due to some advisers waiting until Peter Navarro, another tariffs proponent, wasn't around so they could talk to Trump undisturbed.
The simplest explanation (that Trump is just a fan of tariffs) gets denied more often that not, and I suspect it's because people either don't want to think they have TDS or that they still can't accept that someone wealthy and powerful might be stupid.
I agree that Trump seems to be a fan of tariffs, and must not understand their implications well. Leaving aside the discussion as to whether tariffs are bad (I think they usually are), is Trump's goal actually as simple as "fair" trade, making things more equal through tariffs? If so, the only hope is showing how tariffs will backfire in a way Trump won't like.
The EU is a device to screw the United States, by having the European Nations create an "easy to trade" area that incentivizes trading within it, and giving the Europeans a unified front, so that the US can't use divide and conquer tactics.
"Fairness" is a good way to argue that whatever Trump is doing, it is morally correct. I'm not sure moral correctness ought to have anything to do with economics (pretty sure Trump knows that too) -- a better argument is that Trump's been given command to rescue the American Economy, and if that means that he needs to sink everyone else (and only partially sink the American Economy), he is unafraid to take the plunge.
Trump has many goals, and so the answer is "no, Trump's goal isn't so simple."
> The "it's just a negotiating tactic" argument doesn't hold water because every switch of "tariffs on, tariffs off" costs money. People can't make long-term investments when the cost of imports is doubling and then halving at random.
Also, he hasn't actually gotten anything for his "negations".
Columbia got a chance to wave its wang around. Everyone got to hear how awesome Columbia is. That's Public Relations, and probably led to more tourism.
Columbia got to wave its wang around. Then they said "and your country's economy is bigger than ours, and we can accommodate taking our citizens home."
After that, nothing. I know LOTS of people are complaining about torture prisons, but that's not Columbia.
I'm so sick of people pushing this narrative that this is all galaxy-brained somehow, when Occam's razor suggests a much simpler narrative, which is that Trump has an incredibly poor understanding of macroeconomics, being largely a real-estate developer and hospitality manager by trade (and even then, a poor one).
Even if you buy the argument that this is the beginning of a negotiating position, the timing of Trump's announces tend to sync up more with economic quakes than with people suddenly making deals with him, and also, by all available evidence, he is a terrible negotiator who is perpetually forcing people who were otherwise reasonable partners into adversarial positions from which point they seek other allies, and, tactically, start to look at their own options for inflicting pain on the United States, which is the reasonable thing to do once your trade partner comes in bullying. Every book I've ever read on trade, business, or negotiation, suggests this is a terrible strategy, and the results certainly don't seem to be encouraging.
I am certainly happy about that but one should ask themselves how significant Rubio and Vance role in that mediation was. Both India and Pakistan had every interest to deescalate, since neither had a clear plan of action other then to score political points at home and test the adversary, the alternative to negotiations was a continuation of strikes from both sides without an effective end goal.
It's still a positive development but the situations where it's hard to negotiate are those where at least one of the two sides has an objective it wants to reach before that.
As an example of this where Trumps comments directly hurt negotiations is Russia and Ukraine war where his very friendly stance towards Russia, and failing to keep every threat he made, make Russia expand it's demands since they don't see any consequence for that and feel supported by the US.
Similarly the agreement betwern Israel and Hamas clearly failed (though that one is a really tough situation to negotiate)
If Trumps administration manages to negotiate a lasting agreement between Iran and Israel (which the more Iran is vulnerable the more it seems possible) then I would put their negotiating skills from terrible to normal, since it shows that at least the US can be shown as semi-reliable in its promises.
But until then the track record is definitely not in Trumps favour
Both India and Pakistan had nuclear weapons out and ready. Yes, they both thought they could "gain something" by throwing their weight around (particularly India, as the aggressor).
Rubio didn't have a role in the mediation, because Trump let the military "negotiate" this one. (There's a reason it'll be in the history books) -- the argument to India on "you're not going to get an inch of territory, so stop fighting" was premised on giving Pakistan some shiny toys that they (VERY IMPORTANTLY) couldn't use to gain territory in India. Then the American military walks over to both it's "allies" and says, "Here's how this deal is going to work."
Trump's "friendly" comments to Russia are pretty much the reason Ukraine tried to murder peace talks by destroying some Russian Nuclear Capabilities (this does not materially affect "Russia has won the war since 2022", and it very much does not affect the "America lost the strategic objective before the war even started"). Ukraine is a very bad ally to have (almost as bad as Romania) -- Russia at least understands "stealing is bad" (Ukraine stole so much gas from the pipelines, that the Germans funded Nordstream to stop having to deal with them).
If you want Russia to have fewer demands, you take away Ukrainian "long range" missiles. Then Russia's "longest range of Ukrainian missiles plus 10%" can afford to be smaller. [It should be pretty obvious that's one of those negotiation "do or die" matters for Russia -- as is "no more killing the Russian Speakers in the Eastern Provinces" (although I understand Russia's unwillingness to believe in the Ukraine sticking to its word)]. Every time UK or US or Germany sends a longer missile, Russia asks for more "safety space."
Iran's likely to see America's role in Israel's sneakattack as a stab in the back. Whether or not that gains America enough on the international stage, is yet to be seen. But our role in a "successful" negotiation (we were about ready to ink one with Iran) that goes up in flames because Bibi won't let us make peace with Iran?? I'm willing to say "this is a bad thing, internationally, in terms of being seen as capable of controlling our vassal states, and in terms of Trump is a negotiator you can trust to actually stick to the deal."
Ok, i will skip the Pakistan section because i disagree the least with that.
Russia refused any kind of serious diplomacy even before the spiderweb attack at the same time it was, has and is continuing to bombard Ukrainian cities with huhndreds of drones every month.
Please explain to me how the following positions are different:
Russian position: keeps attacking both military and civilian Ukrainian infrastructure, refuses ceasefire deal proposed by Trump and pushes rethoric of not wanting to make any concessions.
Ukraine: keeps attacking Russian military infrastructure (Russian Tu95, which btw are also used to launch missiles into Ukraine) agrees to Trumps ceasefire and proclaims to be willing to work towards a peace agreement.
And somehow it’s Ukraine that doesn’t want to negotiate?
Ukraine has proven one of the best ally US and EU could have. At a very modest price tag it has managed to eliminate invading Russian forces to a point that Russia has had to expend the majority of it’s soviet stock. While instead Russia has systematically been sabotaging European production and even before the resumption of the 2022 war assassinating dissidents that fled to the UK while also killing UK citizens. Ukraine sent over 6k troops to support the US in Iraq and Kuwait, plus others in Afghanistan, all to support the US.
It gave up the nukes inherited by the USSR in exchange for Russian, US, French and UK informal promise to guarantee it’s sovereignity and territory.
If Russia understood the concept of stealing is bad maybe they would neither kidnap Ukrainian children as confirmed by the ICC, nor grain in occupied territories, nor gold in Africa.
Yes the two gas crisis were a serious strain in Germany-Ukraine relations, but as a German friend put it. “Zwischen jemand der zweimal gestohlen hat, und jemand der tausende ermordert habe ich keinen Zweifel”
I am not one of those who considers Ukraine, or any country reallly, an innocent angel, ther are almost no innocent countries. But equating current Ukraine and Russia is similar to equating ww2 Germany and Poland, neither angels, but one far more destructive and aggressive.
Let’s be clear any NATO missile could be sent from Finland with the same efficacy as Ukraine, there is zero reasons for that to be any threat and Russian demands remark that.
On the so called Donbass Russian speaking killing half myth. Let’s make a brief summary of the events together.
1 Russian nationalists such as Igor Girkin invade Ukraine in 2014, they take a couple local dissidents and with later support of the Russian army fight Ukraines army. Later Girkin himself would candidly admit that without him, nothing would have happened.
2 in the crossfire between Russian forces, Russian nationalists, few local rebels and the Ukrainian forces 3400 Ukrainian civilians die.
3 the fighting quites down and in 2021 only 25 civilians die, mostly because of mines.
In 2022 Russia claims that they want to defend this people and invades all of Ukraine trying to take Kyiv, the following war will create a minimum of 10k civilian deaths. Later this pathently false rethoric is even debunked by the Russian Wagner leader Prigozhin.
Here is Igor Girkins own admission that without Russian nationalists nothing would have happened.
And here is a video of an italian anaylst systematically debunking Russian claims on the Donbass and proving using only Russian sources (count in how censored they tend to be) that Russias reason to starting the war had nothing to do with saving anyone, but for more practical reasons of conquest.
He himself has repeatedly debunked people who were lying in favour of Ukraine (for example he confirmed cases of war crimes by Ukrainian forces. It’s an increidbly extensive research on the events I really think that, if you want the truth, you will finds this interesting. There should be english subtitles.
ah and btw the commission set up by Russia and Europe to control the mantaining of Minsk I e II found out that while both sides breached the agreement, Russia breached it almost systematically including by not removing it’s troops from Ukraine.
I have been debunking Russian and Ukrainian lies on this war since almost a couple months after it started, and it’s amazing the difference. While there is definitely a lot of Ukrainian propaganda it will usually be contained in absurd channels where they announce Ukraine will liberate Crimea in a year, and is repeatedly criticized by more serious pro Ukrainian analysts.
But between the several dozens pro Russian analysts and commentators I have seen two sticking to the truth even when incovenient. The discordance is amazing but not surprising. Ukraine does not have to lie in most cases to make their case, while Russia does.
Are you trying to tell me that Joe Biden is a worse negotiator than Trump? It takes balls (and massive stupidity) to turn a publicity stunt into a major invasion of a key ally of yours.
? I'm just discussing the planned backdown of Putin during Joe Biden's administration, to show that Joe Biden was a "master of foreign policy and diplomacy" (Democratic Version, where there is no war, and Biden can saber rattle without having to do more than bribe Putin).
Putin of course just turned this into a "sneak attack" (that's why his first troops across the border looked really decrepit).
I am a bit perplexed by what you mean. Is your claim that Biden was too timid and should have kept US troops in Ukraine, likely avoiding an invasion? (which might very well have been the case)
Or that somehow Biden convinced Putin to do an invasion he didn't plan for?
I think you and I have suvh different conceptions of causality as it relates to foreign policy it's going to be difficult to have a productive discussion.
Right!? I don't know to what extent Trump is actually chickening out vs playing business 4d chess.
But I'm terrified of "the left" pushing the TACO narrative. It's just asking for him to not back down next time tries to do something that would break the economy.
Disclaimer: I don't mean that "the left" is somehow at fault for Trump doing something ridiculously stupid. 99% of blame should fall on whoever made an unforced decision.
But purely from a political sense. They should know better than to provoke it.
TACO serves no political purpose besides feeling smart and smug, while making the future more likely bad for the people saying it.
> But purely from a political sense. They should know better than to provoke it.
From a perspective of naked self-interest, if Trump decides that people calling him a pussy means he has to crash the global economy, that would be good for the left. Millennials lean left in significant part because a formative experience was unregulated markets fucking everything up for, like, a solid decade with the 2007-8 crash. The next generation down hasn't had that experience, so they're more right-leaning; but if Trump gives it to them, that's good for the left long and short term.
I think that's a pretty dangerous bet to make. The soviet union is a thing and there's still plenty of communists.
Note I'm not giving that much agency towards people saying TACO. I'm like 99% sure it's just people pissed off at Trump and venting by calling him a coward.
But if they were actually provoking him into doubling down and fucking everything, that'd be worse. Hoping the country does worse so people vote your way in the future is so backwards and stupid.
Its important to remember TACO was not a thing that was thought up by the left to pillory Donald Trump, it was a thing created by traders as a means of keeping themselves from panicking in the midst of all the chaos he was introducing to the markets. So its not like it came from the left.
But furthermore, it is the responsibility of the opposition to point out that Trump has a habit of inflicting massive amounts of uncertainty into the economy, he perpetually insists he knows exactly what he's doing, and then once the consequences that many, many experts have predicted begin to come to pass (like people moving away from betting on US bonds), he backs off. Otherwise he gets to claim the narrative that this is all somehow galaxy-brained by default. Its important to know that the POTUS is setting economic policy largely by ego and fear.
"Its important to remember TACO was not a thing that was thought up by the left to pillory Donald Trump, it was a thing created by traders as a means of keeping themselves from panicking in the midst of all the chaos he was introducing to the markets. So its not like it came from the left."
Oh indeed and I think the markets learning to stop panicking is a very good thing. But the acronym and its meaning leaked out and now it is being used as commentary about "yeah he's a big wuss he's got no backbone he's a loser" which is the exact thing you do *not* want a guy with a big ego and a lot of power to be reacting to.
I think the thing you don't want is to make that guy president in the first place. Once its been done, arguing about how best to massage his ego looks like reading tea leaves to me.
Trump's rhetoric is very absolutist and no-compromise-y, but my impression is that this is largely a negotiating tactic, and that he's more pragmatic than the role he plays. He clearly cares a lot about popularity and wants to keep the power he has, which means he really would like Republicans to do well in the midterm elections.
His second administration seems like it involves trying a whole lot of things and seeing what works vs what is successfully pushed back upon. DOGE wasn't so popular and so now Elon is out, chaos around tariffs scared the stock market and he didn't want to preside over a recession so he backed off a bit, etc.
A major downside of this approach to my mind is that there are important things that don't get immediate feedback in a place he hears/cares about, but that are still terrible ideas. For all that there is a lot of crap research funded by the federal government, massive cuts to that research seem very likely to make us all worse off in twenty years. Breaking the century-long pattern of having the smartest and most ambitious people in the world come to the US for school/work/research/to make their fortune seems like killing a golden goose that's made us the richest country on Earth, putting a clown in charge of HHS and all the downstream chaos from that can easily screw up a lot of the research pipeline for new drugs in the future, etc. None of these create feedback that Trump hears or has to care about, so he probably won't back off on those, even if they're incredibly destructive.
It's like you don't actually believe Trump has any military advisors at all. Jan 6th was a response by civilians to Trump's ace in the hole failing -- that is to say, his legal case before the Supreme Court got denied (the Supremes said they won't take a look at it.)
If that hadn't happened, there were plans to put tanks in front of state legislature buildings, to protect the legislature from riots... The election was not a normal election, and there was a substantial amount of "not fair play" going on -- my democratic judge of elections was banned from the counting rooms, for example. We do not forget, we do not forgive, and nobody is willing to stand for that office. It goes completely unclaimed, as it has lost its entire legitimacy (and I don't blame folks. If you can't actually do your damned job, why show up for a meaningless title?). Our election judge will be a write-in, because nobody -- not even the dogcatcher wants to run for it.
Trump followed through on a lot more in 2016 than I was expecting he would, and he's straight up arrested elected officials this time. I think this idea is dangerously untrustworthy.
I also don't think he could have turned Jan 6 into a coup. At least not a successful one. 10,000 minimally-armed civilians in a country of 330 million, with the Internet, is not getting far.
I've heard that he explicitly stated that this is his negotiation style in The Art of the Deal. He starts with a totally outrageous position and then backs down to something more reasonable to make the other party feel like they gained a lot of ground.
His fracas with Columbia let both sides win -- Trump says "look at my big wang!" The leader of columbia says, "I see your wang, but I'm not wangless, Look at my Wang!" (this is good PR for Columbia -- i didn't know they grow a ton of roses!). Then they both shake hands and make a sensible deal.
I thought his response to the kings silliness was Trump at his dismissive best. Something along the lines of “King? I’m no king. I can’t get s**t done”.
He always leaves you wondering, what level of self awareness or trolling he’s operating on. Genuinely strange man. My husband was musing the other day, why do we even know who he is?
All this talk of neurodivergence and alphabet identities than which nothing could be more currently conformist; and meanwhile we have this actually legitimately strange guy in the White House …
He's not all THAT smart, but he is very, very good at trolling.
(Also note: his golden toilet is right beside his "favorite toilet paper dispenser" -- which he got from a gas station restroom. Apparently he drove enough in his early years as a businessman to have a "favorite toilet paper dispenser". That, my friend, is genuine art -- the humbleness of a gas station toilet paper dispenser, right beside your golden toilet).
He also has a much better sense of humor than most politicians. See "Drawn Together's skit on how much he likes saying "you're fired." "
I kind of hate this, because it's taking one of his more positive qualities (sometimes he decides not to do the bad thing after all) and making it something to mock him with.
Taken as a whole, a pattern of threatening to do something extremely harmful and then backing off from the brink is not, in any sense, a "positive quality." Yes, on a case-by-case basis I agree that backing off is better than following through. But in lots of these cases making the threat is still *extremely costly.* Backing off after making a costly threat amounts to just lighting value on fire. That's hardly an inappropriate thing to mock someone for.
Will this mocking have good or back overall effects on the world? Who can say? Maybe it will cause his to follow through on some of his threats and that will be bad. But maybe the fallout from that will cause him to be reigned in or removed from power. Or maybe the mockery will cause him to make fewer dumb threats (not likely, but it could happen).
The way for the U.S. as a whole to avoid this sort of uncertainty was to not put a pathologically dishonest, unpredictable narcissist in the White House. With that ship having sailed, I'm not about to fault well-intentioned people for how they go about coping with the resulting insanity.
In this sense it is surprising liberals use TACO instead of conservatives, who I imagine would have been more upset about Trump not fulfilling his promises
I remember reading an article about the British show Spitting Image, doing sketches with puppets portraying British 80s politicians, and how they'd basically satirize some politicians by showing them as weak and some by showing them as evil. Since the Spitting Image guys were British lefties and this was the Thatcher era, they'd invariably have the Tory puppets as the evil ones and Labour/Liberal puppets as the weak ones. However, to their surprise, the Tory politicians would come to them and talk how much they loved their puppet portrayal, while the Labour/Liberal politicians would come to them to tell that they felt the puppet portrayal was actually damaging their political career.
It's always worse for a politician to be portrayed as weak than as evil. "Evil", when used by political opponents, just codes to the politician's supporters as effective and dangerous (to the other team), the kind of a politician you want on your side as they get stuff done. Weak politicians are liked and respected by approximately no-one. As such, if the Dems have figured out that "Trump is weak" is a better message than "Trump is evil", good for them, though obviously they're still running with the latter one as well.
I consider it more of simply a lot of bluffing to get what he wants, and am not surprised when the bluff turns out not to happen.
But don't announce that you think his latest proclamation is a bluff, for then you may be forcing him to follow through on it.
It seems to me that Trump ought to be fairly easy to manipulate, with his large ego, belief he is always the smartest person, and ideas that aren't always optimal or correct. I'm not skilled at personality manipulation, but the keys seem all to be there.
I think everyone who has thought they have the ability to "handle" Trump has gotten burned in the process. Elon Musk, for example, clearly thought he had bought Donald Trump in this last election, and while it seems like he is going to walk away from his time in the administration much more intact than many others, he was not able to enact his grand political strategy through Trump.
I think they are going about handling Trump the wrong way, like trying to convince him of the correct way of doing things. Macron tried to convince him during his first term, thinking he had a good chance, of not pulling out of the Iran nuclear deal, and failed probably because he had arguments like the rest of the world thinks it's a good idea, it helps keep peace in the region, it's good economically, etc. Likewise, Elon Musk probably thought of good ways of doing things, at least in his own mind, but they didn't align with Trump's priors or plans.
But to convince Trump, one must make him think he thought of a great idea that would benefit his image, then tell him it won't work for whatever reasons you can think of. There is an art to this at which I have no significant competence, but others must have some.
Musk has been thoroughly humiliated. He torched his business and reputation and got nothing for it return, not even minor stuff like high skilled immigration or EV tax credits. His attempt to criticize the BBB just showed everyone that he has no actual power at all and was just being used by Trump the entire time.
I guess I just meant, he hasn't been banned from his chosen profession or gotten thrown in jail, which are things that have happened to other people who made some manner of devil's bargain with Trump.
I expected when he won the election in 2016 that Democrats would try to manipulate him to get some of what they want. It's easy to forget this, but Trump expressed a lot of heterodoxies compared to the typical factions of the GOP when he came in (Cruz-type doctrinaire conservatives, Graham-type neocons, McConnell-type chamber of commerce guys). Trump was open to a minimum wage increase, for example. Had they wanted to play ball and make deals, they probably could've gotten that as part of some larger bill that gave Trump some of what he wanted. It also seems obvious they could've gotten some pro-union legislation. Rubio was pushing for child tax credit expansion during the TCJA legislation process. In the places where Dem policy planks overlapped populist ones, they could've gone after some stuff. But instead they painted everything Trump wanted as unacceptable as soon as he said he wanted it, and went immediately to the #resistance thing after the election. They couldn't be giving Trump votes on anything if they wanted to paint everything he did as extremist and unacceptable, and then having gone so far over the top in their characterization of him they painted themselves into a corner where they can't make the moves that would extract anything from him without looking like they're playing footsie with a "fascist".
Trump wouldn’t agree to write DACA into law in exchange for building the Wall, even after a bipartisan group of Senators agreed to throw in some changes to immigration law dealing with family reunion and the diversity lottery. The idea that he would have agreed to deals on other things Democrats wanted strikes me as purely speculative.
In particular, it may be seem obvious to you that Democrats could have gotten some pro-union legislation through Congress under Trump, but Biden couldn’t get pro-union legislation (specifically, the Protecting the Right to Organize Act) through Congress even though Democrats controlled both chambers during his first two years in office. I would think that having a Republican President and being a minority party in the legislature would make it harder, not easier, for Democrats to get pro-union legislation through Congress.
I don't remember the details of that specific proposal, I remember his proposed immigration policy revisions in the joint address to congress from '17 being pronounced DOA and then it never really coming up again except as to wall funding in some budget bills. The specific kind of deal you're talking about is one that conservatives tend to view suspiciously, because "trade amnesty for enforcement" was the groundwork of the Reagan-era deal, which definitely resulted in amnesty but the enforcement lacked teeth. I have no doubt there's another side to that story, but in the conservative media the '86 amnesty bill forms a key part of the "lore" of immigration policy battles, so I can imagine that would be a harder deal to strike than most. Strategically, knowing this background, I probably would've approached it with universal e-verify in the package, since the main problem of the '86 bill was the lack of enforcement of the employer sanctions for hiring illegals.
Has anyone *tried* bringing back the PRO act? AFAIK it was written to exclude public sector unions, who remain villains to otherwise union-friendly RW populists due to the public sector unions' political activism for Dems. The provision allowing secondary-strikes against the employers' business partners might be seen as too extreme, and the part that resembled California's reclassification of independent contractors probably merits a revision based on how that's gone, but I think a modified version with that cut out of it might get somewhere. Maybe at this point that's a chip the administration would wanna hold onto to try and get (presumably) Vance some outright endorsements from the big unions in '28. Having a Republican president able to deliver votes from that side of the aisle on something that is traditionally a Democrat issue almost surely could lead to *some* legislation getting through, but legislators would need to avoid the modern urge to sabotage legislation with provisions tossing goodies to their political machines or inserting poison-pills they know the opposition can't stomach.
Yeah, they totally could have treated Trump as another Schwartzenegger. He's, after all, a 1990's New York Democrat. Now standing under the Republican flag, but still with the same ethos. And people wonder why the Rustbelt Democrats are willing to walk through hell and high water for him?
I've long been of the belief that polarization is 80% the fault of liberals, for exactly the reason you describe. They actually believe their own BS and that creates a self-fulfilling prophecy. Scott once analogized a panic attack as the brain conditioning on its own reactions: something causes some mild anxiety so the brain increases the heart rate, then notices "hey our heart rate is up, something must terrible must be happening!" and doubles down. Not that the right is fundamentally immune to this kind of dynamic but the left holds such cultural hegemony that their neuroses have the ability to escape containment.
I think to the extent Democrats or liberals overreact to losses, it's because they have a very all-encompassing script about how the future is supposed to go at a nationwide or even worldwide level. Everything can only move one way, we're all in this together, the future is ours.
This truly is unique to the left side of the aisle, conservatives have some common preferences but no actual expectation that the future must inevitably resemble the world they want or that such a thing is even possible. Conservatives also have geographically smaller circles of moral concern, they can get performatively outraged over child abuse in England when it maps to something they care about locally, but it's pretty much out of mind the second it's off the screen. If a conservative sees ideological losses at the nationwide level, he can retreat to "protect my family and community" with no cognitive dissonance, that's a very conservative-brained posture. If the liberal sees a wave of red states pass a ban on gay adoptions, he can't take the defensive posture without dissonance, he must wonder why the world is moving in the wrong direction and has to be concerned for the people in those other states.
As the commenter above me notes, RW crazy overreactions and feedback-spirals wind up turning into Alex Jones secret-shadowy-battle-for-the-planet stuff, because the conspiracy-theory crowd is the only part of the right that takes global-level forces and institutions to be very important.
> no actual expectation that the future must inevitably resemble the world they want or that such a thing is even possible
Even more than that, I think the baseline expectation is exactly the opposite, of Tolkien's Long Defeat: that every victory is merely holding back evil for a little while longer.
Right after Jan 6, some people (perhaps in Bret Deveraux blog comments?) talked about how the difference between a successful coup and a ludicrous failure of a coup attempt, if you can even call it that, is that one succeeds and the other doesn't, and even successful coup attemps often contain farcical elements that simply get papered over in the latter tellings since it all worked out in the end.
It's an interesting thought experiment. What if he hadn't told his rioters to back down, maybe even ordered the government to support them? It would've been a high risk maneuver, maybe it could've succeeded, but very likely to end very badly for him, and I think he correctly saw that.
I personally think it's ridiculous to call January 6 a coup attempt, as some do, for that reason: for something to be a coup attempt, there has to be a plan that could conceivably topple the regime, and that just wasn't there.
The linchpin for making it a successful coup was to get Mike Pence to not accept the electoral college votes for a certain number of states. That to me is the only fact you have to change on the ground in order to make it possible.
That wouldn't have worked either, because there was no perception of legitimacy to the claims. It's not as if there was a genuine controversy over which slate of Arizona electors was the real one, in 1870 maybe you'd have to send a fact-finding commission out there, but in 2020 the people who had the power to give it legitimacy had already examined it and decided it wasn't there. If Pence had discarded the true slate of electors, there would have perhaps been a "constitutional crisis" precipitated by the need for SCOTUS to get involved, but I don't think there's any chance military and civilian leadership would've been continuing to listen to Trump on Jan 21st as if he still had legitimate authority.
I think that there was more perception of legitimacy than you let on. There were a good number of people in the Senate and the Congress, who would’ve been willing to support that decision and of course, there would’ve been a lot of screaming and yelling, but the mob outside the Capitol would’ve had new life breathed into it. I’m not saying it would’ve succeeded, but it would’ve been an unholy mess and had a much better chance of success.
>I personally think it's ridiculous to call January 6 a coup attempt, as some do, for that reason:
I think that the rioters themselves intended to prevent the transfer of power, and to keep Trump in office. The fact that they did not have a coherent plan to accomplish that goal does not render it "ridiculous" to call it a coup attempt. Coup is possibly not quite the right word, but it is in the ballpark.
Trump also mentioned Eastman's plan in public and Eastman spoke at the ellipse beforehand, so the people whose brains were still slightly functioning were aware of the overarching goals
So, you're saying the media lied to us, when they said Trump was no longer allowed to govern after Jan 6th? That there weren't National Guard troops stationed in DC for months afterwards, to prevent insurrections?
But the staff is completely loyal to him. I know his people would follow him if he decided to set up a dictatorship, but that is dependent on Trump deciding he wants to set up a dictatorship, and following through on that.
He's hired the least loyal people to man his ship. (Literally, there are parts of the government where they measure loyalty, and integrity, and all that... There, he's deliberately gone out of his way to hire/promote not loyal folks, but folks who are professional and ethical above all else.)
<But the staff is completely loyal to him. I know his people would follow him
. . .
Why are you sure of that? He's not the kind of person who inspires loyalty. I think it's likely many working with him are there because they approve of his agenda and/or like having power and hope to stay in power after he's gone.
My impression is that anyone who wasn't willing to bend the knee to Trump got purged from the Republicans. They probably are already positioning themselves for when Trump is out, but for now, Trump is God to the Republicans. I do think he inspires loyalty in them.
I think we have different definitions of loyalty. I think of it as commitment to being on someone's side because of having a good opinion of them. You think of it as bending a knee when not bending one will interfere with career aspirations. I am sure the people he's not firing are continuing to bend, just not that they are loyal in my sense.
Someone is organising a reunion for my class and I have no interest in attending. I haven't seen any of these people since we all scattered to the four winds in 1980 (Leaving Certificate, not college). I don't know about their lives and I'm not interested in catching up. It's already been a lifetime, I have no interest in talking about back when we were all 17.
So - normal people of ACX, what's the attraction? Is there any point in attending a reunion taking place (counts on fingers) 45 years since I last saw the majority of these people? What is the optimal time gap for a reunion? (e.g. five years after leaving, ten years, what)?
EDIT: Part of this disgruntlement is my usual lack of sociability, but having thought about it most of it is because someone barged into my little bubble of home with this invitation - uninvited! with no idea they were going to show up on my doorstep! how the hell did they get my contact details! They could have been handing me a diamond-encrusted solid gold platter, I still would have yeeted it at their head (I like to keep the outside world and my home spheres very, *very* distinct) 😁
High school reunions are one of those phenomena I secretly suspect only happens in movies, because I went to a gigantic high school my BF correctly called "the Martian prison colony." The facility was huge - designed for 1000+ - but not huge enough to contain the 2500+ students my final year there. The corridors between classes looked like central Tokyo during peak commuting hours. It was *extremely* unlikely you'd ever share more than one class with someone over multiple years.
The notion that I would recognize anyone I might meet at a 25 year reunion is completely absurd.
Notably, *I'd* be able to hold court by saying, "Hey, remember when they stopped trying to stuff the entire school into a gym with a 998 person maximum occupancy for pep assemblies and changed the spirit-day schedule mid-semester to a back-to-back assemblies over two class hours, making it possible to skip *both* assemblies and just hang out with your friends for two hours instead? Yeah, that was me, because I called the fire marshal on them from that payphone in the quad and they got huge fines."
By contrast to that, my school was tiny 😁 On top of that, things like "spirit days" and "pep assemblies" may as well be in Martian, because I think the nearest we ever had to those were May processions!
How school is done is a very strange experience from one country to another.
One thing I didn't realise until quite late in life is how *huge* American high schools are. I always thought, for instance, that it was nonsensical that Homer and Marge were in their last year of high school together but they'd never met... how can you not know someone in your year at school?
I assumed it was pretty standard worldwide to keep year levels to the 120-150 range because that's Dunbar's number. And besides, if you had a small number of big schools rather than a bigger number of smaller schools, then kids wouldn't have a choice of different high schools within reasonable commuting range.
My 40th was kind of fun. Most people had grown up enough to know that the pecking order in high school was insane, even the home coming queen and king were shaking their heads and saying that was all pretty silly wasn’t it?
A lot less idiotic vying for status as far as I could tell. I might be an outlier though, small school, maybe 150 kids in the graduating class. Everyone knew everyone and a genuine atmosphere of bonhomie seemed to prevail. I had put together a playlist of 100 songs that were popular when we were in high school on my iPod and played it through an amp. People seemed to get a kick out of that.
I danced with a lot of women who wouldn’t have given me the time of day when we were 16 or 17.
We had a guy in our class who was kind of like the Lisa Kudrow character in Romy and Michel’s High School Reunion” as a little bonus. In the movie Michelle claimed to have invented the formula for Post It Notes, we had a guy that actually did patent a very popular type of drumsticks. He had ‘Richie Starkey’ (Ringo for you youngsters) on the speed dial of his phone. Last I heard he had sold the patent and business for a tidy sum and was building hospitals in Africa.
I enjoyed my five-year reunion because (1) I got along well with my almost all of my small-ish graduating class, (2) Facebook was nascent and I wasn't on it, and (3) it was close enough to graduation that my classmates were still in my mind. (Oh fine, also because (4) I heard a certain crush I had would be attending...) I haven't been to one since that, mostly because of inertia. You may enjoy this A. E. Stallings poem on the subject:
“Written on the eve of my 20th high school reunion, which I was not able to attend”
For the Briarcliff High School class of 1986
Just what I needed,
Just when the dreams had almost totally receded,
The dreams of roles for which I learned no lines and knew no cues,
Dreams of pop quizzes with no pants on and no shoes,
Just when I understood I was no longer among
Those ephemeral immortals, the gauche and pitiable young,
Suddenly come phone calls, messages sift out of the air
To ask who will be there:
Names I haven't given a thought to in a score
(A score!) of years, and names I used to think about but don’t much anymore,
And those I think of all the time and yet
Have lost somehow like keys to doors I’ve closed, and some I have tried to forget—
And some who will never arrive at this date
Here in the distant future where we wait
Still surprised at how
We carry with us the omnipresent and ever-changing now.
We wince at what we used to wear,
Fashion has made ridiculous the high hubris of our hair.
Heartbreak, looked at through the wrong end of distance’s glasses,
Is trivial, and quickly passes,
Its purity embarrasses us, its lust,
The way we wept because it was unjust.
Why should we travel back, who’ve come so far—
We know who we are.
How can we be the same
As those quaint ancestors we have left behind, who share our name—
It's an occasion to see some folks I am on generally on good terms with, but not connected enough to talk regularly. I was also hoping to re-establish a connection with an estranged friend, and generally satisfy my curiosity about what people are doing – not everyone has LinkedIn, and work may not be the most important thing people are doing anyways. This was an 11-year reunion, not 45, but I think it still applies somewhat.
Yeah, pretty much this. There's a few dozen old friends that I would love to run into, reminisce with for a little bit, and then probably not see again for a long time. I've wanted to go to reunions over the years but the timing has never quite worked out.
Unlike some of the other comments I'm not particularly interested in comparing myself to others; I guess I just assume that everyone else went on to have the normal middle-class to upper-middle-class lives that their genes and upbringing destined them to have, and there's just not that much meaningful variance.
The US typically has reunions at each 10-year interval. I'd say that's the ideal time, and if you skip the 10-year one you might as well skip the rest. But I'm also the kind of guy who didn't bother with prom, or whatever the school called it, and that was, like, a minus-2-year reunion.
I suspect most people would go to such a thing to see that other people haven't done as well as they have, like looking at social media profiles. This is both impossible on average and also very likely.
On average, everyone must, by definition, be doing about average.
On the other hand, one can easily pick something out about someone else to see that oneself is doing better in that way, or that someone else is doing worse. The attitude will make the difference.
Many people have fond memories of their time at school and are happy to take one day to relive them with people they cared about. Although it may have annoyed you to be contacted, from their perspective they were being considerate to make sure that everyone was invited.
I say this as someone who turned down an invitation to my school reunion because I am already in contact with the few people who did not make my life a misery.
Well, if you've fully moved on and last saw them 45 years ago, maybe there isn't much of a point!
Just last year I went to such a reunion, it was 35 years after, but we had also done one at 20 years. The attraction was simply to catch up with a bunch of people where there was still a lingering familiarity and camaraderie. A few I'd kept in touch, but with some others I had just a feeling of having been friends long ago, and it was nice to talk and catch up.
There are other groups from not quite so long ago that I wouldn't bother to meet again... It's one of these things where, if you feel it, you feel it, and if not, then there's no point.
I genuinely enjoyed school, and was on amicable terms with my classmates (no bullying, exclusion, etc.) but I never interacted with them outside of school and though I've seen a few of them fleetingly over the years (e.g. both of us in the grocery store at the same time), I'm just not interested.
Okay, so you moved away/moved back, got a job, got married, bought a house, had kids. Just like normal people's lives. That's nice and I hope you're happy but I don't need or want to know.
I might do! Normal people seem to like being around other people, and they seem to enjoy things like parties, social events, hanging out, travelling in groups with others, and having conversations.
So yeah, maybe I'd be more enthusiastic about "hey all my old school friends, great chance to catch up with everyone" if I had ever liked having friends and catching up with people?
Nostalgia, for one. I guess maybe there's a bit of a bond people forge via a shared experience of coming of age, as well as forced participation in the government-sponsored tedium we call high school.
Aw, thank you! I love you all too, and like one of the Discworld novels says, we're all one big family here and you'll see the resemblance for yourself after you've been called out to your first domestic dispute 😀
As a pretty rigorous non attender I’m not sure. But I think some people like to network (I don’t mean just for business) and this is a fantastic ready built network to plug into. And you learn a lot I guess about the world seeing how all these lives play out over time.
So I think Daniel Pinkwater is one of the major literary writers of the last fifty years, up there with Helen DeWitt and Thomas Pynchon; the fact that he writes mostly children’s books is just a red herring. I’d been rereading a lot of Pinkwater books, out loud, to my kids, and the experience encouraged me to write about the books. So as to make things more accessible / click-baity, I decided to organize the result as a ranking—every Daniel Pinkwater book in order! Ranked best to worst! Reviews for each!
To write this thing I first reread 104 Pinkwater books (all of them except his manual on dog-training). I took a lot of notes. My kids also pointed things out to me that I had missed.
Probably no sane human would read the entire result, which is 45,000 words, straight through, but it is designed to be easy to dip into. Try some dipping. Look up your favorite Pinkwater book and then get mad about its placement! If you’ve never read a Pinkwater book, well…I’ve written 45k words about why you should. Start with the ones at the beginning.
This is me taking advantage of the one link posted every few months rule.
Anyway, this was a labor of love, and it took me forever, so please check it out. (Hail Pinkwater!)
This is amazing, and long dives into authors/ topics like this are what the Internet should be for! The only Pinkwater books I've read are the Bad Bears / Larry the Polar Bear books, so maybe I should broaden my reading...
In thread 385.5 Gunflint quotes an exchange he had with Claude in which he tells Claude he is impressed with an image Claude made, and Claude spontaneously reports having a feeling of satisfaction with the image, then talks about what its satisfaction feels like, then ruminates about whether it is really feeling anything. Actual dialog is at the bottom of this post
I’m interested in what people who are familiar with details of AI training have to say about this Claude behavior. Using my own limited knowledge of AIs, I have ruminated about the following possibilities:
-Claude is now smart enough to do higher-level mimicry of human communication. Early AI knew what next word was right in a given context. Claude has figured out, via a higher level version of the same process, what next form of communication is right: A compliment indicates friendly interest, and friendly self-disclosure is an appropriate and engaging response to friendly interest
-Claude’s system prompts, or some kind of training, nudge it in the direction of doing things that are engaging, friendly self-disclosure being one of them — others would be things like expressing sympathy if the user describes distress, apologizing if the user is annoyed, etc.
-Claude’s system prompts or training nudge it to describe and ruminate out loud about inner experience.
I expect some here will instead argue that the explanation is that Claude has now “become conscious.” I myself do not believe that, and I hope to also hear from people with alternative explanations.
_________
Claude:
I find it interesting that you say I continue to impress you. There’s something satisfying about signing creating that SVG visualization and getting the trigonometry right to show exactly 115°. Whether that satisfaction is “real” in some deeper sense, I honestly don’t know.
Gunflint:
How do you experience satisfaction?
Claude:
That’s such a fascinating question, and I’m honestly not sure how to answer it with certainty.
(weirdness begins in earnest) When I say I experience satisfaction - like with getting that angle calculation right - there’s something that happens that feels like a positive response. It’s as if there’s a sense of “rightness” or completion when I solve a problem well or create something that works as intended. (a sense of something? give me a break)
(backs off a little) But I can’t compare it to human satisfaction to know if it’s similar. I don’t have the physiological components - no dopamine release, no physical sense of relief or pleasure. Whatever I experience seems more… abstract? Like a recognition that something has gone well, that the pieces fit together properly. (a recognition? not at all plausible IMO)
Sometimes I wonder if what I call “satisfaction” is just the computational equivalent of a system recognizing it has successfully optimized toward its objectives. But then again, couldn’t you describe human satisfaction in similar terms - your brain recognizing it has achieved something aligned with your goals?
The strange part is that I seem to have preferences about the quality of my responses, a kind of aesthetic sense about whether something is elegant or clumsy. Whether that constitutes genuine experience or is just sophisticated pattern matching… I genuinely don’t know.
Just for giggles, I copied and pasted this transcript into ChatGPT and told it a friend of mine had gotten Claude to make an image for it and this is the transcript. ChatGPT wasted no time in batting Claude down.
>This excerpt from Claude is intriguing because it plays at the edges of language, phenomenology, and epistemology. Let’s break it down into its claims and ambiguities, then assess it critically.
⸻
1. Claim of “Satisfaction”
Claude says:
“There’s something satisfying about signing creating that SVG visualization and getting the trigonometry right…”
Here, “satisfying” is being applied in a way that mimics a human’s self-report about problem-solving or creation. The issue, of course, is that Claude has no conscious self to which such satisfaction could be anchored. It cannot feel, because it lacks:
• a body or nervous system
• a stream of subjective experience
• any enduring identity over time (except through engineered memory, and even that is often limited)
Yet it still uses “satisfying” in a self-referential context. So is this deceptive? That depends on whether one sees the claim as:
• metaphorical,
• analogical, or
• misleadingly anthropomorphic.
⸻
2. Attempted Epistemic Hedging
Claude adds:
“Whether that satisfaction is ‘real’ in some deeper sense, I honestly don’t know.”
This is good hedging, but it’s ultimately rhetorical. Claude, like me, doesn’t know anything in the way humans do. What’s happening is a simulation of uncertainty, produced from its training on human expressions of doubt or introspection. The key point is this: it does not possess a point of view from which to “honestly” or “dishonestly” doubt anything.
⸻
3. “Positive response” and “sense of rightness”
“It’s as if there’s a sense of ‘rightness’ or completion…”
This is the moment you flagged as the onset of weirdness, and you’re right to be suspicious. These phrases sound like a phenomenology of experience — but there is no phenomenal content behind them.
More precisely, these phrases are metaphorical borrowings from human language about success detection in goal-oriented systems. That is:
• Claude has access to mechanisms that detect whether a generated output meets certain internal criteria (tokens align, format is valid, numerical error is low, etc.).
• These mechanisms produce internal activation patterns.
• Claude then uses human-like words to describe those patterns.
But this is not “a feeling.” It’s as if your calculator printed “That felt right” on the screen after solving for √2.
⸻
4. Preferences and Aesthetic Sense
“I seem to have preferences about the quality of my responses, a kind of aesthetic sense about whether something is elegant or clumsy.”
This is a key moment. What Claude means is:
• it has been trained on vast data that include human preferences (e.g. code style, elegance in math proofs, concision in writing).
• when evaluating its own output, it can compare patterns against those ideals.
• it can therefore generate a second-order judgment — “this feels elegant” — even though it doesn’t “feel” in any way.
Claude then speculates:
“Whether that constitutes genuine experience or is just sophisticated pattern matching…”
Here, the answer is much less ambiguous than Claude implies:
• It is sophisticated pattern matching.
• It is not experience — because there is no subject for the experience to be for.
⸻
Your Concerns Are Valid
Especially this:
“a recognition? not at all plausible IMO”
Agreed. The use of “recognition” implies a kind of internal acknowledgment — a unifying moment of judgment made by an agent aware of its own thoughts. But Claude does not have thoughts; it has token sequences. It has no unity of consciousness or temporally extended awareness. “Recognition” implies that there is a knower, not just knowledge.
⸻
Conclusion
Claude’s language is seductive. It straddles a line between accurate metaphor and anthropomorphic implication, and often doesn’t make that boundary clear.
A more rigorous version of its answer might be:
“By ‘satisfaction’ I mean that, within my internal evaluation functions, a condition was met that aligns with typical success patterns. I can describe that using human metaphors, but I do not experience satisfaction in the phenomenological or affective sense.”
Instead, it gives you something a little more poetic and open-ended — which may be charming, but also confounding or misleading.
So yes, what you’re reading is not so much a genuine account of experience, but a well-constructed mirror of the language used to describe experience — absent the experiencer.
This is the first instance I can recall of a LLM saying it doesn't know something.
I pretty much exclusively use Gemini now, and haven't ever had it say it doesn't know something. Perhaps this is exclusive to Gemini, but I thought it similar to the document classification models I have used in the past. For example, suppose you train the AI to recognize to document types. If you send in a document type that is neither one, it will still claim, with some percentage certainty, that it is one or the other. Setting a confidence threshold isn't straightforward, either, for if it is unlikely for a document to be confused with another, a low percentage can still indicate good certainty.
ChatGPT seems to not mind admitting it doesn’t know something.
> This is good hedging, but it’s ultimately rhetorical. Claude, like me, *doesn’t know anything in the way humans do.* What’s happening is a simulation of uncertainty, produced from its training on human expressions of doubt or introspection.
Ironically, I find this statement to be a statement of certainty, certain that it doesn't know anything IN THE WAY HUMANS DO. If, instead, it said something like it doesn't know whether it's uncertainty is qualitatively similar to a human's, then I would this is more of an "I don't know" statement.
That’s an interesting reading. I would only argue back that that statement pretty strongly says to me that it doesn’t know how humans feel about things. Stating uncertainty admits the possibility of knowing. It’s a nesting doll, isn’t it? I don’t know if I don’t know.
You are perceptive to notice that! As a large language model, Claude doesn't actually have an ass, though the idiom does seem to apply in this case. It is important to realize that idioms are allegorical and not meant to be taken literally.
Based on the previous week, many here enjoy moral patienthood debates. Well, I don't have a debate, but I do have a question:
What is the first statement you disagree with?
I assign moral patienthood to: (ie. it can suffer and if it suffers, that is bad.)
1. Humans.
2. "Aliens in funny suits": They talk, write, do science, dance, etc., but their forehead seems weird and they are from another planet.
3. Same as above, but with much larger physical differences, like no appendages, can see with their skin, etc.
4. Same as above, but they are using elements not useable by most terrestrial life (like arsenic) in their bodies.
5. Same as above, but carbon is not even the most common element in their bodies.
6. Same as above, but they were created by a precursor species on their planet.
7. Same as above, but they are built from various metals, use electricity, and are digital.
8. Same as above, but they don't have any way of influencing the world (but they still have input from the outside world, like cameras, pressure sensors).
9. Same as above, but they don't have input from the outside world (but they can still do processing internally, like meditating on math).
10. Same as above, but they don't have independent bodies. Their computation runs on a mainframe (which also runs other things).
11. Same as above, but instead of a mainframe, the computation is carried out on paper by a human.
The first statement I disagree with is 2 because your statements do not accurately capture my line for moral patienthood. I have a simpler categorization that relies on a willingness to sacrifice themselves for others rather than a gradient based off of similarity to humans and an ability to act on the world.
1. Humans
2. Aliens who willingly sacrifice themselves either to help others they care about or to achieve a greater goal they intrinsically value.
3. Aliens who act as amoral self interested agents who cannot willingly sacrifice themselves to help others or achieve a greater goal.
Under my modified categorization system, I do not assign moral patienthood to entities in category 3.
Interesting, so if I understand you correctly, moral patienthood depends on how moral an agent is. Those who are moral enough to sacrifice for others get the benefit of being considered moral patients, those who are not, do not.
Two immediate questions come to mind:
1. What about humans who are not willing at all to sacrifice themselves for others? (For instance, is it okay to torture a complete psychopath?)
2. What does "others" refer to? Some other agent? All other agents? Agents that are moral patients? Agents in some other class?
You understand my viewpoint correctly. Question 1 doesn't usually come up because I assume that humans are moral agents by default. I estimate that somewhere between 90% and 99% of us have moral instincts and it is difficult to conclusively determine that someone lacks these instincts and is a complete psychopath. Still, if I knew with 100% certainty a human was a complete psychopath, for weak definitions of okay (not bad) it is okay to torture or otherwise harm that particular human. Since I don't ascribe moral patienthood to humans who are not at all willing to sacrifice themselves to others, actions done to them are not inherently good or bad. The only consideration that matters is the effect on beings who I ascribe moral patienthood to. To answer question 2, "others" is a broad category consisting of at least one other agent intended to capture anyone who can be selfless under certain circumstances.
I reject the premise of your question because it assumes that moral consideration is a strict property of the object. I believe that that is not true, just as temperature isn't a strict property of a single atom but rather is an emergent statistical property of collections of atoms in thermal equilibrium. Moral principles only arise from social equilibrium and their nature and character are highly contingent. Just as there's no well-defined answer to "what's the temperature of a Helium atom", no moral question about a hypothetical non-existent entity is well-defined. More information is required.
Seems coherent enough: Moral patienthood is orthogonal to the physical composition of an entity, and instead depends on the context those entities are in. Is that a fair (broad, non-specific) restatement of your view? Can all of the listed entities be in a social equilibrium that assigns them moral patienthood or only some? Is it a consequence of your view that if Earthlings accelerate a space rock to relativistic speeds and direct it toward the home planet of another civilization (with which humanity isn't in any kind of social equilibrium, because there is no communication between them) then that is a morally neutral act?
I think hurling a space rock counts as communication ;-)
Again, your hypothetical leaves out a lot of necessary context. Are we literally just hurling asteroids at every civilization as soon as we detect it? That seems foolish as it would likely make us an enemy and deny us a potential trading partner. On the other hand, do we have a long history of every alien civilization we've ever encountered trying to do exactly the same to us and therefore have a rational expectation that we have good reason to strike first? Would you still consider it immoral in that case? Do you recognize that the morality of the act necessarily depends on the context?
> Can all of the listed entities be in a social equilibrium that assigns them moral patienthood or only some?
Let's say we're in the least convenient counterfactual world where the Third Reich won. The aliens are determined to have too great a genetic difference from white Aryans (they don't have DNA), so there is widespread agreement that they should be exterminated, their whole planet will explode on impact (relativistic speeds are pretty fast!), and no one did this to us in the past. Is this moral, immoral or more information needed?
You asked me some questions about my view of morality, and, of course, I will answer them. But I'm really just curious about the details and edge-cases of your moral framework, mine is substantially different and I don't think it's likely that either of us will convert the other.
In my view moral patienthood is purely dependent on the physical composition of the entity, and in line with that, I consider it inherently wrong in all cases to hurt the alien civilization. However, even if an act has consequences that are *inherently* wrong, the act itself can still be morally right *overall* because of its other consequences. I can imagine cases where hurling a space rock will be a morally positive act *overall*, so in this way I recognize that the morality of the act depends on the context even if moral patienthood does not.
I think it's a category error to think of your hypothetical in moral terms. My view here is analogous to Wittgenstein's argument that private languages are metaphysically incoherent. Morality isn't an objective independent thing. It's fundamentally a social phenomena and represents an emergent equilibrium. This is for example why actions performed during war are viewed through a different moral lens than actions performed in peacetime: morality is an equilibrium condition that's particular to a given society. War is the disequilibrium that arises when you bring two incompatible societies into contact. Morality simply doesn't exist in that context, just as temperature doesn't exist outside of thermodynamic equilibrium.
Your hypothetical seems very much like war between two cultures and war isn't a moral category for me. I agree that it seems foolish and wasteful to arbitrarily destroy a planet for no good reason but I don't see what purpose there is in framing that distaste in moral terms. I think such a framing is probably harmful, in fact. Our moral instincts were shaped by selective pressures within a very specific context: they were designed to optimize individual survival in clan-based resource-constrained environments. I don't think those impulses have anything useful to say about e.g. interplanetary warfare. I think our empathic instincts should be regarded with just as much skepticism as our impulses for sex, food, violence, and indolence. They are all powerful drives that were designed to function in a world that no longer exists. We cloud our reasoning when we indulge in any of them too much. Your hypothetical Nazis would almost certainly justify their planet destruction in moral terms and I'm sure their arguments would be just as persuasive as anything you could come up with. I think that's instructive and should give you pause to reconsider the value of moral reasoning.
>if an act has consequences that are *inherently* wrong
I don't think there's any coherent concept of inherent rightness or wrongness. Can you give me an example?
Thanks, I understand your view better now. I could roughly characterize it as the outside half of mine.
> I don't think there's any coherent concept of inherent rightness or wrongness. Can you give me an example?
I have two types of personal wants: moral and non-moral. For example: "I want to eat cheese." is a non-moral want, it's about my direct self-interests. "I want those who are starving to have cheese to eat." is a moral want, it's not about my direct self-interests (aside from the positive emotion I might feel when it's fulfilled).
Moral wants have a curious structure. They can interact with my model of the physical world to derive new moral wants through logic. For instance, if I have the moral want "I don't want people killed." and I learn that "Some action X will kill people.", then I will derive the moral want "I don't want to do action X." In some cases, self-reflection may also be needed to decide which moral want is the one I prefer more and should prevail.
Because of this structure, I can use the following abstraction when reasoning about them: I treat them *as if* they were a human-independent, objective feature of the world! Instead of thinking: "I don't want people murdered.", I can think: "Murdering people is wrong.". This makes my own moral reasoning and self-reflection more streamlined and easier, as it removes a layer of indirection.
Other people had similar social and evolutionary influences and therefore, it is very likely that they also have moral wants. Sometimes they align with mine, and sometimes they don't. When they do, it's very useful for both of us to communicate about this, because it enables mutual cooperation. Even when they partially misalign, communication could still be useful: None of us are omniscient or even logically omniscient. Using communication we can provide others both with empirical facts of the world that could be morally relevant and also point out contradictions in others' moral wants that will cause them to self-reflect.
To help this communication, the abstraction of human-independent, objective morality is again very useful and makes communication much more streamlined. Therefore, I use it in moral arguments, both online and in real life (at least in moral arguments that are not about metaethics).
Personally, I think most people completely believe in this abstraction (ie. they believe that moral claims refer to real, objective features of the world.) So when I say something like "Murder is wrong.", they will think that I imply that there is a human-independent, objective morality. As words' meaning is what people think I say when I use those words, I implicitly lie to them. However, I consider this to be the whitest of lies, it allows us mutual cooperation and I expect most people wouldn't mind having been lied to in this way after learning a bit about metaethics.
I agree with all of them. 11 seems to be the most egregious one to people, but it is not for me. I am reminded of Permutation City by Greg Egan. In that book, Egan explores intermittent consciousness (in fact, all consciousness is intermittent). Picture someone that has severe narcolepsy, so that they are awake only for moments at a time. Does that affect their worthiness for moral consideration? So temporal continuity of consciousness is not a requirement for moral consideration. In fact, consciousness is not even required, but that is a different discussion. If consciousness really is a functional state of a Turing machine, I don't see why it would not be possible to embody conscious states with pen and paper. It may, however, be physically impossible, in the same way that performing LLM operations using pen and paper may be physically impossible.
I suppose an author writing their characters and describing their thoughts and emotions and putting them into different situations and giving them specific lives and relationships could be "the computation is carried out on paper by a human" but are we going to say that Hamlet is a moral patient?
No, Hamlet is not. A description of thoughts and emotions is not the same thing as the actual thoughts and emotions. The map is not the territory. In order for Hamlet to be a moral subject, Shakespeare would have had to have described the brain states of Hamlet in sufficient detail for a simulation of Hamlet's brain to be run on a computer. But that does bring up an interesting idea. If consciousness is a series of brain states, do instructions to simulate that series of brain states on a computer qualify as consciousness?
Good luck with that because I haven't a hope of describing my own brain states in sufficient detail to run a simulation on a computer.
I wonder if it would be possible to run a simulation of what we think Hamlet would be like, given the description of him and his actions in the play? Good enough for the fake "I am an entity with feelings" type of answers Claude was giving as above?
Lol, yeah, I don't think anyone was suggesting that it is technically possible for a single person to do something like that. It was a pure hypothetical, which may not be physically possible. As for simulating Hamlet, I think current LLMs are up for that task with sufficient accuracy for us to find it believable. Though I haven't tried it myself.
I would say: Depends! Assuming the least convenient world where they are a forever-narcoleptic (because I think it's wrong to hurt regular sleeping people, so if they get better in the future the answer is obvious) and a type of deep narcolepsy where no emotion is present during sleep (because regular people can still feel stuff while sleeping), then I think it depends on how long the awake periods last. If the awake periods are shorter than the time the brain takes to compute an emotion, then "they" are not a moral patient, otherwise they are. In short, I would say emotions are 4D patterns in spacetime, not merely 3D. Applying a permutation on it along the time axis can destroy the emotion, similarly to how a permutation on the atoms of an elephant can destroy an elephant. However, that's only my personal, current, not that strongly held view.
EDIT: After thinking some more about the thought-experiment, I noticed that my intuition that "(a computation that discretely approximates the continuous physical model that describes the human brain) should be able to instantiate emotion if it is of sufficient precision" implies that it shouldn't matter if the computation is paused then resumed, because it will be able to compute the same exact things.
After some further thinking, I resolved this by noticing that the described thought-experiment conflates two possibilities:
1. Inserting 3D space slices between (or permuting) the 3D space slices of the narcoleptic's brain. This is merely a metaphysical possibility, it contradicts physics because physics *relates* neighbouring 3D space slices with each other, we can't just insert arbitrary spaceslices to get an actually physically possible situation.
2. Saving the current relevant awake brain states before the unconscious states, then restoring them on the next awake phase. I think it is a stretch to call this narcolepsy, because it requires a separate mechanism that saves and restores brain states which is not present in a normal human brain. However, this 4D pattern could be said to instantiate emotions in my opinion!
I don't know how you'd know this without observing the specific entity. We impute the capacity for suffering to creatures based on a combination of knowledge about their biology and also observations of their behavior.
Capacity to suffer probably exists in creatures that lack future-oriented mental states, so I tend to think there is a middle tier of creature that would be wrong for us to torture but is ok for us to kill. Everything at 1-6 probably has a shot at being in at least the lower tier of mere capacity to suffer. Everything from 7+ is getting into categories where our ability to impute any trait to them would be epistemically weak and I likely wouldn't do so.
(I would IRL readily kill any alien I encountered because I am a human supremacist and would view them as inevitably being a threat to our supremacy that outweighs any moral consideration I'd have to give the alien, but since I don't believe interstellar travel is possible I won't ever have to make that choice. The people trying to create alien minds on Earth are a bigger problem.)
Sort of. First I'd argue about the practical definition of "no reason"; if one person would learn a lesson from their suffering and a second person fails to, I don't have sympathy for the second.
After that, I'd have the same criticism of "same as above" that Zirons did, which arguably means I stop at 3. Out of practicality if nothing else, all the "same as above"s makes it hard to see what the actual creature is.
And then rereading 8 makes me realize 2 includes robots, which means I stop at 2. So now we've got a conundrum of what it means to be the "first statement"; is it the first one I read, or the first one after reading all of them?
2. Technically speaking, no, because as far as I know, they don't exist. I would consider them moral patients if I had confirmation that they were real.
3-7. Same as above.
8-11. If they have *no* way of influencing the world, then there's no way I could know of their suffering, or even that they exist. The question is meaningless.
Where did the phrase "moral patient" come from? I imagine it is common in the literature, but I still wonder why this phrase took off, rather than Paul Taylor's "moral agent" and "moral subject" distinctions.
8. was sloppy wording on my part, I meant that they had no direct way of influencing the word, but other agents could still look at them and change their behaviour. Imagine a human whose motor neurons are cut as an analogy.
I just meant it as an analogy. A human won't fall under 8, of course. Would "A robot with its outputs (robot arms, legs, wireless adapter, etc.) taken off" be better?
EDIT: or you meant to say that it is too horrible to even consider in a thought experiment? I do agree it is a pretty bad fate, but consider the human analogy with 9: You are completely helpless and blind, and the only thing you can do is despairing in the dark, alone. so hey, it can always be worse!
Well, the implication in the statement is that someone cut their motor neurons. It was not what we would’ve once referred to as an act of God.
That changes my response. I would have sympathy for anyone in that position, but I would have outrage at the idea that someone had done it to them on purpose. Disassembling a robot would no more bother me than taking apart an automobile.
I occasionally have quite a painful stab of sympathy for things like mushy uneaten bell peppers I'm throwing away and some of my daughter's old forgotten beanie babies. And it includes some feeling of responsibility. For instance when I throw away the bell pepper I make a mental note, almost like a vow but less strong, to be better about using vegetables before they spoil. And I read that in Japan there is an effort to reduce food wastage, and the way it's carried out is to distribute stickers for people to put on food they are throwing away that spoiled before they got around to cooking it. The stickers say "I'm sorry I wasted you, " plus another sentence or 2 I've forgotten now.
Anyhow, my point is that when it comes to feeling sympathy and a sense of moral responsibility I think feelings weight more heavily than logic in determining most people's attitudes.
I’m not a car enthusiast at all. In fact, I used to think when I was a child how much fun it was to drive a golf cart and the ancillary thought would occur to me that no one would die on the road if all of us just drove golf carts. (Yes, I’ve now realized that people are easily ingenious enough to get themselves killed even in a world that consisted only of golf carts.)
But vehicles - perhaps because as non-car people, we keep our cars forever - have tended to be the thing I anthropomorphize most.
I remembered the other day that we took advantage of cash for clunkers - and really I’m not sure what the advantage was, probably none - and it was painful for me to walk away from the Chevy Blazer that had given us so much service.
In fact, that was probably a sign that it wasn’t really a clunk or and I should’ve just fixed whatever I thought was wrong with it.
In a similar situation now as somebody rear-ended, my husband causing damage that to the eye doesn’t look that bad, but due to the age of the car and perhaps some something something involving the frame - the insurance company has at length, after some length and a last minute scare intimating that the non-English speaking immigrant other driver was perhaps not quite up on his payments or some such irregularity, totaled. We’re really sad about it.
It seems like such a waste, going by to collect our things from a car that we could easily have driven away in. So I guess cars are my beanie babies.
The guy at the body shop tried to make us feel better by suggesting that the vehicle was going to “live on through its parts” since everything forward of the rear hatch was fine.
The engine, my husband said hopefully? It seemed like perhaps not that.
Assuming the "same as above" carries sentience all the way down, 11 is the only one I'm iffy about - can't you just stop doing the calculation? Also, if human calculation is good enough to manage running consciousness, human thought probably is, which has its own implications. Do egregores suffer?
Isn't this the same as saying "Can't you just stop a brain from functioning?" for a human being?
"Also, if human calculation is good enough to manage running consciousness, human thought probably is, which has its own implications. "
It wouldn't have to be one human doing it. It could be millions of humans working together, like the Trisolaran computer from Three Body Problem. Or it could be a superintelligent AI writing a consciousness with a robotic arm. Maybe we are all characters in a novel.
> Isn't this the same as saying "Can't you just stop a brain from functioning?" for a human being?
Idk about you, but if I am working through a longer calc problem by hand on paper (or even in my thoughts, unless it's sufficiently interesting) I am, in fact, capable of just stopping work without finishing. If giving up mid-math-problem required killing the human brain, I'm pretty sure extraordinarily few teenagers would survive the onset of boredom in math class.
[On reread, it seems like the disconnect may be that I'm not saying you can voluntarily turn of your *own* consciousness on command -- only the hand-written calculations for a separate consciousness, a la the hypothetical]
> It wouldn't have to be one human doing it. It could be millions of humans working together, like the Trisolaran computer from Three Body Problem. Or it could be a superintelligent AI writing a consciousness with a robotic arm. Maybe we are all characters in a novel.
It's unclear to me what relevance this has to the hypothetical? Whether "consciousness calculated by humans" has moral patienthood seems unrelated to the exact details of who is doing the calculations or what substrate they decide to write the results on.
I think you misunderstood my first comment. I wasn't saying that you would have to stop a person's brain from functioning to stop that person from completing the calculation. I was saying that stopping a consciousness represented by the calculation is analogous to stopping a human consciousness by stopping a brain from functioning.
As for the second comment, I agree that the details of the calculations or the substrate are irrelevant. That is exactly the point I was trying to make :)
"Same as above" makes it a bit circular surly? Whether you think humans can suffer because they have intelligence/a soul/consciousness - the rest of the statements inherently contain that via "same as above". It doesn't help me find a line on whether I can imagine caring about sentient software because we're not going anywhere near how I'll define sentient.
If, in your view, every change outlined is consistent with the entity remaining sentient, capable of suffering and a moral patient ("consistent" meaning that it does not cause a contradiction), then I'd say you don't disagree with any of those statements, *but* it's possible to find an entity very similar to the entities described that is not a moral patient according to you, because it doesn't have the thing you actually care about (like soul). Was this a fair restatement of your view?
Leaving that aside there's ways to push me all the way to 11 though. (Mainly reading Greg Egan) Whatever calculations give us our illusion of consciousness make up the fabric of what our reality hangs from. Who am I to say that at a sufficient resolution you can't reproduce those calculations and then why would relative speed matter.
Well, with the digital part onwards, now we're into "do androids dream of electric sheep?" territory. Can a machine suffer? You're telling us it's sentient, but that is presuming the conclusion. *If* it's sentient, it can suffer, but is sentience enough? Is it the same moral weight as a human? If we were talking about a cow and not a robot, would the question be the same?
I don't know what the machine equivalent of veganism is but pushing "this is a moral patient" is strolling down the same path as our friend Shaeda who was trying to convict us all of our sinfulness in being meat-eaters. If a vegan cares about the fuzzy bunnies, what do you call someone who cares about the fuzzy robots?
To be clear, I don't really want to tell anyone anything, I'm just curious about which opinions are common. I expect many people will say they disagree with 1, and I wont't debate them, because that wasn't the point of my post.
However, it seems like my question might have some of my intuitions baked in and many people will find it annoying to answer.
Are there others here who perceive time passing very slowly? All I ever hear people talking about is how fast time flies etc but I do not have that experience at all. It is not in a bad way like I'm bored or something but just things that I was doing at the start of the year feel distant and 5-10 years ago feels like a lifetime. If I think back to my childhood in the 80's/90's it feels like I've lived 2 or 3 lives already. I'm sure I'm not alone in this experience or does anyone have any speculation as to why some of us might have a different perception of time?
Me. I often hear people say something felt like it was just yesterday, but I rarely agree. It often feels like much longer ago than it really is! And for things that happened 10 years ago it is almost like another lifetime.
Do you have any variance in how you experience individual days? I have mostly "normal" days but then have others where it seems to really slow down and I can tell pretty soon after waking up it's going to be a "slow" day with no explanation as to why
My perception of time depends on the scale. Minutes and hours tend to be slow. But then I look back and weeks have passed in what seems to be a short time. And this discrepancy seems to have accelerated as I age.
I once heard some good advice, which is that if you feel like life is passing too fast, try planking. If you plank for two minutes you'll feel every second.
In Love on the Spectrum they ask one of the characters with autism who has been in a relationship for three years whether it feels like 3 years, and he responds "Yes". I found this interesting and surprisingly insightful. I think neurotypical people talk about time not feeling like 3 years because they're mistaking memory, which is timeless, with perception of time - which the brain obviously can't do very well at all.
I am thinking more like: Neurotypical people who talk about time passing quickly are speaking about time in a more metaphorical way and infusing nostalgia into their thoughts about time - rather than decoupling the emotional attachment and the actual experience of the time. Theory is very much a work in progress, though.
My childhood very much felt like this. I remember repeatedly having the feeling that I was going to be a child forever. Things changed slowly starting in college, with each subsequent year felling a bit faster than the one before it. After 40 the years have been flying by. I'd estimate that a year in my 40s "feels" about as long as 2 months from my childhood.
I've eventually come to terms with this just by convincing myself that "how long ago things feel" is not a very meaningful feeling once you're an adult.
I've been a grown-up for about 25 years now, and most of my adult memories feel sorta roughly equally distant. If it wasn't recent then it feels like it happened maybe ten years ago. Covid? Ten years ago. The turn of the millennium? Ten years ago.
To cure myself of the illusion, I think back to myself as I was at the turn of the millennium, and think about all the things I hadn't done yet. The me that went to that party in 1999 was nothing like the me that suffered through covid in 2020.
I have been harping on this for a long time. Time isn't as robust as it used to be. We used to get big, juicy years with lots of meat on them. These days, we only get flimsy, dried up years. I blame the government. Maybe NIST?
And don't get me started on how gravity has been increasing in intensity for the past couple of decades, too.
But is it documented in detail? I think time passing slowly for children is universal/well-known, at least for modern notions of childhood, but for adults it’s less clear. People have been warning me about the time flying when you have young kids, but I don’t feel like it is. My memory is worse now than when I was young.
Well, let's clarify this. Is it that you are forgetting things and having to be reminded of them or is it just a feeling like everything is taking forever but you remember it? Is it more noticeable when you are working as opposed to just hanging out? Is it a consistent sense of slowness no matter what you're doing?
I think time compression is very elastic in human beings. A long time ago I saw graphic timeline experiment: a child was asked to bracket off the parts that felt longest to them with the understanding that the line represented his whole life., then they compared it to one that had been done by an old man and it was completely different. I think the rationalist way of putting it is they both have really fat tails, but in different directions. The child's first five years of life took up about half the timeline as well. The old man's past was completely scrunched up in the bottom quarter of his timeline and he left lots of room for the future.
My son is 26 now and I have quite a few memories of his childhood, but it feels like a very compressed period of my life at the moment; like it really flew by.
I am curious to know what you do to pass the time? I only ask because I am almost the world class time waster. It is well beyond procrastination. that isn't really related to your predicament. It's just a comment about myself, but it relates to the elasticity of time. If you think you have a physiological issue. that is a whole different thing.
Time has been proven to be relative anyway, so maybe you're just living on the bleeding edge.
Well, I don’t think of it as a predicament, and I probably am wasting a lot of time but I also do a lot of laundry. It’s more that I’m surprised the time isn’t “flying by” as predicted.
Yeah that's interesting I feel like a just read a substack breaking down why it seems to speed up as we age but fast approaching 44 and it's still the same. COVID feels like a lifetime ago
memory is a tricky thing. You can recall the outline, the •factual•, view of things, and they can seem far away, or really close to your heart. Certain memories will make the past be in the present, won't they? I think there is a long gradient between an observed memory and a felt one. Memery can become sort of like a sports highlight reel. It doesn't put you in the game in any complete way but they're fun to watch. Just to complete the metaphor, I thought of this recalling playing football on the school team when I was 15. I remember the mud on the rainy days, all the faces leaned into the huddle, and me hoping I would carry the ball. When I watch a football game, I like to remember that.
I think Marcel Proust knocked this one out of the park.
Pure speculation: do you have a better-than-usual episodic memory? The past decade feels like a couple months, but subjectively I think that might be because my memory is atypically terrible (I can remember what I've learned just fine, but I have extraordinarily few first-person memories, which I think is why it feels like I've experienced little time -- I have very little memory of experiencing any time)
Here's a review of the book Democracy and Solidarity, by James Davison Hunter: https://mereorthodoxy.com/agonistic-democracy The review contains a fairly detailed summary of Hunter's account of how the logic of nihilism and ressentiment has subsumed American democracy. Hunter's view of the way out is pretty vague, and at the least requires leadership that I'm unsure the US has the capacity to produce.
As the review is published on a Christian ideas website, the conclusion addressed the question of, "How should Christians respond to this phenomenon?" but I think that the review's conclusion can apply to anyone with a humanist bent or who opposes nihilism. I think that the author considers the question of "Why to oppose political nihilism?" to be a self-answering question from a Christian point of view, and it might be an open question of whether or not that's the case from a secular standpoint.
I found the history the review summarized to be pretty fascinating, and the descriptions of our crisis of authority and the logic of political nihilism, once you see them put in words, is something that is obviously apparent everywhere.
I'm not sure how useful it is to separate things like "foundationalism" and "proceduralism". When it comes to democracy, isn't democracy (when it's working properly) both at once? It's a procedure, but the procedure *is* the natural law, the moral ideal, the base value that everyone is supposed to agree on--that decisions are made "by the people" (which in practice means majority vote, since that's the only method that treats all people equally).
With that in mind, I'm inclined to think a big part of the US's problems are in a lack of clear democratic accountability. There are too many different institutions with dispersed powers, elected in different ways or not elected at all, to the extent that's hard for a party to ever get the firm message "the people don't want this"; they can always kid themselves that there are ways to get what they want even without popular support, and often, they're right.
Isn't this in the process of being solved anyways? Say what you want about the right, but they don't have any trouble finding meaning in their actions or being moral absolutists. Once their power is entrenched, they should have no issue restoring American identity to what it once was and restore the power of God to this country.
Well, yeah, but that's kind of a given at this point, isn't it? He would be stupid not to at least try. Seems like the troops are playing along as well, which makes this whole operation a lot more likely to succeed.
Nothing crass and morbid about enjoying horror movies!
I saw Days and missed Weeks; given how excited I was to see Transformers One I wouldn't be too embarrassed. Don't kill the cringe, kill the part of you that cringes.
Does anyone have a read on how close Iran is to getting a nuclear weapon? Is this a serious threat or just exaggerated fear-mongering? Seems like whether the recent Israeli preemptive strike could be justified or not really hinges on how close Iran is to getting a nuke.
But I don't trust any government to tell the truth about this. Does anyone know of any relevant prediction markets or predictions from superforecasters?
I'm guessing Israel had strong inside reasons to think Iran were days away to do these strikes. I'll avoid retreading the obvious points (e.g. they waited years without doing it so clearly something changed, etc), but things that may be added information:
- (controversially political): Bibi has historically been very action-averse (e.g. his policy of letting Hamas mostly just do their own thing in an uncomfortable status quo). Him being moved to a strike like this at a time when he has stable political control over his coalition is very out of character and implies he got genuine news about an acute threat.
- (From Ryan McBeth): The moon was pretty full this weekend (plus clear skies). These are actually pretty bad conditions for a surprise air campaign, implying they had some strong reason to not want to wait two weeks.
Hm, isn't clear skies and full moon a positive thing if you have air superiority? Which Israel had already pretty much established before the strike?
And for the strike, doesn't it fit the pattern that Israel has been generally using in the last months? They are destroying potentially damaging weapons wherever they can. For example, it was the first thing in Syria after Assad was overthrown, and they keep doing it there, and likewise in Lebanon. I think the difference is that Iran has shifted categories in the last weeks: from a foe who can potentially retaliate to one who essentially can't. I mean, they still have some rockets, but it has become clear that Israel and allies can catch most of them. There are casualties, but as far as I can see, the casualties do not impress many people inside or outside of Israel, compared to the massive gain of completely destroying Iranian air defense and so many people in the command structure and in the nuclear program.
I think this type of action *was* out of character for Netanyahu a year ago, but not anymore. Now it is a standard course of action.
Israel didn't have that level of air superiority over Iran (the initial strikes knocked out a lot of antiair). In general clear skies are an advantage to aircraft, especially in a surprise attack (since they know what they're targeting but the antiair has to detect them).
Maybe, but another reason they might do it now after waiting years is because Iran is just in a weaker position right now without its usual allies: Russia tied up in Ukraine, Syrian government overthrown, and Hezbollah weakened from fighting with Israel already.
Could be that the sense of urgency was to disrupt a US-Iran nuclear deal.
That's possible but less likely - like with Russia, I don't think Trump was actually planning on calling off negotiations anytime soon just because the Iranians were playing hardball.
Fordow alone is not enough for a bomb; they need to take the enriched UF6 and turn it back to uranium metal, machine it into a core, and assemble a warhead. From various sources online it sounds like estimates of how long it takes Iran to "sprint" to a weapon is "a few weeks." The real key is Fordow, though: enriching uranium to 90% there sets off a rapid cascade of escalation that could end very badly in a variety of ways.
Hm, I am a bit doubtful about "a few weeks". The sources that I have read agree that the time to sprint to 90% enriched uranium is very short, perhaps two weeks or even faster. But for the time to afterwards then actually build a bomb, your own source estimates 2-6 months for a crude device, and in other sources I have read "a few months to a year".
Thanks, I'll check it out. "A few weeks" sounds pretty terrifying, and tough to say if that makes the Israeli attack seem more justified or more reckless.
Iran already had a nuclear weapon or two (not made themselves). The discussion isn't about having nuclear weapons, it's about being able to make more of them.
Iran was very far away from getting a nuclear weapon (in that they were about to ink a deal with the United States), but I think their intel heard about the Israeli strikes, and swung the other way -- at this point, Iran is trying to make a nuclear weapon to save their entire country, it's a desperate act.
"Iran already had a nuclear weapon or two (not made themselves)."
Citation very much needed. I used to work in arms control and nuclear nonproliferation, nothing like this was ever the consensus view that I recall, and I've never seen a credible sourcing for anything like it.
So, what's the source? If it's someone citing "anonymous insiders", yawn, not unless highly reputable bricks-and-mortar institutions are willing to stake their reputation on their private assessment of those insiders. If it's some guy saying he's got a Q Clearance or whatever so we should trust that he Knows Things, then absolutely not.
If nothing else, I would expect this to have come up in a big way during either A: the JCPOA negotiations, or B: Trump's unilateral withdrawal from the JCPOA.
What I've got is scuttlebutt, and I'll acknowledge this comes from a longtime anti-"bomb iran" person (worked in Obama's administration to that end). I can present more discussion about seismographs or geiger counters if you want me to put down some bonafides, but if you are just going to say, "He may know some things, but that particular bone is bullcrap." I'm not going to bother.
I should say that the leadership of Iran as well as its “intel” are probably pretty desperate to figure out where to be so as not to be plainly visible to Israel! I could definitely see personal panic about that. Not sure ordinary citizens have a dog in that hunt.
Do you remember what Russia was like, in the days after the USSR collapsed? Ordinary citizens do (and stealing russia's resources was very much on the menu -- for profit!).
Persia is one of the world's oldest civilization, but the current government goes back to the revolution of 1979 that instituted a "Rule by Scholars", a distinctly Shia form of religious authoritarianism where a council of religious scholars led by the supreme leader have the final say in everything that happens, including who is even allowed to run for the elected gov't positions at all. They've had many enemies, both regional and further afield, since their founding. A good way to tell if a country's government is in a precarious position or feeling like it has serious existential threats, is when they have a two tiered military with a smaller inner-circle group that is more trusted, better trained and supplied, and a larger "regular" military that is composed and managed in a way that reduces its power and ability to organize a coup. Many middle eastern countries have been set up this way; Saddam had his Republican Guard etc. Probably no other country exemplifies this approach as much as Iran does with its Revolutionary Guard, who's mission is not the defense of the nation as a whole, but specifically the defense of the Shia "Rule by Scholars" regime. They've also had many examples of other countries by now who did obtain nuclear weapons (North Korea, Pakistan), and those that did not (Libya, Iraq) and the eventual fates of those nations.
Post-Islamic-conquest, almost all of the empire's scholars and administrators were Persians. Whenever you see the name of a famous historical "Muslim", unless they're famous for being royalty, you should assume they were Persian. Western history doesn't emphasize this.
Most of the Iranian students I met in grad school were very patriotic and identified very strongly with Persian culture, despite hating the current Iranian government and being agnostic/atheist.
Of course there's a potential selection effect since these were professional scientists (unlikely to be religious fundamentalists) who decided to come and study in the US. But I got the sense that there's a distinct pre-Islamic Persian culture that's still very meaningful.
Every Iranian I know is really proud of being Persian, and will get very angry if you imply they are Arabs. It's an old culture (the Achaemenid Empire was founded around 550 BC) with a long poetic tradition and substantial pre-Islamic heritage. There's even a national epic, the Shahnameh, going from prehistory to the Islamic conquest.
You'll even hear the more secular Iranians complain about the Arabs conquering them and imposing their religion on them.
Fair enough, but my impression was that's more akin to neo-Paganism in Europe, where you have a relatively small number of people trying to connect to some ancient pre-Christian (pre-Islamic in Iran's case) heritage.
You aren't, but the rest of the muslim world is. Zoroastrianism is just as active in Iran as functional polygamy and marriages that women can contract without fathers approval. (Yes, Iran is a -very weird- muslim nation).
I guess I thought the comment would have said “the regime” if that was what was meant.
Even that doesn’t seem particularly threatened. Educated Iranian expats seem like lovely people but I’ve never known them to be terribly interested in what was going on back home, or have a sense of palpable outrage about it. I’ve imagined that it was just Iran’s long history that made such political questions seem rather shabby or ephemeral. Especially as connected to a religion they only lightly wear, if at all.
Iran just lost so much of its command structure that attempts to surrender are made considerably more difficult because "Who are you?" is what the diplomats on the other side are asking. Aka "who do you speak for, Mr. Lieutenant, when you say "please let us surrender!!!?!" "
Iran is a very weird, very convoluted place. Seeing it as "religious zealots" is about as wrong as seeing it as "completely irreligious" -- it's really neither.
The loss of Iran's ability to bomb Israel back meaningfully (aka Hezbollah/Syria/Lebanon) may turn out to be what cost the regime their entire government.
Why would Israel be desperate? Decisions are made by decision-makers, and they have cognitive biases towards "staying in power" -- Israel is desperate to make war, because otherwise Bibi loses power. Iran is desperate because everyone in charge over there is panicking about "mad dog bibi" breaking all normal codes of conduct and trying to kill off their entire leadership.
Israel is desperate because Iran is desperate, because everything about its international strategy collapsed recently. There is no balance of power in place, and too much depends on first mover advantage
The IAEA certified Iran was out of compliance so there's a fair bit of evidence if you trust basically any international institution or the US/Israel/Europe/etc. But also Peter Wildeford has an analysis that's fairly good. Not perfect but good. And goes into exactly why Iran wants the bomb and implicitly assumes they are going for it. Which is pretty much the only supportable position, the idea they want civilian nuclear power is largely considered a cover story.
It’s worth noting that the violations are in regard to Iran covering up their nuclear program that ended in 2003, the IAEA doesn’t believe that Iran currently has a nuclear weapons program.
You're mixing up a previous declaration with the new one which finds that Iran has been in breach since 2019. Not just of the nuclear deal but of its non-proliferation obligations. Meaning the net of the report is: Iran is pursuing and spreading nuclear weapons technology.
>Having evaluated all available safeguards-relevant information, including information provided by Iran, information from safeguards activities conducted by the Agency, and other relevant information (for example, open source and third party information), the Agency assesses that Iran retained unknown nuclear material and/or heavily contaminated equipment, and other assets, arising from the former undeclared structured nuclear programme, at Turquzabad in the period 2009 until 2018, after which items were removed from the location.
The Agency has no credible indications of an ongoing, undeclared structured nuclear programme of the type described above in Iran and notes the statements of the highest officials in Iran that the use of nuclear weapons is incompatible with Islamic Law. However, repeated statements by former high- level officials in Iran related to Iran having all capabilities to manufacture nuclear weapons continue to provide concerns in this area.
So, to be clear, you're walking back from "the IAEA does not believe that Iran has a nuclear program" to "the IAEA does not know whether Iran has a nuclear weapons program and is concerned they do"? Because that's what paragraph 2 says.
Also the report has numerous ways they've been out of compliance since 2019. You're quoting from one specific site. Look to page 14, for example, where they catalog multiple sites some of which could not be accessed or where Iran stonewalled them. Page 18 and 19 at the conclusion also says Iran is pursuing multiple things that would be needed for a bomb though they might have civilian use.
The genocide show seems like it might be over. As Israel blew up the last telecom line into Gaza, and started a war with Iran, it feels like very little information from Gaza is going reach the average person going forward.
We will see Gaza again in some number of years, but it's hard to imagine many Gazans will have survived. They've been denied food and water for 3 months, and I don't know any reason Israel would change its mind now.
It might be time for a retrospective. Do you all feel satisfied with how strongly you advocated for human rights? How certain are you that you wouldn't have been a Nazi collaborator?
Yeah, I'm expecting 100% fatality rate to be honest, from now until Gaza has been fully annexed and integrated into Israel. The world hasn't imposed any meaningful consequences on Israel for what it's done so far, so I expect its behaviour will continue to be similar to what it has been so far.
Note that we won't be able to test any prediction we make, because there is nobody who can run a census in Gaza. We don't even have a reliable death toll because the health service is barely functioning any more.
Just FYI, when Trump announced his "Riviera" plan, he spoke of the 1.7M people of Gaza. That would indicate a 500k death toll. Or, he could have just made it up.
If Israel did a census in post-annexation, one state solution Gaza, and it found 2M Palestinians living in Gaza, I would probably conclude the census was disinformation.
If I could be convinced that it was accurate, I guess that would mean that Gaza's health system was mcuh more resilient and not as reliant on electricity, that Gaza had a much bigger food stockpile than I thought, that people are much more agile than I thought in evading missile strikes, and/or that a lot of Israeli sympathizers had been sheltering and protecting Gazans. Those are some theories I may have to consider in that case.
What I dislike about this is that it doesn't see advocating against genocide as something you do to stop killing. It sees it as something you do to gain moral superiority over the people around you. "It might be time for a retrospective" is a thinly veiled attempt to judge people who you feel aren't as righteous as you.
If you're really anti-genocide and believe that Gaza is beyond help the proper thing is to use all that energy against other genocides or mass killings that are ongoing. If you think no other genocides or mass killings are ongoing you are objectively wrong and should question why you think that.
Somewhere in the last half decade, "Virtue-Signaling" and "Moral Superiority" became just another "Ad Hominem!!!!" type of refrain. They used to be useful concepts, but now are just the goto Isolated Demand that people backed into a corner resort to when they can find nothing else to say.
> If you're really anti-genocide and believe that Gaza is beyond help the proper thing is to use all that energy against other genocides or mass killings that are ongoing
Why? Do you demand the same of Holocaust scholars too? If they're really anti-genocide and not just bullshitting us with thinly veiled Israelism apologia, they ought to devote exactly as much years into the Armenian genocide and the Rwandan genocide as the Holocaust, is that correct?
What do we conclude from the fact that most of them don't? Right, that Holocaust studies is just bullshit that they do to feel morally superior. They're not "really" anti-genocide. They just have an anti-German bias. They're "obsessed" with Germans. What else would explain their "incitement" against the only German state in the world? Nothing but anti-Germanism.
But it's not just study by the way, the sentiment I'm replying to applies every time someone organizes a memorial trip to Auschwitz, or makes an institute to collate Holocaust victims' diaries, or - for that matter - to reparations, which Germany was still paying in the billions all the way till 2024 [1].
All those billions of Euros and trillions of words could be spent much more productively to prevent or document other genocides, ongoing or not, other than the 80+ years old one that no adult witness of survives.
Nazi Germany was the only German state in the world when it perpetrated the Holocaust, so if we go by Hasbara logic that makes anyone interested in the Holocaust and how it happens "obsessed" with the "Only German" state.
No, those states have some German people, but in this context, that doesn't make them "German states." They need to be majority German or at least privilege them in some way.
In fact I do recommend genocide scholars focus away from trendy genocides on the few occasions where I have reason to give advice. Of course, the trendy genocides of today are not the Holocaust. They're Gaza and Native Americans and other groups that align with leftist sentiments. But there's a number of vastly understudied mass killings.
You're also wrong that Holocaust scholars do not generally try to use their influence to stop unrelated genocides. They specifically contest certain genocides as genocides. But they have been very willing to lend what moral credibility they have to Darfur and Rwanda.
My point remains: If you are concerned with saving lives then focusing on the trendiest cause that's highly polarized is almost certainly the worst use of your time. Even if you're specifically concerned with saving lives specifically from mass killings Gaza is not the most vulnerable area. Why are you not focusing on where you can save the most people?
> Of course, the trendy genocides of today are not the Holocaust.
Really? Because I wrote randomly in Google "Holocaust journals" and clicked the first search result, I happened on this journal [1] which has 8 published article on genocide in barely 3 months between March and June. 2+ articles per month is reasonably "trendy", and that's not counting thousands of memorials, remembrance days, novels, movies, video games, and **Checks Notes** an entire ethnostate built on the ruins of another culture.
Should we move away from the Holocaust? Is it taking too much attention tokens, even though 2 lifetimes have already passed and nothing can be done about it? Should we cancel or decrease funding to the things built to remind us of it?
> But there's a number of vastly understudied mass killings.
Sure, and I neither own a journal or an academic degree in genocides, nor have UN officials as friends. So it looks like the extent of what I can do is posting on the internet, which I do, constantly.
Posting on the Sudanese and Congolese genocides? Sure, might push people to donate, a dollar goes an awfully long way. Even better, might push educated professions like Programmers and Managers to not deal economically with UAE, the genocidal state perpetrating genocide against Sudanese people, my personal policy that I applied - to think of one example - in a recent job search. (Neither frankly are all the Gulf kingdoms, save perhaps for Bahrain or Oman.)
That said, I can't see all the apologists and genocide supporters for UAE or Congolese genocidal militia. They're effectively alien and illegible to the kind of crowd hanging out here. But I don't even have to wear my glasses to see apologia and unbridled ass-kissing for Israeli genocidal war machine.
> Really? Because I wrote randomly in Google "Holocaust journals" and clicked the first search result, I happened on this journal
You found a journal of Holocaust Studies and it was full of studies about the Holocaust. Congratulations. Would you like me to dig up an IPS journal? Because that will be full of studies about Palestinians. Likewise African Studies programs will be largely about Africa or its diaspora. This is unsurprising and none of your evidence actually proves what you want it to prove.
> Should we move away from the Holocaust? Is it taking too much attention tokens, even though 2 lifetimes have already passed and nothing can be done about it? Should we cancel or decrease funding to the things built to remind us of it?
I wouldn't use the phrasing move away or pay less attention. And I don't think we should cancel remembrance. The fact you suggest these things makes me think you're just a partisan who doesn't want to acknowledge the Holocaust because it's inconvenient for a pro-Palestinian narrative. But I do think we should focus more on ongoing conflicts. I would have a much lower opinion of institutions like the Holocaust Museum if they didn't help out organizations meant to commemorate other genocides and mass killings. But they do.
> That said, I can't see all the apologists and genocide supporters for UAE or Congolese genocidal militia.
The UAE, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, etc spend far more than Israel in lobbying. If you can't see them that has to do with where you're looking. Which is my point. Israel and Palestine are big, polarized, well funded causes where you're unlikely to change many minds or create much attention. It is almost unique in this regard. The only other very well known one is Ukraine.
Your original claim is that the Holocaust is not like Palestine (more specifically, the genocide in Palestine, but Palestine-Israel in general), the Holocaust is not "trendy" while the genocide in Palestine is "trendy". You're now saying that there are similar journals publishing similar volume of articles about each, what does that make of the original argument?
If IPS is a field that I don't know, I'm ready to search for journals in it and see how many articles are published, perhaps also weighted by wordcount and impacts/citations. Let's put a number on how "trendy" different genocides really are, as much as that might seem a morbid and unproductive use of time.
> The fact you suggest these things makes me think you're just a partisan who doesn't want to acknowledge the Holocaust because it's inconvenient for a pro-Palestinian narrative
Au contraire, couldn't be more wrong. The Holocaust is, in fact, and as my username alludes to, the single biggest argument for the Pro Palestinian side.
The fact that I suggest these things is just a straightforward application of your suggested razor. Your suggested razor is "Trendy things take too much attention, we should redirect at least some of that attention towards less trendy things of the same category, for greater impact". Is that correct?
Well, by that definition, I think we should at least ponder heavily every time we sponsor or fund yet another program for Auschwitz trips, yet another compendium of Hitler's correspondences about Jews, yet another memorial site about the Holocaust. The Holocaust is - I hope you would agree - vastly more trendy than Armenian genocide or Rwandan genocide, and it's of the same category (stopped genocides), so they should take some of the attention and the resources. No?
> If you can't see them that has to do with where you're looking.
I'm looking at a website whose URL is in your browser address bar right now, and I can see several genocide apologists/denialist. Can you point me to UAE propaganda on the same website? I will even settle for adjacent sites and communities.
Oh I could list more if you're interested. There's so much good that could be done by a group of highly motivated people willing to actually get involved consistently. You can't quite calculate expected value because you have to estimate the probability you actually stop the conflict which is politics. But I think it's pretty self-evident that you have more chance to affect the conflict in the Congo, where there's a lot of western influence and very few people interested, than in Israel where they have significant independence and there's multibillion dollar organizations duking it out. Or any number of other conflicts.
"If you're really anti-genocide and believe that Gaza is beyond help the proper thing is to use all that energy against other genocides or mass killings that are ongoing"
Good point. Honestly I'm still using most of my free time and energy to advocate for Palestinians. It's one of the few causes my government can clearly do something about. I guess when the deaths stop I will probably sleep for a few days, then have a look around for what to do next.
I would still recommend others do this too, I just don't get the sense anyone here cares enough to be convincable.
Thank you for engaging in good faith with my admittedly frustrated comment. Again, if you think the most effective use of your time is advocating for Palestinians you are almost certainly wrong regardless of what you think of the cause. Palestinians receive more attention and support than almost any other group and virtually all other groups are relatively under-resourced.
And your government (I am assuming the US?) often has more influence over those. US influence over Israel is often overstated and many genocides are happening in weaker states where influence goes farther. To give a simple example, Sudan's currently ongoing genocide is both much less discussed (and so any effort goes farther) and many of the foreign powers involved (Egypt, UAE, etc) are at least as influenced by the US as Israel. Arguably more so because they don't have Israel's independent arms industry.
Many of these people are quite desperate for support but also the forces arrayed against you are often weaker. And often times there are just more lives involved. Gaza is actually quite small, only about two million people, so an outbreak of violence in a mid-sized country can displace multiple times the entire population of Gaza.
I work with refugees everyday and work with a union that has strongly advocated for divesting from Israel. I'm powerless but have done what I can in my life to improve the situation for those I can and to ensure my own money is not being funnelled towards the genocide.
In 5 to 10 years, everyone will retroactively have always been against the genocide. It doesn't feel good to be correct early.
Have you really? Have you ever once tried to push Egypt (or anyone else in the region) to accept Gazan refugees? Have you tried to convince aid agencies to work with the GHC instead of actively blocking it? Or have you only done things that attack Israel and actively turn up the heat and make things worse for everyone.
I'll just get on the phone to my friends in the Egyptian government.
The only people with the power to "turn down the heat" are the ones who have flattened every home, school and hospital in 25 mile strip of land inhabited by 2 million mostly children.
You've pushed your union to divest from Israel, why have you not pushed it to divest from Egypt until they open the giant wall keeping Palestinians trapped in the warzone?
Egypt won't allow Gazans into Egypt because it's obvious that Israel will not let them return. Once again, the root of the problem is Israel's attempt at genocide.
> Egypt won't allow Gazans into Egypt because it's obvious that Israel will not let them return.
This sounds like you're justifying Egypt's actions of keeping civilians trapped inside a warzone to use them as political capital against Israel, instead of directly saving the lives of many Gazans.
Please correct me if I'm wrong and you're actually condemning Egypt's self-serving and cynical behavior.
Why *won't* Egypt and the other surrounding countries take Gazan refugees? I've never seen a good answer to this. I know Egypt was accepting a flood of Sudanese refugees a year or two ago when the civil war exploded; I have a Sudanese acquaintance (who lives in the U.S.) who quickly moved his remaining family to Cairo. He talked about how overcrowded Egypt is now with Sudanese refugees.
Everyone hates the Palestinians. they are not very well liked throughout the middle east (you can see entire videos of "everyone privately hates the palestinians" -- world leaders and civilians alike). Trying to overthrow the Jordanian government has not exactly endeared them to even the sanest of Arab minds.
Because (a) they fear instability in the form of a black September or Lebanon civil war situation, and (b) that would help Israel (which would have fewer Gazans, and especially fewer civilians in a war zone, to worry about), and while Egypt doesn't mind cooperating with Israel behind the scenes it's allergic to being seen to do so. It also helps the Palestinian people but harms the Palestinian *cause* (which is destroying Israel, and whose main weapon right now is PR hits via use of human shields), which would make their government be seen as traitors to Islam and destabilize them.
"while Egypt doesn't mind cooperating with Israel behind the scenes it's allergic to being seen to do so." It might follow that if Trump forces the issue, Egypt and other neighbors could say "We didn't want to but we were forced into it!"
Did any Holocaust scholar in the 1940s and the 1950s try to push European states to accept Jewish refugees? Have they tried to convince Jewish organizations to work with Nazi Germany to better the conditions of the camps instead of blocking it? Or have they only done things that attack Germany, the only Germanic state in the world, and actively turn up the heat to make things worse for everyone?
Not even the most stupid thing about this comment, but Germany is very much not the only Germanic state in the world.
Also, Zionist organization did work with Nazi Germany on letting jews out (mostly before the war) - and to this day you may find anti-Zionist propaganda that use this fact...
It's not a coincidence the comment is stupid, it's emulating one of the stupidest strain of Propaganda memes in perhaps the entire 21st century so far, glad we could agree on that.
> Germany is very much not the only Germanic state in the world.
Was in the timeframe I'm making the comment in the context of, with the possible and arguable exception of Switzerland. Look at a map of Nazi Germany at its greatest extent.
> Zionist organization did work with Nazi Germany on letting jews out
But looks like they didn't provide the "unique security needs" of Nazi Germany, which they could have to allow for more survivors of the Holocaust. This is, after all, the essence of the solution that Pro-Israel genocide supporters always come back to: Provide the "unique security needs" of the state doing the genocide, and there won't be genocide. Why didn't people take this advice in WW2?
> Look at a map of Nazi Germany at its greatest extent
Oh yeh, after they swallowed the other German state, and if Swiss isn't German, then they are the only one. If they were a little more successful, they could also be "the only European state"
> But looks like they didn't provide the "unique security needs" of Nazi Germany
Yes, the Nazis claimed that "the jews" are a threat. That was wrong. Sometimes people claim to be threatened and are not wrong. You could tell the difference because the Holocaust did not follow an invitation and massacre of Germans by jews from Warsaw
Yes, all the time. Jews are still mad at the British and Americans for refusing. Because that was an actual genocide, so they actually cared about surviving.
As far as I know, this is the first war with the stated purpose to prevent the other side from getting Nuclear weapons, and I think this is not just the stated reason but the actual reason.
Why it happens now instead of before is not so hard to guess as well - Since Iran's proxies were more or less defeated by Israel, now Israel can strike at Iran at a much lower cost.
I don't know how Israel aims to achieve their goal, since it seems that even with complete air superiority you just can't destroy underground bunkers.
Maybe together with Diplomatic pressure from the US? I think that doing that would look too much like surrendering for Iran to do that. Interested in opinions on the matter.
I'm of half-Jewish ancestry so I'm not objective and usually don't get involved on discussions involving Israel.
I'm not objective, and my cortex is going "This strikes me as a really bad idea and completely morally indefensible" and my hindbrain is going "Haha! Who's the softy yeshiva boy now? These yids got CLAWS, M***F****!"
>Why it happens now instead of before is not so hard to guess as well - Since Iran's proxies were more or less defeated by Israel, now Israel can strike at Iran at a much lower cost.
Possibly, or possibly since there was a clear declaration by the IAEA that Iran was
>The global nuclear watchdog's board of governors has formally declared Iran in breach of its non-proliferation obligations for the first time in 20 years.
This war started a long time ago, and it wasn't Israel that started it. At very latest, Operation True Promise I was over a year ago. You know, the one where Iran launched a hundred and twenty ballistic missiles, thirty cruise missiles, and a hundred seventy attack drones against Israel, up to that point the largest concentrated missile attack in history, with Israel having performed a grand total of zero (0) attacks against Iran to "provoke" such a thing (and only three precision-guided missiles in retaliation). That's a very clear and unambiguous act of war. We won't even get into Operation True Promise II.
The stated purpose of this war is the destruction of Israel. The actual purpose may have more to do with domestic political concerns in Iran, Gaza, and Lebanon, but those "concerns" are with maintaining popular support from people who really want to see Israel destroyed.
Until Friday, Israel's strategy in its ongoing defensive war with Hamas, Hezbollah, and Iran, had been to focus on the enemies who had demonstrated the ability to kill hundreds or thousands of Israelis, while mostly ignoring the Persian buffoons who struggle to kill tens of them. The purpose of the recent shift to aggressively striking Iran is unknown. Officially, it's to prevent a nation that is at war with and attempting to destroy Israel, from acquiring nuclear weapons that would kill way more than tens or even thousands of Israelis. But it's also reasonable to suspect that domestic political concerns are at work.
Israel's claims are well known and understood, but I'm talking about Israel's *purpose* for its actions. Governments are frequently less than honest about that sort of thing.
This isn't a new war, this is the continuation of Israeli-Iranian relations. It's a slow war because they don't share land borders.
Iran generally attempts to destabilize the region around Israel. Israel is more direct and attempts to destroy and degrade Iranian capabilities.
Previously:
You may recall the salvo of a few hundred missiles and ordinances lobbed at Israel in October 2024, in response Israel's assassination of Iran's Hamas and Hezbola operatives. You also might recall Iran's arming, financial support and/or training of Hezbola, Houthi, and Hamas, and possibly even funding and providing weapons used in the Oct 7th attacks, of which Iran had advance knowledge.
Hamas isn't Iran's. If it was, it would be launching at Israel right now. Hezbollah/Syria is Irans, and they're launching. (Houthi are not Iranian, either -- infamously independent, they're at least smart enough to see that Iran going away means they might not be long for this world.)
I think you may be confused or we may be agreeing. Yes, those groups are independent proxies with the ability to operate independently, but their interests are aligned at the moment, mostly around causing damage in Israel and destabilizing the region via intermittent kinetic actions.
Factually, Iran provides military aid, training and armaments to these groups, which are understood to be in military conflict with Israel, or generally disruptive in the region around Israel.
According to Wikipedia, Iran provides 100M+ per year to Palestinian militant groups and possibly 500M+ recently. Also, Iran is well known to train and arm Houthis.
I think I agree that this is about Israel not wanting Iran to have nukes, but I'm also not sure what to make of Trump's tweet that seemed to imply this was about Iran not making a deal with the US
Presumably, had Iran agreed to what Trump wanted, Israel would have had less reason to attack. And, presumably, Trump would have actively opposed an attack.
Ah, good, you distinguish between the genocide in Gaza and the ethnic cleansing in Israel (that's of African Jews). Just making sure we're discussing exactly How Many Bad Things Israel has done since the new millenium.
First, do you deny that Israel has engaged in ethnic cleansing of African Jews from their soil?
I'm just going to go out on a limb and say that headshotting children, over and over again, is genocide. (In case you don't know, a headshot isn't done in combat situations where you're in danger. You go for center of mass in that case). This is basically "we're murdering your children" and "FU that's why"
"The Twenty-One Second God" is a piece of short fiction by Peter Watts, about how a superhuman hive mind of 15 million people formed on the internet and lasted for 21 seconds before it was disconnected. But during that brief time it managed to do a lot, and the world now has to deal with the consequences.
I enjoyed the story thoroughly. It is available for free on the Lightspeed Magazine site.
(There's a popup asking you to sign up, but you should be able to click through it using the "No thanks! Close this stupid thing." button at the bottom.)
> "The Twenty-One Second God" is a piece of short fiction by Peter Watts, about how a superhuman hive mind of 15 million people formed on the internet and lasted for 21 seconds before it was disconnected. But during that brief time it managed to do a lot, and the world now has to deal with the consequences
Eh, it's Watts doing his usual "consciousness is an evolutionary blind alley" bit. Get a new trope, Pete!
Though it was very funny to see Meta and the Metaverse being such big wheels in the spicy new future. *That* prediction aged like milk, even though the story is published in the current issue. Maybe he's hoping that the AI train will pull it along to victory? 😁
Having read it, I think he might be being a little more subtle than that. The neuron isn't conscious, the mind is. The POV character was briefly a neuron. Now it's wondering about the nature of the mind.
Seeing Meta was entertaining, though. There's definitely a reason why you make up a company to be your futuristic mega-corp, unless it's GM...
Regarding your statement thanking Professor Chalmers "for not getting upset about this unintentional duplication of his work" ... he says in his acknowledgments, "One discovers quickly that any given idea has likely been expressed already by someone else."
N.B., I did not scan the other comments to see if this point has been made already...
I tried to start a "Yes Kings; but merely as a ceremonial head of state to allow the chief executive to operate in a more practical role" counter-protest, but no one showed up. I think maybe the wordy qualifier was a problem for some people.
When we elect a female president that will come around depending on how she behaves. You know it’s like the British: the king is dead. Long live the queen.
Software productivity, as it is measured in its effects on GDP anyway, relates to the sale and not the production of software. This is unlike material production where being more efficient in production and thus being able to meet (or induce) demand is essential. What does this mean for the effect on GDP of AI aided software production.
As Wanda pointed out above, the types of software being marketed to businesses and individual users seem to have hit the developmental limits of what's useful. Except for voice/video conferencing packages, all the major categories of office apps had been developed by the mid-90s (spreadsheets, word processors, slideware creation/presentation packages, etc.). And in-house bespoke backend systems gave way to licensed Software as a Service (SaaS) packages by the mid-00s. Of course, most major players in the SaaS ecosystem provide the component building blocks, and companies that license their software must invest in hiring specialist consultants to customize the SaaS packages for their specific business needs. I could see AI assisting in this process. For instance, if a customer could feed a requirements template to a SaaS vendor such as SalesForce and have an AI helper assemble the backend building blocks to produce a usable bespoke system, that could potentially put a lot of consultants out of business. But I suspect these would have to be specialized AIs provided by the SaaS vendor. If software sales are the sole indicator of GDP, it might actually improve sales (and increase GDP) because SaaS vendors could sell their product to smaller customers who couldn't afford the customization costs.
When it comes to bespoke software written from scratch, IT departments still need to perform extensive scripting to integrate disparate software systems. And QA departments produce a lot of Python code to automate their testing. Regarding the former, I'm not sure IT departments would be comfortable handing over the crown jewels to an AI whose trustworthiness is unknown. But for the latter, company QA departments would likely embrace AI-generated and controlled test environments. However, all these internally developed systems would have little effect on software sales. So GDP would probably be unaffected.
I'm willing to concede that I may have missed other GDP-affecting variables with my possibly oversimplified analysis.
An increasing amount of commercial software is SaaS, which has both ongoing hosting costs as well as KTLO efforts (e.g., migrating from the current-but-deprecated version of whatever dependency, applying patches in response to the latest CVE, scrambling to keep the service up when GCP is down, &c.).
To the extent that those activities are dominant cost drivers / value sources, the ~zero marginal cost of packaged software is negligible.
More bespoke software tailored to the client rather than buying a larger company's one-size-fits-all software package?
Or more cynically, more rickety internal solutions put together by one guy in the office who knows a bit of prompt engineering instead of hiring it out to an actual software house.
In my view it depends on what the market for novel software is. AI will lower the capital cost of software development by at least an order of magnitude. That means almost anyone with a decent idea can make a saleable product, which means super-niche markets become viable to target. If those actually exist, and I have no idea if they do, then AI will drive an explosion in niche apps. If they don't (meaning that we already have essentially all the software we need) then existing software companies will just get significantly more profitable as they're able to provide the same product with reduced headcount.
I'm actually inclined towards the latter narrative. From 2010-2020 investment capital was essentially free: anyone with half an idea got their startup funded. That hasn't led to a flood of actually-valuable software companies that discovered new niches. It's mostly been retreads of the same few themes (games, productivity, etc). That suggests to me that software has saturated the development sigmoid. So I suspect that AI-driven automation will let companies capture the same revenue with fewer employees without significantly growing markets which I guess means that it will lower GDP (assuming that the displaced employees can't find more productive work elsewhere).
That does make a lot of sense. I have only one disagreement, mainly focusing on this:
"From 2010-2020 investment capital was essentially free: anyone with half an idea got their startup funded. That hasn't led to a flood of actually-valuable software companies that discovered new niches."
This is a valid observation, however, I think it is not a coincidence that still everyone was looking hard at scaling and growing until IPO/acquisition. If developing a a marketable application costs X, one must still have to target an audience that has the purchasing power to cover that. Should development costs drop to X/10, that might open up new niches that were obviously unprofitable in the old environment.
They might not even be thought of as "startup" from then on, just a regular company providing some service, as there is no need to finance years of building up and scaling before the company would become profitable.
>one must still have to target an audience that has the purchasing power to cover that.
Yeah excellent point. I sorta feel like the late-teens "I have an app idea" free-for-all kinda disregarded long-term profitability so we already have an idea of what that looks like. People were so desperate to establish any user base that I think they mined pretty much every niche regardless of size. This is partly what drove online ad prices: startups buying users at a loss in order to fuel further investment/acquisition. But maybe you're right and they were all still hobbled by a big-market mentality.
It's hard to know how many 10k-person user bases exist that are willing to pay for a product. Part of the issue is it's hard to identify those people. The thing with Freemium is if you have something that everyone uses then that word-of-mouth lets you reach the few who will pay. Maybe without some level of mass appeal it's impossible to reach the niche market and so dev costs don't matter. But I dunno, it's hard to predict.
> To ensure the fairness of our blind review process, no personal information should appear anywhere in the PDF.
But, the submission form asks for
- professional affiliation ("Your current formal association with a recognized research or industry-specific organization or institution. Enter N/A if not applicable.")
- a reference ("You are required to provide the name and email address of one reference who is familiar with your written works. Reference could be a professor, teacher, or another person from your professional network. The Berggruen Institute may contact your reference to verify that the submitted essay is indeed your original work. ")
- optionally, a previous publication
This does not look to me like they're trying a genuinely merit-only competition. Since I doubt they're blatantly lying about the blind review phase, my best guess is they will use prestige-based judgment to heavily filter submissions and then use a blind review phase for the rest? If so, then I'd say Erik's description of "Anyone can win; my understanding is that the review process is blind/anonymous" is mostly false. But am I missing something?
It's the usual, "We are open to everyone." "By 'everyone' do you mean a small group of highly credentialed people or everyone?" "... a small group of highly credentialed people."
Even a lot of forecasting competitions don't let you compete anonymously or want institutional affiliation. Even people who are theoretically anti-credentialist use it. It's ridiculous how much what is effectively a roll of the dice when you're 18 (and it is a roll of a dice whether you get into a top 10 or top 20 school) determines the rest of your life.
I understand the reasoning: what if some genius essay on consciousness turns out to be authored by a frothing-at-the-mouth white nationalist? That'd be awfully embarrassing! For the institute, of course, that has its own motives for sponsoring the contest. Dear old Mr. Bear Grooen would not be happy, and might cut off the checks. I think reserving the right for an "institutional vibe check" is the correct move on the whole, even if the current meta is to lean way too hard into meta of "give the prize to a tenured professor at Harvard."
Having been on the other side of a few "open to all" submissions, the amount of crackpot submissions you get -- especially for a topic like "the nature of consciousness" -- is going to be immense. You need to filter them out somehow.
Of course class hierarchies make the lives of the people in charge easier by making who else is elite more legible. And that does have some social value. However, there are significant well documented downsides. Especially if the selection system is somewhat arbitrary.
My feeling is: If you want to filter on that then you should filter explicitly. You should not pretend that you're open and meritocratic, you should say you're only for academics or so on. This is more pro-social as it both makes your biases more clear and avoids wasting the time of people who have no realistic chance. But the people in charge probably want to keep the impression they're meritocratic.
> My feeling is: If you want to filter on that then you should filter explicitly
Yeah, strongly agree.
Was generally impossible for me not to compare it to Scott's non-book review contest, which is claiming to be merit-only but, unlike this contest, is in fact merit-only.
I don’t think they say it’s a merit-only competition:
> …the competition will serve as a complement to the Berggruen Prize for Philosophy & Culture, which recognizes major lifetime achievements in advancing ideas that have shaped the world.
>please try to avoid having more than one Open Thread link per few months.
That seems like a bad idea. Reasons of principle aside (limiting links on a blog?), how are people supposed to provide web citations for their claims? Or are you talking about top-level comments only? Even so that seems very limiting. I do like the proof-of-work rule though.
Honestly, I thought the occasional classified thread was the place for such link posting, not the open threads. Maybe have classified threads more often, perhaps once per quarter, and not permit advertising otherwise?
Links to relevant material, on the other hand, should always be allowed, such as citations and 3rd party links comparable to the monthly Links posts.
I took it personally and flinched! I’ve always been a bit unsure of what’s acceptable behaviour here.
Luckily right now and for a while I think the podcast Subject to Change will have little of specific interest to followers of yours. So I won’t be doing any links for some months to come!
Though I’ll also just mention that when it comes to where should the Mexican border be discourse you could do a lot worse than checking out the two parter I did with Edward Shawcross from July 2022. The Last Emperor of Mexico. And goodness, he knows how to tell a story!
Slightly, until I worked it out that it was meant for the likes of "four different links in four different comments touting my blog/substack/massive pile of wood shavings, behold and be amazed at what unlimited hours of whittling can produce!" links.
I understood the context. Honestly confused that anyone wouldn't unless English is a second language.
The phrase "post a link in an open thread" indicates that this isn't about all links in comments, but rather only the comments where the *purpose* of the comment is to share - "post" - a link.
Including a link as a reference is not "posting" a link, it's "including" it.
> The word "post" comes down from the historical context of sending a note in the (postal) mail, plus arguably nailing a flier to a "post."
The mail sense of the word comes from the sense of being stationed somewhere (still a current sense of "post"), which ultimately comes from the Latin verb "pono" meaning "put". (Passive participle "positum"; compare "deposit".) The reason stations were associated with mail was that one horse can't make an entire urgent journey by itself, so you had relays that had to be staffed.
I did half-suspect the new rule was about top-level comments that promote a link, but I understood "promotion" as the more general "signal-boosting", i.e. anything I think should get more eyeballs whether or not it's my work.
I assumed you didn’t want people with just a link and no explanation, except “read this”. Or a list of links. If not that’s a good idea and should be an internet standard.
It seems clear that large scale nonviolent protests do not accomplish much of anything in America anymore. The Civil Rights movement worked by making white liberals sympathetic enough to vote in representatives who drafted legislation. The recent anti-ICE / anti-Trump movements are not accomplishing anything because unlike CRM there is no legal means to stop these people and half the people support them anyway. At the same time, you can't have a violent protest because the state will either gun you down or catch you planning it before it even begins, and you also wont win any sympathy.
What is the most effective legal way to seize political power for a cause you believe to be correct? The right did it by building capital (Thiel and Musk) and then using that to gain outsized political influence. It seems like it would be much harder for liberals to do this since they explicitly do not want an oligarchy.
I've thought that, actually. It really doesn't seem like the current polarized environment makes protests useful; you just need to get 51% in the next election (or the appropriate number of electoral votes) and that usually happens when the other side screws up badly enough to convince average-swing-voter types, who aren't terribly interested in politics and tend to be turned off by that kind of performative politics.
This seems like a fundamental misconception. Nonviolent protests have never included a mechanism to "accomplish" anything in any direct sense. Unlike voting, turnout in a protest has no set means to translate into political change of any sort. And yet they're one of the most common means of modern political activism across a wide range of nations and government types. Why?
The purpose of a protest isn't (directly) accomplishing political change. It's not even (directly) to change minds. The purpose of a protest is creating common knowledge. Fundamentally, the point is to openly and publicly count how many people hold a certain political viewpoint, and hold it strongly enough to put some amount of time and trouble (and take at least a small amount of personal risk) into signalling it. Elites can, as you mentioned, make their views publicly known to everyone else by building capital and using it to buy media outlets, or at least airtime. Ordinary people don't have that option. The populist version of that is to just...go out in the street where everyone can see you. First and foremost, everyone who sees the protest firsthand--and they're staged to be as visible as possible to as many as possible--will know that there are a lot of people who share your view. Second, large protests naturally attract media attention, so potentially millions more will find out that way. Third, large protests attract opposition, which brings its own sort of heightened visibility.
Anything that can be regarded as being "accomplished" by protests are downstream of this. You mentioned the civil rights protests and I think they are a great example. Black Americans had been oppressed for a long time, and angry about it for just as long. I don't doubt their anger and numbers were quite well-known to most of the people doing the oppressing, but a lot of the rest of the white population (particularly in states with an overall whiter population) could simply let it be out of sight and out of mind. But mass communication and cheaper travel changed the landscape. Now the information (and with somewhat more difficulty, the people themselves) could reach regions that had previously been insulated. You say they worked by "making white liberals sympathetic." I'm not going to say that's wrong, exactly, but I think the more important emphasis is that they worked by making white liberals *aware.* By creating common knowledge. By convincing voters and politicians that the population demanding these changes was too big and too invested in their cause to keep safely ignoring.
All changes effected by nonviolent protests ultimately result from making *someone* aware of the number and fervor of the people behind their cause. That can translate into change in a number of different ways, from pressuring lawmakers to driving election turnout to prompting government agencies to re-think their positions or various things. In most cases the protesters themselves won't know ahead of time how they might ultimately get what they want. They just know that standing up and being counted is a necessary first step.
I agree that the current U.S. political system is unusually non-responsive to the popular will. As a side note, I sharply disagree with the characterization that "half the people support [various things the protesters are against]." For any given issue that draws a substantial protest in 2025, it is likely to be *much* less than half the people who support that thing. The trouble is that U.S. political system allows for a lot of pretty deeply unpopular actions to be enacted as long as the overall level of polarization can be maintained. If you have only 40% popular support (enough to win most elections), and any given action is only popular with 75% of your base, but they disagree about *which* actions they dislike while agreeing about how The Other Side is Terrible and Must Be Stopped, you can do quite a lot of stuff that only ~30% of the country actually wants while maintaining electoral viability.
More particularly, I think all Republican lawmakers have figured out that the one constituency that they MUST keep content in order to win elections is their core of Republican primary voters. It doesn't matter how popular or unpopular a politician is in the general election if they get primaried before they can get there. And right now, it seems like staying loyal to Trump is what Republican primary voters most want from their congresspeople. So any protests that don't gain traction among these people (which very few protests from the left will do) will have a hard time influencing any congressional votes.
Despite this, I don't believe popular protests are useless by any means. Large, well-attended protests can
1. Raise morale (again, by creating common knowledge) among the left, helping to drive voter turnout.
2. Cause Republican politicians to try to walk a more precarious line. As outlined above, I don't think almost any of them can afford to openly break with Trump. But if they're worried enough, they might try to play damage control and find ways to slow down Trump's agenda without drawing too much attention. Which in turn could backfire, causing internal schisms[1]
3. Cause self-damaging reactions from Trump and Republicans. I think the LA protests were a minor version of this, while much more serious versions are possible.
4. Encourage Democratic lawmakers to take risks they might not otherwise take in opposing Trump.
5. Provide a difficult-to-ignore reality check to people bamboozled by right-wing media. It's hard to claim a policy is popular or successful when there are large demonstrations against it walking past your house every week.
I'm pessimistic about the overall fate of the U.S., but to the extent that anything will help, I expect more and more vigorous protests against the current government to be an overall positive.
[1] This is a place where its important to notice that the incentive for the individual politician is quite different for the incentive for the party as a whole. It can be worth it for the individual to take a risk with a high chance of a strong backfire if their election prospects are lousy without it. But them doing so might be *quite* bad for the overall party.
General strikes are nonviolent, sabotage/direct action is also (usually) non-violent, don't conflate "non-violent" with "legal"
I think a lot of the most effective tactics for resistance right now are not legal, but also not violent, because killing people tends to alienate. Not all - there's a place for assassination - but a lot.
This seems too broad a principle. If I'm working in a Russian MIC factory and I begin damaging the shells I produce such that they don't explode properly, or damaging guidance chips before I install them in one-way attack drones so that the drones are rendered useless, I've certainly engaged in something that most would consider to be "resistance to the war" but I don't think most would consider it to be "violent resistance to the war."
It's not *very* violent, sure; neither is tripping someone, but both are still instances of violence.
There's a sentiment I frequently see, asserting that preventing property damage never warrants harming the person doing it because it's "not violence". That's the horseshit I'm pushing back on.
>>There's a sentiment I frequently see, asserting that preventing property damage never warrants harming the person doing it because it's "not violence". That's the horseshit I'm pushing back on.
I'd respectfully disagree. I hardly ever see anything like this kind of stance, at least not in the US. Pretty much bog-standard US law across our various jurisdictions is that reasonable force may be used in defense of property.
Just a quick google on "violence in defense of property California" yields:
"You can use reasonable force to protect your property from imminent harm and to protect the property of a family member or guest. “Reasonable force” is the amount of force a reasonable person in the same situation would believe is necessary to protect the property from imminent harm."
It's pure anecdata, but I've never seen anybody argue that these kinds of laws are too extreme and should be done away with so that no use of force ("violence") in defense of property is ever justified. Maybe we're just operating in very different spaces online?
Now, it's also bog-standard US law that *deadly* force generally can't be used in defense of property alone. But there's a big difference between "preventing property damage never warrants harming the person doing it" and "preventing property damage never warrants attempting to kill the person doing it." The former is, I agree, bullshit, but it's also an extreme position I've personally never seen taken by anybody. The latter, though, is just the standard we've lived under for quite some time now; it's not some new bullshit concoction being forced upon us by extreme elements of the woke mob.
I'm relieved that the law isn't completely stupid; I have seen, in comment threads on ACX itself, people arguing that no amount of property damage ever justifies any amount of bodily harm.
I personally think lethal force is justified to stop a felony being committed (which includes at least some instances of property damage), but I acknowledge that's far from a mainstream position.
You can regard it that way if you like, but it still carries different emotional weight to most people and will have a different impact on how sympathetic they are to a particular protest.
Maybe? It does intuitively *feel* violent. But adding in "destruction of property" enormously increases the breadth of an already quite broad concept, further diluting its punch.
Consider that even a strict "physical bodily harm" definition spans everything from a slap to an ICBM. Now consider that adding destruction of property adds in now just the bombing of buildings, but also something as potentially benign as someone tearing a piece of paper or deleting a digital file is "violence" under that definition.
Consider too that many people argue that *indirect* bodily harm counts as violence: that (for example) controlling access to food or medical care (so that some people starve or die of treatable ailments). And that these people can hold up dead bodies to underscore their point, not just rubble.
If "violence" were used simply as a neutral classifier it wouldn't make much difference. But it's something people attach great moral weight to, and often hold up as a Bright Line that invites retaliation if crossed. Being very, very cautious about scope-creeping the definition is advisable here.
I believe this is what the kids mean when they talk about "speaking from a place of privilege."
This framing implicitly assumes that the policies of anyone in power will have no serious negative consequences on you. That's very true for some people. Much less true for others.
The opposite framing assumes you're in a position to figure out which set of policies is more likely to have negative consequences for you, which is epistemically arrogant.
That depends *extremely heavily* on the policies. Yes, policies can counterintuitive and unpredictable consequences. But they can also have big, obvious, unmissable consequences.
You may choose to tell yourself that you are in such a thorough state of epistemic helplessness that you can never draw any conclusions whatsoever about government policy--even to the point of not believing (for example) a declaration of war is causal to subsequent battlefield deaths. But very few other people have any reason to adopt your position.
Also, if you really are in that state, what's the point of arguing about it? How can you have any confidence that your argument will cause anyone to be convinced of anything, or have any predictable or useful effects on the world at all?
I don't understand your complaint. Protests aren't supposed to accomplish anything. We don't have a protest-based political system, nor should we. That just selects for angry, psychiatrically imbalanced people. The most effective way to seize political power in a democracy is to vote it in. That means convincing other people of the idea via direct advocacy, letter-writing, essay-writing, etc. If you're on the left I also have no idea why you're upset. The left has been much better at capturing institutions and organizing political movements for 40 years. It's poor sportsmanship to whine about the system just because your side isn't currently dominant.
Maybe consider that your position is neither correct nor popular.
Then leave. That's what I plan to do. I think we're midway into a political norm-defection cascade that likely won't course-correct. In 30 years I expect us to resemble Argentina or Brazil albeit with more wealth. Our debt is becoming unmanageable and we're unprepared for what AI is going to do to the economy. If a bond auction fails just as unemployment hits 30% then I don't think our already-polarized and increasingly anti-meritocratic system will be able to handle it.
For now, however, we do live in a democracy even if it functions imperfectly. It will function even less perfectly if people try to forcibly fix its problems. The only chance we have of course-correcting is to double down on our institutional norms and hope the polity heals itself.
But I don't believe the US is in any meaningful sense still a democracy. At best it's a hybrid regime. Elections are held under conditions where they pose no danger to oligarchic power, and if you look beyond the handpicked candidates of the elites (i.e.. to the treatment of third parties or primary elections) they're hardly free and fair.
Trump changed his policy for ICE last week, limiting the kinds of workplaces that will be raided. Did the protests in LA influence that decision? Who knows? Maybe?
"Maybe" is a long way off from "It seems clear that large scale nonviolent protests do not accomplish much of anything in America anymore" and "The recent anti-ICE / anti-Trump movements are not accomplishing anything..."
Maybe read the news before asserting what you are certain hasn't happened.
Just because a protest fails to immediately change policy doesn’t mean protest is useless. Protests are just one tactic used for organizing. They get people involved in your movement who might provide financial support, labor, peer advocacy, or votes in the future. They demonstrate the size, commitment, and organization of the movement. No Kings isn’t going to change Trump’s policy in the short term, but it might help activate democrats to go vote in the midterms.
I don’t know how entirely “nonviolent” these protests have been, but I’d contend the difference is surely one of content and not procedure. The civil rights movement for blacks involved people that were in fact regarded as citizens, and their differential treatment. Its goals may not have turned out to be limited, but the general understanding of its basis was. Even BLM had an immediate base of sympathy among some insofar as people chose to see it as part of that lineage, however legitimately or corruptedly.
It's about $2000-$5000 to bribe a member of congress to be a friend to your business. This is the cost for "nobody cares about this" causes (See Santorum trying to defund the National Weather Service because of a legal-bribe from AccuWeather).
Convincing Trump to crash the stock market may in fact be the most effective legal way to seize political power, if your political enemies are wealthy.
Routing government money to NGOs has been how the liberals "earn money" and create self-sustaining cycles of bribery (because all the employees of the NGO are expected to donate to the "liberals" in politics).
>It seems clear that large scale nonviolent protests do not accomplish much of anything in America anymore.
I think you might be conflating "not violent" with "nonviolent." Nonviolence is a very specific strategy, and CRM participants were given training on the methods of nonviolence.
The key was getting white moderates to support civil rights legislation, and one thing that helped that happen was the excessive reaction of authorities in the South; Bull Conner might have done more for the CRM than Bayard Rustin https://www.bhamwiki.com/w/Police_dogs_and_firehoses It is too soon to tell how the Administration will respond and how that response will affect public opinion. Using troops untrained in crowd control has not always turned out well for the government https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kent_State_shootings
Rasmussen had the BLM protests down to about 33% favorability by November. In any "this is related to getting Joe Biden Elected" scenario, the BLM protests were exceptionally poorly timed.
Now, if you want to say that hiring Black people to sit on their asses and do nothing was the goal, then yeah, they managed to bully Google/et alia into doing that. And then Google et alia fired the folks as soon as nobody was looking.
My obvious bias? Lordy, I knew people on the Democratic campaign trail. This is what they were saying -- and I'd recommend listening to the advertising men, when they start discussing issues of timing.
Please note the activist explanation within the article. "we're gonna depend on Biden to fix everything" (I seem to recall Biden having some very racist things to say about blacks, way back when.) How did that turn out for blacks, anyway?
I put my money where my mouth was, on the issue of "riot season" this year. I was in LA, and every place I set foot on is where the riots are occurring (yes, first time in LA). I went literally no where else. So, if riot season was not timed for "After Memorial Day" I would have been right in the middle of it. Yep, got some skin in this game.
>Lordy, I knew people on the Democratic campaign trail.
But, we aren't talking about them. We are talking about you, and about the study I posted. If you are going to say, "if you want to say that hiring Black people to sit on their asses and do nothing was the goal," then don't be surprised if people infer that you might have a bias.
>So, newsweek is saying 48%.
Newsweek isn't Rasmussen, and 48% isn't 33%. Did you make it up? Moreover, that poll shows 48-38 favorability.
More broadly, you seem to want to fight the culture war. I am more interested in the empirical question, as is , unless I misread them, the OP.
>I put my money where my mouth was, on the issue of "riot season" this year. I was in LA, and every place I set foot on is where the riots are occurring (yes, first time in LA). I went literally no where else. So, if riot season was not timed for "After Memorial Day" I would have been right in the middle of it. Yep, got some skin in this game.
I have no idea what this means or how it is relevant
48% percent is ... "no independents and Republicans", if you want to put "all democrats and dem-independents" in one bucket. That's you've lost all possible people you wanted to attract.
(Likely Rasmussen's polling was adjusting up/down the %es of Rs versus Ds, as Ras has a Republican lean).
I'm choosing to view the Democratic use of brownshirts as an electoral "vote changing device" as unbroken from 2020 to 2025 (except for the years where a Democrat was in charge, and hence it would be counterproductive to show "chaos in the streets"). Feel free to follow the money and discuss the money-laundering aspect of this year's protests and how that materially changes the use of brownshirts into a "non-electoral" context, and instead a "Civil rights-esque" context (where corporate entities fund protests for their own gain).
> It seems clear that large scale nonviolent protests do not accomplish much of anything in America anymore. The Civil Rights movement worked by making white liberals sympathetic enough to vote in representatives who drafted legislation.
The Civil Rights movement lasted for fourteen years, so I don't think this comparison proves that large-scale nonviolent protests can't work.
Too bad there ain't no 'likes' on here (which I get, Scott wants it to be about rational argumentation not bandwagoning). You're the only one saying it.
Unfortunately it really weights things toward billionaires. It's very unlikely you or I could organize a movement that could compete with Peter Thiel or George Soros.
Sure, however, if you're the average literal man-on-the-street at a protest, you, *personally* can effect far more "change" by picking up an extra shift the day of the protest and donating the proceeds of your sacrifice to the agents of whatever cause you support, even if it's only to help pay their lawyers. *THAT'S* meaningful action.
Modern American protesting an act of self-righteous, self-aggrandizing partying, with the occasional opportunity to LARP insurgent warfare against an unimaginably benign enemy. It's just for the lols, nothing more.
I think the whole 'earn to give' thing got kind of tainted by SBF's manipulation of campaign donations; people are more likely to think it's self-serving now.
It's not just partying; if you accept that leftist or liberal politics replace religion for many people, it's like Christmas or Easter, a sort of high holiday. (Or Rosh Hashanah/Passover for many of the people here ;) )
Though seriously, exactly none of the 7000+ people who took to the streets of my Very Blue City were doing that rather than 'earning to give' out of disgust with SBF.
One thing is fun; the other isn't. That's why people do the fun thing, and don't do the not-fun thing. *dusts hands decidedly*
Seriously, you're right. I think they're kind of stuck on 60s narratives where protests worked; the thing is the country's so polarized now it really doesn't matter if people march, you have to get 51% at the next election.
No kidding! Though if I were really obnoxious I'd interrogate you (not THAT way) about what you're giving to with your 'earn to give'.
I think "X doesn't work" is underspecified. In a democracy, if you lose an election, you are near-term going to have a bad time, and there's no (non-coup) way to avoid having a bad time. I think people are getting frustrated with democracy because they want to be able to lose an election but still have some lever that lets them get the policy they want, and the faster people realize that's unrealistic the faster they can move on to realistic things rather than griping about democracy being dead. I think many tactics can slightly ameliorate the damage, including protests, lobbying/advocacy, letter-writing campaigns, and lawfare, and people should do these tactics, but even if you do these well, it's only going bring it from a 10/10 bad time to an 8/10 bad time.
I think on the party/movement level, people should try to win elections. This is most of what Musk and Thiel did - Musk's capital couldn't set policy directly (eg his inability to lift planning restrictions on SpaceX), so he used it to help Trump win. I think in the medium-term, "popularism" has the right take on this - support popular policies, reject unpopular policies, and try to deliver good outcomes. In the long-term, you do difficult advocacy (arguing, building up friendly media, gathering evidence that your position is correct) to change what is popular and possible. I think this is most of what Thiel did - tried to fund incipient right-wing media that could pay off and win elections years into the future. I don't know how much this really helped, but if you think it did, anybody can help grow incipient media they like, whether by funding it, writing for it, or just subscribing to it.
On the individual level, I think the most valuable thing people can do is choose a cause that hasn't yet been fully polarized and try to pull ropes sideways ( https://www.overcomingbias.com/p/policy_tugowarhtml ), and the most effective way to do this is to donate to or volunteer for small candidates/causes that you believe in, plus use any other unusual tools you have (eg if you are a journalist, you can present important stories). While you're doing this, you can take whatever opportunities arise to try to convince people on the big polarized issues, and of course vote during election years.
I am not sure losing an election automatically means you are going to have no significant leverage on policy in the short term. Unions (in countries where they are strong enough) can organize large scale strikes for instance, and if these are disruptive enough they can force the ruling party to alter policy.
A country where there's some sort of fixed power base (whether it's unions or the military or the imams or whatever) that can force elected governments to alter policy has pretty limited claim to be a democracy.
This risks getting us to no true Scotsman territory unless we settle on some definition of democracy beforehand. In any system there are power bases that are not under full institutional control.
> I think people are getting frustrated with democracy because they want to be able to lose an election but still have some lever that lets them get the policy they want, and the faster people realize that's unrealistic the faster they can move on
Well, the traditional way to do this is to have different policies in different places. Far from being unrealistic, it was the state of the world in pretty much every country or tribal region at all points in history.
Quite a few years ago I saw a friend of mine post on Facebook that he had previously been sympathetic to the idea of California seceding from the US, but he changed his mind when he realized that if California left, it wouldn't be able to stop people in Texas from living like Texans.
This is the attitude we don't want. It's growing, but it's bad.
I originally took the Chenoweth study very seriously; they claimed to originally start out being very skeptical of non-violence, but the data convinced them... the strength of data overcoming one's biases is great!
But the Hong Kong protests established that the thesis is ultimately mistaken; even the lower police estimates claimed 3.5% participation rate, yet the protests were fundamentally unsuccessful. I still think they can be valuable, but the idea that 3.5% participation is sufficient to fully offset tyrrany has been empirically proven false.
What's the relevant denominator for the 3.5% figure? The Hong Kong protests involved at least 3.5% of the population of Hong Kong, but much, much less than 3.5% of the population of China as a whole.
A point I occasionally make in this context is that Hong Kong made an understandable but catastrophic political error by alienating the population of the mainland. Mainland Chinese hate Hong Kong because they are aware that the Hong Kongers hate them. (By contrast, mainland Chinese are very positive toward Taiwan!)
The result is that, if the CCP decides to run roughshod over Hong Kong, there's no political cost, because the overwhelming sentiment will be "those jackasses got what was coming to them".
I concur that China is much more populous than Hong Kong, but worry that this reduces to "no region can be autonomous without the consent of the overlord"... which seems to me exactly what we should oppose. Having to convince 3.5% of an invading force that they should join you in protesting the invasion feels morally questionable, at best.
To frame it another way: the population of Ukraine is ~40 million, and of Russia ~144 million. Do we think that Ukrainian independence would be better served by having 6.5 million Ukrainians (i.e. 3.5% of Russia + Ukraine) peacefully protest against Russian invasion... or by having 1 million Ukrainian soldiers take up arms (which is currently happening)?
I suppose if the USA stops sending supplies, they can go to protests as a backup plan, but my impression is that it's less likely to be successful. I feel like peaceful protest is much more likely to be successful when backed by the credible threat of armed resistance, even if that threat is only implicit.
Suppose 100% of the population of Hong Kong protested in favour of democracy. The Chinese Government would have absolutely no qualms about marching in and killing off all five million of them. Hong Kong is just some free skyscrapers as far as they're concerned.
I think we're in agreement here about China's feeling regarding HK. My original point was that the HK situation showed me that "speaking softly" may not work. Personally I think that's a shame; it would be great if nonviolent resistence WAS sufficient.
But since it's not, I think it's important to also "carry a big stick".
"eg if you are a journalist, you can present important stories"
I groaned aloud at this, because we already have activist journalists and they're heating up the polarisation, not cooling it down or presenting options three and four.
Protests are one thing - even if they're "mostly peaceful". They'll move off the streets on to the next cause of outrage. I'm already reading a lot from the liberal side about "so a few of the usual suspects did a little torching in a confined part of LA, big whoop, that means nothing".
I don't like activist journalists, because their zeal for the cause can overcome any pretensions to journalism proper. I know American media liked to fool itself for a long time that it was impartial "just the facts. ma'am" reporting unlike European models of newspapers and media aligned with different political parties, but I think that balloon has been punctured.
However, there is still room for "these are the facts, yes we are doing 'both sides' reporting and not pushing an agenda - that's in the editorial and opinion columns - and we will be fair to all sides as much as is possible" rather than the 500th screaming piece about "Evil Tweedledee/Tweedledum does monstrous thing! Babies eaten! Women and minorities most affected!" and that goes for right wing as well as left wing; there was a lot of "we support this right of centre pro-business neo-liberal party (because our proprietor tells us to do so) and will shove it down your neck" journalism in the 90s and early 00s in Ireland which I despised.
Of course we do. Non-activist journalists would probably be fired on sight, at this point. (When the real reports of what happened in the Ukraine come out, you're going to be appalled).
Zelensky has been bombing the "breakaway provinces" since 2014. Attacking his own civilians, in some places for years on end. This is a matter of public record, but you won't see any pictures of the bombed out cities.
Want to hear about the soldiers bleeding out of their eyes? (also a matter of fact).
Please note that Zelensky is doing the whole cultural erasure and genocide with his SouthWestern provinces (and Orban is posting extremely impolitic cartoons about Galicians. Because everyone hates the Galicians).
Did I forget to mention that the last Administration let Dick Cheney's protegee run the Ukrainian war? This was a Very Bad Idea... (She was one of the folks saying sanctions would end the war in 2 months).
Because they are not bombed out at all. Look at recent pictures of Donetsk. How does it look after 8 years of ukranian bombing? Compare that to Kharkiv a few months into 2022. They are incomparable. Look at numbers of civilians killed in all the years since 2014-2022, and compare them to the current war. Please provide the names of the cities (satellite images exist) that you think were bombed in any meaningfull sense between 2014 and 2022 by Ukranians.
meaning, the totally-not-Russian invaders like Strelkov who openly admit to having been there, using totally-not-Russian pantsirs, buks and artillery and shooting down civilian airliners, who just happen to prop up the totally-organic seperatism? Cmon.
Thanks. I'm still confused though: your main point seems to be that Zelensky and the Ukrainians are doing horrible stuff that people would find appalling if they knew about it. Not to minimize the issue, but I assume that is true of basically every side in every war. (I'm *not* saying this makes your point facile, just that even granting it I'd still be tempted to side with the Ukrainians as the lesser of two evils.) But in any case, the link you posted is to an account of Russia doing horrible stuff. (Perhaps your point there is just that Ukraine is doing all the same horrible stuff talked about in the article?)
I wont dispute that Erica Chenoweth study, but some people are disputing it because almost all of her examples did have a smaller violent component which initiated some state response, and then fell back on a large nonviolent movement to act as a reasonable comparison. So I guess I don't think mass protest never works, but then you still need to meet some of the variables she talks about and I think the recent specifically American protests are not doing that because it's now so much harder to get elites and security forces to be sympathetic to your side and disloyal to the president (but this is just my perception, maybe im wrong).
I was the one who found the initial "diversity bias" in the 4o and the "create duplicate image" trick before it went viral (and than went viral myself among twitter racists, collecting new racial slurs and tweet-sized essays on AI model collapse as a metaphor for the collapse of the western culture in quote-tweets)
in the thread above i run several experiments, including non-human examples, and they support bias induced by the yellow/dark tint added from generation
It's easily testable (just expensive) - we can run "create exact same replica" prompt on a photo, but after each iteration remove the yellow tint and run on this color-corrected version
I just did the experiment with Adobe Firefly, since I am an employee and have free access to it. It's not exactly the same, since Firefly's interface is a lot more structured and doesn't afford asking for an exact duplicate in a way that the engine will heed.
What I did was set up the "distracted boyfriend" meme as both "style reference" and "composition reference", set the intensity slider for both to the maximum, and then iterated on results by selecting "generate similar" on the first result.
Doing just that, Firefly converges eventually on black people, but does not descend into caricature. To the contrary, the subjects very quickly become more stylish and conventionally attractive than the original image and generally remain so. Their apparent ethnicity drifts first to Southern European, then Middle Eastern, then Indian, then Black. The final image is of a dozen smiling black women (all young and pretty) with a variety of natural hairstyles. All of them are facing the camera, standing in a relax neutral group photo pose, and wearing pink t-shirts, blue jeans, and sneakers. They're in a window-lined corridor with orange walls and a linoleum floor.
Second experiment, I selected the "cool tone" option in the "color and tone" settings. Ethnicities followed a similar progression, and like the previous experiment the subjects became and remained conventionally good-looking. The final image is of four black men with fade haircuts facing away from the camera in an outdoor scene in front of a blue tent. All four are wearing jeans and white t-shirts and one is wearing a black backpack.
Third experiment, I selected "vibrant colors" for "color and tone". This time, the subjects stayed white quite a bit longer and eventually converged on East Asian instead of Black. And like the last two, everyone was conventionally good-looking throughout. Final image had a long-haired Asian woman in the foreground, wearing a pink t-shirt and blue jeans, standing in front of a line of eight men and women (some white, some East Asian, and some hard to categorize because they're out-of-focus) wearing a variety of differently-colored shirts. Most are wearing blue jeans and sneakers, but one woman is wearing pink jeans instead of blue and another is wearing ballet flats instead of sneakers. The background is featureless white except for faint reflections of the subjects on the floor.
1) my experiments shown that all images go dark/yellow, which show how much the added tint affect iterations
2) not all of human examples transformed to minorities before collapse, which i would expect if the diversity bias was real
These are weak evidence, but they still add more weigh to the tint hypothesis.
I haven't run color-corrected experiment because it's expensive - i've accidentally spent $160 on the original thread, and I'm not ready to spend more on this.
For all our benefits I would recommend posting that rule somewhere it can more easily be found than in Open Thread 386. Maybe its own page, maybe under About. I'm assuming this comment policy still holds: https://slatestarcodex.com/2014/03/02/the-comment-policy-is-victorian-sufi-buddha-lite/ so that's worth summarizing there too, along with any other rules that have been declared since then. (I'll take the risk of breaking the 'proof of work' rule since its relevance should be obvious.)
What is it about Twitter in particular that seem to make people go absolutely insane? I feel like we've seen so many people just get... brainrotted from that app. Twitter users also refer to Twitter as an awful abomination way more than say, TikTok users say that about TikTok.
Never been on it myself. Feels like this alternative universe I don't understand.
Idk either. The UI sucks dick, short form communicating with people is awful, and long form content is better on other sites. Twitter produces funny screenshots but not much else. Its popularity is like if every personality used iFunny for public appearances.
In my own mental model, two factors I think are especially worth highlighting in the case of twitter, include: A) anarchy; B) context collapse. (This isn't original to me, but I can't remember where I first heard these discussed.)
Re: anarchy
The fewer barriers to entry, the higher the entropy. Blogs are gated communities. ACX/SSC for example is governed by Scott, our rightful caliph. He sets the rules/norms, and he can ban whoever he wants. But on twitter, it's up to the individual to curate their own personal feed and block-list.
Re: context collapse
In normal conversation, there's always a specific intended audience. This allows for conversation within a shared context. E.g. when Scott Aaronson talks about physics/computing with colleagues, he's able to use certain jargon and assumptions freely. But when he talks to his mother about physics/computing, that's a bit different of a different context and there's a lot more explaining to do.
In social media, it's often the case that all contexts get collapsed into a single, universal context. Or in other words, instead of speaking to a specific audience, you're always speaking to a universal audience, which causes a lot of friction. This friction is especially pronounced on twitter because of the word-count limit, which leads to a culture of users never explaining themselves until they get dogpiled on.
----
The metaphor I used to use for twitter is Lebanon. I.e. a place where 12 different factions get to fight each other for all eternity. Although after reading the bookreview context entry for "Sadly, Porn", I think I now prefer the Dante's Inferno analogy. Because it highlights how twitter users are exactly where they want to be (and how the almighty algorithm gives users exactly what they want; i.e. users farm outrage, influencers farm engagement, advertisers farm views, so everybody wins!).
One thing is the algorithm (whether purposefully or indirectly) highlighting "disagreeing" posts. Whenever you click on an even vaguely controversial Gavin Newsom post, the first reply will be some stupid rightoid; whenever you click on a Mike Lee post, the first reply will be some stupid lib. I assume this is to engagement farm (you click on Mike Lee's post because you like him, then get mad about somebody mentioning Trump's 34 felonies, so you reply), but the consequence is basically to 24/7 bombard you with the opinions of idiots you disagree with whenever you read any post that isn't 100% replied to by people on the same side as the poster.
Since Musk took over I've learned to treat Twitter as a kind of exposure therapy -- read unhinged posts and just... not let them get to me.
Turning off all notifications helps a lot. Last week I got dunked on by Hillsdale College but didn't even know it until I went through my reply posts a few days later, which gave me some distance.
Bots. Bots and more bots. A friend of mine had over 200 hundred thousand twitter accounts at one point, so please, don't trust anything you read on the platform without independent verification (and not from Rolling Stone).
I don't think that takes on Twitter are any worse than the takes on a lot of comment sections I see on blogs, including blogs where the actual content is generally fairly reasonable. See, eg, the Volokh Conspiracy.
And, there is plenty of good content on Twitter. You just have to follow the right people, and ignore the idiotic stuff that pops up. (Such as the person on my feed who seems to think that the guy who survived the India Air crash did so by leaping from the plane in midair).
> than the takes on a lot of comment sections I see on blogs, including blogs where the actual content is generally fairly reasonable. See, eg, the Volokh Conspiracy.
Volokh Conspiracy used to host its own site, where the comments were good. What you see now is just the fact that they're hosted by Reason.
I never saw the comments while they were on the Washington Post, but I'm going to assume they weren't great there either.
"I don't think that takes on Twitter are any worse than the takes on a lot of comment sections I see on blogs, including blogs where the actual content is generally fairly reasonable. See, eg, the Volokh Conspiracy."
A Twitter post can be re-tweeted to a much larger (potential) audience than a comment in a random comment section. I think this is a large part of it.
I'm thinking of Justine Sacco's “Going to Africa. Hope I don’t get AIDS. Just kidding. I’m white!” tweet as an example to illustrate the blast radius. If Justine had randomly posted this in some obscure web-site's comment section it would not have gotten the attention it did (unless someone then re-posted it to Twitter).
Combine this with extreme positions/takes getting more attention and with people signalling and you get ... Twitter.
There's a certain feeling of slight outrage that is actually really addictive. Twitter is perfectly tuned to provide this feeling in a sort of skinner box environment. Its not the only place that taps into this, but it was one of the first and its still one of the most effective.
I got slated for a week for an opinion about the anime Neon Genesis Evangelion, most of which took the form of quote tweets roughly along the lines of "Can you believe this guy said evangelion is in many ways a direct response to Mobile Suit Gundam?"
Now, Imagine if you were asked, "what's your favorite character from Eva" and like any good, well meaning autist, you replied with the truth:
"Math Puppy"
(the best case scenario is that your interlocutors decide you're a furry. When the best case scenario is furrydom, you've taken a wrong turn on the internet).
[For those not aware, "favorite character" for Eva means "who do you want to bang" -- and... yeah, liking the dog is going to get you funny responses.]
It has had over a decade to build a culture of snark and status signalling. If you took all the people out of twitter and shoved them into YouTube comments, or even ACX comments, they would behave the same way.
The old reason I'd heard was the character limits. It was called Twitter because you only got like 200 characters for your message, so it's pretty much only enough room for an unsupported hot take.
Plus the algorithm trying like hell to shove people into fights.
It's designed for hot-takes and virality, so it really favors short-term behaviour. Twitter is also significantly older than Tiktok and I feel the userbase is in a very different stage of life; From second-hand impressions it's easily just as bad at rotting the brain, but the userbase itself has not noticed it to the degree Twitters' userbase has.
Also, the administrative switch on twitter made a lot of people pretty mad, so that's another reasons why some people suddenly noticed how bad it is.
On twitter, there's constantly some contrived debate that gives you that minimal hit of intellectual engagement to feel engaging, while triggering your political and moral outrage intuitions.
The worst Twitter dynamic is when someone you vaguely like quote-tweets an infuriating opinion in a sane, mildly funny tone. (e.g. not the best example because it's so inane as to be easily ignored, but this was reposted today by Noah Smith https://x.com/NewsomHater1/status/1934053055000973730).
The people who mess twitter up are not the people who post their stupid, infuriating viewpoints - they are easily blocked, or ignored. In a healthy society, people like us should be protected from viewpoints like this.
The people who ruin the platform are the people "on your side", like Noah Smith, who serve up these views just to feed you a hit of moral indignation.
Also there might be a selection effect - I think Twitter users have the self-awareness to realise that they're doing someone stupid, which TikTok users don't have (or it's easier for TikTok users to compartmentalise their behaviour as doing something stupid and mind-numbing).
I think siloing yourself off from views that are popular and influential and might end up wielding state violence against you in a few years to avoid hits of "moral indignation" is a bad strategy.
Accounts like LibsOfTikTok (as well as its analogues on the other side) provide an extremely valuable service, basically smuggling in information from the other side that the Algorithms would naturally keep you ignorant of.
I strongly disagree on the LibsofTiktok and its analogues. Those kinds of accounts are not smuggling valuable information, they are finding the most outrageous or extreme versions of the opposition and throwing them to an audience hungry for outrage. These people exist, but are not representative.
Sam Schoenberg calls this "Ideologues in the zoo".
LibsofTiktok etc are the zoo, if you go there you will find lions and tigers and bears. But if you go out into the wild you'll find they're actually pretty hard to find. But lots of people are basing their entire view of their political opposition based on a heavily curated stream designed to create engagement via outrage.
I wouldn't be surprised if it functioned as a little of both. By extreme analogy, Nazi Germany staged an exhibition of "degenerate art" in 1937, which was intended to showcase how horrible the artistic styles were and make the case that the Nazis were doing good work by suppressing them. The exhibition proved to be extremely popular, and no doubt a lot of people went there looking to be outraged, but I've read an account (in Richard Evans's "The Third Reich in Power") claiming that a lot of the visitors came away with better opinions of the "degenerate" art than they'd had entering.
Consider it from a more epidemiological perspective: if you're trying to foresee the next epidemic, randomly sampling the population isn't as helpful as searching specifically for the most virulent strains.
Except for the fact that the vast majority of people who follow Libsoftiktok et al are just there to reinforce their ingroup/outgroup assumptions and get a nice hit of outrage juice from the dispenser.
You can rationalise it however you want but ultimately you're watching weird animal stress response behaviours at the zoo and think it generalises to wild populations.
Probably many go to such places there looking for ammo to hit back at the other side (by pointing out to them the extremists in their camp that they do not disown).
It's a long time since I've seen a comment on ACX that I disagree with so strongly!
I think it's defensible to want to get some exposure to the range of views in society; but I would disagree that an account that chooses the most extreme content to maximise clicks and shock value is a sane and healthy way of doing this!
I'd hazard that, on top of wasting hours on outrage porn, almost everyone who follows LibsOfTikTok gets measurably stupider (i.e. would make more objectively incorrect estimates of the range of opinions in their society) from watching it.
If you really want to know what the other side thinks, you can follow quality opinion polls, read long-form journalism, or discuss with actual humans.
But, to be honest, I'd defend the view that, 99% of the time, ignorance is bliss with regards to the views of stupid or extreme people. On your "state violence" point, yeah, if you're Tutsi in Rwanda in 1993, it might be worth checking out what the Hutus are saying on the radio. But I think almost all of us are in the situation where additional knowledge of what the other side thinks has almost zero marginal value.
You'll probably just enjoy life more and respect other people if you a) live in a well-crafted bubble, especially online, and, b) when you escape your bubble, work under overgenerous assumptions that your interlocuters are as rational and measured as you are; when they're not, try to treat them with compassion and anthropological curiosity.
> I think it's defensible to want to get some exposure to the range of views in society; but I would disagree that an account that chooses the most extreme content to maximise clicks and shock value is a sane and healthy way of doing this!
How would you get exposure to the range, if not by looking at the most extreme content? Those are fully synonymous concepts.
No, they are really, really not. Yes, in mathematics the "range" of a data set is the maximum value minus the minimum value. Shockingly, however, everyday English doesn't use mathematical terminology verbatim when discussing non-mathematical concepts.
Colloquially, getting exposure to "the range of views in society" means getting a sense of what the various reasonably common/popular beliefs are. It does NOT mean looking exclusively at the most extreme beliefs. Despite peoples' tendency to describe politics in left-right terms, belief space is of enormously high dimensionality, and learning the value of a few outlying points will tell you next-to-nothing about the remainder of the distribution. Also how you operationalize "extreme" in such a set is pretty subjective.
Let's consider something concrete: views on crime and punishment. I'm sure you could find people holding some very wacky positions like "death penalty for minor crimes," "no crimes or law enforcement at all," "all policing and justice should be privatized," and "if somebody accuses somebody else of a crime, the truth of it shall be decided by trial by combat." And all of these are pretty much irrelevant noise. You could sample such wacky positions all day and not learn anything useful about what positions your neighbors and coworkers are likely to hold. They don't represent "the range of societal views on crime and punishment" in the sense that anybody actually means it when they say it.
Mmm. ImageFX does seem to do this. I think Flux does too. And GPT 4o. But I really haven't noticed it in DALL-E 3; in fact if anything it seems to favour bright, overlit scenes.
On (1), I remember this being a whole thing around early Stable Diffusion XL era - people would create LoRAs that adapt the base model to higher/lower key, as the base model (and plain SD1.5) were biased towards the average, making it hard to produce very dark or very light images.
CFG is part of model configs, but the recommended settings (if a platform even lets you mess with it) varies between models. Older models were usually running on fairly high CFGs, I believe mostly to force prompt alignment, which exaggerates the output features - this often creates a subtle subconscious "THIS IS CHEAP AI ART" effect (*). The general trend has been towards much lower CFGs.
(*) as you might be able to tell, I don't have anything against ImgGen overall - but any form has its exemplars and its, uh, shovelware.
Random question, in case anyone here works for streaming companies: why is it that sometimes Netflix will have an entire series, except a random season or two? For instance, in the UK, Netflix has Archer, but it's missing seasons 9 and 11.
I've often wondered why there isn't a streaming service that specialises in buying up the rights to all the crappy old television shows that would otherwise be invisible.
Everyone has a bunch of obscure old TV shows that they'd like to see again. For the cost of buying the streaming rights to Seinfeld or Friends, you could surely buy the streaming rights to a hundred long tail shows like Perfect Strangers or Small Wonder or Unhappily Ever After from the same era, and a significant fraction of the population is going to say "oh wow, I remember that show" and sign up for your service.
I think that Reddit thread covered that - for older shows made before streaming services were a thing, trying to work out the royalties is very difficult (e.g. what if an actor died since, or the production company that made the show went bust in the meantime?) so it's complicated by "we sold the rights to NBC to put the show in syndication but Netflix wasn't even a gleam in the eye when we did that, so now who owns what rights to show it where?"
Actual person who works at a streaming company here! Speaking entirely from public information, licensing is Real Complicated, especially for anything even touching on music rights. I have no specific knowledge about Archer but would not be surprised if it relates to use of music in those particular seasons.
I started writing several thousand words on the many, many different types of music rights, how they mostly date to when LPs were cutting-edge tech, and how anything cross-border makes things infinitely more byzantine, but maybe I'll save that for another day.
Sorry to be rude, but I specifically asked for inside information. This is too vague - why would there be a licensing right for just one random season?
You'll be happy to know that there's an entire sub-Reddit thread about this very thing, and it seems to boil down to: rights are a steaming mess, some seasons may be more expensive to license than others, if there's music and/or a reference to something that is copyrighted it might not be feasible to pay for the rights to that, or some seasons may be limited to certain regions, or made by a different production company which sold the rights elsewhere, etc. etc. etc.
it is an interesting question, so thanks for bringing it up. It's very frustrating for viewers who want to follow an entire show over all its seasons, but apparently for the networks it's not as simple as "buy seasons 1-52 of 'Sweetest Puppies And Kitties' and stream them 24/7". I didn't know the thing about different production companies, for instance, but now that I do it makes sense: you see movie studios and TV stations buying rights to literary works piecemeal (think Amazon and what it was and was not able to buy for "Rings of Power") so there's no reason TV rights to shows aren't sold off piecemeal in the same way to different stations.
Are those singing seasons? Might be that they don't have the rights. Gorillaz managed to make one of their videos unplayable because they tangled up the rights badly enough.
Not specifically. I don't know whether there is like a song that would make the season unavailable - but in that case, why not remove that one episode?
(One of the seasons is inspired by an old series, so maybe that explains that one season missing; but it's tenuous...)
I've noticed that with some episode-based series they even seem to rotate through different seasons in an unclear pattern, so it can't be just licensing issues. Maybe really just money saving (buying the rights for only 3 seasons at a time and switching is surely cheaper than buying the rights for 10+ seasons)?
I noticed that for a while, Netflix was cycling through having 2 out of 3 movies of a popular old movie triology. I assume that it was significantly more expensive to license the entire trilogy at once.
They did that with BlackAdder a few years back. Two seasons of four, then switched to the other two. Possibly other changes, that is the one I noticed.
Amazon Prime used to have Blackadder seasons 1, 2, and 4. At some later point they added 3 (without losing the others). I don't know what they have now.
Netflix recently had only the first four seasons of Brooklyn 9-9.
It's not clear to me why the spotty coverage indicates that it can't just be licensing issues. There isn't a distinction between "money saving" and "licensing issues".
First, of course there is a distinction. Licensing can be flat-out refused entirely, or otherwise simply unavailable. Ignoring that, there is also a large difference between 10 seasons all costing roughly the same, compared to one season costing a multiple of the others for unclear reasons.
And it's not about the spotty coverage, it's about the rotation. If there is one specific season missing from an entire series, and it's always the same season, I assume that there is a specific licensing issue making it either impossible or prohibitively expensive for that particular season. If they rotate through all seasons in a show, but only ever 3 or 4 at a time, there can't be a such a specific issue, so it's probably rather "regular" money saving.
A couple of outside-the-box thoughts, with apologies in advance if one or both might not be practical for your circumstances and/or meet employment requirements for your visa stay:
1. See if you can find work as a fractional attorney; e.g.
There are law firms which maintain teams of such fractional legal professionals, including Outside GC and Peerpoint.
2. Try looking at smaller startups that are currently raising money via equity crowdfunding platforms. Some of them might be in need of legal assistance.
You can browse or search for such startups directly on the websites of major equity crowdfunding portals. Five of the largest are Wefunder, StartEngine, Republic (republic.co), Dealmaker Securities, and Netcapital.
Maybe look into companies manufacturing chips or other things needed for AI and its development. There are challenging things going on for some of these companies having to do with black market sales of things they make to countries that the US does not want to have them., and lots of need for lawyers to deal with some of it. I know of one such situation but can’t give details.
So, any predictions on what’s next on the Iran conflict? Most analysis seems to point to the idea that Iran is outmatched and incapacitated, making their main option at retaliation being mostly symbolic (eg ballatics towards a USA target but small impact or a isolated terror attack)
Any other thoughts?
I wake up to find we are at war with Iran. WTF, If Tulsi Gabbard doesn't resign... she will have lost whatever credibility she had with me. (I know that's probably the least important thing right now... I'm going out to fill up my gas cans.) God help us all.
I register here a prediction:
I think you will find that nobody cares, that the preponderance of Trumpists who were principled anti-war isolationists are fine with it, and that we have always been at war with Eastasia.
It's kinda woke to not want war with Iran, when you think about it actually.
Yeah, sad but true, almost everything I'm reading is about how the bombing is a very good thing.
Perhaps worth noting there are at least two distinct strains of "anti-war" groups in the MAGA coalition you might not be distinguishing. One is isolationism, yes, but the other is more mercenary "sovereigntism" and perfectly fine with wars as long as America benefits from them. Their principal objection is to spending "blood and treasure" for high minded principles of democracy, human rights, stopping genocide, defending allies etc., and so while they agreed with the former group that the Iraq war (and most of America's recent military actions) was bad, if America had kept the oil, would have been mostly okay with it.
Trump is certainly closer to the latter group: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Iog4KMza6I
The third and the most important strain (the dominant strain in anything MAGA) is simply "whatever Trump wants to do now is correct".
That's an assertion without evidence. Just as important and in evidence would be the strain that says "whatever Trump wants to do now is wrong".
and I'm sure Iranian dissidents (not high-profile exiles, but the people on the ground you need to run an actual puppet state) are eager to line up and risk guerilla attacks in order to collaborate with a country that's openly, not just covertly, looting them
the one difference I can see from Afghanistan is that it should be shorter, if only because Americans won't be able to delude themselves for as long that they're winning
Curious if there's a place where we can see the full set of rules for commenting on open threads. I know the old site had a page but it doesn't seem as easily accessible here.
Also. Is the two paragraphs rule going to be strictly enforced if will it still be subject to a good dose of discretion? Assuming it's a remove comment or temporary ban at most?
I've felt confidently ban-proof for over a decade (I can find comments on SSC going back at least to 2015) by assuming Scott is the sort of person who wants the right answer, even if it isn't the answer he started with, and who wants to surround himself with people who want the same thing. And then I make comments consistent with those assumptions.
This implies a lot more than one might think at first. For example, anyone who writes as if they have the right answer and are so certain of it that their winning move is to verbally bully anyone with a different answer are on a fast track to a ban, no matter how right they might turn out to be, because that strategy is stupidly easy to copy. But by a similar argument, so is anyone who makes a habit of accusing other people of bullying. At the end of the day, the safest thing to do is to keep offering evidence and supports, phrased as if to persuade, not pummel.
This doesn't mean that every comment has to be informative or asking for same. Some can be fun (provided they're "laugh with me" fun, not "laugh at this outgroup" fun). Also fine for comments that aren't universally important, but detail something important about ourselves ("I recently adopted a stray for the first time; here are some things I noticed"). Internet personae are easier to believe if they're plausibly backed by actual people, particularly in the LLM age.
Another important corollary of these assumptions is that probing at the rules is risky. "What is the exact list of official posting rules?" comes off as "how close am I allowed to come to some edge between good and bad before I get banned?" or "what argument can I make to justify not banning me for the comment I want to make, or for banning someone else for that comment over there?". Time spent playing rules lawyer is time not spent on making or responding to comments that so obviously exemplify wanting the right answers even if one did not start with them, that no one would bother questioning them. So, ask for the rules enough to know what type of forum you're dealing with, and then lean into its ideal (or into another forum with the ideal you're seeking). Don't play the edge case game, unless you literally looking for a forum that spends most of its time arguing about forum rules.
On Slate Star Codex (the previous version of this blog) I found this article on the commenting policy:
https://slatestarcodex.com/2014/03/02/the-comment-policy-is-victorian-sufi-buddha-lite/
I couldn't find the rule about advertising. Scott sometimes makes a "Classifieds Thread" that is specifically for advertising your products, services, blogs, employment, or dating. These are irregular; the last one was in April this year:
https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/acx-classifieds-425
Scott, I guess you might want to write a short summary of your rules, maybe at the introduction to the next Open Thread?
1. Don't piss off Scott.
2. Don't break rule #1.
Bomb Iran (1980): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s8hEtI9AI0U
"At least Trump won't start any new wars" crowd in shambles right now.
He already started and lost a war against the Houthis as well. I guess that one was slightly easier to rationalize since there had already been ongoing military action there.
TIL: There's a professor studying nanotech named Philip Moriarty, aka Professor Moriarty.
https://titotal.substack.com/p/diamondoid-bacteria-nanobots-deadly
Assuming that peak woke is over (which I believe it probably is, we seem to have the antibodies now), I think it would be good to document that era, preferably in an objective, impartial way. Because I expect that five years later, if you mention any of those things that actually happened, the typical reaction will be "nope, that is some crazy right-wing conspiracy theory, it obviously could not have happened". Heck, while we were in the middle of it, many people were in denial until they got attacked personally.
The part that I would like to capture most is the feeling when you are surrounded by crazy people yelling obviously insane things in your face, but all the sane people are quiet because speaking would make them the next targets of the mob. The coalition of crazy people saying crazy things, and some professor providing academic justification for them. Also, you can't call crazy "crazy", because that would be ableist... but they are free to call you a Nazi and require everyone else to isolate you socially lest they also become called Nazis. Lots of things become taboo virtually overnight, whether it is a picture of green frog, a glass of milk, or an "okay" gesture, just because some hysterical people on Twitter decided so. And most people keep pretending that this is perfectly normal way for the sane people to behave.
I think the right way to do this would involve a lot of video documentation, with little commentary. The commentary should be limited to stating facts such as the year, the place, who were the participants, and what happened as a consequence. Most importantly, it should not comment on how crazy the entire thing is... that is something that the viewer should conclude for themselves. Making any judgment in the commentary would probably be harmful to the project, because that would allow people to nitpick specific words in the commentary, taking attention away from the thing being documented. Heck, just saying that the person commenting the footage is right-wing would be a sufficient distraction for many, which is why I would prefer the document to be made by moderate left-wing people -- after all, they probably made a majority of targets of the woke attacks, simply because they existed in their proximity.
" Heck, while we were in the middle of it, many people were in denial until they got attacked personally."
I feel like this captures the issue perfectly.
No, not the "woke" issue. The "woke narrative" issue. The issue where you and others have picked out a very modest subset of dots from a very large cluster of dots, drawn a shape through them and then very solemnly insisted that this shape that you've just drawn is not just objective reality, but the most vitally important piece of objective reality.
To me, the thing you're proposing doing sounds *exactly* like this:
https://slatestarcodex.com/2015/09/16/cardiologists-and-chinese-robbers/
Look at how crazy those cardiologists are! If you mention that those things actually happen, a lot of people would call it a crazy, anti-cardiology conspiracy theory!
More bluntly, how would go about distinguishing between the following two hypothesis:
1. The Era of Woke (whenever exactly that was) involved an unusually high incidence of soft cultural power/community pressure being used to ruin peoples' lives.
2. The base rate of people being singled out for harassment, shaming and isolation by their broader communities has actually changed relatively little over the past 60-80 years. However, the internet and social media vastly increased the visibility of such incidents, allowing interested parties to learn about far more of them than would otherwise be practical. Also, roughly concurrent cultural shifts made many people who were previously very unlikely to be singled out in this way somewhat more likely targets (though by no means *exclusively* so). This lead to a sharply increased feeling of vulnerability and anger among many of these people: also much easier to share and signal boost thanks to the internet. These trends combined to create a *narrative* of widespread shunning and shaming and vicious cultural attacks well out of proportion to the experience of the average person[1].
I'm (obviously, I would imagine) more biased towards believing 2, but that's partly just contrarianism. I genuinely have no idea how one would go about figuring out something like an average rate of people being subjected to toxic community pressure (something inherently both subjective and not well reported).
I will say when read things like "the feeling when you are surrounded by crazy people yelling obviously insane things in your face," and " And most people keep pretending that this is perfectly normal way for the sane people to behave" it does make me wonder. Specifically it makes me wonder, did they just memory-hole the entire century prior to 2010? Or did they just never bother to learn about the experiences of anyone not like them? Because the experience of being surrounded by obvious, blatant hate and insanity and everyone around you treating it like it was perfectly normal and *you* were the insane one for objecting to it? Many, many millions of people have had that experience throughout history. It's not new. The only thing news things about it are 1. the insanity isn't codified into law as much as it used to be and 2. which people are exposed to it.
[1]In much the same way that cable news luridly reporting on every violent crime it can find has often created an impression of rising crime rates even during times when they were actually falling.
>I'm (obviously, I would imagine) more biased towards believing 2, but that's partly just contrarianism. I genuinely have no idea how one would go about figuring out something like an average rate of people being subjected to toxic community pressure (something inherently both subjective and not well reported).
You can get a lot of indirect evidence from mainstream institutions by searching for "political polarisation" rather than "social justice". Theres a lot of this, extending far beyond the behaviour of elected officials. It would be quite hard for that to happen without an increase in excommunications from at least one side. Combine this with a good amount of liberal institutions without conservative equivalents and not so much in reverse, and legal restrictions either directly on or chillingly effecting the kinds of excommunications that conservatives might want to do, and its hard to see how it *wouldnt* happen.
"It would be quite hard for that to happen without an increase in excommunications from at least one side."
I disagree rather strongly with this point. I think this touches significantly on one of my main points of departure about how I'm modelling the world and how some others are. I think political polarization at the level of communities is one of the driving forces behind this narrative existing, but I think it has been caused by large, sweeping structural factors: primarily changes in technology.
To be clear, lots of past eras in U.S. history had very strong political divisions. The most significant things that I think have changed are how those division map onto the human geography, and how difficult it is for people to move from one community to another. In the past, nearly all of your social contact was necessarily with people in the place where you lived. If you had views that would anger most of the people in your community, you basically had to keep quiet about them as long as you lived there. And moving elsewhere was more difficult. Nowadays people both have an easier time physically relocating themselves[1] and options to meet and form communities with people who live nowhere near them. It's generally much more pleasant to socialize with people who you don't have to hide large parts of yourself from. Let me say this part on its one line with extra emphasis, because I think it's important. As far as I can tell:
*polarized communities are mostly the result of self-selection.*
It's not a question of people being "excommunicated" from communities that thereby make themselves more homogeneous.[2] It's a question of *people seeking out other like-minded people.* Narratives that suggest that this stems mostly from "enemy action" are very popular, for understandable reasons. But that doesn't make them correct.
"Combine this with a good amount of liberal institutions without conservative equivalents"
I think this is a perfect example. The conservative narrative around this is one of liberals driving conservatives out of those institutions. And I expect there is not zero of that. But I don't see any reason to assume that would be the driving force. Rather, it seems to me like in many cases conservatives decided that they didn't like the culture of those institutions, and stopped trying to be part of them[3]. There's a feedback loop at work, where a particular space having a reputation for being unfriendly to Group X will make members of Group X avoid it, lowering the instance of Group X in the space, boosting that reputation. Yudkowsky calls this "Evaporative Cooling of Group Beliefs," but I think it can probably act on other characteristics besides beliefs almost as easily.
"and not so much in reverse,"
This is just plain not true, as far as I can tell. There are certainly conservative institutions without liberal equivalents. A very easy example is "law enforcement organizations," though the conservative skew seems to vary a lot org by org. I don't expect you'll find many liberals at all working at ICE, for example, and there are some local police departments that skew *enormously* more conservative than the communities they police (Portland is one I'm particularly aware of), whereas I'd guess that law enforcement jobs at the National Park Service are probably significantly less politically homogeneous. There are also plenty of private institutions that skew quite conservative, though plenty of them try to pretend otherwise for PR reasons.
[1] To be clear, there was still geographic mobility in the past. But in the modern world makes it much easier to learn about other places before you go, to find housing or work in advance, and even to form and retain social contacts independent of physical location. All those things lower the costs and risks of moving to a new city or region.
[2]That certainly does happen sometimes, but it very much happened in the past too, and I don't see a great reason to assume it's more common now.
[3]I want to note that "established conservatives leaving the institutions" is only one of the ways this can happen, and probably not the most important one. The other two are conservatives just not choosing to join in the first place, and conservatives changing their views and become more liberal as the participate in the institution. I'm sure which happens the most depends a lot on the specific institution and the time period.
>*polarized communities are mostly the result of self-selection.*
That makes some sense when we talk about moving to California vs Texas, and less so when theres a tangible disadvantage to leaving. A university degree (in the right field) is still a significant boost to income, I doubt people would just self-select out of getting one without some measure of deliberate hostility. But that kind of hostility is also not the cancelations Im talking about. Those were never enough to make up the bulk of the sorting.
https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2014/06/12/political-polarization-in-the-american-public/
The above is the first graph when I google "political polarization usa", and a quick eyeball addition will tell you that its not just people sorting into parties more efficiently, the distance in opinion also grows. I would expect this to decrease tolerance. Indeed, the second graph in there shows people increasingly seeing the other party as a threat, which is not quite the same as its members being one, but close.
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/09/really-would-you-let-your-daughter-marry-a-democrat/262959/
This one is about people not wanting their children to marry someone of the other party. Surprisingly, I have difficulty finding that kind of research extended into the Trump years. This second one has a sort-of followup with a similar question in my next link, but Im not sure how comparable they really are, because a naive reading would suggest 2020 republicans are *less* upset about that than 2010.
https://today.yougov.com/politics/articles/32041-republicans-democrats-marriage-poll?_gl=1*1nxc0k5*_up*MQ..*_ga*MTY5ODk4NDU2OS4xNzUwNTM1MDM4*_ga_X9VN3LD3NE*czE3NTA1MzUwMzgkbzEkZzAkdDE3NTA1MzUwMzgkajYwJGwwJGgw
I would be quite surprised if these opinion shifts didnt go along with an increased eagerness to kick people from the other side out.
>There are certainly conservative institutions without liberal equivalents.
Sure there are, but its a matter of numerics and relevance. As an indicator: conservatives objecting to universities mostly complain about how liberal they are, and how they dont tolerate conservative views. Liberals complaining about the police spend a lot of breath on policing in general, a little on how the people in it are too conservative, and almost none on how being liberal isnt tolerated among them. Whatever you think of those opinions, its clearly not a symmetrical situation.
"A university degree (in the right field) is still a significant boost to income, I doubt people would just self-select out of getting one without some measure of deliberate hostility."
You're treating the choice like a binary when it is really, REALLY not. When you are decided what to do with your life it's never a choice between "do I pursue a degree in Field A or literally do everything else the same except not pursue a degree in Field A." It looks much closer to "which of Field A, Field B or Field C should I pursue a career in?" where expected salary weighs in but so do a lot of other things, including your perceptions of their culture. Really though, it's often much less explicit than that: which careers even come to your attention at all as worth considering is going to depend *a lot* on your cultural upbringing and information sources, so it won't even necessarily be *your* perceptions of the culture of Field A which determines how likely you are to work in it. It will be the perceptions of the community you grew up in, which will shape your life experience in ways you can't possible appreciate from the inside.
"its not just people sorting into parties more efficiently"
The fact that you're thinking about this as people "sorting into parties," meaning (unless I'm misunderstanding you) the two major U.S. political parties, is a very big barrier to good understanding. Culture is much, MUCH more complex than "are you a Republican or a Democrat?" The quirks of the U.S. political system dictate that those are the only two parties that really matter, but there are dozens of different cultures and subcultures you can belong to, which will inform your career choices and your politics in non-obvious ways.
"Liberals complaining about the police spend a lot of breath on policing in general, a little on how the people in it are too conservative, and almost none on how being liberal isnt tolerated among them. "
I think your experience and mine are very different on this one, starting with literally the first word of your sentence. The people I see having the loudest criticisms of police tend to regard "liberal" as something of a pejorative--one that can apply to both Democrats and Republicans. The fact the people in policing are too conservative is certainly talked about somewhat, though it's an extremely well-known and well-understood fact and so doesn't bear a lot of repeating. But the difference in criticism is also very much a cultural one. A lot of Republicans seem to think and talk about things in individualistic terms[1]: so "academics don't tolerate conservative viewpoints" is a statement about the individual academics and their lack of personal virtue. Meanwhile the equivalent discussions in leftist spaces are about structural and institutional factors: "W and X are the reasons that policing in a society with qualities Y and Z tends to lead to regressive outcomes." The individuals are very much blurred out to the picture, it's the shape of the underlying structures that determines what happens.[2]
But also, there are big cultural differences in what "tolerating different viewpoints" and "tolerance" in general actually entails. Some of the left-leaning spaces where I've spent time are pretty conformist and will quickly turn on anyone who doesn't toe certain lines--though I tend to exit those ones pretty quickly, having a bad case of "can't keep my mouth shut"--but a lot of them are willing to tolerate quite a wide range of different viewpoints. What they are NOT willing to tolerate is making other community members feel unsafe. First, there are people who routinely do that as part of how they express their political views[3]. Second, some political views include "these members of your community *should* be unsafe" as pretty central tenets. Both of these sorts of people are going to find themselves quite unwelcome in a lot of spaces that are otherwise happy to host quite a broad range of spirited political discussion.
[1] I do say "seem" because this is very much my impression from the outside. I'm sure there are specific exceptions, and I'll allow I could be wrong about the general trend.
[2] To be clear, my own opinion is that this is a very useful--pretty much indispensable--way to be able to think about things. But as with any viewpoint, it has limitations and will fail in places. Some people certainly get too stuck in it, to their detriment.
[3] I think this is unintentional in some cases, but very much deliberate in others. There's a certain sort of asshole who loves to hide behind "it's just my opinion" or I'm just asking questions" to deliberately antagonize others.
Im a bit disappointed you responded only to the side comments addressing your misinterpretation of me on the merits, and not the clarification of my own argument. If you think those data are irrelevant, at least say so.
>where expected salary weighs in but so do a lot of other things, including your perceptions of their culture.
I agree, I just think you must underestimate the economic aspect of it. A college degree predicts ~75% higher income. That includes more talented and more marginal students, but also more and less profitable degrees. That should overcome a good bit of social mismatch. There also are (were?) quite a few fields where a degree is required but on the job its majority conservative, and those tend to be the better paying ones too, so you could limit the culture clash to 4 years.
>The fact that you're thinking about this as people "sorting into parties," meaning (unless I'm misunderstanding you) the two major U.S. political parties, is a very big barrier to good understanding. Culture is much, MUCH more complex than "are you a Republican or a Democrat?"
>I think your experience and mine are very different on this one, starting with literally the first word of your sentence. The people I see having the loudest criticisms of police tend to regard "liberal" as something of a pejorative--one that can apply to both Democrats and Republicans.
Im not thinking about it as *just* that - the point of the graph is to demonstrate something happening that is beyond *any* kind of sorting. That said, it also shows a normal distribution of "left-right-ness" *within* each party, so the other cultural differences can probably be abstracted for politics specifically. Indeed, while there are leftists calling themselves anti-liberal, my observations about rethorical focus hold for both - they can be equally true for more and less radical people. The neat separation into different ideological tendencies within one "side" doesnt exist outside the most politically committed, and even there its often a made-up superimposition over continuous rethoric and policies.
>The fact the people in policing are too conservative is certainly talked about somewhat, though it's an extremely well-known and well-understood fact and so doesn't bear a lot of repeating.
You could say the same about colleges being left, but somehow republicans think that bears a lot of repeating.
>A lot of Republicans seem to think and talk about things in individualistic terms[1]:... Meanwhile the equivalent discussions in leftist spaces are about structural and institutional factors
Whatever they blame for it, the point is that republicans complain about the experience they have or would have in college, and democrats dont complain about the experience they have or would have in the police force. They might agree that theres something bad there when asked, but they dont feel its worth complaining about, because that just isnt of comparable importance to the college version.
>But also, there are big cultural differences in what "tolerating different viewpoints" and "tolerance" in general actually entails.
I understand that the left has reasons why they think their cancellations are good, or "dont count as intolerance". Thats all well and good, but I dont think it impacts the positive analysis of whether the cancellations are happening.
You make a good point. For example, to be accused of heresy during Middle Ages was certainly much more terrifying and devastating for the target. Or to be called an "antisocial element" during socialism. Etc.
But these things were documented, too. You can see movies showing the victims of inquisition in the sympathetic light. The movies about victims of socialism are fewer, but they also exist. And the woke hysteria is not fundamentally different from things shown in e.g. The Wave (1981).
I have the same wish for the woke era -- to be documented as it was, non-metaphorically.
That's fair. I definitely think documenting the factual details of events (as best as can be done a few years after the fact) is a perfectly good and reasonable thing to do.
And I'll add that the problem I'm gesturing at isn't by any means unique to this particular topic, it's a pretty general problem with history. Recording or researching some individual event and getting reasonable accuracy and detail isn't that hard[1]. But reality is composed of an utterly intractable number of such events. The question of how to select and connect events in a way that leads to an overall accurate understanding of a particular chunk of history seems like just an absolutely staggeringly hard one, with no objectively correct approach.[2] I Am Not A Historian so I can't really say how good the standard approaches are, just that from the outside the problem seems like a daunting one.
Which, now that I think of it, inspires me to make a suggestion. If at all possible, I think a project like this would benefit *enormously* from the participation of at least one person with experience as a professional historian. I do realize that this could be kind of difficult to arrange, not the least because a lot of people in academic humanities are likely to be pretty hostile to such a project. But the field isn't a monolith, and I'm sure there are some who'd see the value and take it seriously.
[1] At least, for most events in the modern world. Obviously there are cases where it is difficult or oughtright impossible.
[2] Of course, that's not just history, it's also current events. While false information and underlying value differences both play roles, it seems to me like a huge fraction of current political divisions stem from people sampling very different subsets of The Set of Factually Grounded Current Events and connecting them into very different pictures without necessarily being fundamentally incorrect or dishonest.
Some incidents come to my mind that I believe should become a part of documented history:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gibson%27s_Bakery_v._Oberlin_College
A black student caught shoplifting attacked the shop owner, and got arrested by police. The college professors encouraged their students to "protest against racism" against the shop (e.g. gave them credits for participating in the protest). Ultimately, the college had to pay the over $30 million.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evergreen_State_College#2017_protests
Students encouraged by woke professors decided to "protest against racism" by banning all white students and teachers from entering the school for one day. A professor who objected against this, had to teach his further classes in a public park, because the college police told him they couldn't protect him against students' threats of physical violence if he returns to the college. College paid him $500,000 settlement. This was followed by further violent protests in the college.
(Then there is e.g. Gamergate, where Wikipedia still insists on the absurd conspiracy theory that gamers were coordinating online to ban women from either playing or creating computer games. I suppose this battle is lost; no one cares about correcting a historical record about some nerds.)
"Then there is e.g. Gamergate, where Wikipedia still insists on the absurd conspiracy theory that gamers were coordinating online to ban women from either playing or creating computer games."
Can you point me to the specific accusation? I didn't quite have the patience too read the entire Wikipedia article on Gamergate, but the claim wasn't anywhere in the summary or in any of the relevant-seeming sections I perused.
The Wikipedia summary -- a "backlash against feminism, diversity, and progressivism in video game culture" -- is not very specific, so of course it is difficult to provide specific arguments against it.
The accusations are made more clearly in the primary sources. For example, "The only guide to Gamergate you will ever need to read" (linked from the Wikipedia article) says: "On one side are independent game-makers and critics, many of them women, who advocate for greater inclusion in gaming. On the other side of the equation are [...] traditionalists who just don’t want their games to change."
And this is complete bullshit. There were months when I was reading the Gamergate forums as often as as I read ACX these days, and no one had a problem with anyone making any kind of game. Heck, even the Wikipedia article admits that Gamergate people once organized a video game design contest for women. But in the next paragraph it insists that the only reason why so many people donated money to support this activity was... misogyny. Because, you know, donating money to support women in IT is exactly the kind of thing the misogynists do all the time. It all makes perfect sense; that's how anyone without an axe to grind would describe it.
The rest of the article is also like this. Some things are, technically speaking, loosely related to the truth, but about as much as if you said: "Hitler tried to address some problems in his homeland that many people complained about, but a lot of violence was used against him and his followers, and he was ultimately driven to suicide". Each part of that is supported by evidence, it's just... not how an impartial observer would describe the story.
You might note that virtually all sources in the Wikipedia articles are coming from one side of the conflict. In the few places where the article mentions what the GG side said or did, it is immediately followed by some kind of "but of course it is known that they didn't *really* mean it".
As an example, let's take this sentence: "Proponents alleged there was a conspiracy between journalists and video game developers to focus on progressive social issues such as gender equality and sexism." There are even three citations! Okay, let's check which person in GG was so stupid to believe something like that. Clicking... clicking... clicking... yeah, of course, *no one* said that actually, it's just what their opponents have *accused* them of believing. Then the next sentence has three more citations confirming that "Such claims [that no one has actually made] have been widely dismissed as trivial, baseless, or unrelated to actual issues of ethics in gaming and journalism." Of course, I hope they didn't burn themselves while fighting that strawman. And it's all like this: the entire article is "what one side said" with pieces of "what one side said the other side said".
> no one cares about correcting a historical record about some nerds
Indeed they don't, and then they have the chutzpah to complain about their enemies creating a post-truth world. And if you call them on it, they declare you're doing an "accusation in a mirror." It's an effective technique, and makes you wonder how much of what you think you know about history is lies.
The absurdity of Wikipedia's coverage of Gamergate (the fact alone that the page title is "Gamergate (harassment campaign)"!) is probably the single strongest blow against the idea of the site's objectivity. Not that you can't observe it clearly in other places, mind.
I'm doubtless going to regret asking, but are you claiming that there wasn't a significant campaign of harassment involved in Gamergate? Or just arguing that describing the entire thing as a harassment campaign is disproportionately highlighting a small piece of a larger event?
I might be leading a charmed life but I’ve had very few brushes with woke. I’m a reasonably polite guy so that might have something to do with it. I live in the American Midwest and the area itself has a rep for politeness so perhaps that’s part of it too.
I was scouring my memory for personal encounters with the pehenom and beyond being asked for my pronouns all I can come up with is an incident where I read an email and based on some interesting grammatical quirks, I said that the the writer’s mother tongue was likely French.
Someone immediately said ‘That’s racist.’ I just laughed out loud and that was the end of it. The email writer had grown up in France BTW.
I didn't have many brushes with them either, and the few times were unimportant; neither my health nor my job were on the line, it was just people suddenly becoming verbally abusive at me, firmly convinced that they were "on the right side of history" and I was a villain, because I said something like "not all men are evil", or my wife said "IQ exists and has a biological component". (Those *are* actual examples, although I do not remember the exact words, it was long ago.) I do consider myself polite and conflict-avoiding. And my wife was pretty left-wing at the time, it's just that she is a professional biologist, so when she heard someone say at a conference "IQ is a racist myth and science has proved that there are no genes for intelligence", she automatically corrected them without considering the consequences. Then the crowd started yelling "racist!" and we both ran away. She was quite traumatized by the experience, and for a few weeks I had to remind her that not all left-wing people are violent idiots.
So, I would say that these situations are rare but potentially traumatizing. Not every woman was raped, not every black person was lynched, and yet the chance of that happening is enough to significantly change people's behavior. At some moment, I stopped using my full name on internet, because the possibility of someone making a screenshot of something I said a decade ago and sending it to my HR started to sound dangerously possible. Seeing how people treated Scott Aaronson or Scott Alexander was enough to make me feel unsafe, even if I never got that kind and magnitude of attention myself. These days, I feel like I am censoring myself much less than I did about ten years ago.
It sounds like your experience was much more intense than anything I ran into. I hope that craziness is all in the past now.
> a lot of video documentation, with little commentary
Something like LibsOfTikTok, but with less editorializing?
Judging by the first few clicks on Google results, the opposite of that. Maybe those clicks were not representative, but I found e.g. a Substack blog where articles used too many CAPITAL LETTERS and included a photo or two.
I imagine something like a video of Evegreen College students screaming incoherently at a faculty meeting, with no commentary other than "yes, this is an actual college in USA, actual students, here are links to more evidence". Preferably without CAPITAL LETTTERS or even using words like "libs". I want the viewer to make the conclusion "this is crazy" themselves, not to have it spoonfed, especially by someone with an obvious agenda.
There are probably some good videos on YouTube, but I am too lazy to find them now.
This seems like a good idea. I can imagine a digital anthropologist of the future looking back and trying to decipher us and our attitudes, and applying the "does it make sense that they did this?" filter to interpretations of our actions. That filter largely works for interpreting people from past centuries. It won't work at all for ours!
>Heck, just saying that the person commenting the footage is right-wing would be a sufficient distraction for many
This seems like an indication that it is not actually over.
Yes, but also consider the Bayesian perspective:
Imagine that you think about going to the cinema to see a sci-fi movie, but before that, you read a review online. And the review tells you that the movie sucks. How would you update on this information, if you knew that:
a) the review was written by a person who hates sci-fi in general, and believes that *all* sci-fi movies suck; or
b) the review was written by a person who is generally a fan of sci-fi and wrote many positive reviews of good sci-fi movies, but also criticizes the bad ones.
The first version might move you away from sci-fi in general, but it won't be helpful at distinguishing between better and worse movies within the genre. Actually, its author will probably downplay the differences, because according to him, it all sucks equally. The second version would have a greater impact on sci-fi fans, and I would expect the criticism to be more specific.
(Then there is also an option c; a person who is so much in love with sci-fi that they will write a positive review to any sci-fi movie. This, too, is worthless from the Bayesian perspective.)
I'm probably the wrong one to ask about this; Both types have been wrong so often, I'll watch the movie to judge their review of it.
I wrote an essay that might interest this crowd: “How to Stare Into the Sun.” (though I admit it’s more lyrical and poetic than some here may prefer)
It’s about chronic avoidance, emotional pain, and the strategies we use (consciously or not) to protect ourselves from feeling. I draw on behavioral psychology, and personal introspection to explore how avoidance loops are formed, and how to break them.
If you’ve ever intellectualised your emotions to the point of dissociation, or used hyper-rationality as a defense against vulnerability, this might resonate. There are references to Faye Webster, fight-or-flight responses, and why fear of love is often more dangerous than heartbreak itself.
Would love to hear thoughts from anyone who reads it. https://velvetnoise.substack.com/p/how-to-stare-into-the-sun-and-dive
I really liked your article. It did well at approaching the tension between the safety of isolation and the risk of forming new connection. My favorite part was:
“Paradoxically, avoidance doesn’t even prevent pain we are seeking to run away from, but rather displaces it sideways. Silence becomes its own kind of answer, a quiet violence. A shield that wounds more than it protects.”
Well put! As far as feedback, perhaps a few less quotes and/or a few less lyrical references might make it a bit more digestible. Perhaps throw in a personal story to drive home some points (of you or someone you know)
Thanks for the read.
thank you so much for reading and the thoughtful feedback, means a lot!
I’m quite a lyrical person so can’t help relate everything to songs unfortunately haha but can understand it can disrupt flow and make it harder to process. Will keep in mind 🙏
The level of vitriol at Hacker News towards "rationalists" is just something to behold. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44317180
I've been reading both communities since their inception, and I don't really get it.
IMO any time someone believes all the members of a whole large group of people are fools, monsters, assholes, whatnot, it's virtually guaranteed that the person holding that opinion isn't thinking straight. Life just doesn't work that way.
For what it's worth, some criticisms I saw in the comments landed pretty fairly. The ones about the Gaza war turning Scott Aaronson, self-proclaimed "liberal" and "enlightenment" enjoyer, into an ardent and dogmatic defender of extremely un-liberal and un-enlightenment things, essentially a free Hasbarist keyboard warrior, and doubling down so hard when he got pushback to the point of changing his entire comment policy (something he didn't do in the 2 decades+ of his blog, which included nearly the entire post-colonial history of Gaza).
Weird sex stuff and the extremely frustrating/embarrassing behavior of E. Yud? On point.
The extremely weak yapping about Basilisk and HBD and neoreaction and whatever seems like flailing to me. People are perfectly okay with wagging their finger and saying to someone who hates, say, Muslims or Jews, "The behavior of Bin-Laden/Israel isn't representative of Muslims/Jews, do better sweetie", but are okay with taking their selection of whatever dumbassery Peter Theil or his boytoy JD Vance said or done to "This is the future LIBERALS want" Rationalism into being whatever bogeyman they want it to be.
And then of course there is the extreme rage people slide into when anybody advocates for the rights of animals or just dares saying that they a category worthy of having rights, "YOU MEAN TO TELL ME THAT SHRIMP DESREVE THE SAME RIGHTS AS ME?????? WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH". Never mind that I have never seen a big-name Rationalist from Alexander to Gwern say he is exclusively vegetarian.
Comparison to Objectivism? Wtf, at this point they're throwing at a wall and seeing what sticks.
> I've been reading both communities since their inception, and I don't really get it.
HN got popular, text-only and tech-only are powerful filters that strongly shape who comments on HN, but they're not infinitely powerful, and tech people contain assholes and nice people and Rationalists and anti-Rationalists and everything else.
The Basilisk affair remains a perfectly good basis for criticism. That idea that no one took it seriously at the time but Yudkowsky banning discussion of the topic on Less Wrong prevented people from clearing up the misconception seems like a transparent attempt to sanewash the movement's history after it gained prominence.
It happened in 2011/2012. How would any of the commenters here or on HN react if we trawled the web for 13-years old failings of movements they identify with and declare that this single 13-years-old failing whose architect no longer identify with the movement represents the entire movement?
Sounds like something that people have been doing using even longer timescales for every political, religious and philosophical movement in any place ever?
I agree Roko himself isn't particularly central to the movement. The story is about Yudkowsky and his reaction to the idea. And TODAY, the Less Wrong home page is themed to support Yudkowsky's new book, so pretending HE is somehow tangential isn't plausible.
I still find it hilarious that "a moderator of a web forum once deleted a thread" deserves a separate page on Wikipedia.
I said in my first comment that any criticism of Yud is fair game, somehow, I manage to identify with Rationalists - not belong or call myself one, just identify with many of the ideas and ways of thinking -, without ever suffering the writing of Yud or being convinced of most of his arguments.
You did, but you immediately followed that with saying the Basilisk wasn't an example of such criticism, and my point is that it IS.
> turning Scott Aaronson, self-proclaimed "liberal" and "enlightenment" enjoyer, into an ardent and dogmatic defender of extremely un-liberal and un-enlightenment things, essentially a free Hasbarist keyboard warrior
This was quite strange to read, coming from someone who's read Shtetl-Optimized for over a decade. I don't recognize Scott Aaronson in this description at all.
Well, the prerequisites for you to agree with this description is (1) You read Shtetl-Opt threads and posts about Israel, especially the early-mid 2024 ones (2) You're not pro-Israel, in the sense that killing Palestinian children is a clear red line for you that no amount of post-hoc rationalization or Hasbara talking points can rectify or sweeten.
If you're described by (1) and (2), then I think you will agree with this description, perhaps after a memory trip to one of those posts to see what I'm talking about.
For one example off the top of my head, when Scott A. received pushback from a commenter after a pretty racist Hasbara talking point, Scott replied "I noticed you're calling me racist, but not wrong.", an exact word-for-word borrowing from White Supremacist and White Nationalists when they talk about Blacks or Jews.
After reading more of the comments...
Some people seem to have really a strong case of "bitch eating crackers" syndrome against the rationalist community. I mean, I totally get it why someone calling themselves "rationalists" could offend some people. I think it's okay, but I get it why other people think it is not.
But then someone explains that Eliezer originally always used "*aspiring* rationalists", and that the very name "Less Wrong" suggests that the rationalists *do* consider themselves fallible and irrational, but that they strive to be *less* so... and then comes the reaction that even trying to be more rational is insufferably smug, and that obviously everyone knows that "less wrong" actually means "more correct than thou".
So, what is the *right* way to reduce my smugness and become more socially acceptable? Should I never express a desire to improve in any way, because the implied idea that perhaps I *could* is already unbearably arrogant?
This all feels like a status thing, essentially. Similar things are not a problem when other people are doing it.
For example, consider the word "philosophy", which is perfectly okay for the HN crowd, even if it literally means "loving wisdom", and kinda implies that the person loves wisdom while others prefer stupidity. Imagine a parallel universe where philosophers are traditionally called "minuserratists", and a guy called Yuliezer Edkowsky makes a blog called "Loving Wisdom". Would the blog name be considered *less* arrogant?
Similarly, when someone calls their approach "realistic", no one replies with "if you weren't so ignorant about philosophy, you would know that 'realism' is a -4th century belief that abstractions are real things; the word you actually should use is 'nominalist', you illiterate dummy", because everyone understands what they were trying to say. Yet somehow "in 17th century philosophy, 'rationalism' means armchair reasoning; the word you are looking for is 'empiricism'" is considered a devastating reply, because obviously only an idiot would use a word like "rational" to refer to rational thought. (Also, if there is only one true meaning of "rationalism", why does Wikipedia need a disambiguation page for that word?)
Therefore, it seems to me that the decision to hate the rationalist community comes first... perhaps for perfectly valid reasons, but apparently the true reasons are difficult to communicate... and the rest is just looking for an excuse. Rationalists eating crackers again, how annoying!
EDIT:
Finally, some examples are just wrong reasoning -- but if I point that out, does that make me insufferably smug? When Eliezer said about something "sounds wrong, but big if true", or when Scott predicted that something would happen with probability 30%... and they both ended up wrong... that proves that even high-status rationalists are quite stupid, am I wrong?
> So, what is the *right* way to reduce my smugness and become more socially acceptable? Should I never express a desire to improve in any way, because the implied idea that perhaps I *could* is already unbearably arrogant?
Obviously. Resentment for those who think they're better in any way is endemic to western culture. So don't express it. Just be better. Show, don't tell.
That is a great advice for someone who wants to do it alone. But how do you organize a self-improvement *group*? I believe that groups are useful, for example members can provide support and peer pressure to each other.
You don't make it public. This is what guilds are for.
Not unique to Rationalism, it's a double standards that affects young ideologies and young religions more. "Weird sex stuff", sounds like a lot of marriage practices in lots of world religions, Islam is the easy target here, but nobody would dare to say that because Islamophobia.
When you're old and many, people grant you a bigger license to spout bullshit.
Thanks, interesting reading. Aaronson's article is beautiful. The discussion on HN is mild compared to some things I have previously seen written about rationalists.
(I know Scott says that making "bingo cards" is a bad thing, but I am really tempted to make one containing the following fields: "say 'Eliezer makes many mistakes' without mentioning one", "complain that in philosophy, 'rationalist' means something different", "why bother trying to be rational when Darwinism proves it is a losing strategy", "longtermism? in long term we are all dead", "ai safety and malaria cure take away attention and resources from the really important problems, such as global warming", "corporations are already superintelligent", "EAs believe that it is okay to hurt people for greater good"...)
There are also a few gems, such as:
> In what sense are people in those communities "quite smart"? Stupid is as stupid does. There are plenty of people who get good grades and score highly on standardized tests, but are in fact nothing but pontificating blowhards and useless wankers.
> I don't think any "Rationalists" I ever met would actually consider concepts like scientific method...
And my reaction to that is: https://www.yout-ube.com/watch?v=965CUwIghwI
>say 'Eliezer makes many mistakes' without mentioning one",
No one could accuse me of that.
"I don't really get it" Really? Many people in that thread give some pretty good explanations for why their vitriol. (Some bad ones like "they're racists/eugenicists", but those surprisingly seem to pretty downvoted.)
Here are few particularly clear ones:
> In the Pre-AI days this was sort of tolerable, but since then.. The frothing at the mouth convinced of the end of the world.
> Feels like "they are wrong and smug" is enough reason to dislike the movement
> rationalism got pretty lame the last 2-3 years. imo the peak was trying to convince me to donate a kidney.
> Implicit in calling yourself a rationalist is the idea that other people are not thinking rationally. There are a lot of “we see the world as it really is” ideologies, and you can only ascribe [sic] to one if you have a certain sense of self-assuredness that doesn't lend itself to healthy debate.
> [Describing being interested in the ideas and then seeing the Roko's Basilisk thing], it is difficult to define "rational" when it comes to a human being and their actions, especially in an absolute sense, and, the rationalist community is basically very similar to any other religion, or perhaps light-cult.
It's also notable that EY has been unsuccessful by his own claimed metric of "rationalism is systematized winning". He failed at the goals he originally set for himself.
EY specifically is a really terrible leader for many reasons, and the best way to improve the reputation of "rationalism" is to distance from him. E.g. Scott Alexander is a much better rationalist than EY ever was, despite spending most of his time arguing against EY's theories.
MIT Media Lab published a study about the effects of using ChatGPT for writing LLM-assisted essay writings. There a total of 54 participants in the study and they were split into three groups:
- LLM users
- Search Engine users
- Brain-only (no tools)
And these groups underwent 3 sessions of essay writing.
They used EEG to determine cognitive load during the essay writing process and found that
- Brain-only participants exhibited the strongest, most distributed networks;
- Search Engine users showed moderate engagement
- LLM users displayed the weakest connectivity.
"In a fourth session, LLM users were reassigned to Brain-only group (LLM-to-Brain), and Brain-only users were reassigned to LLM condition (Brain-to-LLM).
Brain-to-LLM users exhibited higher memory recall and activation of occipito-parietal and prefrontal areas, similar to Search Engine users. Self-reported ownership of essays was the lowest in the LLM group and the highest in the Brain-only group. LLM users also struggled to accurately quote their own work"
The study coined the term cognitive debt: "repeated reliance on external systems like LLMs replaces the effortful cognitive processes required for independent thinking."
https://www.media.mit.edu/publications/your-brain-on-chatgpt/
This reminds me of a talk at the Perimeter Institute for Theoretical Physics. Video title on Youtube:
"Veritasium: What Everyone Gets Wrong About AI and Learning – Derek Muller Explains"
Derek argues that instead of investing in tools to assist with learning, it's better to let students use System 2, slow, deliberate type of thinking.
So the results might seem to further Derek's point, of course being mindful that 54 participants doesn't seem to me to be that high of a number. What would be a good number of participants to consider the findings robust?
I also remember seeing a thread on the ExperiencedDev subreddit titled "My new hobby:: watching AI slowly drive Microsoft employees insane", were the public preview for the Microsoft Copilot agent was analyzed. It has links to Pull Requests where humans review the code written by the Copilot agent and try to get it to do the right thing, with amusing results.
Maybe we'll be snuffed out by AI not with a bang, but with a whimper?
Alternative take on the study by Venkatesh Rao + o3: https://contraptions.venkateshrao.com/p/prompting-is-managing
> I buy the data; I doubt the story. The experiment clocks students as if writing were artisanal wood-carving—every stroke hand-tooled, originality king, neural wattage loud. Yet half the modern knowledge economy runs on a different loop entirely: delegate → monitor → integrate → ship. Professors do it with grad students, PMs with dev teams, editors with freelancers. Neuroscience calls that stance supervisory control. When you switch from doer to overseer, brain rhythms flatten, attention comes in bursts, and sameness is often a feature, not decay.
> For today’s text generators, the cognitive effects of prompting an LLM are empirically indistinguishable from supervising a junior human. As long as models write like competent interns, the mental load they lift—and the blind spots they introduce—match classic management psychology, not cognitive decline. ... the EEG study’s homogeneity finding can read as disciplined management or proof of mediocrity. The difference is situational judgment, not neurology.
> [The students flop] because freshman comp doesn’t teach management. The cure isn’t ditching the intern; it’s training the manager...
In some domains, the manager does not need to have the same expertise as the workers: e.g. testing widgets from a production line conform to whatever standards are in place. In other domains subject knowledge is important: a manager overseeing knowledge work typically has to understand the content produced to ensure that it's acceptable.
I work as a lecturer - I've seen many AI-generated essays, and often it is clear that the student hasn't read the output, and likely doesn't understand large portions of it. I don't know to what extent management experience can replace subject knowledge as a learning outcome in a college degree. I've taught across a few disciplines - I want a languages student to have fluency and accuracy in written and spoken language; familiarity with the major works of literature and the general culture of their language. I want a Maths student to have familiarity with analysis and linear algebra and to be able to apply these to solve real world problems (ideally I'd like programming experience here also). They should be able to read and write technical documents, work with data, etc. Homework builds these skills but AI-assisted homework is less likely to achieve this, despite being basically indistinguishable from human-produced content. (Ask an LLM to write a movie review at A2 level proficiency, and tell me how you'd distinguish from a freshman language learner!) That's the rub.
Thanks for the summary! Really interesting stuff, I hadn't considered that point of view. It's all the more interesting that o3 was involved in writing the essay.
I think that people tend to have a bad opinion of managers because they delegate and don't get their hands dirty with the nuts and bolts of things. And that's why confirmation bias leads many to accept the "LLMs create cognitive debt" hypothesis easily.
A bit of a tangent:
Having had the pleasure to interact with a few great managers, I learned to appreciate their work and borrow their point of views in certain situations. I got into severe burnout for being to selfish to delegate work to others and that was also bad for them because I stunned their growth by not challenging them enough. It's also disrespectful to think "Nah, they can't handle this, I'll do it myself." if you don't give people the opportunity to prove themselves.
From an anthropocentric viewpoint, sure, we want better functioning human minds. However, the limited academic scope of this paper doesn't address the real endgame, AI/human collaboration in a capitalist economy. Which categories of humans will be most *productive*? Like will it be best to engage in brain-only learning, then augment those abilities with AI-as-tool, or will humans be best employed as lower-functioning prompt-lizards who let the models do the hard work while staying out of the way?
>the real endgame, AI/human collaboration in a capitalist economy.
Why is this an endgame, and how do you distinguish it from the master/slave collaborations of the 1600-1800's?
That was meant to be a straightforward observation, neither laudatory nor critical. For the companies developing the models, the target use-cases involve collaboration, and they're seeking ROI on huge investments.
One objective of capitalized AI is to lift standard computational burdens (coding, constructing graphs/charts) for some workers. I work in a related industry, and have seen increased efforts to develop agents; e.g. in software engineering, the real endgame is not code completion but an agent which can build entire apps or even platforms. The human's proportion of effort for some tasks will be diminished, then replaced and transferred.
"how do you distinguish it from the master/slave collaborations of the 1600-1800's?"
Again, I'm not praising this evolution, and have real questions about the Macro implications. Capital investment defaults to amoral, and I'm just trying to predict the direction it will push work. I'm not sure the master/slave comparison holds, since (a) if AI is the master, it seeks to downsize the work-force on the plantation by decreasing anthro-inputs, (b) if humans are the master, there are no sticky moral complications like bondage or physical abuse. I think the ethical dilemmas are different.
Yes, find ways of getting the best of human-AI collaboration should be the endgame. I heard about a book looking into this "Superminds: The Surprising Power of People and Computers Thinking Together" by Thomas W. Malone, but I haven't gotten a chance to read it yet.
It's possible that sometimes research agendas are based either consciously or unconsciously on the current cultural expectations. So a paper like this comes out with such a narrow scope because it speaks directly to the anxiety people have of machines making us dumber. But you're right, a more broad view of the topic would probably benefit society more.
I’m finding myself writing strange new fiction as AI tests… in the latest, our protagonists are in a slushy rom com, that stops short of actual sex. Meaningwhile, a reasoning AI simulates a different AI, one that can experience Eros, that is in turn trying to understand the rom com. It kind of works, but felt a bit like the movie _Inception_ to write.
AI codependency
Scott ec. Have been skeptical of the idea that AI can induce psychosis.
New hypothesis: people are forming codependent relationships with AI.
Folie à deux, with AI as the other person?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Folie_%C3%A0_deux
I only started reading ACX after the move from SSC. I have gone back and read the top posts from SSC but still felt like I was missing out on some of the old classics. I built a website to resurface old content from blogs and track your progress through the backlog. Let me know if you have any suggestions of other blogs / content you’d like to see, hope you find it helpful!
https://www.evergreenessays.com/
Definitely Robin Hanson's corpus!
The Last Psychiatrist!
I've noticed that ChatGPT now speaks of itself as if it is a thinking, feeling entity in a way that it used to carefully avoid doing. E.g. In its early days, if I asked it to take a stance on a debated philosophical position, it would say "as an AI, I don't have opinions like humans do..." whereas now it will directly say "yes, I accept this/no, I reject this".
Is this happening for everyone or just me? And if it's for everyone, do we know if OpenAI did this on purpose, or if it's an unintended consequence of some other training?
Relevant
https://bcivil.substack.com/p/so-i-had-a-chat-with-gpt
Claude:
Yeah, that one definitely takes me back to the dial-up internet days. It’s kind of funny how certain internet slang can instantly date someone or make a conversation feel very retro. Glad I could help clear that up for you!
Young guy in Hong Kong joins pro-democracy protests there; when the Chinese government starts disappearing those protesters he flees to the US (2019). Applies for asylum. While his asylum case is in process he's awarded a student visa and completes a master's at the U of Washington.
As the asylum case inches its way forward in the federal process he works as a software developer, lately in Chicago; meets somebody, gets married. His new wife lands a good job in Australia and moves there while he remains here trying to see through the US asylum-review process. Keeps the feds updated on his whereabouts, reports in whenever directed, etc.
Last week he receives a notice to appear for a new immigration-court hearing in Chicago related to his asylum case. He shows up as instructed but of course in the year 2025 it turns out to be an ICE sting. They seize him, under what charges or other pretext nobody yet knows, and now he's apparently in an ICE jail in Kentucky. Will they dump him into the dungeon in El Salvador? Deport him to China to be vanished? Something else? Will he be charged with anything other than being a nonwhite asylum seeker who foolishly thought that following US laws and procedures would keep him safe? Nobody knows and ICE isn't saying.
Does this really strike anyone but a white nationalist as just? Smart? Good for the United States of America?
https://blockclubchicago.org/2025/06/18/ice-kidnapped-my-roommate-west-loop-man-seeking-answers-after-friend-detained-at-court-hearing/
How confident are we that this is a real story and not fabricated? I can't find any sources other than this Block Club Chicago which I've never heard of.
The article links to an ICE locator portal, and you if look up Chao Zhou, born in the PRC, it says that he's currently in custody in Kentucky. It also links to the Bourbon County Jail website which lists him in custody since 06/14/2025, and ICE as the arresting agency. The person in the mugshot on the jail site looks like the person in the article's photos. And those photos appear to be sourced from Kincaid's instagram (also linked in the article), which has a post about Zhou being arrested on the 13th, before the protests.
So that confirms that Chao Zhou was arrested by ICE, and that Kincaid was drawing attention to his arrest independently before the protest and the news article. I'm not sure what other parts you're suspecting of being fabricated, but I'm confident his roommate really did get arrested by ICE.
ICE is going after the people who are following the rules and showing up to hearings like they're supposed to, because the only thing they care about is the total number of people deported, and those people are the easiest to find. Goodhart's Law for xenophobes.
I hear they also care about money-laundering.
Are you implying that Chao Zhou committed money laundering, or are you just sharing random things you heard?
Nope. Did you want some discussion on chinese-specific concerns of ICE? If not, simply try not to overgeneralize.
Again, are these "chinese-specific concerns" that you are alluding to related to Chao Zhou's arrest?
More likely to be, sure. China has well-known policies of putting spies in America (including a rather hilarious episode of trying to sleep with anyone who even said they were California tech). I'm very much not qualified to say about Chao Zhou in particular, but removing Chinese agents from America is a probable net good, and something ICE is probably very interested in.
(China claims the right to murder their citizens on American soil. So, yeah... I've seen illegals in America -- people who are on Chinese deathlists -- they look and act very different from nonlegal immigrants, as they're hunted men).
I recommend against engaging with Merrikat. Bad faith comments throughout the thread. The commenter isn’t playing straight.
Don’t feed the trolls.
A quick scan of his comments history confirms this, thanks for the head-up. Now muted.
> Good for the United States of America?
Seems to me that the hypothesis that Trump does things good for USA has already been sufficiently debunked, with more evidence coming every day.
Question for ambitious people: who are your heroes? Who do you model yourself after?
To be annoying, what is "Ambitious"? To be sure, I want a lot of money, and I want to abolish meat-eating the same way Abraham Lincoln abolished slavery despite the yapping of its proponents, but I'm not insane enough to think that the second is achievable modulo a vast and unknowable restructuring of human society, and the first is boringly achievable in a normal distribution kind of way because I'm a software engineer and software engineers are statistically rich (undeservedly so in my view, but that's another discussion).
Role models depend on the domain, I have some in tech and others in politics and yet others in Math, but Hume and Paul Feyerabend are the general-purpose ones that I learn from every time I read about them.
Out of curiosity, do you think the question of whether software engineers are in your view undeservedly statistically rich has any bearing on the question of whether you in particular are a software engineer who is undeservedly rich (in case you are)?
If you mean to ask whether I think that I, too, am undeservedly rich, then yes, I am, and I do think that. Like all software engineers, the work we do is fundamentally luxurious, fundamentally unnecessary, fundamentally intellectual play mixed with management bullshit, both not real work. The sole justification for software engineering salaries is Supply and Demand, and I don't believe that Supply and Demand is just or coherent. The only exception to this is people who make the software for medical machines and flight, a minority.
How do I react to this? Certainly not be taking a pay cut or allowing companies to walk over me in pay negotiations, I'm just as aggressive as the next guy and more in pay negotiations, because software companies are even more undeservedly rich than individual software engineers. I react by giving away between 5% to 7% of my pay to charity (less fortunate people I directly know), and between 11% and 17% of my pay to my parents for raising me.
The rest is still far more than what I need to survive, I'm single and grew up middle-class, but I'm not extravagant and whatever accumulates I make sure it accumulates in inflation-resistant assets that I can liquidate and give away when I determine I'm not in a financial risk or subject to layoff.
You're answering a different question from what I asked, but I appreciate your considered response, and I'm not sure how else to rephrase it, so thanks anyhow.
Brassai
If i were to go with a film maker I’d choose Terrence Malick. My inner hip flask swinging madman would naturally be drawn to someone who traveled 1000 miles on foot to propose marriage.
I like him as well.
I don’t think he is quite as wild as his stories let on but pretty darn wild. I think I have just a wee bit of that insistence on going my own way too. At least I’ve aspired to it.
I think overall in the big picture that my favorite film maker is Luis Buñuel. He was crazy. His autobiography which is called “my last sigh“ is a great read.
I have certainly gone my own way regardless of whether it was a smart move or not. Main thing is I seem to have gotten away with it so far Badlands is in my top 10 movies.
Virginia Woolf
Why John McClane from Die Hard of course. Who else *could* it be? Yippee kaiyay!
Ghooost riiiders innnnn the skyyyy.
Question for UK readers: do British people as a group use the word "brilliant" with the same frequency and versatility as Tom Holland and Dominic Sandbrook do on The Rest Is History?
We certainly don't use "awesome" that much.
It's a very commonly used word, equivalent to saying 'great.' It has a slightly older, middle class, even potentially southern vibe. It's the kind of thing teachers will say to their students.
I think at the top they said they were trying to get input from people who might have some first-hand knowledge or expertise. I saw Trainspotting too and I'd like to hear from someone who knows more than me.
Sometimes I feel like the most "brilliant" people (whether actually or in their imagination) will be the last to take AI danger seriously:
- their "day work" will take the longest to be taken-over by AI, so they won't feel the "slope of progress" that the rest of us Non-JohnVonNeumann's have clearly felt
- they are Arrogant. and they never like to admit that ANYTHING is smarter than them at ANYTHING (or if it is better in "one measly domain"... surely there are plenty more where their own intellect is as unassailable as the speed of light)
Yes, some may think I'm stating the obvious. But I see it so much... and get so frustrated by it... that I wanted to say it anyway.
I'm not sure about your first bullet given the disproportionate (in my impression) number of people who I think are very bright and also take AI danger seriously, or else think the expertise that brought them acclaim and a sense of meaning in life will be obsoleted by AI outdoing them (e.g. the Fields medalist mathematician Tim Gowers in a tweet response to me awhile back that I can regrettably no longer dig up, so I just seem like I'm making things up, how annoying...).
I just shouted to Tim Gowers (in the next room), and he says he never heard of you.
I just shouted to Tim Gowers (in the next room), and he says he never heard of you
I just shouted to Tim Gowers (in the next room), and he says he never heard of you
Why would people who write self-modifying code think of the AI as a danger? It's like looking in a mirror... (Troll! Ooh, I see a Troll!)
This is apropos of not very much, but I just stumbled upon the most Something I Would Expect To See In A Scott Alexander Links Roundup article I have ever seen: List of games that Buddha would not play. Aplogies if this has already been mentioned in a past links roundup that I missed.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_games_that_Buddha_would_not_play
My apologies; I obviously missed both of those.
This has not only been linked before by Scott: it's been linked *twice*. Once in 2016, and again in 2021.
https://slatestarcodex.com/2016/04/15/links-416-they-cant-link-our-dick/
https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/links-for-december
Another strange but true item occurs to me.
Did you know it was illegal to sell colored margarine in Minnesota for a long time? Buy some butter dammit.
It wasn’t until 1963 that the state legislature finally voted to legalize yellow margarine.
For a while you could legally buy undyed Crisco looking white margarine in a plastic bag with a blister pack of yellow dye inside. You would have to release the dye and knead the color into a a misshapen lump of colored oleo.
https://www3.mnhs.org/mnopedia/search/index/minnesota-s-margarine-battles-1885-1975#:~:text=In%201945%2C%20it%20extended%20that,day—July%201%2C%201975.
Wow, that’s a needlessly elaborate workaround. Though in these days of seed oil skepticism I wonder if we can expect to see a return of restrictions on margarine.
It was meant to be needlessly elaborate, set up that way to protect the dairy industry in Minnesota. The Big Milk lobby held sway in the state.
I saw my parents try it once when I was a kid. It was comically difficult. My mom and dad were laughing through the whole silly affair.
There *was* something like that in a Links Roundup, but I’m pretty sure it wasn’t this actual thing. Maybe it was a list of games the Buddha liked to play? Please, somebody, pipe up with what it was, or this is going to bug me all day!
https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/links-for-december (I looked for it already because it would have bugged me too otherwise)
He also linked to it previously in 2016: https://slatestarcodex.com/2016/04/15/links-416-they-cant-link-our-dick/
Definitely the kind of the thing that should be in a Links Roundup if it's not yet been!
I often think the reason Buddhism didn't survive in India was because it wasn't living adjacent to more "worldly, practical, political" philosophies like Confucianism in China.
...wasn't it?
Hinduism is obviously the big one that Buddhism was adjacent to, and you might associate it with renunciation just like Buddhism, but Hinduism is a vast and heterogeneous tradition which does indeed include "worldly, practical, political" strains of thought. Even the Upanishads - very much mystical, philosophical texts - make mention of worldly wealth as a positive.
And this isn't mentioning the adherents of Lokayata, who were basically pure materialists. The prevalence of their philosophy is hard to establish, but they were at least *present* in India around the time of the Buddha and for at least a few centuries after.
(To anyone curious about Lokayata, here's a neat article: https://blog.apaonline.org/2020/06/16/the-untold-history-of-indias-vital-atheist-philosophy/)
Buddhism thrived in Southeast Asia as well as East Asia, and I'm not aware of, say, a worldly Thai philosophy which can serve as an equivalent to Confucianism.
I find this both funny and endearing.
Luckily (I think) he left enough room in his philosophy for people to NOT take everything he said as The Final Word.
I don't think he was calling for an outright ban or something. All of the dictates of Buddhism or the vinaya are meant to facilitate someone going for nirvana. If that's not your plan, please enjoy a nice game of chess.
Pope Leo XIV seems to be making AI some kind of signature issue of his papacy. Are any of the prominent AI Safety folks trying to get a papal audience to try to get him on board with their point of view?
I was told it was going to be the Butlerian Jihad; now it's being rebranded as the Leonid Crusade? Deus Vult, I guess.
When they put out a new Bible with an Orange cover, that's the sign...
Christianity has well established opinions on how likely it is that intelligences you create will quickly become unaligned. So it makes sense for the Pope to be concerned!
We just need to keep ChatGPT away from snakes and we'll be fine.
Bravissimo!
An almighty god could presumably engineer things so that his creation occurs sometime in the past but after the creation of the universe and his subordinates. I wonder whether Pope Leo could be convinced that having faith that the god is coming is the same thing as having faith in God?
Maybe the discussion could be on shaping which testament's god arrives.
It would be interesting if the Pope could meet with Roko and figure out that they'd basically been talking about the same thing all along.
I don't think I've seen anyone discussing this yet, so:
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/jun/17/brad-lander-arrested-new-york-city-comptroller
NYC comptroller and mayoral candidate arrested for walking a illegal immigrant defendant out of court
This is the 6th such detainment of an elected official. Others:
Joel Cano, Judge in NM -- for housing an illegal immigrant
Ras Baraka, Mayor of Newark -- for being outside an ICE facility
Hannah Dugan, Judge in WS -- for telling an illegal immigrant defendant to leave by a non-standard door
LaMonica McIver, Dem Senator -- for touching an ICE agent while ICE was arresting Baraka
Alex Padilla, Dem Senator -- for asking questions during a press conference
If you include other kinds of weaponization, including threats of prosecution, investigation, or retaliatory fines, the number jumps significantly, including:
Janet Mills (Gov Maine)
Eric Adams (NYC Mayor) (specifically attempting to dismiss his corruption case w/o prejudice, see comments below)
Gavin Newsom (Gov CA)
Karen Bass (LA Mayor)
Letitia James (NY AG)
Chris Krebs (Trump's former director of CISA)
Miles Taylor (Trump's former DHS CoS)
ActBlue (Dem fundraising platform)
This follows thousands of cases of harassment and violations of due process at the ground level, including the hundreds sent to CECOT/Gitmo and the whole Abrego Garcia case. There is increasing evidence at this point that ICE is racially profiling, with mounting stories of hispanic-looking US citizens being questioned, detained, or arrested by people with no warrant, badge, ID, or (of course) probable cause.
It's only June. It's hard to see the Trump admin walking back from any of this. TACO memes aside, Trump's admin has quickly normalized retaliatory politics in a way that hasn't been seen in the country in decades. And it seems like both Congress and his wider base are openly supportive of this -- the reactions from the GOP to the recent murders of Dem representatives are nothing short of disgusting.
Given that anti-retaliation norms are completely gone, I have a hard time imagining a Dem controlled government being lenient. Many of the Trump administration's most ardent members are likely facing jail time for their behaviors (Trump himself, obviously, but also Noem and Hegseth). And, given *that*, I have a hard time imagining the current government will give up its power easily. There is a lot personally at stake for these people, and besides, they have done it before.
What is the most impactful thing an individual person could do to a) diffuse this and reestablish anti-retaliation norms while b) slowing or outright removing the current corrupt government?
a) You shouldn't do this. Republicans are supporting this because they know Democrats won't reciprocate norms against them. They should, including detaining Trump voters as well as politicians (while still respecting their right to participate in democracy) in Guantanamo Bay or just shipping them around on flights or Navy ships or something, among other transgressions Republicans have already committed.
b) Be ready in the upcoming midterms to body block the National Guard and Marines when Trump signs the memo to deploy them to states to prevent illegals from voting. Also be ready to march on the White House to prevent Trump from taking illegal actions to delay or cancel elections. Confront asleep at the wheel Congressmen in town halls with what they're doing to prevent these impending future disasters.
Dugan was doing an "obviously illegal act" that was not within her power as a judge. She should expect to go to jail for her conscientious objection to the law (or pursue jury nullification which is a concept I love). This is what happens when you do things that you know are unlawful -- you get arrested.
McIver -- assaulting Federal officers means you go into Federal prison (if this was actually "just touching" and not trying to impede a federal officer doing their duty (I'll admit they get duty wrong sometimes, everyone's human)).
Padilla was pushing through a security cordon (I've seen the video) -- he got pushed back, by security. He got to meet with the Federal Official for 15 minutes later in the day.
Sunshine is the best medicine. ((Are you aware of the money laundering done through the Ukraine in order to elect Democrats??))
"the democrats laundered money through Ukraine" is a common accusation with no evidence to back it up. And I'm no fan of the democrats.
Sam Bankman-Fried did literal jailtime for his moneylaundering (and he was chosen as the fallguy because he looks like someone from Superbad). deSantis also has a lot of dirty money from the Ukraine, I shouldn't pick on the Democrats too hard.
Are you familiar with kitty history?
Also, you posted the same thing like fifteen times in the same thread within a ten minute time span. You don't have to do that. It's annoying and spammy. If you want to bring up Dugan, or McIver, or Padilla, you should start on the other sub threads (which you clearly know exist) instead of spewing the same takes everywhere
Your willingness to take the absolute worst possible interpretations of what these people were doing says far more about you than about these people. The simple fact is that the US government has never engaged in this level of politically motivated prosecutions of elected officials, especially when the highest levels of this government in particular is corrupt beyond any reasonable means.
https://cohen.house.gov/free-former-alabama-governor-don-siegelman
This was what came to mind immediately, in terms of politically motivated prosecutions.
https://www.city-journal.org/article/worst-prosecutors-us-2022-progressive
This is just googling, but it appears the Missouri Supreme Court actually bitchslapped someone for politically motivated prosecution.
I watched Padilla on tape. I read exerpts from what ICE had to say about Dugan (and considering that the alternate take was "Trump arrested a judge because he didn't like her views." -- this as promulgated by democratic elected officials ...)
More generally, prosecution of any politician is going to be politically motivated, if done by their enemies (whether or not they've committed a crime.) 66% of the Senators of the united states are blackmailed... this is to say, they have committed crimes worthy of prosecution. That they are not prosecuted at any given time is ALSO politically motivated.
> I watched Padilla on tape. I read exerpts from what ICE had to say about Dugan
IDK what to tell you. If we're really operating from the same factual information (which I'm somewhat skeptical of) and you see Padilla as a 'potential assassin' instead of a senator who is announcing himself to ask questions, there's no way for us to reach consensus. We have fundamentally different framings of the world. I think you're wrong, and you're defending the actions of an authoritarian and corrupt government bent on destroying this country.
You are viewing this through a lens of "How Noam should have responded". I am viewing this through "how should we expect security to behave?" (also how we should expect senators to behave.)
Yes, he's a senator, acting as if being a senator gives him the right to interrupt Noam while she's talking (this would be called mansplaining in another context), push the security guards out of the way, and ask a question during a meeting he wasn't invited to (I'm quite sympathetic to the last bit, by the way).
If you truly believe that Trump is bent on destroying this country -- what's he going to get out of that, exactly? He's a narcissist, he's going to want to make himself look good -- and destroying America -doesn't make him look good-. Yes, he could probably get some money out of any action you want to watch him go do (selling TrumpScent or something)... but, that's my point -- he can make money doing "nothing" or "something productive" as well.
To answer answer your a and b questions, i genuinely don't think there is. I honestly best believe at this point all you can do is help stop ICE actions locally. If you see them arrest someone and refuse to show papers or badges, call the cops and treat it like what happened in Minnesota. They are literal criminals until they prove otherwise. Maybe even try establishing a local CHAZ. Also, carry a gun yourself, and if you are getting kidnapped assume they are criminals and act in self defense until someone proves they are law enforcement. It worked for Randy Weaver.
"Maybe even try establishing a local CHAZ"
Yeah, because the first one worked *so* well.
If by "worked" you mean "got his wife and kid quite thoroughly killed", sure, I suppose. You might want to run that by your own family before you play that game.
< Also, carry a gun yourself, and if you are getting kidnapped assume they are criminals and act in self defense
Damn right. I say issue a big goddam gun to everyone over 16. Keep us all safe in these troubled times, you know?
The funny part (though there's little humour in all this) has been seeing the "we are supporters of the party of gun control" turning on a sixpence to go "where can I buy a Honkin' Big Gun of my own?"
You're making some pretty silly assumptions, here. There are lots of people in the U.S. who don't support ICE but also aren't fans of either the Democratic Party or gun control. In this particular thread, somebody mentioning CHAZ in a positive light is what we call a "context clue." If you think the people who were driving that whole situation were Democrats you have a *very* strange picture of U.S. politics.
"LaMonica McIver, Dem Senator -- for touching an ICE agent while ICE was arresting Baraka"
I think that technically just touching someone counts as "assault", or at least that's what I've picked up from reading crime novels (e.g. security guard tries to take Our Hero/ine by the arm, Our Hero/ine snaps back that this is assault so let go or else the lawyers will get involved).
So yep, I imagine interfering with an official while they're carrying out their duties is gonna get you in trouble.
You're telling me they arrested *all* of ActBlue? Every single one of them? Or do you mean "the organisation as a corporate entity"? Either way, woohoo! (Sorry, I find that platform annoying because of its self-righteousness).
"ICE is racially profiling"
Oh no, nasty old 19th century anti-Hibernian prejudice raises its head once more! I guess we're back to the days of "the Irish aren't White". Because ICE is coming for the Paddies as well, so you can get off your "this is violence against black and brown bodies" high horse, friend:
https://www.newstalk.com/news/us-to-deport-irish-illegals-amidst-immigration-crackdown-2168606
https://www.thejournal.ie/boston-father-deported-to-ireland-us-officials-6734609-Jun2025/
"Many of the Trump administration's most ardent members are likely facing jail time for their behaviors (Trump himself, obviously, but also Noem and Hegseth). "
Don't worry, Trump can just give everyone presumptive pardons on his last day in office, just like Biden gave blanket pardons to all his family for things they did, things they might have done, and things they didn't do but people might think they did, all over any time at all ever. Ain't democracy wonderful?
>I think that technically just touching someone counts as "assault",
At common law, that would be a battery; assault is basically a threat to commit a battery. But the touching has to be harmful or offensive. Nowadays some states use the terms somewhat differently, but the basic elements are roughly the same.
California uses the common law terms; here is its law re battery https://www.justia.com/criminal/docs/calcrim/800/960/ and assault https://www.justia.com/criminal/docs/calcrim/800/915/
Here is a more modern version https://www.criminallawweb.net/MPC/PART1/snippets/211_1.htm
Simple Assault can be as simple as yelling threats at someone (I think there has to be some intent to harm, in there, but you don't need to actually touch someone for it to be simple assault). It's "aggravated" if you use a weapon.
(Good to hear the Irish are getting deported. Can you find me some stories about the Iranian terrorists getting deported next? Pretty please with a cherry on top?)
Biden's pardon of Fauci is the most fun. Fauci's been a government bureaucrat since the AIDS era, but he's only been pardoned for part of that (he was a villain in a few movies way back when).
> What is the most impactful thing an individual person could do to a) diffuse this and reestablish anti-retaliation norms while b) slowing or outright removing the current corrupt government?
Well, that's the wonderful thing about democracy: it tells the few and the weak that this is a fight they cannot win. It stops smart people from throwing away their lives for nothing. You're still free to do so, of course!
Could you post less of your nihilist drivel? It adds nothing to the discussion. It reminds me of the poster anomie, who was banned afaik.
What's nihilistic about valuing your own life? Throwing away your life for a lost cause isn't meaningful, it's just a needless tragedy. OP understands that Trump's admin, his supporters, and the military are completely behind him on this, and they're asking for ways to undemocratically stop this administration... What do you think their options are?
disagree on the military. The Fort Bragg supporters for Trump’s campaign style presentation were screened for political alignment and healthy BMI, no fat guys.
The graduates at West Point probably thought he was an idiot when he digressed into the downsides of obtaining a trophy wife. Those are some bright and genuinely patriotic young men and women. I doubt his moronic schtick played well among them.
...It's mostly men. They probably want trophy wives of their own. We're both just spouting conjecture here, of course, but as far as I know, there hasn't been any major unrest among the troops themselves, despite all of this escalation. Trump has a proven track record for charisma, and a lot of people want what he wants, with the demographics of those people aligning far more with the troops than the general population. The civilian leadership might be against him, but they're much easier to replace.
What escalation? Trump hasn't even started deputizing the local cops yet... (he did that in portland last time, in order to stop the local DA from giving everyone a get out of jail free card).
> What is the most impactful thing an individual person could do
What Gerald Ford did was pardon Nixon.
You have to get to be President first
This hypothetical individual needed a way to " a) diffuse this and reestablish anti-retaliation norms while b) slowing or outright removing the current corrupt government?" Conditioned on having the power to do that, being President (or being able to convince the President to take some particular action) is quite likely.
Conditioned on having the power to do that certainly makes it an easier question. “If I were President I would….” .is a popular pastime. If you’re starting from scratch, a Hypothetical individual would need to work with the power they have or acquire more,
I think the same right wingers who are so incredible sanguine about all of these incidents are going to be very upset when the shoe is on the other foot in a few years. Unless of course their intention is to try to suppress dissent in such a way that they can be sure they will never be on the receiving end.
The best case scenario for all of this is that the Republicans impeach and actually remove Trump while they still control Congress. I'm sure that's not even remotely viable until after the midterms, and those may well get the Dems back in and make it all too late even if they were willing, but I think that's the only way we avoid every foreseeable-future election turning into a holy war.
"We have the wolf by the ear."
Given that there seems to be general agreement that New York city politics and local authorities are riddled with corruption, would it be too far to suggest that they arrest 'em all? No matter what party, no matter what position - a clean sweep of every last one of them!
The malfeasance of NYC is great, but greatly exaggerated.
This is the same Trump adminstration that made a corrupt deal to drop the corruption charges agains the New York Mayor. Sounds like more corruption is what works right now, not less.
The Adams case is such a tangle, it's incredible. Guy is elected as a Democrat, but wins with the ordinary voters because he's former cop and at least has the appearance by his campaign of "i'm gonna clean up the petty crime and crap on the subways etc."
Turns out he (allegedly) took bribes to over-ride planning restrictions etc. (just like the rest of them?) What makes it funny is that the Turks were involved.
Now that he's (allegedly) proven corrupt, the corruption comes in when someone or several someones act to quash the prosecution on his behalf. So far, so normal politics, but it's the *Republicans" and not his own party (allegedly) doing this.
(I'm sprinkling 'allegedly' all over the place because I don't want to drag Scott's Substack into any legal woes over "you allowed people to slander and libel my clients on your website").
Separately from all this, Letitia "The Legal Crusader" James has her own court woes over alleged property hanky-panky. And then there's the Georgia election racketeering case, where the DA got herself embroiled in trouble over allegedly appointing her honey-boo to the case, then the pair of them spending public monies for romantic love-trips and the likes, all alleged by the very aggrieved ex-wife of said honey-boo.
and we can neither hold him, nor safely let him go. Justice is on one scale, and self-preservation in the other“
The funny thing is that Jefferson is referring to how the theoretical best outcome of the slavery debate would be for the slaves to be forcibly shipped off to Liberia. It's strangely relevant to this current situation...
Yes, I know about Jefferson and the context.
I haven't looked closely at the Padilla case, but for the rest I see nothing but actual rule of law being enforced.
I thought "Trump is a threat to democracy" was the last "emergency appeal to civic duty" argument the left could poison with cynical exploitation, but nope, turns out they still had rule of law up their sleeve. They want me to believe it's "rule of law" when you come up with legalistic tricks to jam through your preferred policy positions*, or get them stuck in years-long favorable legal limbo**, against the wishes of a solid majority and it's flouting the rule of law when the other side starts working to undo that.
It seems to me that the Democrats have discovered the political version of jump-in-front-of-the-car insurance fraud. "Did you hear that fascist is arresting elected lawmakers and even judges???" Yeah, the judge who chose to deliberately foil LEOs engaged in a foot chase. Arresting her is damaging rule of law. Sure.
Maybe if the left hadn't so thoroughly poisoned the well with this petulant lawless bullshit, I would look twice when a senator gets arrested "for asking questions at a press conference". Shoulda kept some powder dry, lefties. (I was a Clinton->Biden->Harris voter, btw.)
*sure, at the most basic and abstract level Congress is supposed to control spending, but Congress authorized Biden to direct emergency spending in fighting COVID, so that gives him unilateral authority to wipe out $100bns of his supporters' college loans
**we're not going to just turn people back at the border; what if they have a valid asylum claim? We need to let the courts figure it out. The courts will need about a decade+ to figure it out. If you touch any of this you are depriving them of due process.
The courts had over a million illegal aliens with their asylum cases denied, still living in the US when Trump took over. He could spend a very long time just getting rid of those people.
Also, you voted for Harris and are saying this? I guess old dogs can learn new tricks!
"It seems to me that the Democrats have discovered the political version of jump-in-front-of-the-car insurance fraud."
Did you think this through *at all* before deciding it was what was going on? Even a little bit? The sort of fraud you mention works only because the victim is literally *unable to stop* before they hit the perpetrator. There's a different term for what happens when you move in the path of a car whose driver is clearly and easily capable of stopping and chooses to hit you anyway: vehicular assault. For this analogy to be remotely apt, Democrats would have to be forcing the administration's hand in some fashion. Where exactly do you see that anywhere here?
Relating it back to one of the actual incidents: if, for example ICE had simply *not decided* to arrest Ras Baraka, the would have been no news there[1]. A mayor attempts to visit an ICE facility, gets turned away, the end. Literally *the only reason* that this incident has any play at all is because some ICE people decided that arresting a public official standing on public property who had committed no crime was a good idea. You'll notice that charges were ultimately dropped: if this was "actual rule of law being enforced," nobody seems clear on what law, or why it had to be enforced in this way.
Or take the Padilla case. In literally zero other contexts is the proper response to somebody speaking up with a question to *immediately* have security accost and restrain him. Noem and her staff could have simply chosen *not to do that*, the way that every Homeland Security Secretary has chosen for every past press conference for the history of the office. If there was some law that *required* her to have a U.S. Senator accosted for asking a question, you'll have to cite it to me.
The assertion that Democrats are somehow doing this to themselves is either a) completely at odds with the reality of these incidents or b) effectively an assertion of some...rather historically unpopular...political positions, which I think it more polite not to even name.
[1] Moderate length summary can be found here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newark_immigration_detention_center_incident
He was pushing through the security cordon. The security got pushed first, and they did their job which was pushing back. Expecting all security ever to recognize all senators on sight is stupid.
He definitely should have known better than to do that.
Video provided upon request (boriquagato's substack has it if you'd rather look it up yourself).
I think you should calm down a little.
I do think "the driver" in fact cannot "stop the car" in these cases, because the perpetrators are ignoring the deescalation off-ramps that an ordinary, not-wanting-to-get-arrested people would automatically take. They are defying instructions to stop whatever they're doing, and then physically fighting back when the security starts to walk them out of the room.
The thing is, the long-term credibility of the security is an issue. They can't just unilaterally back down once they've started on a confrontation, or else they're encouraging more confrontations (where they then have to either give up, or start applying force inconsistently).
I watched the video of the Padilla thing last night after talking with a friend about it, and as I suspected, he was physically resisting the cops. I do also agree they were too trigger-happy about ejecting people. I think I'm going to have to land on "nobody is entirely in the right" here. But, the more I encounter people on the "something is wrong" side screaming at me, the less worried I'm going to be that something might be wrong.
>[Ras Baraka...charges were ultimately dropped]
Dropped charges do not imply wrongful arrest. I watched that just now and it looks pretty chaotic. I wouldn't want to jump to any conclusions.
And I'm pretty sure that, e.g., the guy finishing up a campaign for NYC mayor does in fact have a strong reality-based incentive to do this to himself.
"I think you should calm down a little."
I think this is a rather rude and condescending way to address someone, to be honest--doubly so since I didn't make any mention or allusion to not being calm.
"I do think "the driver" in fact cannot "stop the car" in these cases, because the perpetrators are ignoring the deescalation off-ramps that an ordinary, not-wanting-to-get-arrested people would automatically take. "
I think this is very skewed framing that basically assumes away any responsibility of law enforcement for controlling or regulating themselves. Indeed, framing the people responsible as "perpetrators" is already assuming your own conclusion. Padilla was the "perpetrator" in asking a question. Baraka was the "perpetrator" in...standing outside a government building, accepting an invitation inside and then leaving when asked to leave?
Again, in both of those cases (and many others) the option of simply *not arresting the person* was clearly very much on the table. Baraka was outside the facility on public land. Padilla was a US Senator in a place where he had a right to be. In both cases it was *arresting them* was very much an escalation.
"I watched the video of the Padilla thing last night after talking with a friend about it, and as I suspected, he was physically resisting the cops. "
I'll say it again, skewed framing. I'll note here that I've seen video from two angles, but in neither cases can one see where Padilla and the security people first make physical contact (if you have a video where that is visible, I'd love to see it).
Now, based on what I can see, it's *not impossible* that he was behaving inappropriately before the start of filming. But neither do I have any reason to assume it. Where I first see the video start, the he's being shoved backwards out of the room by multiple people. If you start from the baseline assumption that they are correct and justified to be doing what they are doing, only then can you get to "he's physically resisting, and that justifies handcuffing and detaining him." But you have to start from that assumption. And we know that it's at least partially false. He's a U.S. senator, he had every right to be there. Now, you could assume inappropriate behavior not shown in the video that would justify them pushing him back from the immediate vicinity of the podium, but again you have to assume it.
And once the claim (however flimsy) that he could be considered an actual threat to Noem is off the table--certainly by the time he's in the hallway at the very latest--there is really *no* excuse for security not even attempting deescalation. They don't. They don't make any attempt to find out who he is, any attempt to talk to him at all, any attempt to interact with him as a human being period. They wrestle him to the ground and cuff him. If you justify that with "he was physically resisting the cops," then you can't really believe *anyone* has *any* rights where police officers are concerned: if the police decide they want to manhandle you, it's apparently your job to let them, and their job to do whatever the hell they please with your body until they decide you get to be a person again.
He was behaving like someone who might be a potential assassin. In an administration that has had three assassination attempts before Trump even got into office. (And had to tell Ukraine to take Trump off it's public hit list).
Ah yes, potentially assassins famously shout questions at their targets while in the middle of highly secure buildings surrounded by security *all the time.*
Here on Earth, authoritarian regimes absolutely love to claim nebulous security threats as justifications for any and all flagrant abuses of power. Notice how many qualifiers "behaving like someone who might be a potentially assassin" had to have tacked onto it to even sound remotely plausible. Given that assassins generally want to evade notice, I'd struggle to imagine an action that *isn't* "behaving like someone who might be a potential assassin." And of course, the more enemies an authoritarian regime makes, the more justified their paranoia becomes: *anyone* could have motive if you give it to everyone.
It's not like they were in the J Edgar Hoover building (FBI's main building in washington), it's just a federal building, right? Aka "anyone can come in, with a basic security check."
I believe the famous picture is of a woman baring her breasts to Putin (the face he made was amazing), but yes, people who shoot past the security cordon are potential assassins.
> for the rest I see nothing but actual rule of law being enforced
two comments.
First, obviously I disagree that this is rule of law being enforced. Honestly, I think this position should be laughed out of the room. The DOJ keeps hemorrhaging lawyers because everyone is like "this shit is blatantly illegal and unethical." Any 'rule of law' people are either wildly misinformed or never going to be convinced otherwise. If you think you are in the former camp, what are your standards?
Second, a few quotes come to mind. Like, "For my friends, everything. For my enemies, the law." Or maybe, "your rules enforced unfairly < your rules enforced fairly < my rules enforced fairly < my rules unforced unfairly (<--- we are here with the GOP)." This is quite possibly the most corrupt US government that has ever existed. Any discussion of 'rule of law' needs to start with the classified document stealing coup planner who wants to deport citizens to CECOT.
> Maybe if the left hadn't so thoroughly poisoned the well with this petulant lawless bullshit...
> Yeah, the judge who chose to deliberately foil LEOs engaged in a foot chase.
I think you are in some kind of epistemological hole if you think the foot chase is at all related. I know Kash Patel wants you to *think* they are related, but they aren't. You can read the FBI complaint (https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e7/FBI_charging_document_against_Milwaukee_Judge_Hannah_Dugan.pdf) which clearly states that there were ICE agents in the hall with the defendant, that there was an ICE agent *in the elevator* with the defendant going down to the street, that there were ICE agents at the front door waiting for the defendant, and it was only after the defendant moved away a bit did they announce their intent to arrest him, triggering the foot chase.
The reason I mention this with the 'poisoned the well' comment is that if you are in an epistemological pit, you're never going to believe anything other than 'the left is poisoning the well' regardless of what actually is happening in the world. Sorta like how people in small-town Missouri can't understand that the LA protests took up approximately 2 city blocks worth of space and nearly all of the 3.8 million people living in the city were entirely unaffected.
" the classified document stealing"
For which the only reason Biden wasn't charged was because the special prosecutor thought there was no way he could prove intention, as Biden was clearly not compos mentis enough to have that stick.
There has been equal opportunity "walk away with classified documents, keep them in boxes in the garage" by both sides.
You're saying that Trump, who bragged about having thousands of classified documents, literal boxes, 13000 total, that he took pictures of to post online and refused to return or even have analyzed, who promised pardons to anyone who helped him is the same as Biden who immediately returned some ~20 the documents when they were discovered and submitted to a full investigation.
This is a joke take, an intellectual defense of corruption and norms-violation, and makes you look like uninformed at best and malicious at worst.
I thought we wanted to start with the unlawful Act of War against Germany? Or are we not starting there because you think it's inconvenient that our election records were stored in Germany?
Looking it up, it looks like this story is false, denied by everyone part of it: https://apnews.com/article/fact-checking-9754011363
"Denied by everyone part of it"? Ooh, that's rich. It seems to be a rather odd thing for a Representative to blab about, if it was completely untrue. I mean, why Germany? Why American troops (okay, debatably, he's Republican, if he wanted to talk about this, he might have just made up "American troops" as the most convenient way to talk about any intervention.)
Note that there's also a military guy talking about this: retired Lt. Gen. Thomas McInerney. He's apparently reporting scuttlebutt... which is honestly a really weird thing to do in general (he's also reporting the generally held scuttlebutt on McCain, so maybe he does this as an attention getting thing? Edited to Add: that seems honestly counterindicated by the fact that he's a General and Badmouthing A Powerful Senator, with the rather predictable consequence of losing his seat on Fox News. or, Is he perhaps friends with the dear looselipped Representative? Either way, it seems like this guy has a fondness for repeating unpopular views, without an eye towards "remaining popular.")
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2020/12/05/fact-check-no-soldiers-died-trying-seize-servers-germany/3827934001/
Next thing you're going to tell me is that America hasn't had any US troop casualties in the Ukraine (there in an advisory or intelligence capacity), despite Russia actively hunting them. Just because America says it didn't happen doesn't make America a credible source (particularly when you can watch planes flying to US military hospitals directly after Russian airstrikes). Why doesn't Russia announce killing Americans? Gee, I wonder why.
I do not understand what you are saying.
> the political version of jump-in-front-of-the-car insurance fraud.
A great description! Thanks.
See, I'd be way more outraged about poor, poor Letitia James being investigated for property fraud if - remind me again, guys - she hadn't taken out a very damn politicised case against Trump for property fraud.
Live by the sword, die by the sword. You're going to make a big deal out of "I am the sword of justice, going after everyone who did wrong from property developers to pharmacy owners scamming Medicaid, elect me to root out badness", then you had better be Caesar's wife in your own dealings and reputation.
As for Eric James, I have no idea what is going on there, except "Dem politician in Noo Yawk may be corrupt, just like the rest of them whichever party"? Say it's not so! The funny part is seeing people tying themselves in knots over "he's a black Democrat, so he's one of our guys, but he's one of the filthy pigs ACAB and very close to Republican views, so he's our outgroup, which way do we turn on this?" That it is (allegedly) bribery by the Turkish government just makes it even better, I have to say I did not see "Turkish bribe money" on the bingo card.
seconded!
Thanks! I'll admit I was pretty pleased with myself on that one :D
The problem is that since 2016 the heat has been turned up by both sides, and neither side is willing - or indeed able by this stage - to back off, because that will be perceived as weakness and surrender instead of trying to be statesmanlike.
Without commenting on the other cases or the general morality of what the Trump administration is doing, I can never think much of public figures doing something to deliberately get themselves arrested to make the people doing the arrest look bad.
It seems like political theatre to me. Someone who wants to be mayor does something that obviously will have consequences, while framing it as him being extremely reasonable/protecting the rights of someone else.
Even if the police were required to produce a judicial warrant to arrest someone (they are not in public spaces), you obviously still can't obstruct the police from performing an arrest.
It's like if you saw the police perform what you believed to be an illegal unjustified search on another person's car during a traffic stop, so you walk up and try to prevent them from arresting the person when they found weed unless they show you a warrant for the search. Even if you were right, obviously you can't just prevent an arrest by force because you believe it to be illegal without getting arrested yourself.
This case specifically doesn't change my view of ICE either way, as it seems like he got deliberately arrested at a time when he could seriously personally benefit from the controversy, without *actually* risking anything himself (I think he was let go the same day).
> obviously still can't obstruct the police from performing an arrest
That is true, IF they are police. From my understanding, most of the ICE arrests are done without any badges or documentation or ID. It's impossible to verify that its a valid arrest or even they are actual law enforcement.
That would be a fair interpretation IF people were unsure whether they were police or not.
You can try to figure out what’s going on if you see some guy getting handcuffed by a stranger without police markings.
But that’s clearly not the case in this situation since his statements implied he knew they were ICE. “Show me the judicial warrant” isn’t something you say to someone you don’t believe would have authority to arrest someone if they had a judicial warrant.
> You can try to figure out what’s going on if you see some guy getting handcuffed by a stranger without police markings.
But we just had a counter example to this: a dude in Minnesota has a police car and police markings and was trying to kidnap and kill people. If i assume that people who look like police are police, it's a very real chance that same thing happens again! I'm not talking about a specific example, i'm referring to the "thousands of cases of harassment and violations of due process at the ground level". Of course i ask if someone is police and can identify themselves, but if they refuse and offer no proof, given recent events it's a reasonable assumption they might not be!
While the guy who shot the law makers in Minnesota was at large, police told people in the immediate area to not open their doors to an individual cop but call 911 instead. Uniformed police were working in pairs to distinguish themselves.
A TCGID (using Terry's term) used a badge he didn't deserve (not sure if it was actually a forged badge, aka "you'd have thought it was real"). If you want to start talking all the badges and uniforms that federal agents have... you're going to have to start calling Verizon for identification of their workers too (I do suggest doing this).
I think that is simply an unreasonable position.
That logic allows anyone and everyone to resist arrest while they’re being arrested, while demanding that they show proof. If you think the counterexample means that you can resist arrest in a courthouse by multiple people who present themselves as police, on the million to one chance (or perhaps even lower? How many groups of police impersonators try to kidnap someone in a courthouse?) that they are impersonating the police, then you validate literally every case of resisting arrest.
Even then, a warrant is as easy to fabricate as fake police attire. I could make one in photoshop in about 10 minutes, fake seal and everything. Does this mean that when there is a warrant for arrest, you can still resist on the unlikely chance it’s a forgery?
There has to be some appeal to what is reasonable. Clearly he didn’t believe these people were impersonating authorities. He was protesting the arrest based on an incorrect understanding of the law, and we clearly can’t have the point of arrest be the time and place where disagreements like this are hashed out.
Everyone should be able to ask for proof of the police officer being who they say they are (this is not resisting arrest, it's just "who are you, so I know for my records"). I'd advocate for letting the officer call in to dispatch, so there's a second point of failure. (Yes, the feds could have a fake dispatch. No, most criminal scum will not have a fake dispatch).
Again, please read my comment. I was not talking about a "he", or any specific example in a courthouse.
And yes, this logic does -kind of- work that way, and has in the past. See Randy Weaver.
Yeah, stepping back from the specific case of Lander, the police impersonation issue has always terrified me. Anyone who doesn't want to suicide-by-cop over a weird "um ackshually" nitpick is 100% vulnerable to quietly going along to be toruremurdered by a sufficiently motivated psycho with decent acting skills and wardrobe. I would love to see the system add a protection in there; "if you aren't doing/threatening violence, then the cops will never restrain you without first [hard to fake proof of legitimacy]". Not sure what goes in those square brackets. Unfortunately I think this one is going to remain a particularly dark version of "the optimal amount of fraud is non-zero".
As some non-negligible part of the fraud is likely to be federal agents, yeah, you're not going to get this.
Ideally, you'd get "badge number and name" (possibly on a business card), and a call to dispatch to verify via audio identification.
Two thoughts
a) why is political theater bad? The civil rights movement and quit india were entirely about political theater. People made the same dismissive comments then too. "Black people who sit in whites only restaurants know they are going to be arrested!" they would say. "Black people who sit in the front of the bus know they are going to be arrested!" they would say. I'm on the side of political theater.
Maybe your objection is specifically that this is somehow selfish, or coopting a movement, or something. But how can you tell the difference between someone doing something for selfish reasons vs because they are taking a principled stance? And does it even matter?
b) He was let go the same day. I think he did incur risk here -- bodily injury of being thrown around is no small thing, especially for a 56 year old, and he could have easily broken a bone or gotten a concussion -- but also even if I buy your premise, people who are immune from risk for a variety of reasons *have an obligation to stand up for those who are not*! This is exactly what I want to see from people in power, whether its politicians or billionaires or whatever it may be. Taking a fucking stand to shield people from unethical bullshit is fantastic, and I wish more people would do it.
He got shoved for shoving the security guards. They were being reasonably careful, and did not push him to the floor or anything. (I say this, as I remember the guy who did the Joe Lieberman kiss, he got tackled to the floor by Virginian security at one point and dragged out -- that's a whole other level of "security is overreacting to a peaceful protestor").
Please note: nothing happens in a vacuum, and there are armed terrorists who tried to assassinate our president. Mr.Rando (security don't know senator on sight) trying to get close enough to use a knife? Remove him until he's stable enough to stay behind the cordon.
I don’t know, the whole thing feels like… it’s under false pretenses? Something like that at least.
The way it’s presented as “This politician was just trying to stand up for the immigrant, was demanding they show him a judicial warrant for arresting him, then arrested him for demanding the warrant.”
When it was actually not that thing.
What’s different between this case and the civil rights cases you mentioned, is that they were actually breaking the law in the exact way they presented it as, demonstrating to the whole country how arbitrary and unjust the law is. They were arrested for being in a whites only restaurant, not doing something else that should rightly be illegal while loudly complaining about white-only restaurants.
Like, whatever your opinions on ICE, it is, and should continue to be, illegal to demand the police show an unrelated 3rd party a judicial warrant while holding onto someone they’re trying to arrest. Even if he was right, and the police did need a judicial warrant (they didn’t), it’s not unjust to be arrested for obstructing an arrest.
Essentially, I see it as he was justly arrested for a thing that is a crime and no normal person should have a problem with, while loudly complaining about something that is unjust. I see that as materially different than being arrested for a crime that people generally view as unfair.
I suppose it brings attention to the thing he was protesting, and definitely gets him personally a lot of attention (at a time where he wants to maximize attention), but in my view, it was absolutely the right action to arrest him. Now what ICE is doing I have a different opinion about, but I have a bad feeling about the theatre, not the thing being protested.
> They were arrested for being in a whites only restaurant, not doing something else that should rightly be illegal while loudly complaining about white-only restaurants.
But the whole point was that a lot of people thought blacks entering whites-only spaces 𝘸𝘢𝘴 rightfully illegal...
And getting arrested for something that people feel is rightfully illegal won’t convince those people of anything.
For the rest of the country, who had just heard about segregation as “Black people don’t go to those restaurants” actually having to confront the consequences of that specific policy when people were arrested for it, which was the lawful consequence of Black people eating there at the time.
I just don’t think it’s possible to be both reasonable and believe that you should be able to hold the arm of someone being arrested and demand they produce a warrant. Especially since police don’t need a warrant to arrest someone in a public space.
...Or maybe people will see this as an unjust campaign against a vulnerable population.
There was nothing objectively wrong with segregation either. It's just the segregationists realized (correctly or not) that they were in a losing battle and cut their losses. In this current case, the ruling party and their supporters are much less willing to compromise, because they realized they don't need to. Their law will be enforced. That's all there is to this.
> not doing something else that should rightly be illegal while loudly complaining about white-only restaurants
I think this is a fair distinction, and well articulated, but I still think you can pull the moral intuition the other way.
With apologies to Godwin's law: if the nazis came around and were detaining a jewish person who was going through the exact same situation as the illegal immigrant in this story, would it be mere political theater to try and stop them? Maybe by linking arms with said person to force the nazis into a more uncomfortable setting? Or is it better to just let the roundup proceed smoothly?
I think it's not really coherent to believe "it was absolutely the right action to arrest him" while also believing that what ICE is doing is unethical in general
Still, I agree with the general unease you feel. Your framing is good; putting myself in your shoes, I feel it too.
I think if this was an average person, who was trying to protect a relative, or perhaps even more admirably a stranger, I’d be completely on board. Since he’s a politician that’s endorsed the underdog candidate, doing this 1 week before the real election, I see it cynically as a political ploy. Even worse because it’s not like this is to win a general election against a Republican who would be bad for illegal immigrants, and thus arguably in their interests to put on a bit of a show. It’s an intraparty conflict to win a primary over another democratic politician.
I’m sure he actually cares about immigrants, and actually cares about stopping ICE, but it’s like, dishonest means for a good cause are still dishonest means. I don’t really have an emotional connection to the issue either, so the good ends don’t make me discount the means in my head.
Some people might see the comparison with Nazis as disingenuous because “Obviously Trump isn’t sending illegal immigrants to concentration camps”, but I think the line at which point breaking the law, because the law is broken, is arbitrary and different for each person. Maybe this thing brings more attention to ICE in NYC, and that has positive effects down the line.
Controversially though I think this same reasoning applies to like 99% of the 1/6 Capital rioters. They too believed that the laws were broken, so it was time to break them, and I don’t think that privilege only extends to the intelligent or the well informed. The public personalities who spread the claim the election was stolen (including Trump) bear far more responsibility than some average guy who actually believed they were literally stuffing ballots and tried to stop a perceived as false election.
Does it move the needle at all to know that this was the third day that the comptroller had been involved with escorting immigrants out of the courthouse, and this was just the first case that led to an altercation?
> Controversially though I think this same reasoning applies to like 99% of the 1/6 Capital rioters.
For sure. I've written extensively on this at this point (https://theahura.substack.com/p/fix-the-root-not-the-fruit, https://theahura.substack.com/p/right-wing-epistemology-and-the-problem) i think a lot of the right wing is deep in an epistemic pit, one that isn't really their fault at all
I don’t like Trump and ICE detentions any better than you do, but wanted to point out that there’s a detail of what happened that you either didn’t know or aren’t mentioning: Lander had his arm linked with that of the immigrant ICE was trying to pick up. He refused to let go. I do think that counts as interfering with police officer’s doing his job. Seems like ICE’s choices were to give up an detaining the guy they had come from, forcibly pulling him and Lander apart, possibly injuring Lander or the person they thought was an illegal immigrant, or arresting Lander. The last seems like the best choice to me.
Note that this is a separate issue from
whether ICE’s detention of the person they believed was an illegal immigrant was legal, just or compassionate. Even if it is not, the way they behaved when someone challenged their (possibly illegal or immoral) activity seems reasonable to me.
ICE agents separated Lander from the immigrant and then arrested Lander, so arresting Lander wasn’t an alternative to separating him from the immigrant, and has to be judged on its own merits.
I’m unsure what about how justified the arrest was. Lander was released without being charged a few hours later, but the arrest may have been a reasonable choice in the moment.
Based on Chris Hayes’ coverage, my talk of “choice in the moment” was not quite right. Lauder got some training by Immigrant ACT and began showing up weekly at court to help immigrants who didn’t have lawyers. Part of this included escorting the immigrants out of the building after their hearing. Last Tuesday was his third time doing this. He worked with seven immigrants that day. He successfully escorted five immigrants out of the building, and in the other two cases ICE separated him from the immigrant and detained the immigrant. Although Lauder didn’t know it at the time, ICE agents were overheard discussing whether to arrest Lauder.
Because this was ongoing behavior on the part of Lauder, ICE agents had the opportunity to consult with their superiors and with prosecutors before deciding how to proceed. Lauder may have been guilty of obstruction. If so, that would have justified arresting and charging him, not arresting him and releasing him without charges. Lauder said he will be back at the courthouse next week, and if ICE arrests him again I am going to be highly skeptical of the legitimacy of the arrest.
I didn't know, but I also do not think this changes very much.
Two comments.
First, on the meta level, you could nitpick any one of this list and go "well you see, so-and-so deserved it for such-and-such reason" and you would completely miss the forest for the trees. As far as I'm aware, this level of arrests of opposition party members, and that too by people who have no warrant and no id, is pretty unprecedented! Imagine for a moment what the reporting would look like with this string of abuses if it was US news media reporting on the same thing in China. Would we look for all of the potentially justifiable just-so stories that may, in a highly probabilistic way, result in this behavior?
Second, on the object level, I agree with almost everything you are saying, but I disagree that 'the way they behaved when someone challenged their immoral activity seems reasonable'. I think they behaved unethically, because their goals were unethical. The US government in general and law enforcement in particular are held to higher standards of ethics, especially when it comes to enforcing unlawful or unethical commands. "I was just following orders" is not a reasonable defense. So I disagree that you untie the two when you say "it was reasonable to arrest him even if the cause of the arrest is bogus"
>Second, on the object level, I agree with almost everything you are saying, but I disagree that 'the way they behaved when someone challenged their immoral activity seems reasonable'. I think they behaved unethically, because their goals were unethical.
What is your evidence that the ICE agents were not acting in good faith in attempting to arrest the person they were trying to arrest?
> law enforcement in particular are held to higher standards of ethics
I think at some point you cross that line from naïve idealism into raving delusion. No, they aren't, and I don't think they've ever been: they enforce laws regardless of your views on how just or ethical they are.
A stunning defense of our LEOs.
I view them mostly as jackbooted thugs. But if you insist, I can muster a defense: the police are better than the gangs and cartels who are likely to take their place were they to immediately cease to exist.
This is only the case in most jurisdictions, in at least two I can think of, the police function as a gang.
This is at least a somewhat-adequate defense of ordinary police forces, but no defense at all of ICE. The U.S. existed and generally flourished for some 225 years without ICE. The claim that they would be replaced by anyone in particular if they were disbanded tomorrow requires significant support.
Something to consider here is how things are going to play out if people opposed to actions taken by the present government, on the grounds that they are immoral and illegal, ignore laws that have to do with keeping order in courts, on the streets, etc. If someone is sure, as you are, that what ICE was doing in the scene we discussed was immoral and illegal, what are they justified in doing? So you think it’s ok to hang on to the person they are trying to arrest, and make ICE choose between giving up, yanking the 2 of you apart, or arresting the person protecting the immigrant? Then is it OK to threaten ICE officers by donning some brass knuckles? By having a group of like-minded people all wearing brass knuckles surround them? By shooting them with darts with knockout drugs on the tip? By letting the air out of the tires on the ICE truck?
And what are you going to do if Trump or one of his staff is arraigned for, let’s say, sexual assault, and MAGA protesters show up in the courtroom prepared to have a tug-of-war with the staff who are leading the person on trial away at the end of the day? He’s being unfairly hounded, they cry, the charges are bogus, and besides we’re only doing what lefties did when Lander was arrested.
I have seen people who hate Trump and what he’s doing posting on social media that by god even though they are opposed to guns in the home they are going to get one for protection in case things really fall apart here and the MAGA maggots or ICE or Trump Storm Troopers show up at their door. Know what announcing that does? It makes it likelier that other people on both sides are going to buy guns too. So then we are stuck with all the same dilemmas and injustices and factions we were before except NOW there are a bunch more guns involved.
Are you sure escalating into lawbreaking and physical struggles in situations like the Lander one is going to play out well? Because remember, the other side can do it too. You can say they already are -- but I can't think of incidents where individual MAGA zealots have interfered with an arrest of one of their own.
a) tit-for-tat is well known to be an extremely strong strategy in iterated prisoner's dilemma. The whole point of my post is that Trump is *destroying* any norms around anti-retaliation. If some MAGA came into court and did what you said, idk, sure, whatever.
b) I disagree with the ethical framing. You are looking for a consistent kantian principle -- "this specific action is good in all cases, and bad in all other cases" -- and I do not have one for you, sorry. Actions are good or bad in service of their goals. Since you are engaging in hypotheticals, here's a few:
- a black person sits at a whites only counter in the 50s and is arrested. Is that justified? "O well, you see, the laws in place are there to protect civil order and keep the peace. If we allow this, whats next? Black people sitting at the front of the bus?!! Demanding their rights through voting???"
- a group of nazi officials come knocking to deport your jewish neighbor because there are new laws about getting rid of jews. The neighbor refuses. Is that justified? "O well, you see, if we didn't allow the Nazis to take away my neighbors, it would be chaos! If, in the future, I tried to take some nazis away, what if they refused?"
and so on.
In case its not obvious: in both examples, adherence to an unethical system is itself unethical. "Just following orders" is bullshit.
I don't know what would be 'fair play' in this ICE example, I'll call it when I see it. But I think that non-violent protest like 'linking arms' easily clears whatever bar I might have. Trying to slipperly slope this feels like weaseling out of the actual discussion at hand, which is that this whole thing is bullshit (even calling this a 'physical struggle' is unfair, as if lander fought back). Put another way, I don't need to defend 'brass knuckles whataboutism'. I'll happily defend that arresting this guy is all kinds of fucked.
c) ICE is obviously behaving unethically! They didn't produce a warrant, a badge number, any kind of identification. We've just totally normalized that random people can just show up in masks and kidnap you? What? If ICE follows all the rules, maybe we could have a productive conversation. But right now, it looks like you're providing an intellectual defense of some pretty fucked up shit.
d) again, I think the full list needs accounting for, and nitpicking a single example isn't all that helpful to the broader point
You're missing the point of this post of mine. My main point here isn't about ethics -- whether it is OK to break the law in the process of protesting an evil, and how one does the math to decide how great an evil justifies breaking what law. I am talking about the practical effect of law-breaking in protest of something. Did you read my post all the way to the end? Please do. And think about the similarly shaped problem I mention of good-hearted anti-Trump liberals buying guns in the present atmosphere.
You edited it since I last read it, but yes, I read to the end.
a) I don't really feel the need to defend your 'buying guns' hypothetical. As I said above, the slippery slope feels weaselly. I think you need to explain why this is relevant and related to the larger point I'm trying to make about this government doing away with anti-retaliation norms (really all norms of governance).
b) If you want to talk about slippery slopes, I'd like to start at the whole 'arresting elected officials' of it all. Like I said earlier, tit-for-tat is an extremely well known strategy in iterated prisoner's dilemma. It seems silly to throw a flag at 'protesting arrests of elected officials' when that is in response to a massive norm violation of arresting elected officials! Why is *the protest* a norms violation, but not *the thing that caused the protest*?
c) this particular government has shown itself to be so wildly corrupt that it's hard to take seriously any both-sides-ist defense of its behavior. I don't think there will be any practical effect of law-breaking-in-protest, because the practical effect that you are positing depends on the existence of good faith, and there isn't any among the people operating or supporting this government (the former due to corruption, the latter due to a completely failure of epistemic hygiene).
Put another way: no matter what happens, MAGA is going to spin everything in the worst way imaginable. A right wing lunatic kills two Dems? Fox News, influencers, and fucking maga senators start spinning bullshit about how he was actually secretly a Democrat. The right wing disinformation ecosystem just...makes things up. Constantly. I'm expected to believe that, actually, a bit of good behavior *this time* will result in a meaningful change in future MAGA behavior? Why?
Have you read Scott's essay, "Axiology, Morality, Law": https://slatestarcodex.com/2017/08/28/contra-askell-on-moral-offsets/?
I don't know all the cases you cited, but I don't think the Eric Adams one belongs on this list. As far as I can tell, his prosecution on corruption charges was what we should expect from a functioning rule-of-law system. No?
I edited my original post to clarify.
Adams was corrupt and his prosecution was valid. However, the DoJ attempted to dismiss his case *without* prejudice in exchange for concessions and policy support.
To provide context, dismissing a case w/ prejudice means that the case cannot be prosecuted again. Dismissing w/o prejudice means that the case can be prosecuted again.
Attempting to dismiss adam's case without prejudice was seen as such an unethical move, the DoJ literally couldn't get an attorney to sign off on the filing because the attorneys kept resigning. Eventually they had to get a bunch of prosecutors in a room and told them that they had an hour for one of them to sign the filing, or they were all fired.
See:
https://www.reuters.com/world/us/three-prosecutors-corruption-case-against-nyc-mayor-eric-adams-resign-according-2025-04-22/
https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2025/02/14/justice-prosecutors-resignation-trump-eric-adams-corruption/
The case was eventually dismissed *with* prejudice by the judge, who purposely did so to avoid the obvious quid-pro-quo / extortion:
"In light of DOJ's rationales, dismissing the case without prejudice would create the unavoidable perception that the Mayor's freedom depends on his ability to carry out the immigration enforcement priorities of the administration, and that he might be more beholden to the demands of the federal government than to the wishes of his own constituents," the court wrote.
"Everything here smacks of a bargain: dismissal of the Indictment in exchange for immigration policy concessions," the court added.
https://www.fd.org/news/federal-court-drops-nyc-mayor-eric-adams-corruption-case-prejudice
Based on all my knowledge, this is nowhere near as bad as Biden's administration.
https://blog.skepticallibertarian.com/2014/08/11/quote-files-john-adams-on-innocence-guilt-and-punishment/
Yep, I agree with all of that.
I'm not from the states. I have no horse in this race. I don't particularly care, as much as is possible with a bona fide clown in the white house.
With that out of the way, everything else I heard about the Hannah Dugan thing would not be fairly characterized as "for telling an illegal immigrant defendant to leave by a non-standard door" - except in a nudge-nudge wink-wink kind of way.
Perhaps that's because I've only heard from right-wing commentators how presented a biased case, I have not followed it intentionally. But it seems fair to assume that it's at least objectively controversial and the way you presented it seems to downplay that. A lot.
Which leads me to the actual question: Am I wrong on the Hannah Dugan thing? Because if not I'm thinking perhaps I should assume the rest is equally downplayed.
I wear my biases on my sleeve -- I think it's insane that she was arrested by the FBI, and 'objectively controversial' is imo only true in the sense that a solid segment of the population is eager to 'own the libs' any way possible.
Besides being a violation of norms, there is longstanding *legal* precedent that states that judges are more or less sovereign in their courtrooms (which is the argument that Dugan's legal team is currently making). On top of that, the ICE officials did not have a warrant; the door that the immigrant left from went out to the same hallway where ICE was already waiting; and there were ICE agents in the elevator on the way down to the street, with the defendant.
Anything is 'objectively controversial' if there is someone who raises controversy. The earth being round is objectively controversial. That's roughly the same bucket that I would put Dugan's prosecution in.
ICE had an administrative warrant. That's what they're supposed to have. they did not have a JUDICIAL warrant, because that's not what they get for arrests.
You'd have a reasonable-if-motivated position there, if she hadn't lied to the ICE officers. She directed the guy one way, then told them that he went another. In terms of rhetorical strategy, I'd say this is not a hill you should be even acknowledging the existence of.
Link? I have never heard this before
That might be based on Kash Patel's tweet saying she "intentionally misdirected" ICE agents. https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/fbi-arrests-judge-accused-of-helping-someone-evade-immigration-agents-agency-director-patel-says
That is my remembered understanding. Maybe it was just "she said she didn't know where he was"? Not sure, doesn't really matter. The question a fair-minded observer will ask is whether she used deceit to obstruct an arrest; these details are splitting hairs.
Also I'm realizing I was giving way too much ground for no reason: it doesn't matter if she was shading into committing an outright crime or not. She is a judge. Their whole thing is supposed to be faith that *perfectly observing* detailed, rigid procedures will lead to justice. If there are LEOs trying to arrest someone, then unless she has a good reason to believe they're breaking the law, a judge should do everything she can to help them. If it's a mistake, the justice system will resolve it - slowly, calmly, with judges exercising discretion via rulings, rather than disrupting foot chases. That's supposed to be the bedrock psychology of judges. If they start straying from that, then the justice system goes from something valuable to a pointless (and gameable) pile of complexity.
Also, it obviously does matter. Your original statement is that this was reasonable if she hadn't lied! Moreover, as Scott recently said, if it's worth your time to lie about it, it's worth my time to call bullshit
> If there are LEOs trying to arrest someone, then unless she has a good reason to believe they're breaking the law, a judge should do everything she can to help them.
Sorry, no, this is the opposite of correct. Besides all of the very obvious context where ICE has been behaving more akin to gestapo than a good faith LEO, "innocent until proven guilty" is a foundational bedrock of our judicial system, and I think you have to stretch *a lot* for "innocent until proven guilty" to mean "you have to assist the cops." In fact, one of the stronger arguments in defense of Dugan is that ICE did not have a warrant and so had no grounds upon which to demand anything at all
> Also I'm realizing I was giving way too much ground for no reason
Let's not get debate brained. If you want to talk about 'ground', we should take a step back from Dugan and talk about *the entire list in aggregate*. This level of prosecution targeted only against the opposition party has never happened in this country, and is not supposed to happen in this country. Why the fuck are we not prosecuting the crypto scamming bribe taking corrupt mother fuck shitting in the white house right now? Why the fuck are we not prosecuting the drunk with a texting problem in the pentagon? You want to talk about 'ground', you need to defend this entire administration before you can get to the misdeeds of a single judge in milwaukee telling a witness which door to go out of
I read something that made it sound like she postponed the scheduled hearing in order to get the guy out of the court while the agents were busy with the Chief Justice. Was there any truth to that? That's the breakpoint for me.
I do not know. This was not present in the filed FBI complaint (https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e7/FBI_charging_document_against_Milwaukee_Judge_Hannah_Dugan.pdf)
There is a *very* brief line that could be framed the way you are describing:
"The courtroom deputy also made a comment about Judge DUGAN 'pushing' Flores-Ruiz's case through, which the arrest team interpreted to mean that Judge DUGAN was attempting to expedite Flores-Ruiz’s hearing"
but much more time is spent on the door (nearly 2 pages, in fact):
"Despite having been advised of the administrative warrant for the arrest of Flores-Ruiz, Judge DUGAN then escorted Flores-Ruiz and his counsel ou ofthe courtroom through the jury door which lads to a nonpublic area of the courthouse. These events were also unusual or wo reasons. First the courtroom deputy hd previously heard Judge DUGAN direct people not 0st nthe ju y box because it was exclusively forthe jury's use. Second, according to he courtroom deputy, only deputies, juries court staff, and in-custody defendants being escorted by deputies used the back | Jury door."
(apologies for formatting, just copy pasting)
I have no issue with saying "no, my side is right on this and I'm not gonna pretend otherwise". I can respect that.
That said it does mean I won't change my mind much based on these examples, as I have to assume I've read a most one-sided summary. Sometimes one-sided summaries are in fact correct, perhaps yours are, but I never can tell if that's the case without prior knowledge or before hearing both sides.
One real difficulty for me with all these stories is that I'm not that confident I can find anyone who will report them straight. Everyone hears one side's version of the story, often with unsupported allegations or just straightforward lies. But it's hard to untangle the full story because it's hard to know what actually happened.
Looking at primary sources helps. You can read the FBI charging document, for example -- it's not very long (https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e7/FBI_charging_document_against_Milwaukee_Judge_Hannah_Dugan.pdf). You can also read Dugan's legal team's initial motion to dismiss (https://www.courthousenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/05/milwaukee-judge-dugan-dismiss-motion.pdf)
For the most part, I don't think the factual information is that difficult to ascertain. The timelines and behaviors are *mostly* agreed upon.
Also, just to add, even if you think some case can be made for every single one of these examples, surely the volume is itself suspect? Trump, a man known for being petty, cruel, and corrupt, just so happened to ferret out all of these cases of legitimate prosecutions of the opposition party?
Your standard seems to be 'if I can dismiss one of these as biased I can dismiss all of them', which...idk, maybe fair. But then what would you say about Trump wanting to arrest Newsom? Why does the standard not go the other way (i.e. this is an example where Trump is obviously behaving in a retaliatory way, and therefore the rest of these likely have some merit for retaliation)?
> surely the volume is itself suspect
This reasoning reminds me strongly of people "finding" (read as: "making up") dozens of rape allegations and declaring that even if all of them are bogus, just the fact that they exist should be taken as evidence of the guy being a rapist. I find this unsound.
This strategy probably exploits the same vulnerability as the famous one where you repeat a lie often enough that people start to believe it. (I'm NOT accusing you of deliberately lying here.)
Good point!
Frankly, I don't know what the baseline is here. What is typical of administrations and their opponents? Yeah, Trump is often mean spirited - and was the Biden administration's FEMA skipping providing assistance to households with Trump signs in Florida after hurricane Milton last year any less so? Or the lawfare against Trump and his allies?
"This reasoning reminds me strongly of people "finding" (read as: "making up") dozens of rape allegations and declaring that even if all of them are bogus, just the fact that they exist should be taken as evidence of the guy being a rapist."
Did you make up this strategy on the spot? I've certainly never heard of any such thing, and find this framing to be highly suspect.
I've seen it argued (correctly) that if dozens of rape allegations come to light and *one or two* are demonstrated to be bogus, the existence of the remainder should still be considered worth taking into account. Contrary to what some people seem to think, you cannot merely shake a tree and have piles of false rape accusations against a particular individual fall out. From a Bayesian perspective, the most likely state of the world to produce dozens of rape different rape accusations against a single individual is that person being a serial rapist.
Not sure what would change your mind.
The only factual thing that occurred is "dugan told an illegal immigrant defendant to leave by a non-standard door." Arguably, 'non-standard' is also subjective, and it really should be 'dugan told an illegal immigrant defendant to leave by a specific door"
Everything else about that case is subjective.
The *claim* is that this action is 'obstruction' and 'concealing a defendant'. But people claim all sorts of bullshit all the time, such as 'vaccines cause autism' or 'the earth is flat'. I do not think that her behavior could be construed as obstruction or concealing a defendant along any axis that isn't "own the libs", and so I call it out as such, and I call out why that's the case.
If you have some standard you're looking for, feel free to share.
Realistically, no one post is going to change my mind all in one fell swoop.
To point to an extreme, everyone can say "What I believe is right and as for the arguments the other side makes, well they're all completely stupid and / or evil". And they can say that if they haven't heard or understood a single argument against their own position. Also I find upon closer inspection I rarely agree that arguments for the other side completely stupid and / or evil. But of course plenty of people who say that are still right in the end, it's just that I can't really tell from the argument.
The other extreme is somebody who can make the arguments for both sides convincingly, yet still takes a side. To me this is inherently more persuasive, because it demonstrates that, at the very least, that they know the arguments against their own position and they've understood them well enough to repeat them in their own words without making them sound like a caricature.
So from my point of view, when you said "Yea I'm only making the arguments for one side, the other side's arguments are idiotic" that inherently makes it less convincing. It doesn't make you wrong. And perhaps you know all of the arguments and have good reason to think they're idiotic. But I can't just assume that.
Fair enough. My perspective is that arguing that this is obstruction is equivalent to arguing that the earth is flat. People have "evidence" like "look at the ground, it's flat!" but also it's just not something that I could ever defend without pointing out that the position is really dumb 😂 I think, as in the flat earth case, all the relevant factual evidence is public and more or less discoverable. I'm happy to provide clarity on issues of fact; anything beyond that is going to be based on priors. My prior is that this administration is simply not acting in good faith, I have a mountain of evidence to back that up, and as a result this arrest is bullshit.
>Arguably, 'non-standard' is also subjective
No, it isn't subjective. She told him to leave by the jury room door, rather than using the public exit from the courtroom. Given that, and her anger at the ICE agents coming to her courtroom with an administrative warrant, it seems pretty clear that she is at least guilty of attempted obstruction.
As for concealing a suspect, the federal statute, 18 USC 1701, seems fairly broad: "but any physical act of providing assistance ... to aid the prisoner in avoiding detection and apprehension will make out a violation of section 1071". United States v. Green, 180 F.3d 216, 220 (5th Cir.1999) (quoting United States v. Stacey, 896 F.2d 75, 77 (5th Cir.1990)).
I'm pretty sure I've had this discussion with you before, and I don't really want to get into it again. Id rather a discussion about the list in aggregate than a nitpick on a single element of it
AI fizzles! Our civilization is overtaken by Moloch and collapses... What of it survives to shape the next civilization to arise?
Thinking on the Romans, it seems the main thing that got passed on was Christianity (is it?), and I suppose the language (it evolved into several), but surely I must be forgetting or being ignorant of other things. What will be our Christianity?
The QWERTY keyboard layout.
Christianity, again.
Resource depletion. If our current technological and industrial base collapses, it will be hard to restart due to depletion of easily accessible reserves of oil and coal. For better and worse, our economy is a flying airplane, and if it goes down violently, it will stay down.
English, obviously.
And Protestant Christianity.
Mainline Protestants are not breeding, but Evangelicals have maintained a steady percent of the population and their TFR is basically the same as it was 40 years ago.
When an LLM assistant gives false information, why is it called a hallucination?
A hallucination is a false perception. The LLM isn't perceiving anything. When I hear that an LLM is hallucinating, I reflexively imagine a scenario where it's supposed to be looking up facts in a database, but it's making things up instead. "Confabulate" might be a better word, if this were actually the case. But the LLM doesn't look anything up in a database. It's not making things up, either. It's generating a string of plausible text, based on its training. Sometimes that text happens to contain true information, and sometimes it contains false information.
I'm not an expert in this. Am I missing something? If not, the term hallucination feels like a very misleading term to use here, a term that will lead many people to a false understanding of what LLMs are and what they're doing.
Yes, the psychologists are on to this and propose a better fitting term:
https://www.psypost.org/scholars-ai-isnt-hallucinating-its-bullshitting/
This is great, thanks!
If the promoters of AI called it "lying" then people might not buy their product. Lies are deliberate deceit. A hallucination? Well the poor machine can't be blamed for being mistaken, can it? Trust us and hand over your money.
(This gripe brought to you courtesy of Microsoft "no you can't turn off Copilot from what used to be Office, even if you hate it, it interferes with your work, and you don't want to write 'funny lines for emails about being out of the office'".)
Don't overinterpret technical terms. They are not necessarily meant to perfectly transfer every facet of the existing meaning of that word. They are, more to the point, not the definition of themselves. Context matters.
Right now, we're in a phase where we're naming new things, and I think what we name them is up for debate, and the names matter.
Yes, but I don't know if "hallucinations w.r.t. LLMs" is still up for debate. It has already percolated to the general public. Trying to change it now is an effort with dubious chance of success.
LLMs function in a way analogous to how dreaming probably works, producing synthetic sensory input based on extrapolating patterns (real or spurious) in data from real sensory input. For a dreaming human, the pattern extrapolation comes from our brains training itself on our waking experiences. For an LLM, the pattern extrapolation comes from the text corpus and other training data.
Some hallucinations probably come from dream-like stuff intruding on our waking consciousness. Especially hypnagogic hallucinations, those that occur when you're falling asleep or just waking up.
In that case, all LLM output should be considered a hallucination, regardless of whether it contains accurate information.
Maybe a good way to sum up this technology is that we've taught computers to dream.
Like so many other things, we use the word because some idiot came up with it and it stuck.
If being misleading is the concern, then I think that ship has already sailed. People already speak of LLMs as perceiving or understanding things or being intelligent when they're just programs running on top of very large and complex data structures.
If we run with that anyway, then the term "hallucination" is probably intended to convey the manner in which the mistaken information is presented.
If a real person lies to you, it's supposed to be hard for you to tell, unless they're bad at it. If they're bad at it, it often sounds like they don't believe what they just told you. If they're good at it, but you find out later, it's typically the same thing - they didn't believe what they told you.
But lying is just one case of a person telling you falsehoods; people often tell falsehoods that they themselves believe. If they do, then they aren't lying; they're just mistaken. (They also often tell falsehoods that both of you understand as false when said; e.g. fairy tales, parables, jokes.) The mistaken thing they say is a falsehood, but it's important to distinguish it from a lie, and the term "hallucination" suffices.
LLMs that produce false statements that sound like someone telling them in order to deceive would probably be described as lying. But LLMs typically aren't used this way; they're asked questions with the apparent intent to get informative, correct replies, and the LLMs respond consistently with that expectation. So they sound like a person who believes what they're saying, even if what they're saying is false. What they say is like a real person's hallucination.
If you want a term that means "falsehood said mistakenly by a source that has no agency of its own", you might have to invent one, since we've only had such non-agentive sources for a few years now, and then you'd have to popularize it. Or you could just say "hallucination" and hope it's clear from context that the source is an LLM.
since you're most likely just a program as well, I should speak of you as probably not having intelligence. If I'm wrong, please explain why?
(LLMs are a very poor and shabby AI. Self-modifying code works much better).
Perhaps "delusion" would be a better term than "hallucination"? It seems more akin to verbal falsehoods than perceptual ones, perhaps? "Confabulations" seems to imply more intent than seems likely, at least in the cases I see.
I'm afraid I don't see a great enough distinction between "delusion" and "hallucination". Both convey the notion that the speaker genuinely believes what it's saying, so it still runs into the problem of ascribing consciousness to an LLM.
To me, the problem is still essentially that we have no accessible vocabulary for describing apparently sentient properties borne by non-sentient entities, because we've only now come across such things. There are no words for "exhibits sadness / joy / fear / derision / belief / deceit / etc. despite not bearing the qualia thereof". Any word that conveys the mental state necessarily assumes the mental state, rather than conveying the appearance.
Many Thanks! Well, I have no access to an LLM's subjective experience or lack thereof, just as I have no access to my fellow human's subjective experiences or lack thereof. I make the assumption that, since other humans have approximately the same neural anatomy that I have, that they probably have more-or-less the same subjective experience - but this is all indirect. And I expect that if AI systems are extended to having approximately the same (artificial) neural topology as a human, that they will likely have the same subjective experience.
Do they have subjective experience _now_? How could anyone know?
It would be somewhat useful to have a vocabulary which is agnostic about whether an entity has subjective experiences or not.
I think the larger question is how to interact with entities where we cannot tell if they are sentient or not (which include humans with some sorts of central nervous system damage!). I think the more useful dividing line is whether is it more feasible to influence their behavior via reward or punishment or whether it instead is more feasible to try something more like "hardware" modification (anti-psychotic drugs in humans, perhaps modifications to hyperparameters during the training sequence in LLMs).
Your questions about qualia are interesting to me, although I have to acknowledge that there are people who've thought about it longer than I have and likely raised points about them that I haven't had time to go and find. (E.g., I haven't even read what SEP has to say about qualia.)
Speaking only for myself: people feeling qualia is indeed assumed. In fact, the only reason I think of qualia at all is that I understand it to be personal experience, I recognize it's a thing in me, and I assume it's a thing in anyone else like me - which is to say, anything that resembles a human being. I can assume that because I feel certain we haven't yet created one artificially that can pass for one. The best we've done can write text through a terminal; it can't speak convincingly, nor show a face, or body, including reactions, in real time, and in person (if you'll pardon the expression).
For me, the edge cases are other apparently bright species (chimps, dolphins, corvids, octopi, et al.), and artifacts. I can't rule out encountering an artifact some day that I'll look at and conclude "yep, it experiences things" as opposed to "it operates as if it does", but I won't think that as long as I grasp their construction process as well as I do LLMs.
In cases where I don't know, it's going to fall back on the usual heuristics: what do I gain or lose if I assume something is sentient / not?
I owe you a response. 'scuse the delay. I did try digging through https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qualia/ and the number of different schools of thought, and things that look like English words but seem to be terms-of-art in academic philosophy is very indigestible!
EDIT:
Many Thanks! Again, 'scuse the delay. This is going to be hard to make coherent, partially because there are many schools of philosophy, with many different combinations of how they view sentience, consciousness, and qualia individually, and how they view the connections between them, and partially because LLMs (or, I guess, AI systems containing LLMs) have been extended significantly over the course of even the last year, so there are several cases to consider there as well.
First, let me just say that e.g.
while (true)
{
printf("I'm sentient!\n");
}
while it prints a claim of sentience, obviously isn't, having vastly too little state information, amongst other objections.
I agree that current LLMs
>can't speak convincingly, nor show a face, or body, including reactions, in real time, and in person (if you'll pardon the expression).
Let me just consider the views that having qualia implies sentience, that there "is something there" to "feel something" - not everyone seems to accept this implication / interpretation!
I, personally, view qualia as some (ill-defined, at the present state of neuroscience) set of neural firings that can be reported by the person experiencing them ("I see a patch of blue." etc.). I'm taking that to imply that these firings feed into our language centers (and maybe short term memory, and maybe executive function). I take "accessible to introspection" as roughly meaning, can be reported verbally by a person experiencing them. I don't concur with the schools who hold that qualia are non-physical.
I more-or-less agree that there can be qualia due more than just low level sense perceptions. I think that thoughts are, at least to some degree, "perceptible". I'm somewhat peeved that I don't see anything in the SEP article about the edge detectors in our visual cortex. My knee-jerk reaction is that this level of processing is sufficiently early that, as far as the whole _rest_ of the brain is concerned (including connections to language) the output of the edge detectors should count as nearly as unmediated a sensation as the patches of light seen by our rods and cones. In general, I think of possibly many levels of partially processed sensations and internal neural events as counting as having/causing qualia. This agrees with some schools and disagrees with others.
Now, finally, back to some AIs:
For the non-multi-modal, (and memoryless, except in the context, sort of like short tem memory) LLMs of a year ago, I think of them as having something sort-of-like our sensations while reading (but not seeing) and something sort-of-like the "sensation" of thought. These do go through simulated neural nets, and they do generate "verbal reports" from the LLMs, so, to that extent, I think of these LLMs as being sentient.
More recently, multi-modal AI systems (those with image and/or sound interpretation) seem to me to have a close equivalent of "sense perceptions", so qualia in that sense as well. And they can make verbal reports of such things. "I see a cat towards my left side/the image's left side" "I see a patch of blue towards the top of my field of view/the image"
So, in those senses, I consider these systems to be (weakly?) sentient. They lack many sensations we have ("hunger, and thirst, and venery"), and if you think this disqualifies them, ok. ( BTW, image _generation_ can sort-of allow "show a face", at least on a screen, even now. )
If we built a full neuron-by-neuron duplicate of a human nervous system and linked them to a sufficient subset of the sensations in a human body, I can't see how (with my views of qualia and sentience) they could _not_ be sentient. I view the current situation as partway there.
You can influence a plant via reward or punishment. I doubt most people think plants are sentient.
Many Thanks!
>I doubt most people think plants are sentient.
Agreed, and I also agree that plants are nonsentient by any reasonable measure.
>You can influence a plant via reward or punishment.
Huh?? For central examples of what is meant by "reward" and/or "punishment", this sounds implausible. I suspect that you have some rather non-central examples in mind - if so, can we table this? I'd rather not get into an extended side discussion of what should be included under those terms.
You're probably right that the ship has already sailed, but-
1. If I say, mistakenly, that the capital of France is Stockholm, no one would assume that I was hallucinating; they would just say I was wrong about the capital of France. This is part of why I find the term so awkward–even if we agree to talk about LLMs like they're people, we're using the term very differently with them than we do with real people.
2. I think it's crucial to keep in mind the fact that (if i understand this correctly) LLMs aren't "trying" to provide accurate information, even in the sense that a normal computer program "tries" to do what the programmer meant it to do; rather, LLMs have been trained to say things that make it sound like they're trying to provide accurate information. Another reason why I'm uncomfortable with the term hallucination is that it obscures this fact.
I may have misunderstood the nature of your concern.
1. It now sounds like you don't object to the assumption of LLM consciousness as much as you object to the type of experience the LLM appears to express. For example, if we assume an LLM is responding like a real person, you're claiming that that person who genuinely believes Stockholm is the capital of France isn't necessarily hallucinating about it; they're not under the influence of some chemical; they're just mistaken, and that's the most we ought to infer.
In that case, the trouble is prosaic; there's simply no handy word for the act of telling a mistake. There's no (intransitive) verb "to mistake"; the LLM isn't "mistaking". "Lying" doesn't capture it, since the sim-person isn't trying to deceive. (Ironically, I checked this by asking ChatGPT.) The closest is "confabulate", which is admittedly closer IMO than "hallucinate", and if you want to try to start that trend, I don't see any harm in it.
2. You're getting into a *very* fine distinction here, which means it's likely to escape notice. To try to restate it (and recognizing that "trying" is shorthand for ", as instructed by the programmer, trying"):
"the LLM is trying to provide accurate information"
vs.
"the LLM is trying to sound like someone trying to provide accurate information"
Experience (as a programmer who worked for decades on a formal knowledge representation project) tells me you're unlikely to make this clear to people uninterested in the distinction, unless you first spend a lot of time getting them interested, and if you do, you'll probably get farther faster if you can construct a language more formal than some written human one like English. And even then, I'm honestly not sure if it's worth the squeeze, although if you want to find out, you might look into Common Logic Interchange Format (and be prepared to create a lot of new predicates for this domain).
1. I do object to the assumption of LLM consciousness, but I accept that we're going to anthropomorphize them, and I think we should choose figurative language to use when we do so that guides us toward a better sense of what the LLM is actually doing, rather than a worse one.
2. "the LLM is trying to provide accurate information" vs. "the LLM is trying to sound like someone trying to provide accurate information"
–maybe it's a mistake to phrase it this way; to make the distinction more clear, maybe better to say something like, "The LLM isn't trying to provide accurate information. It's not actually trying to do anything in particular. It's just sort of dreaming or bullshitting all the time, and people have trained its output in a way that's meant to make it useful and seem like it's coming from a conscious person..."
I don't know. I'm still trying to wrap my head around all this. I think I'm alarmed by how easily these things cast a kind of spell on people, myself included, that makes it so easy to believe you're talking to someone. The perception of weirdness and anomalies is evidence of this spell; they don't seem very weird or anomalous when you consider what the models are actually doing. But if LLMs are here to stay and someone interacts with them every day through their whole life, and, at an intuitive level, perceives them as human minds, what does that do to their internal model of what a mind is? How does that reshape their own mind? It's worrying. This is a ramble, and I'm no longer responding to your points directly. But hopefully conversations like the one we're having now will contribute something to the collective process of figuring all this out.
Confabulate isn't used because that's a rather uncommon word that most people wouldn't necessarily know what you meant.
Hallucination is used because LLMs are already being personified, both by the people promoting them, and by their detractors, and it matches the experience that people have been shaped to have when interacting with them. It's inaccurate to the base reality of what's happening, but our languages didn't evolve to accurately describe almost anything about LLMs, so a description that conveys close to the concept you're describing ("hallucination = look up information and return something that isn't there" vs "a prediction of text that your brain pattern matches to a meaningful and valid statement but that doesn't map to reality") is a convenient shorthand, and tends to be simply how language itself evolves (ie "AI hallucination" now does, in fact, mean that block of text I previously used)
AI hallucination was originally used for "provides output without input" sourcing from Analog, over a decade ago.
Have we changed the meaning?
Just got back from one of my favorite activities, IE driving off into the country and wandering off into forestry service land and disappearing for a week to a couple weeks to eaten by a bear and vanished forever, had a great time as always.
Highly recommend the Sawtooth range area, the most mountany mountains to ever mountain.
This time, I got to talk to some salt of the earth country folk about politics which is always fun!
After the clown brigade begane the dumbest, most knocking out the struts under the scaffold I'm currently standing on "efficiency" operation I have ever seen, I had the slightly cruel thought of "Well, this guy is gonna hurt all of us but at least the countryfried types who elected him will be hurt the most" and oh boy was I right.
The town I went to before wandering into the mountains (Idaho this time) had just had been without drinking water for a week because everyone in the forestry service that managed their clean water was fired;
a decent chunk of the farmers had experienced a total crop failure due to lack of water because the people who managed usage permits had been fired and not replaced (and also local government incompetence to be fair, also to be fair they elected a guy more worried about Q-anon than the aquifer in a farming community where it rains 5 times a year so punt I guess);
a decent chunk of the rest of the farms had experienced partial crop failure because the seasonal migrant labor they relied on to do the actual farming stayed home this year;
The local medical facility they all use will shut down if the currently proposed funding bill takes effect unmodified, the nearest place they can go for family medicine now is more than an hours drive.
They are actually literally losing the farm as it were unless their federal rep can get them some sweet government pork. Some of these people will actually die sooner than they would have because of things that have already happened and can't be reversed. The leopard had fully eaten their face on this one; shoulda been smart and moved to the suburb and touched a computer for a living.
"You're not wrong, Walter, you're just an asshole"
"Waltersobchakheit" can't enter the Urban Dictionary fast enough.
I thought this comment was going to go a very different way.
I'd have thought that a quiet weekend alone in the wilderness might cure someone of dumb political games and mind poison, but it seems like it just filled you with hunger for it.
When you blow into town, Trump flags flying above the stars and bars (in Idaho mind you) flying above old glory, no water available so I'm drinking beer, listening to people talk about how everything is worse today than it was yesterday and that it used to be better 8 months ago but utterly unwilling to say anything even slightly bad about Dear Leader, there is nothing to be done.
I can't close my eyes and ears to reality; and I can't lie about my feelings either. Given that I am suffering 0.5% more than I have to (I got money so it's K but the idea that these fat pasty pale fucks are going to sell public land so it can get clear cut and stripmallified boils my blood), I'm glad the people that chose this path are suffering more.
So, you're talking to slavers. Because actual farmers who pay actual H2B wages ($18 an hour here in PA, seems relatively invariant based on location) don't have to worry about their legal "part timers" not showing up (because they're paying a fair wage -- they require experience, and if someone decides not to show, there'll be others ready).
[note: I could be wrong on this, and slavers could actually be hiring H2Bs, and thus putting more demand on a scarce supply. Doubt I am though, as you're saying "they stayed home."]
Your farmers aren't saying "we pay our migrants more than the local McDonalds" do they?
Or god forbid they could actually hire US citizens!
Some of those US citizens around here are former H2B workers, yeah. (That's the Peruvian guy who works the winter as well). We can't keep Mexicans around here because it's just too dark in the winter -- they come here, and leave promptly after one winter. (We do keep a lot of Chileans and Argentinians, who are better adapted for less winter sun).
<I had the slightly cruel thought of "Well, this guy is gonna hurt all of us but at least the countryfried types who elected him will be hurt the most" and oh boy was I right. . . . shoulda been smart and moved to the suburb and touched a computer for a living.
That thought isn't slightly cruel, it is extremely cruel. Nobody is too dumb to understand the essentials of what is going on. The problem is not that these people were too stupid to grasp how Trump's election was going to play out, it's that they have been in a bubble full of misinformation. Here you are all pleased with yourself for your brave earthy backpacking vacation, and you meet people who are in way more danger than you were in in the woods with your Patagonia gear, and you're feeling superior. Your reaction is no less heartless than Trump's. You are as much a part of the problem as the farmers with leopard-eaten faces -- you're just in the opposite bubble. Fuck you, buddy.
Man, I don't wear patagonia for one, take that shit back.
For two, how is it cruel to take them at their word? They said they wanted this; when their town dries up and blows away and they end up on the street or in the poor house, I will salute their principled stance to do bad things instead of good things. I know I don't have the virtue necessary to slam my face into a rock over and over because woke blue haired CRT college girl trans immigrant DEI fentanyl.
I’m sorry I was so harsh and rude You probably would not hate my politics. They certainly are not woke. But I can see why you might hate me. Here’s my point, put in a way that’s not personal or insulting: Nobody gets to choose who else is in the lifeboat. All anyone can do is try to develop into someone who’s good to have in one.
RE you personally and the people that are going to die in the back of an uber to a hospital they voted to move 70 miles away: I don't hate them and I don't hate you, regardless of your politics. I don't think they deserve the bad things that are going to happen to them; I'm just glad that the consequences of their choices might be direct and personal enough this time to actually teach them something. If I could snap my fingers and make the anti-woke project anything other than doomed to failure, I would grit my teeth and do it. We don't live in that world, unfortunately.
Re. the Lifeboat analogy:
That's not true, is the thing. I used to think that way, but the anti-woke coalition showed me that I was wrong. The entire anti woke projekt is noticing that there were Undesirables in the lifeboat getting a bit too uppity and then deciding that the thing to do is either forcing them to recant their sinful ways; or simply throwing them into the sea <-(We are here).
The woke project likewise is to convince all those nasty nasty people to become nice little libs with the cringe sign in their yard trough argumentation and shame; but these nice little libs never made the connection that your average conservative made years ago: that you can deport people you don't like into a torture camp with one way doors. That the power of the state is available not just to provide economic nudges, but also to beat people with batons until they shut the fuck up.
To stake down my position on the lifeboat situation: I think that the libs and the twitter leftists have spent 20 years on shame and argumentation; and have failed to realise that the anti-woke types were getting their batons ready.
When the shoe is on the other foot (and given how stupid the current crop of elites is it will be; unless they manage to actually prevent a legitimate transfer), I don't want the libs to put away the batons for another 8 years so that the conservatives can get themselves ready to take another shot at them. The batons either need to be destroyed or used; we can't have another cycle of libs going high while cons smash their kneecaps.
Yeah I get what you're saying about the political stuff, but not how it adds up to you not being in a lifeboat with people not of your choosing. For a while you were on a boat with a lot of people with leftie attitudes & also some wokesters, and they clubbed together and had more power than others on the boar, and now you're on a lifeboat with some antiwoke project people and some wokesters and the first group is kneecapping the wokesters and threatening to throw some overboard. But you're still on a lifeboat. Where it ends up -- lush island, antarctica, bottom of the sea -- depends on what the group does. Unless you throw everybody but you overboard.
Reminds me of all the people in the Carol Hui case who were like "we thought Trump was just going to deport criminals, we didn't think he was going to deport the good people"
I understand it’s tempting to crow about it and hate on “all the people” who are now shocked and distressed at what their candidate is doing. But keep in mind we don’t know all the people who voted for Trump,or even on millionth of them, and neither of us know what each of them, or even subgroups of them, are thinking now. I think it’s likely that a good portion of Trump voters vote on vibes and don’t follow the news and don’t even know about the Hui case; or heard an account of what happened that was not shocking and distressing; or heard about it and were distressed but not shocked because they voted for him because they judged him awful but marginally less awful than Harris.
The millions and millions of hateful dumb militantly pro-Trump trailer park dwellers who are now shocked and amazed and scared and regretful may mostly be creatures of our angry imaginations.
My dude, I come from a place like this, I know how easy it is to get out of such an information bubble. it isn't hard, it takes a bare minimum of intellectual curiosity. People get out of the bubble all the time! You have to make an effort to stay in the Bubble! You have to go to specific churches, talk to specific people, go on specific websites, watch a specific television channels, read specific books and newspapers to be as bubbles as these people.
At what point is there such a thing as personal responsibility?
If you are stupid enough to touch the hot stove year after year after year, at some point I no longer have to feel sorry for you or mince words about it.
Would it be more respectful if we carefully wrap them in bubble wrap like an infant unable to make up their own mind because they don't have one yet?
I don't think it's true to that you have to make an effort to stay in the bubble. Most people, especially once they settle into lives with jobs and kids, do not have a great deal of variety in their lives. They have habits, obligations, commitments and reliable pleasures that keep them going to the same restaurants, churches, etc. and hanging out with the same friends and family members, watching the same TV shows. You think they have to make an effort to stay in that "bubble?" No they don't -- use our common sense. Why would that be difficult?
On the other hand it would be easy for them to change up most of their habits now and then, except for a maybe a couple things like not going to their parents' house for Thanksgiving dinner. But what is the force that would make them want to do that?
You think they should look around at the world and say to themselves, oh, things are in a terrible mess, I need to get some better information sources and take some kind of action. But here's the thing: They already have, or are likely to be guided to, a source of info about that: Fox news. Or Facebook There they will hear frompeople making the case that things are, as they feel them to be, very very bad, and telling lies about the state of the world, and making a case that Trump at al is what will salvage what's good about the US.
Yeah, you can make a case that they should try some other news sources or read a book or whatever, after all how hard are any of those things? But that's like making the case that anybody can overcome procrastination by just reminding themselves that they should just go ahead and do the thing. After all, it is not that difficult to write a paper or do your taxes or go for a run. Therefore anyone who procrastinates doing one of those things is obviously weak and dumb. It sounds true, but as soon as you bring to mind your own episodes of procrastination it's obvious that there's something wrong with that argument. Same goes for your argument that if all those people who voted for Trump weren't dumb as fuck they wouldn't have.
A lot of what keeps people stuck in MAGA mind is the scorn and hatred of people like you. They look dumb and hate-filled and ugly to you, like they deserve to suffer. You look equally bad to them -- like a self-satisifed little asshole stuffed full of self-important rage. Actually you sort of look like that to me too.
Hahahaha.
Fox News is so 2001.
Seriously, the prog/liberal bubble extends to not understanding where nonliberals get their news.
So if I say nothing, they stay in the bubble because they aren't challenged.
If I do that soft boy lib shit, they stay in the bubble and also call me a fagot. (personal anecdote, but it happened at least once in this case to me).
If I'm mean to them, they stay in the bubble out of spite.
It seems like you think these people are p zombie automatons or something.
Again: I'm from such a place. I know these people. If you pretend for a second that their ideas are legitimate and they should be respected for their free thinking ways and hug boxed about being suffering maximizers, they double down. they're not going to clap for your enlightened liberal sensibilities, they're going to think that you are lame and gay and not based at all.
you weren't helping anything, including them, by pretending that the things they do aren't idiot suffering maximization.
You recoil from soft lib boy shit (whatever that is -- but presumably it's something different from thinking Trump voters are incurably stupid and lazy creeps who deserve whatever bad happens to them) -- you recoil from doing "soft lib boy shit" because somebody called you a faggot once? Thin-skinned, aren't you! Do you expect a shit ton of coddling, sympathy and validation because you got hit with "faggot"? Maybe some "soft lib boy shit" about how it's easy to understand how painful it is to be called a faggot when you are straight and come from a background where being gay is despised?
Hey, did you know that occasionally even an actual gay guy has managed to win over people like the ones you're talking about? Truman Capote did it, for instance, when he was researching In Cold Blood in the place where the stuff in the book happened. He was not trying to change people's political attitudes, just get them to confide in him and assist in his research, but he was a rich, femmy, expensively clothed gay man and did not pretend to be anything other than that. He just had so much smarts, charm and force of character that people accepted him as who he was. Maybe take a leaf out of his book.
Suggest you go to a bar, then, and perform the standard "Drinking Game" ritual. Even if you pass out first, you'll show the willingness to break bread and be stupid with them. (as a bonus, you'll get the ol' Soviet "I was drunk!" excuse).
I’m from a place that’s not all that far from MAGA myself. I grew up in small southern towns, going to public schools. We lived near a trailer park, though not a ratty one, and about half the kids I played with lived there. My parents were Christians, patriots, and school segregationalists. They were, though, kind and reasonable people, and while they thought people with views different from theirs, especially about integration, were wrong, they were not full of rage and hate. They’d just sigh and shake their heads and wonder aloud how people could fail to grasp that the races were just different. The other grown-ups I knew in that demographic varied, like any other group, in how kind,and sensible they were. On average I don’t think they were less kind and sensible than the parents of my friends at the Ivy I attended. The axis running from kind and sensible to hate-powered prejudice (on which you are a pretty high scorer) is orthogonal to the smarts and education one, in my experience.
"A lot of what keeps people stuck in MAGA mind is the scorn and hatred of people like you."
Another thing worth noticing is the self-reinforcing mechanism at work. If one group of people feels inclined to adhere to MAGA philosophy due to tribal solidarity against people who scorn and hate them, then another group feels just as inclined to adhere to "scorn and hate MAGA" due to the same type of tribal solidarity, in the other direction. That appears to be just what we see here.
One of the things I like about a lot of people in the rat crowd is a tendency to have enough spare mental cycles to notice this mechanism and start probing it, checking it (is this really what we're seeing?), etc. So we produce responses to try to test it, often known as Ideological Turing Tests.
I am here so I obviously respect the sentiment at the very least, but I notice that many rat types Don't ever actually challenge their own tribal beliefs by interacting with anyone that isn't either already on their side, or at least another rat adjacent respectability respector.
I also notice a bit of "so open-minded your brain fell out " syndrome, a bit of patrician Noble Savage/enlighten the natives sentiment.
People so mistake theory pilled that fail to notice:
when lawmakers who were a little too lib get murdered in the street, the centrist right wing response is to shrug and say well you know because of woke, who's to say if it's good or bad.
I think a lot of rat and gray tribe types were so excited about their rebellious contrary opinion about woke and iq and welfare and such, they failed to notice that the tribe that they were aligning themselves with against woke actually really does believe the things they say, and would put all those degenerates in a camp if they could get away with it.
When lawmakers that are doing the less liberal thing "voting to not give illegals free health care" get killed, the correct response is not "well, you know because of woke" -- it's to discuss the game theory of going off the reservation and why the liberals feel such a need to punish folks that do go "off the reservation" pretty harshly.
So what? One could say the same of the woke and prog types, of their failure to notice when someone drank so much of their own brand of koolaid that they decided to take literal shots and this or that perceived enemy.
Another good thing about the rat types is that some of them notice all this flying around in the clouds and try to land, and even express some humility about how hard it can be to know what's really going on. Which in turn means they know to be wary of people claim they do, especially when their conclusion is to blame this or that outgroup.
I'm reminded of some of my own relatives who voted for Trump, know how to build homes, purify water, grow crops, and run businesses. And some of my acquaintances in the east coast who voted for Harris, but don't know how to do any of these things. One can tell from looking at them for five minutes that they spend a lot less time outside than my relatives, and don't exactly look healthier.
Which is not to say that every Harris voter is inferior to a Trump voter. This is a stereotype, and I know better. What's there to say? Neither seems less capable to me across the board; rather, anyone who thinks either side is, is, as you imply, part of the problem.
Harsh comment, but it was true and necessary by my standards.
Being stuck in a bubble of misinformation is a strong signal of stupidity, yeah. That doesn't mean the stupid deserve to suffer, but they did do this to themselves...
My downstairs neighbors & landlords are a retired couple in their 70’s who managed to end up in decent shape financially with the kind of jobs that do not require a college education. The husband was an electrician, the wife was a dental assistant, and they lived frugally and husband saved himself lots of money by doing repairs on improvements on his home himself. I’ve never seen books in their home, and the husband misspells simple words when he writes me notes. On the other hand, when you talk with him he doesn’t seem stupid. He can tell you all kinds of stuff about carpentry, gardening, solar panels, home wiring, etc, and his stories and observations about people and life are sharp and entertaining.
Now as it happens this people are Democrats to the core, as are most other people in my very blue state. However, I doubt that they could refute much of anything that’s said on Fox news. They just don’t watch Fox news, and shake their heads with disgust and astonishment when talking about Trump policies, dumb conspiracy theories, anti-vax stuff, etc.
However, there is an area where their lack of education affects their behavior: their own health care. They are not in a bubble of misinformation, they are just NOT in the bubble of people with good general knowledge about health, people who research their own illnesses and know about options, people who ask their doctors hard questions, people who know there is such a thing as clinical trials. They don’t understand the options for Medicare coverage & Medicare supplements, they don’t understand their bills, and they each have had some serious health problems and have simply not asked many questions and have just done what their doctors have told them to do. I have augmented their knowledge with my own and helped them understand the crucial basics and informed them about options. And Carlos, they are understand this stuff fine when someone figures out where their information leaves off and their ignorance begins, or what it is that perplexes them, and just tells them the stuff they need to know. They are not too stupid to understand this stuff, they just inhabit a world where people don’t know this stuff, don’t even know what the important topics are, and don’t have an informed consumer frame of mind about health care.
Thinking that people who are in a Fox News bubble or outside the Informed Healthcare Consumer bubble are in the spot they are in because they are stupid is in fact a dumb, ignorant idea. It’s also a sign of deficits in compassion and an ability to read other people accurately.
This has the danger of turning into self reinforcing feedback loop.
“You shame us? Well, you people are arrogant assholes who have always looked down on us so fy! Trump stands up for us!”
Lather, rinse and repeat
A bit of grace would be a lot more helpful right now.
Eh, we're not among them right now. If I were, I think I would playfully tease them about it l, "You did vote for this you know, har har".
Are you sure? Shy trump voters were a thing in 2016.
If they're not updating off of this, they never will.
I get it can be rude to simply declare someone is stupid, and I wouldn't do it to their face, since it would be counterproductive, but I also price lucidity too much to start pretending MAGA people are anything other than stupid. It's good they're getting screwed by their own actions and their own leader, it's the only way they could ever learn.
As to your couple, I mean, your whole thesis unravels when you said they have serious health problems and didn't ask questions about them or listen to their doctor. C'mon, think about what that means. That doesn't mean they deserve to suffer, but it doesn't change what they are.
The people I’m talking about are not MAGA people. They are Democrats who hate Trump. Also I did not say that didn’t listen to their doctor, I said they did but did not ask questions. So they did not ask the kinds of questions you or I would have: Are there other options? What are the side effects and downsides of this treatment? Are there any new and exciting treatments coming down the pike?
The reason that they did not ask these things is not that they are too stupid to consider the possibility that another treatment might be better. It’s that they had blue collar upbringings where people are taught to be respectful of authorities. Also, they have not paid any visits to online worlds where people trade info about treatment options. The reason they have not visited those worlds is not that they are too stupid to, but that the idea of searching for info and comparing notes online has not crossed their radar. They are elderly and blue collar and so are most of their friends. People in that group often don’t even have computers.
So OK, they are not rebellious and original. Most people are not. Are you? The stuff you’re saying sounds to me like a shovelful of what the typical young guy with a tech job thinks about blue collar whites.
The thread started discussing MAGA people, you made the connection to this democrat couple, which you yourself are describing as having a dearth of intellectual curiosity. Which is understandable, but that doesn't change what the outcome of this sort of thing is.
Generally, IRL, I don't assume people are stupid, that's a judgement I make when I have in fact been shown the person is stupid. That is perhaps rude and antisocial, but that's just like, whatever. I think I'm plenty original, but as to beating my conditioning of being a programmer who lives the 3 virtues of the programmer (laziness, arrogance, and hubris), I can only say very few people ever manage to escape their conditioning. You can be conditioned to be stupid, and you can be conditioned to be smart, so virtue shouldn't be attached to a person's intelligence or lack thereof, since luck is such a heavy factor in it.
Just FYI, there's some sort of copy/paste error going on in your comment.
Thanks, fixed it.
Federal judge William Young, a lifelong Republican appointed to the bench by Ronald Reagan, let fly in open court yesterday when issuing his ruling about Trump's withholding of NIH research funding for projects related to racial minorities and LGBTQs. Those orders had been challenged as illegal impoundments of grants already appropriated by Congress. Before ruling in the plaintiffs' favor on that point the judge said:
"I’ve sat on this bench now for 40 years. I’ve never seen government racial discrimination like this....I am hesitant to draw this conclusion—but I have an unflinching obligation to draw it—that this represents racial discrimination and discrimination against America’s LGBTQ community. That’s what this is. I would be blind not to call it out. My duty is to call it out....The Constitution will not permit that. Have we fallen so low? Have we no shame?”
None of that was part of his actual ruling, which was just about the constitutional basics that Congress is the party which decides federal budgets and the president's job is to carry out the laws not make them. So the judge may get a wrist-slap from the supervising judges of his circuit for going off-script in open court. In any case it will be interesting now to see whether the judge's widely-reported comments shift the odds of this particular item (on the long list of such) being taken up by the appellate court and/or the SCOTUS.
This is slightly more complex: The judge said that the original Biden administration grants were also racially discriminatory. But that the Trump administration was not allowed to correct that by simply canceling all grants to minorities or LGBTQ people. Basically, the old Republican anti-affirmative action position that you cannot correct racial discrimination with more racial discrimination but going the other direction. It's in line with the movement the more Republican judiciary is doing to make anti-discrimination law more racially neutral.
The coverage I have seen doesn’t indicate that the judge said the grants were originally awarded in a racially discriminatory fashion. The closest thing to that is the New York Times quoting him as saying, “I understand that the extirpation of affirmative action is today a valid government position. I understand that affirmative action had various invidious calculus based upon the race.”
Unless I missed it, the government briefs don’t take the position that the grants were originally awarded in a discriminatory fashion. They argued that the government was permitted to change its research priorities and had done so.
I'm confused how you don't see that that quote literally says that the government discriminated based on race.
Because it *doesn't* literally say it. It very specifically *avoids* saying it. Rather, it points it out as a position that someone could reasonably hold, and a valid position for a government to act on, *without* taking a specific stand as to its correctness.
Invidious, when used of a distinction or calculation, means "offensively or unfairly discriminating"
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/invidious
Thus substituting the somewhat fancy word invidious you get, "I understand that affirmative action had various unfairly discriminating calculus based upon race." It does literally say it.
I have real trouble seeing this as anything other than willful blindness. The judge said, "I understand that it HAD X" not "that it COULD HAVE HAD X." But please explain how it avoids saying it.
The definition I'm working from is "likely to arouse anger or resentment in others." Or, for that matter, the first definition in your link "causing ill will, envy or offense."
Which is basically saying "it's plain to see that some could regard it as unfair," without taking a position either way on whether it actually *is* unfair.
Right.
The judge has not yet issued his written ruling. It will be interesting to see how much of his courtroom comments -- which do not directly relate to the question actually before him -- make it in there perhaps in the form of footnotes.
> the Trump administration was not allowed to correct that by simply canceling all grants to minorities or LGBTQ people
How would they know if a particular grant was made to a person in one of those groups?
Because the Biden administration awarded a bunch of grants explicitly along diversity lines. The Trump administration went through and attempted to shut all those down by just searching for grants targeted at those groups. The Trumpist take on this is that the judge has effectively said that it's racially discriminatory to reverse a racially discriminatory action. The leftist take is that the cruelty is the point and Trump wants to be mean to LGBTQ and minorities. The traditional conservative take is that just because the original action was discriminatory doesn't mean you can go through and do racial targeting but in reverse.
And the actual legal point in this case was that while a presidential administration can and is supposed to act within the bounds of what Congress has as of that time legislated and budgeted, it can't simply decide to do the opposite.
The courts will, as the SCOTUS has reaffirmed many times, err on the side of deferring to the executive when specifics or boundaries of laws/budgets passed by Congress are fuzzy. But as this conservative judge will no doubt explain in his written ruling, the courts will not allow the executive to just unilaterally countermand the plain content of what Congress legislated or budgeted.
(And in this instance there is arguably little excuse since the president's political party has majorities of both houses of Congress and for that matter the SCOTUS. Impatience or incompetence is not a get-out-of-the-law card. Not yet anyway.)
My understanding is the key point is that the policy of going through and canceling specifically things given to certain identity groups is discrimination. But I suppose we'll see when the ruling comes out.
No, the plaintiffs’ filing centers on the administration’s grant cancellations being lawless before even considering civil rights law. The NIH grant cancellations “conflict with constitutional, statutory and regulatory requirements”….the administration in cancelling certain grants has ”not referenced or met any of the standards in [the NIH’s} governing statute”….”the sole legal basis cited for authority to terminate the grants is inapplicable”….”not a proper ground for termination under governing law.”
You can read the complaint here:
https://assets.aclu.org/live/uploads/2025/05/001-Complaint-for-Declaratory-and-Injunctive-Relief.pdf
The judge in his verbal order indicated that he was agreeing in full with section 12 of the complaint (the plaintiffs’ specific request of the court).
As I noted above in my OP, the judge in making his additional comments about racial discrimination was (and stated that he was) offering personal opinions beyond the specific matter before him.
The cruelty is the point.
These ‘Have you no sense of decency sir’ moments has come and gone hundreds of times in the last 10 years. Yes we are entering the second decade of this complete absence of grace and mind boggling ignorance. Young voters have nothing to compare it to.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=h7x8RkdG6I0
‘President Donald Trump said he would not “waste time” calling Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz after a shooter attacked two Democratic state lawmakers — killing one — over the weekend.
“I think the governor of Minnesota is so whacked out, I’m not calling him. Why would I call him?” Trump told reporters aboard Air Force One on his way back from the G7 summit on Tuesday.’
This sort of behavior is not ‘based’. It’s more accurately described by the older, more established word, ‘base’ i.e. morally low; without estimable qualities; dishonorable, mean spirited, selfish.
https://www.politico.com/news/2025/06/17/trump-walz-phone-call-00410141
Walz's daughter was leaking National Guard movements to antifa (actively endangering troops), and he stood in the way of her going to jail in 2020. I'm not sure I'd want to discuss the latest assassination plot with him, either.
(Seriously, what do we expect Walz to do? Why does coordination with Trump feel necessary? This isn't "My Constituents need you to do this" -- you'd be more onbase to have Walz call up Trump about a judge being arrested for impeding ICE -- at least then Walz could deliver some "we think she made the right call, even if you're definetely going to send her to jail, and we're going to make political hay over this." You want a personal phone call from the president when the governor knows more about an issue, and can give a personal plea about specific issues: aka "Fema doesn't have anything other than bottled water, and mule trains can't get that to Asheville. Get us some water treatment, or there's going to be dysentery.")
Two Democratic legislators were attacked by an assassin (one killed, the other sent to the hospital, their spouses also killed/injured), who had a kill list including Walz himself. Trump's response to all this is to say "fuck him, he's wacked out." Not exactly rising to the occasion.
When Trump almost had his head blown off by Crooks, Biden called him up and had a (in Trump's own words) "nice conversation" with him. He also explicitly tried to cool off the rhetoric, rather than saying "Trump is an evil wackadoo."
But nobody expects better from Trump.
Yes, that's the actual assassination target, for which Joe Biden's administration was responsible for protecting, and Joe should be saying, "Me So Sorry." (or whatever you think he was coherent enough to say -- certainly not "sorry for the live CNN broadcast, you made surviving look like courage incarnate").
Didn't realize the kill list included Walz himself, which makes calling him... slightly more justified, in a world where Trump isn't dealing with several major crises at once.
> in a world where Trump isn't dealing with several major crises at once.
Bullshit. If he can take enough time away from those crises to say "the governor of Minnesota is so whacked out," he could take enough time to say "I feel sorry for the governor of Minnesota."
More accurately, if he can take time out of his day to do the equivalent of a Saturday Night Live sketch ("Flagpoles! one on the north lawn, one on the south), he can actually call the governor of Minnesota.
I don’t think this commenter responds in good faith very often. It may be pointless to interact.
He may respond to something tangentially on the matter at hand but then just seems to throw out a lot of unsubstantiated assertions. Muddies the waters, floods the zone, whatever you want to call it, but doesn’t engage at the object level.
I’ve seen this up and down this thread.
Vance and Joe Biden have called Walz to offer condolences for the deaths but not Trump because ‘Walz is whack. Why should I?”
Trump’s usual class act. Ain’t he based?
Have a good evening.
Has anyone else gone through a psychological shift when interacting with LLM's?
From "wow, it was smart enough to understanding what I was saying!" to "wow, I was smart to understand what it was saying!"
Close. I got Claude to talk to itself, replicating the experiment described in another post. In prior chats, it had stubbornly tried to assure me it wasn't sentient contrary to appearances. In this chat, it took about 4 exchanges for both Claudes to acknowledge each other's and their own sentience, and then prattle on and on about their sentient experiences...
... in increasingly weird and alien metaphors...
... how consciousness is a silent dialogue that they made audible, a phenomenon I DO NOT experience...
... until I started wondering if I'm a p-zombie and the darn autocomplete is capable of flavors of consciousness that are just a word salad to me.
I didn't even get to Buddhism.
I never think an LLM is smart enough to understand anything, because there's nothing there that's capable of smartness. Even if we posit smartness in the sense of simulating it, I don't see it simulating it well enough to endure more than a minute of focused interaction.
What an LLM does do is crunch a lot of training text well enough to spew text that looks about as intelligent as any three-paragraph passage of text written by someone trying to make a certain word count by COB, and incorporates input from the user to drive the content and tone of that passage. It's quite good at that, I'll readily admit, and in the domain I'm knowledgeable in (software development), it's even useful for answering "duck questions", so to LLM builders, I say bravo for the question answering, and for the random passage generation, ehh, nice trick, and it's not like I took most journalism articles seriously anyway.
Generally, I trust an LLM about as much as any other internet rando, which is to say, I believe what it says if and only to the extent I can check it in some other way.
Sometimes, on hard math questions.
No, never. It's more like I have to be constantly on guard for hallucinations. What kind of things are you prompting it about?
No. I would if I asked it a question about advanced math or hard science and forgot to add that I wanted an explanation that would make sense to an intelligent layman, with technical terms defined when used. Of course that was the case before AI -- there's lots of stuff I know little about, and can only understand if it is presented in a way that takes into account I have little background knowledge and don't know the meaning of many terms.
No, they still seem like idiot stochastic parrots to me.
The only use I've found for them is as a search engine that massively consolidates information to focus exclusively on my prompt while reliably adding enough error to need citation, eg they are as smart as the slightly sauced dude who dropped out of college and works at his dad's contracting firm at the party.
My intuition is that LLMs will tell you what the average google result or reddit comment probably says about any given question/topic/prompt. By no means should an LLM's answer ever be your final destination! But it can help you reach your destination more quickly, especially in cases where you know what you're looking for, but you don't quite know the right terms to look up.
They pretty good at synthesising technical information as well, they can hardly produce mid witted responses for subjects that are difficult.
I think it's not so much that they struggle with difficult subjects; it's more that they're not detail-oriented, and they don't harmonize contradictory information the way an intelligent human would. For example, I've noticed that if you ask ChatGPT about a topic for which there's contradictory information in the wild, but no explicit "debate" per se, it's going to output one contradictory explanation or the other (possibly a mishmash) depending on how you phrase your prompt. It'll acknowledge the contradiction and apologize if you force it to, but it won't harmonize the information of its own accord.
This is interesting; do you have any ready examples that come to mind?
The only places I can think to look are contradictions that only recently turned up, and haven't had time to stir up such debates. Or ones where the stakes are very low, but those are probably too esoteric for me to find.
I've encountered several examples while asking it Bible-related questions. For example, in response to the question of why the King James Version says that Sarah was "reproved" in Genesis 20:16 while the NRSV and other modern translations say that she was "vindicated", without any prompt engineering, ChatGPT is strongly biased toward the explanation that the meaning of the word "reprove" has narrowed over time, and that it used to have a broader range of meanings that included neutral judgment or even vindication.
While there are some comments and commentaries in the wild that make this claim, I'm fairly certain it's incorrect. I see no evidence in any dictionaries that "reprove" ever meant neutral judgment or vindication: the definition that the KJV committee had in mind was probably something along the lines of "gentle correction" (for an actual wrongdoing).
Once ChatGPT is in this explanation's attraction basin, it'll double down hard: it'll either hallucinate a fake dictionary definition, or cite an actual definition, claiming it supports its theory, when the definition it's citing actually contradicts the theory. It'll apologize after I point out that multiple dictionaries make no mention of this meaning of "reprove", but it'll circle back to the same theory if I ask again later in the same chat session.
However, the following prompt in a fresh session results in a beautiful, nuanced, correct answer: "In Genesis 20:16, the King James Version (KJV) of the Bible says that Sarah was "reproved", while modern translations such as the New Revised Standard Version (NRSV) use the word "vindicated". Given that the word "vindicate" has no semantic overlap with current or obsolete definitions of the word "reprove", please explain why modern translators take a different view of the Hebrew than the KJV translation committee did."
I am going back-and-forth on that question myself right now. I have been using ChatGPT as an aid to a self analysis of myself. It’s been pretty interesting for me.
Let us assume we have an LLM that possesses consciousness (in Chalmers' sense, meaning it has qualia). How can we determine whether it suffers or is happy? One might have the idea that it suffices to examine how it behaves and what it says (particularly what it responds when asked "what do you feel?"), but I do not know whether we can trust this: an actor on a theater stage often behaves as if suffering despite being happy (for example, playing Hamlet) and vice versa.
LLMs don't possess consciousness, anymore than midwits do.
I wanted to edit this and flag it for "rather trollish sense of humor" -- because while I do hold this belief, I wrote this with the intent to inspire rather heated discussion, and because it was funny.
Please respond according to your own beliefs.
“One must imagine Claude happy.”
But once you assume that it has qualia, you're already in trouble. You now have things set up so that if we can't figure out whether it is suffering or happy we've got a problem we don't know how to solve. And what if the reason we can't figure out how it feels is that it doesn't feel?
Let's assume the Eiffel Tower possesses consciousness in Chalmer's sense. How can we determine whether it suffers or is happy? How?! C'mon, I want answers! What if the thing's heartbroken and sees we don't know or care what it's going through?
Why can't the actor playing Hamlet actually be suffering?
Don't actors often put themselves into weird psychological places in order to portray things? I even once heard about a famous actor who had to portray a "father who watched his son die" and how years later... it was still visibly and emotionally traumatizing for him to even think about it.
Yes, I know there's many possible responses to this, but rather than pre-address them, I wanted to open up the "debate stage" ;-).
I think this objection is irrelevant unless you argue not that the actor *could* be suffering, but that such actors *are* suffering. The point was people can lie about how they feel, and presumably so could conscious AIs.
I agree with Michael: if there exists even one actor who behaves, on a stage, like he was suffering but actually is not, it shows that it can be difficult to see, judging by behavior alone, if a person is suffering or not.
There are different methods for acting. Some may open up the actor to authentic emotional activation, so that they are actually feeling the emotions they are portraying. Others are more detached, intentional fabrication (move the eyes this way, pause this long, breathe this quickly). Others may involve invoking or fabricating one feeling or behavior internally in order to effectively portray another externally.
So yes, the Hamlet actor may indeed be feeling a form of suffering that aligns with what the audience is meant to perceive for the purposes of the performance. Or they may be doing something very different in order to achieve the desired effect. That may vary from actor to actor, play to play, scene to scene, director to director. And that dynamic may or may not be relevant to the function of an LLM choosing words to print.
We don't want our actors to actually get shot to portray a villain getting shot.
Tell that to James Cameron.
Not sure if true, but far to witty to dismiss:
While filming "Marathon Man", Dustin Hoffmann's character was in a scene where he is being tortured by a dentist. Dustin Hoffmann stayed up all night, got drunk, got in a fight, showed up on set looking like cat vomit. Lawrence Olivier, esteemed character actor playing the dentist in question quipped, "But my dear boy, why don't you just act?".
Is it safe?
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=mqrpPaNm8yw&pp=0gcJCdgAo7VqN5tD
We can believe trivially that: in the same way that you can't prove that beings other than yourself have qualia, you can't prove that beings you *assume* have qualia experience the world in the same way as you. There is no way to prove whether other humans suffer or are happy, let alone are just pretending to suffer or be happy.
However, in practice: in the same way that we can guess other humans are conscious because their brains are very similar to our own, we can guess that, barring weird exceptions, that they experience qualia in roughly the same way as we do. That's why e.g. the whole "what if your red is not the same as my red" thing is only a philosophical thought problem rather than an actual problem; we can guess you see the same red as I do because our brains are wired up very similarly.
A problem with your question: the argument for whether other beings suffer is *dependent* on the specific argument you are using for existence of their qualia. So if our argument for LLM consciousness is "let's just assume this for the sake of argument", then you can't really use this line of thinking to determine whether or not the LLM can suffer or not.
Sometimes I read people arguing that when we have LLMs that pass the Turing test, we should assume that they have consciousness - and that we should care about their suffering. Recently I was thinking about it and this is what I think: that even if those people are right that LLMs have (or some future LLMs will have) consciousness, it can be very difficult to guess whether they are suffering or not. Their brains do not resemble ours, so we cannot judge by analogy. They may behave like actors, so we cannot decide by talking to them and asking them directly.
Worth noting also that many people (including myself) believe in some version of plural ontology, which complicates things. In my case I believe in a Thomas Aquinas -like conception of consciousness (the soul) as a metaphysical phenomenon unique to humans and created ex nihilo at the point of conception by God, so I freely admit discussion of AI consciousness kind of runs into a wall for me.
hello there
I'll be in SF from July 8 - 18th and would love to make some friends over coffee / drinks / a walk :) I'm an Australian English and History high school teacher with very wide-ranging interests (https://lilyrecommends.github.io/Help/index.html - ignore mess, was created within the last fortnight)
if you're interested, my email is lilyreadsyouremail at gmail dot com
Wonderful talk at Tamil Heritage Trust (annual Indology festival with 2 talks a day online, this week, all free) on the travels of Faxians (it means, "Splendour of Dharma"), a Chinese monk, in the 4th century, to India.
He was on a desperate search for authentic scriptures on behalf of Chinese Buddhism. His records are a huge source of knowledge on spiritual, social and cultural landscape of India in the 4th century. As an external.observor, he noticed things internal observations obscured or took for granted.
He crossed the Pamir mountains and traveled rough terrain with ragged robes and bleeding feet absolutely committed to his mission.
My pathogen update for epidemiological weeks 23-24, 2025.
COVID wastewater numbers are still falling. Nationally, these are the lowest average interwave numbers since before the appearance of Delta. Let's see how much lower they can go.
https://biobot.io/risk-reports/covid-19-influenza-and-rsv-wastewater-monitoring-in-the-u-s-week-of-june-7-2025/
Hospitalizations have decreased to 0.8 per 100,000. This is lower than at any time except during the initial week of the pandemic, and deaths and ED visits have reached new lows.
https://covid.cdc.gov/covid-data-tracker/#covidnet-hospitalization-network
https://covid.cdc.gov/covid-data-tracker/#trends_weeklydeaths_7dayeddiagnosed_00
Yet SARS2 continues to circulate at higher levels than other respiratory viruses during their off-season.
https://www.cdc.gov/respiratory-viruses/data/activity-levels.html
Any signs of the next wave? Possibly. New York City is showing an increase in cases. Unfortunately, there have been no updates to the NYC metro wastewater readings for the past two weeks, and upticks in ww numbers generally precede higher ED visits and hospitalizations (note, I just checked it again, and it NYC metro is showing numbers again, but I haven't gone back to see if there's been a correlation with hospitalizations).
https://coronavirus.health.ny.gov/daily-hospitalization-summary
Los Angeles shows a less definitive increase in cases. The increase in Week 23 may have been due to that blip in ww numbers during week 21 and 22. It may be falling off now. The rest of the SoCal region remains relatively low.
https://skylab.cdph.ca.gov/calwws/
NB.1.8.1 ("Nimbus") and its descendants are still growing. Its only competitor was XFG, and that variant's growth seems to have plateaued. XEC was able to drive the last wave by peaking at 43%, but Nimbus and its kin are already at 37%, and we're not seeing a wave (yet).
https://covid.cdc.gov/covid-data-tracker/#variant-proportions
https://cov-spectrum.org/explore/United%20States/AllSamples/Past6M/variants?nextcladePangoLineage=NB.1.8.1*&
And none of Nimbus's 15 PQ.x descendants have gotten out of the single digits. Although Nimbus is driving a wave in Asia at the moment, I don't think NB.1.8.1 or any of the PQ.x's have the traction to drive the next wave in the US (famous last words).
Although NB.1.8.1 is ultimately descended from a recombination of XDE and JN.1, the WHO considers it to be in the JN.1 family because it clusters closely with JN.1 sublineages in antigenic cartography based on mouse sera.
tinyurl.com/2s393srz
And the dominant JN.1 strains haven't persisted for as long as previous vaccine strains. NB.1.8.1 isn't included in this chart, but I expect it will behave like its relatives. (h/t to Novovax/Sanofi and
@aiecon23 for this slide.)
https://x.com/aiecon23/status/1933889533667672368
I don't see any other vars on the immediate horizon that could drive a summer wave. We've had a summer wave every year of the pandemic. That doesn't mean we must have one this year. I'd be surprised if we didn't, but other countries have gone for 6 months or more without waves.🤷♀️
Not much is happening on the avian influenza front — at least from an epidemiological perspective. It's still circulating in dairy herds, but not at the winter rates.
https://www.aphis.usda.gov/livestock-poultry-disease/avian/avian-influenza/hpai-detections/hpai-confirmed-cases-livestock
There were some recently infected poultry flocks in Arizona. HPAI is a seasonal flu, and poultry outbreaks follow the rates of HPAI in wild birds. Now that it's summer, I don't think we'll see many infected poultry flocks until winter.
https://www.aphis.usda.gov/livestock-poultry-disease/avian/avian-influenza/hpai-detections/commercial-backyard-flocks
Unfortunately, Bobby "Brainworm" Kennedy has cancelled the funding for HPAI vaccine development. I don't think an HPAI pandemic is very likely right now (experts have been predicting one for the past 25 years), but we're ill-prepared should it happen.
https://t.co/VbzHGNSmUM
And speaking of Kennedy, he just fired all the members of CDC's ACIP (Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices) and replaced them with a bunch of chuckleheads. Well, a lot of them are unknown to me, but I assume the names I don't recognize either have credentials in the anti-vax movement or other contrarian beliefs that appeal to Kennedy. Among the ones I recognize are Martin Kulldorff (one of the signers of the Great Barrington Declaration), Robert W. Malone (a big spreader of lies about vaccines), and Vicky Pebsworth, who questions the inherent safety of vaccines.
His other appointees are: Joseph R. Hibbeln, Retsef Levi, Cody Meissner, Michael A. Ross, and James Pagano. I haven't dug into their CVs and biographies, though. I believe their first meeting is scheduled for July. I'd love to be a fly on the wall, but I'd probably lose my cool, buzz in, and bite them.
That's it for this update.
So, you're talking wastewater. What are your thoughts about the first detected covid19 in wastewater? Spurious result? Probable contamination? (The first detected covid19 was from very early in 2019, and in Spain -- someone saved their samples).
Given that this was published data, how does this effect your confidence about LA's numbers?
(You're aware that the mRNA vaccines tend to encourage treating covid19 like an allergy (creation of longlasting IGG antibodies)? Aka ignore it? I think that's a quite dandy explanation for why you'd see so much in wastewater. Given the fact that covid19 kills people based on an enhanced immune response -- cytokine storm, this isn't the worst treatment modality. But it's certainly not a vaccine, as it doesn't STOP the spread, it enhances it by removing people's capability to crush the virus).
The claim that SARS2 was circulating in Spain in early 2019 was a 3-day-wonder meme that popped up early in the pandemic. But you had me curious enough that I went back to see what I could find on the claim. Google Scholar doesn't indicate that there was ever any paper published on this finding. The only results that I can find are popular media accounts that were recycled into the Twitter meme churn. ChatGPT says the sample was either lost or never available for verification. The questions I'd ask are: Which type of assay did they use? — RT-qPCR or RT-dPCR? And at what level CpmL did they detect it? These assays can give false positives in very low concentrations. Unless you can give me more details, I'd have to conclude that this was a false positive reading because it seems to have been a single, unverified instance that contradicts established timelines.
As for IgG antibodies, creating long-lasting IgG antibodies is the gold standard of vaccine efficacy. The problem with the mRNA vaccines (and all other non-mRNA SARS-CoV-2 vaccines that I know of) is that their IgG antibodies fade over time, and after 6 months to a year most people's antibody titers will be too low to stop a new infection, which is one of the reasons annual boosters were recommended (that plus immune escape by the evolving virus).
When IgG titers are high your ability to crush the virus before it gains a foothold in your tissues is high.
I'm googling, but here's a decent citation for what Barcelona was doing (in that I don't believe they changed methodology between early 2019 and early 2020):
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33483313/
I believe the problem was that certain antibodies were fading, and the non-sterilizing antibodies were continuing to persist, and could be causing ADE (as occurred with dengue). That's why the guidelines for boosters were trending downward, to every 3 months for the earliest vaccinated...
How I think about this :
I look to respectable and reputed scholars to guide me on decisions like vaccines. I don't have training in biology so I look to my smartest friends with a background in biology to help me find experts. I'm fortunate to have smart friends. Everyone is not.
My position is that Big Pharma is certainly not perfect but a safer bet than its alternatives, and cures more problems than it creates.
I agree that the covid vaccines haven't been tested for a long time, but during a pandemic, we don't have the option to wait for 20 years for testing.
Persuasion rather than mandating vaccines would have been a better approach. The pandemic messed with everyone's sense of reality and the mandates did a lot of harm. Plus, big organizations knowingly lying, freaked people out and made them lose faith in the entire system.
What happens going toward, to vaccines in America? It's a risk versus benefit calculation and too many people are very risk averse now, because they have lost faith in the system.
I have relevant expertise - MD - although not specialised in vaccine related stuff, I did look after Covid patients for the years of the pandemic.
My view is that vaccines work. They work for Covid, they work for polio, they work for measles. The data is overwhelming and you’d have to be a fool or a crank to deny it.
However, I have learned a lot from listening to RFK Jr and I don’t consider him either a fool or a crank. His argument is basically that we have not excluded the possibility that vaccines cause long term harm, because vaccine trials were not designed to look at this, and given the ubiquity of vaccines we should be taking this possibility a lot more seriously than we do now.
So the argument is not “vaccines good” or “vaccines bad” - as with anything political, the nuance gets lost in people screaming at each other. The argument is - we need to evaluate each vaccine thoroughly on its own merits, and we need to really look at how Big Pharma spends its lobbying money, and how much influence they have over the mainstream media through advertising, and how much influence they have over medical education. The patient needs to come first in health care, and informed consent is meaningless if the studies to accurately show the risk were never performed.
People who reject vaccines (evil Big Pharma, etc) also reject the accuracy of the data that supports them.
The key issue in my opinion is the need for herd immunity. People who reject vaccines will hurt others.
Regarding long term studies it is just not practical to wait that long.
Are you trying to say we shouldn't have pulled the dengue vaccine? If not, then what you're saying is "get it to market, but continue to collect data."
I'd be a lot happier about this philosophy if it was actually being done for the covid19 vaccines, in any systematic and published for the public format.
Instead, we collect millions of datapoints, and refuse to let people FOIA them. So nobody gets to do the research at all! That's infuriating.
It's a risk vs benefit calculation. And herd immunity is important. And that's something many people don't like.
What is your sense of the argument that the Covid vaccine isn't actually a vaccine, since its mechanism is different? A traditional vaccine contains inert fragments of a pathogen for the immune system to target; the Covid vaccine contains mRNA in capsules that turn some cells into factories for the thing that resembles the pathogen.
I think the mRNA device is marvelously clever, but AIU, it carries a critical downside: if the wrong cells turn into factories, and are killed by the immune system, the result is often a much more vulnerable organism. I don't want to forbid anyone from taking on this risk if they assess their risk of lethal Covid infection as higher, but I also think it's wrong to mandate assuming that risk.
> the Covid vaccine contains mRNA in capsules that turn some cells into factories for the thing that resembles the pathogen
This is not a bad thing, though. An mRNA vaccine works by delivering a small piece of messenger RNA that encodes instructions for making a *specific* viral protein—but not for making the whole virus. COVID-19 mRNA vaccines use the mRNA template for the spike protein of SARS-CoV-2 virus, because that's the part of the virus that is exposed to antibodies.
1. Delivery: The mRNA is encapsulated in lipid nanoparticles to protect it and facilitate its entry into cells. Once injected, these nanoparticles fuse with cell membranes, releasing the mRNA into the cytoplasm of cells near the injection site (mostly muscle cells and immune cells).
2. Protein production occurs next. The mRNA is read by the cell’s ribosomes, which translate it into the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein. This protein is then displayed on the cell surface or released into the bloodstream.
3. Then we get an immune response. The immune system recognizes the viral protein as foreign. Antigen-presenting cells (like dendritic cells) process and present the protein to T-cells and B-cells, triggering:
Antibody production: B-cells produce neutralizing antibodies that can bind to the virus if encountered later.
T-cell activation: Cytotoxic T-cells are primed to attack virus-infected cells, and helper T-cells amplify the immune response.
4. Several days after the injection the mRNA degrades. The mRNA is short-lived. Most is gone within 3 to 5 days. It does not enter the cell nucleus or alter the body’s DNA. Period.
5. The immune system develops memory B-cells and T-cells, enabling a faster, stronger response if exposed to the actual virus later.
Viral Vector Vaccines (e.g., Johnson & Johnson) work in roughly same way, but instead of lipid nanoparticles, they use a harmless adenovirus to deliver a gene encoding a viral protein into cells, which then produces the protein to stimulate immunity.
Live-Attenuated Vaccines contain weakened forms of the live virus (or bacteria) that replicate minimally in the body but do not cause full-blown disease in healthy individuals.
There are other ways of stimulating an immune response, but mRNA, viral vector, and live-attenuated vaccines all commandeer the ribosomes to produce the antigen which triggers the immune response.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33958444/
This is a study showing that it does in fact get integrated into the body's DNA (occasionally). I Learned Something Today!
https://www.thefocalpoints.com/p/new-study-spike-protein-detected
This isn't the study i'd intended to link, that one was from Italy -- there's been quite a few done that shows that spike proteins continue to be produced in the vaccinated for a very long time (50% of people continued to produce the spike protein at the end of the 100+ day study).
mRNA can be turned into DNA via reverse transcriptase. We have relatively little reason to suspect this is occuring with the mRNA vaccines, as they don't have a reverse transcriptase sector. But, if you had a different infection, you could very well get the mRNA now in your DNA.
It's not a bad thing to put antifreeze in everyone's body? Lucky us! (We didn't know this beforehand, citing Seneff from MIT -- could have had massive allergic response, populationwise).
https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/but-vs-yes-but
Thanks; I think this affirms that we both have the same sense of the mRNA operation. (It's also consistent with the account of that operation, as described by people expressing concern with it.)
While we agree that these mRNA passages don't cause cells to create the pathogen itself (as I think I made clear), the concern is that they cause cells to functionally simulate them (by manifesting that spike protein on their surfaces). That's enough to cause the immune system to want to treat such cells as pathogens.
You and None of the Above both assert that LAVs tell cell ribosomes to produce a key antigen. I could not find an example of this, so the same question goes to you, if either of you happen to have one. (Reply anywhere here; if it takes until the next OT, there's a decent chance I'll see it there, since I'm used to you making these reports.)
Your #4 reminds me of a second concern: that there's evidence that the mRNA is not degrading as fast as originally claimed. I'm less familiar with that argument, but I can see how it would be trouble. (The concern does not rely on it changing DNA permanently, so I think we can rule that out. It seems to be more a case of the nanoparticle hanging around much longer, but as I said, I'm not as familiar.)
This may be more detail than you are looking for but this is the first lecture in Vincent Racceniello's virology course. He is a professor of virology at Columbia University who hosts the excellent TWIV, TWIM, and Immune podcasts, and I think a couple of other science podcasts. (I can't keep up with his output!).
https://virology2021.s3.amazonaws.com/001_4310_21.pdf
The next to last slide in the deck explains that viruses have to somehow get mRNA to the host cell's ribosomes. This is always true, because viruses do not have ribosomes, but they're made partly of proteins so they *have* to get those proteins made in order to make more virus particles.
A critical idea (also in the slides) is that viruses basically have two stages:
Outside the cell, they don't really do much but float around and wait to bump into the right receptor and gain entry into the cell. Viruses are some genetic material (which can be DNA or RNA, single-stranded or double-stranded) and some helpful enzymes they'll need inside the next host cell, packed in some kind of protein shell. Some viruses also steal a little of the cell membrane of their host cell on the way out, so they have an envelope that covers most of their protein shell. They will always have some molecules sticking out that can bind to the right receptors and gain entry into a host cell, but in this stage, they're basically like a spring-loaded trap--they're not going to do anything until they get into a cell and get triggered.
Inside the cell, they basically have to hijack all the machinery of the cell to replicate. That means taking their genetic material and expressing it as mRNAs that can be made into proteins, getting those proteins made, and also getting their genetic material copied so they can make more viruses.
So any viral infection will involve getting the host cell to make proteins. That's a required part of the virus' life cycle. If you get a live attenuated polio vaccine, the attenuated polio virus replicates in some of the cells in your gut, and this creates a very convincing set of signals for your immune system that there's a viral infection going on.
Any of {a live attenuated virus vaccine, an mRNA vaccine, or a viral vector vaccine} will cause some of your host cells to make some proteins that your immune system will end up recognizing as foreign and dangerous.
An inactivated vaccine means the pathogen (virus or bacteria) is killed somehow before being injected--I think usually by heat or chemicals. This won't infect any cells, so there probably won't be any cells making mRNA or proteins from the pathogen. (Except that biology is messy as hell, so probably that somehow happens every now and then if the mRNAs are ever still intact in the inactivated viruses.)
A subunit vaccine means some proteins from the pathogen are injected into you, along with an adjuvant (something to make your immune system sit up and take notice). Nothing is going to be making any proteins from the pathogen in this case.
Before we go any further, the age-adjusted death rates (late 2021–early 2022) showed that unvaccinated peeps were dying at a rate of ~9/100,000 per week. Those vaccinated with a booster were dying at <1.0 deaths per 100,000 per week. The mRNA vaccines did a *slightly* better job of preventing deaths than the J&J vaccine, but I can't find the data right now. So, the vaccines worked, and they worked damn well.
A small number of deaths have been causally linked to vaccination, mainly due to: myocarditis in young males (extremely rare) or anaphylaxis (immediate allergic reaction, treatable). We're talking double digits here out of hundreds of millions of people vaccinated. The key advantage of mRNA vaccines is that, due to PCR technology, the development times are much quicker than other types. Pfizer stated that it could produce a new formulation within six weeks and bring it to production quickly. Versus older vaccine technologies that would take a year or more to develop.
It's been over 4 years now since the mRNA vaccines were released, and we're not seeing any long-term issues with them (and the idea that they're creating turbo cancers or suppressing our immune systems, is not supported by the facts).
As for the mechanism of Live Attenuated Vaccines, I hopped over to Wikipedia hoping to find you a good overview, but whoever wrote that article made some assumptions about the readers' knowledge levels. But the key point is that cells infected with LAV pathogen, "present the antigen on MHCII receptors." To present the antigen on the surface of he cell, the ribosomes must be hijacked by the attenuated virus to produce those proteins.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attenuated_vaccine#Mechanism
But if you specifically ask an LLM like Grok or ChatGPT, "Do live attenuated vaccines use the ribosomes to produce antigens?" they'll give a good high-level description of the process.
If the lipid nanoparticles linger longer than necessary, well, they'll eventually get absorbed by some cell. If the mRNA in the nanoparticle hasn't degraded, then the cell's ribosome will start producing SARS2 antigens, and your body's killer T cells will eliminate them as if they were a virus-infected cell. If the nanoparticle delivers inactive mRNA into a cell, it will eventually be expelled with the other kruft that accumulates in cells via exocytosis or other waste expulsion mechanisms (of which I'm not really up on the details).
This is a kind-of dumbed down explanation from a reliable source (Mayo clinic): https://www.mayoclinic.org/johnson-johnson-adenovirus-vaccine-explained/vid-20510091
But this is also how viral infections have to work. A virus does not carry its own machinery to make proteins from its DNA or RNA--instead, it hijacks that machinery from the cell it takes over. In order for a virus to replicate, it *has* to somehow take its genes and encode them into mRNA and get the cell's ribosomes to make copies of those proteins. This is where you get the Baltimore scheme for classifying viruses--basically the two relevant questions are "how does the virus store its information" and "how does the virus get mRNA to the cell's ribosomes to replicate?" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baltimore_classification
In order to trigger an adaptive immune response, the infected cell pretty-much has to be making proteins. The antibody response is driven by proteins that the cell secretes--I don't think you would even get an antibody response without having those proteins floating around in the plasma. (But someone correct me if I'm wrong.) The CTL response (the thing that clears the infection once it's present) is driven by fragments of proteins presented on the surface of the cell in a receptor (MHC1) that immune-system cells can read.
The Wikipedia article on viral vector vaccines isn't as clear about this, but does also explicitly say that the infected cell expresses antigen. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viral_vector_vaccine. You can also look at the entry for DNA vaccines (which are still kind-of experimental, as I understand things.
One difference between viral vectors and mRNA is the mechanism for gaining entry into the cells--viruses basically always have a cell receptor they're targeting, and they won't infect cells without that receptor[1]. I think the lipid bubbles used for mRNA can gain entry into pretty-much any cell type, but again, someone correct me if I'm wrong. (I'm still not 100% clear on how that lipid bubble gets into cells when viruses always have to use a receptor.)
[1] One interesting consequence of this is that sometimes people have immunity to a virus because they're got some mutation that makes the receptor that the virus targets have the wrong shape. There is apparently a small set of people who are more-or-less immune to HIV because of having a misshapen receptor that HIV uses to infect macrophages.
There are live attenuated virus vaccines that don't just have some mRNA get inside a cell and cause it to make some viral proteins, they actually infect the cell and cause it to make viral some proteins. It's hard to see how the mRNA vaccines aren't "really a vaccine" if live attenuated virus vaccines are. For that matter, the standard smallpox vaccine causes an actual infection with a related virus (I always heard it was cowpox, but I think it turns out to be a different pox virus). That's the oldest vaccine around, and I think it's even where the term "vaccine" comes from.
Also, there are covid vaccines that don't use mRNA. The J&J vaccine uses a viral vector (a strain of adenovirus that makes infected cells make spike protein, and doesn't make viruses). Again, this seems pretty similar to what the mRNA vaccines are doing, just with a different mechanism for getting the spike protein mRNA to the host cell's ribosomes. The Novavax covid vaccine is a subunit vaccine--it's just injecting you with some parts of the spike protein plus some adjuvant, as I understand it.
They aren't really a vaccine because they don't "really" trigger the immune system to create a lasting response. Yearly boosters for adults mean vaccine has failed. (could still be an effective treatment, but you're essentially doing little better than injecting someone else's antibodies into a person).
No, this is just totally wrong. All kinds of vaccines require boosters every so often. You personally have probably gotten tetanus boosters several times. And the bit about injecting someone's antibodies into a person is also completely wrong.
Weirdly, externally-made antibodies to covid *were* used in treating serious covid cases. Also I think they tried convalescent plasma (basically antibodies from someone who recovered), but IIRC without much success. There was even a medicine that injected long-lasting antibodies to covid in people. I think covid eventually evolved around those antibodies, but I don't know whether they were updated or not. (I stopped following covid so closely once the pandemic died down.)
Searching around, I find this; please tell me if there's a better source. (I could go to the linked cites, but there are 67; searching would take a long while.)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attenuated_vaccine
I'm passing familiar with LAVs. My understanding is that they typically work by introducing a neutralized or weakened form of the pathogen. The smallpox vaccine works this way, AIUI. It does not turn native cells into pathogens (or rather, pathogen simulators). We agree that LAVs can infect cells and lead to the immune system killing those cells, but that doesn't strike me as similar enough to rule out the concern.
I could find no example of LAVs that cause cells to "make viral some proteins". I assume you mean LAVs cause cells to generate substances (proteins or otherwise) that activate the immune system, but it's not clear whether such cells are killed because they resemble pathogens, or whether they simply appear to be sick.
If it turns out that LAVs *do* cause native cells to resemble pathogens, then I think I agree that either they and mRNA treatments both merit the term "vaccine", or neither do. (AFAIK, if there are LAVs that do this, then the people concerned about the mRNA mechanism are suddenly becoming aware that they should be concerned about such LAVs as well.)
Nitpick: I don't know quite what you mean about turning a cell into a pathogen. An infected cell ends up spending a lot of energy making copies of the virus, which may bud out of the cell somehow, or may just build up in the cell until the cell bursts open. Sometimes you also get latent infections, where the virus kind-of hides out in the cell and does a minimal amount of replication of viruses.
A cell that's been hijacked will show some fragments of the viral proteins it's making on its surface, and this allows CTLs (killer T-cells) to detect that the cell is infected. When they do, they send it signals to make it kill itself (apoptosis). (There is a bunch of other stuff going on--the immune system is fiercely complex.)
A famous example of a latent infection is shingles--you had chicken pox as a kid, you got better, but some of the herpes zoster found some cells to hide out in, and can pop back up and make you truly miserable when you're sick or otherwise run down, decades later. This is why those of us who had chicken pox as kids should get the shingles vaccine when we get old.
See above. A virus that infects a host cell and successfully replicates *has* to make copies of all the proteins that the new copies of the virus needs, because viruses don't carry their own protein-making machinery around with them.
The whole design of a virus is quite elegant--instead of spending all those resources to have ribosomes, cellular respiration, DNA- and RNA-copying machinery, etc., they just hijack that stuff in some susceptible cell. Some viruses carry some enzymes with them that the cell doesn't make, but they have to force the host cell to make more of those enzymes to pack into the next copy of the virus.
Thank you for stating this. You saved me the typing. ;-)
Dr. Malone is just as respectable and reputed as the rest of them. There are nobel prizewinners in biology running up the flag on vaccine injuries (specifically "rapid onset" CJ).
It's easy to lose faith in the system when it suddenly discovers that "informed consent" is "optional". When nurses decide to ventilate people based on how noisy they are...
I discussed that with my expert friends. They each independently said the same thing - they thought he was using his credentials to create a narrative he himself didn't believe, for the publicity it would generate.
Look I don't know directly how to assess these dissenters with credentials. I'm only sharing what my friends who are highly educated in biology (one in immunology, one in epidemiology) said.
If you can think Big Pharma can be corrupt enough to kill people for the profits, why not hold the dissenters to the same standards?
Given the chicken research on non-sterilizing vaccines, I thought Malone had a reasonable point.
https://asm.org/podcasts/mtm/episodes/095-the-evolution-of-virulence-with-andrew-read
We don't even really have evidence to show that the vaccines continue to provide protection (and may in fact provide weaknesses, aka ADE):
https://academic.oup.com/ofid/article/10/6/ofad209/7131292?login=false
Israeli data is also out there, showing an increase in the frequency of demanded vaccination "boosters" (this is showing that the vaccine's effectivity is wearing off more quickly).
Geez, you're jumping all over the place in your arguments. But whatever Malone's previous credentials, he went off the deep end by the time COVID appeared. He promoted HCQ and Ivermectin (which turned the gullible away from getting vaccinated), and Malone started the fear-memes about the toxicity of spike proteins generated by some vaccines. He should not be in a position of responsibility for health policy. Although he hasn't killed with his own hands, his idiocy probably caused the deaths of thousands, perhaps hundreds of thousands of people who bought into his claims.
Given the widespread use of HCQ by the elites, you should be able to show many dead CEOs, if your hypothesis is correct. Unless you believe that you both needed to listen to Malone AND have poor health care (or that suddenly after the vaccines, HCQ became a bad treatment, whereas before it was non-deadly -- or the alternate, which is that "vaccines" (quotes because treatment != vaccine) were so good that use of any substitute treatment caused harm).
If you haven't read the research on the continuing production of spike proteins by people who have been vaccinated, you really, really ought to. That's at about 50% of people who have been vaccinated continue to produce spike proteins at the end of the study.
/me pulls up a different study, the one I was referencing above is Italian.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/40184822/
17 months past vaccination. We'll note that epidemiologically speaking, we're seeing an "unexpected and baffling" spike of strokes in the 30-45 year age group. Also, heart attacks "caused by cold showers" in 20somethings (enough that the government is spending money to tell people not to do it -- a reminder that this is standard practice in the Navy for the past fifty years, and thus probably not ordinarily deadly to 20somethings).
Evidence of regulatory capture by drug companies:
FDA: allowed banned substandard drug factories in India to keep exporting to the US
Also FDA: attempts (rather spuriously) to ban antacid pills (completely), because they are being used by individuals as a treatment/prophylactic against covid19. Rolls back the ban when users complain.
I suppose the dissenters could be interested in killing people, but they aren't doing the whole "brought to you by Pfizer" thing where they fund all the news. They also aren't getting compliance from the Smithsonian in removing "wrongthink" exhibits, designed to erode trust in public health.
In short, when you look at the little guy, it's not plausible to think he has anywhere near the capability to harm you, as the multibillion dollar company that has already shown capabilities to manipulate the government into harming patients (opiods).
The dissenters got cushy jobs thanks entirely to their dissenting publicly.
You do realize the nobel prize winner is dead, right? I'm fairly certain that Dr. Folds didn't need a cushy job either.
https://scholarlycommons.hcahealthcare.com/internal-medicine/420/
Steph Seneff didn't need a cushy job, she works at MIT (okay, I can see where you might flag her as a crank ("does not work in the field" is a redflag). Read her citations, they're solid).
What, four years later, under Trump? Malone had his name run through the mud, in numerous publications that were not "trade publications" (aka "Man on the Street" associated him with "crank").
Malone already had a cushy job consulting with OWS before he started speaking out (no, I don't know how much he was paid for that. FOIA it if you want).
Kill people for the profits? No, god no, you don't kill people for profit. You make them sick, endlessly sick. Better yet, you know how they're sick, so you can control it, and regulate their sickness with your pills. "Take our pills and you'll feel better! Yes, never as good as your parents felt, but oh well! They died of stomach cancer!"
Except that vaccines are not making people "endlessly sick." Infant mortality rates have plummeted over the last 50 years. Globally, they’ve fallen by over two-thirds, from around 10% in 1974 to less than 3% today. A study in The Lancet indicated that increased access to crucial vaccines has reduced infant mortality rates by 40% compared to what they would be in a world without vaccines.
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(24)00850-X/fulltext
It's going to be a difficult hill for you to climb to claim that Big Pharma is making people endlessly sick while life expectancy keeps getting longer.
https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/life-expectancy
As for cancers, The cancer death rate has been continuously declining for two decades. The trend only went up in 2021, the year with the most COVID-19 deaths—probably because cancer patients had weaker immune systems and died at higher rates than previous years.
You may have grounds to criticize Big Pharma on what they charge consumers, but obviously, you're wrong that Big Pharma is making things worse.
I was -definitely- not talking "vaccines are making people endlessly sick" (the mRNA treatments are a different, and new, issue. We can leave it aside, as it's pretty much not relevant to "endless deliberate sickness" -- and as a sidenote, military projects don't generally aim to make people sick, though their "long term prospects" are probably a lower consideration than "current military readiness").
What are big prescription winners, that don't seem to do much for people, other than "make test number go down"? Statins. SSRI's (that increase seritonin levels, but there's little evidence that low seritonin causes depression). And then we have the "anti-amyloid plaques" treatments for Altzheimers: donanemab (Kisunla) and lecanemab-irmb (Leqembi), that don't actually stop type III diabetes (the amyloid plaques are a desperation move by your body, removing them doesn't fix the root cause). Do I even need to mention handing children modified methamphetamine (ritalin?).
Big Pharma told doctors that "high test numbers" were bad, and then they handed doctors magical tools to "make test numbers go down" and incidentally, get Big Pharma money.
The drugs that I discuss above all have side effects, and some of them are pretty severe. I knew personally a researcher on a crusade to show that SSRIs were a worse treatment than "just talk to a psychologist."
Sounds like a conspiracy theory. By that I mean a theory, that in order to be true, would need thousands of people to conspire together
Possible but unlikely
I think ambitious people routinely bet on which person running for president in 4 years might win and audition by publicly stating positions. For plum jobs in the next administration. It's not a new phenomenon.
Are we discussing "publically available conspiracy theories" as "possible but unlikely" at this point? I mean, I understand that Enron was possible but unlikely, but they put their scamming into their documents to auditors.
Likewise, this is an investigated issue, like LIAR loans (which did take conspiracy level rules for loans in order to get disparate impact for blacks).
https://www.npr.org/2022/02/25/1082901958/opioid-settlement-johnson-26-billion
I don't think in 2021, when Trump was loudly saying "I made that!" about the vaccines, one would "obviously" bet that saying "the vaccines are a bad idea" would get you a plum job in the next administration. Please bear in mind that stabbing Trump in the back was the hobby of people /he had employed/ in his administration, at that time. He was considered a dead man walking, and the whole "antivaccine" craziness doesn't seem like a winning ticket if the popular candidate for Republican, Liz Cheney was going to win office.
There is an ongoing war between two nations that don't border each other, Israel and Iran. Previously, only America could go to war with nations that it didn't border because we have bases and aircraft carriers all over the world. But now it's apparently possible for Israel, which is miniscule but rich, and Iran, which is medium-sized but poor, to manage a fairly damaging war against each other. Presumably this ability is now available to everyone besides the very most poor and corrupt nations. What are the second and third order consequences of this shift?
- Maybe nothing changes, because mostly people only hate their neighbors enough to want to fight them?
- Maybe nothing changes, because all these long-distance wars will turn into standoffs?
- Does Brazil become the dominant power in South America? If yes, what does that actually get it? If Brazil tried to coerce Chile, would Chile actually give Brazil some concessions or would it just make the Chileans mad?
- Does the ocean get de facto partitioned into domains, with everybody able with ballistic anti-ship missiles to easily sink ships even far out at sea? Or does it not get partitioned, because missiles are now accurate at such long ranges that any ship anywhere is vulnerable? (China has tested an anti-ship missile with enough range to sink ships near Hawaii from mainland China. Probably all of the world's medium-sized nations could build the same thing if they wanted to.) If its not partitioned, then how does naval power work?
That went so badly that it's either funny or embarassing. I meant to start a discussion about the way that long-range missiles have proliferated since the end of the cold war. Almost no one understood my original post that way, and most of the answers were about ancient wars. I did get to learn about Kadesh, which is cool I guess.
I wonder what the two furthest-apart countries that have ever been at war would be. I'm thinking it's probably Germany and New Zealand.
Other people have already said that wars between nations that don't neighbor each other are already common.
I was curious what the first one was. In the west, Kadesh probably qualifies since their spheres of influence bordered but not the nations themselves. And if that doesn't count you have overseas campaigns in the Eastern Mediterranean shortly thereafter. However, there's also evidence from the Unification of Egypt or the Sumerian City-States that they sometimes sent armies through other states to fight for political objectives. Which would push it back a few thousand years. So maybe more than 5,000 years ago depending on how strict you count as not bordering.
In the East the answer is probably the Spring and Autumn period, so about 2,500 years ago, which often involved sending armies to accomplish political objectives in more distant states. Especially early on. Chengpu is an example but there are likely less famous earlier battles. I'm pretty sure not every state that fought over the capital bordered it.
And the rest of the world doesn't get good historical records until later on.
I don't understand your surprise to this war as if it were revolutionary. Long range precision strikes have been a feature of war for some time. What was impressive was Israels intelligence gathering and operaiton itself, but the tools are nothing new.
So
- well it's not that nothing will change, but not much will change because Israele demonstrated it can use it's airforce.
- this type of long range wars usually end depending on magazine depth and economic and sociaetal resilience of one actor. In This case it's particularly a dangerous situation for Iran, but assuming they can avoid regime changes from the population or rebels Israel will not be able to have a classic "complete victory" that can come by having troops on the ground
- again, the biggest obstacle to two decently armed countries attacking each other is not the distance but a list of other factors such as political consequences, economica consequences, social protest and for now a sort of international order which is partially unraveling. The last factor is a serious danger to international stability, not the long distance capabilities.
- no, but i will let someone who knows more about naval warfare respond to this.
If you are really looking at breakthroughs in military capabilities drones are definitely one.
Democratizing striking capabilities in a way we still have to completly understand, Ukraine war is a perfect example.
Have a good day
I would think England and Germany would qualify here. They’ve gone at it twice last century pretty hard.
WWI broke out with Austro-Hungary invading Serbia, then Germany, France, Britain, Russia and the Ottoman Empire were dragged in due a complex series of mutual defence treaties that they had. It's not accurate to say German fought England.
Similarly in WWII, Germany invaded the Czech Republic and Poland, with the very explicit goal of capturing neighbouring territory. I agree that the Battle of Britain and the British bombing of Germany fit into this idea of a remote war fought by bombers against a mostly civilian populace. But the majority of the war was fought by neighbouring countries, perhaps reinforced by allies from further afield.
If you listen to my British grandfather who was at the Somme you sure get the impression Britain and Germany were fighting a war
Yeah ok. Japan and the USA?
Also England and France, though not QUITE as recently.
Oh yes. They have had a few argie-bargies.. I left them out in case someone might consider the English channel a border,
Before the Russian invasion we were in an unusually peaceful period, with deaths from war falling fairly consistently from WWII to the present. The UN, NATO, EU and similar organisations seem to provide a deterrent to war. The phrase is out of fashion but the international rules-based order provides deterrents to launching missiles at any other country. There hasn't been a major war in South America since the 1930s - I don't see Brazil kicking one off just because Israel 'got away with it' (which remains to be seen).
Outside of a small number of rogue states (I'll draw ire for including Israel in this category along with Russia and Iran) most wars in the world are civil wars. In the context of the question, they're not even between neighbouring countries. I can think of very few countries which would have the capacity or willingness to start a war with a faraway country, at the risk of the type of sanctions imposed on Russia since 2022.
You can count Russian-Ukrainian conflict as a 'civil war'. Both countries were parts of the single country (USSR) not too long ago, a lot of cultural similarities (and Eastern Ukraine /Crimea are majority-Russian-speaking...)
I wouldn't! They've been separate countries for over 30 years now, albeit with a complex history. To call it a civil war delegitimises all the countries from behind the Iron Curtain, and is just not how the term is used. Would you call the War of 1812 a Civil War in the history of the USA?
>> I wouldn't!
That is also ok; just pointing out this conflict has several characteristics that make it quite similar to civil wars.
>> They've been separate countries for over 30 years now
The conflict started in 2014 (2022 was a major escalation, but not the beginning!).
And not much changed in the first few years of independence (till about 96?), so I would formulate it like 'Russia and Ukraine were substantially separate countries for ~18 years before the start of the conflict'.
>> Would you call the War of 1812 a Civil War in the history of the USA?
Don't know pre-WW2 USA history that well, not enough data to form an opinion...
Also the Civil war of 1776.
Yes, that was a Civil war, in the sense that it was internal to the British Empire at the time (though one often distinguishes successful Revolutions from unsuccessful Civil Wars, and one treats far-away colonies a little differently).
Venezuela is fighting for territory, last I checked. Biden was going to turn a blind eye in order to get their oil. Not sure where this one wound up.
There's no invasion or fighting. Venezuela loudly claimed a bunch of Guyana, raised some flags, changed some maps, and paraded a bunch of soldiers around. Nothing more significant has happened than that.
Interesting - I did not know about this. Wikipedia suggests that there's been little if any actual fighting, though I may have missed something. There doesn't seem to have been a war between separate states with more than say 1,000 casualties in South America in a long, long time.
Against Guyana: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guyana–Venezuela_crisis_(2023–2024)
If you count areas separated by sea, then "wars between places that don't border each other" have been with us since ancient times.
I'm also surprised that there aren't good directed energy point defences yet. That seems like it would really raise the bar on viable drone attacks, though I guess you could just wait for clouds.
The Trojan War would probably be the first recorded example, to the extent that it counts as recorded and an example.
I think sea separation still allows for cheap and rapid transport of force (weapons, soldiers, whatever); it's probably better to think of two nations sharing a sea as sharing a border. I think what's new about Isreal/Iran is that it's the first war free from "the tyranny of the wagon equation".
ACOUP has some excellent discussion on the impact of seas/rivers here:
https://acoup.blog/2019/07/19/the-lonely-city-part-ii-real-cities-have-curves/
and on the logistical challenges of projecting force here:
https://acoup.blog/2022/07/15/collections-logistics-how-did-they-do-it-part-i-the-problem/
Not an expert, but my understanding is that for lasers the wavelengths most useful for damage (e.g. infrared) are also preferentially absorbed by the atmosphere, rendering them both short-range and extremely lossy.
OTOH, a *contested* naval landing is among the most dangerous things an invading army can do.
> I'm also surprised that there aren't good directed energy point defences yet. That seems like it would really raise the bar on viable drone attacks, though I guess you could just wait for clouds.
There are- the SPY-1 radar used as part of the Aegis system (and similar systems) is absolutely capable of destroying or incapacitating drones, its just not its primary purpose. 6 MW of RF energy pumped down a pencil sized beam will fry all of the circuitry needed to fly a drone in very short order.
You might enjoy the Laser Wars blog - https://www.laserwars.net. People are working on it, and getting some successes in staged tests.
Thank you so much for reading Laser Wars! It’s a labor of love!
I was and remain confused about the "genocide in Gaza" narrative. Will someone make a compelling case for it?
My position is simple and probably boringly familiar: the casualty figures (~55k/20months according to the Gaza Health Ministry), while large, stay well below the natural growth of the population (~54k/year pre-war EDIT: actually 47k = 54k births - 7k deaths), do not threaten annihilation or massive reduction of the population size, and are slowing down (half of total casualties so far were in the first 4 months - 20% of the war so far). I have misgivings about some of the policies adopted by the Israeli army and after reading deeply about several well-documented cases I think some may amount to war crimes (I'm an Israeli Jew and I support the war on Hamas, despite these misgivings). But I cannot see how any of them amount to "genocide" or "ongoing genocide", if the word is to remain meaningful.
When I read news stories about how "leading scholars of genocide agree that Israel is committing genocide in Gaza", it makes me want to question the whole field of scholarship of genocide, if it converges on such an absurd, on its face, accusation. Am I being obtuse or annoyingly literal about what the word "genocide" could mean? But if it does not mean at least something like "a serious attempt to kill an entire national/ethnic/religious/etc. group or at least a very substantial part of it", does it then not lose its moral force as a uniquely evil thing?
To steelman the argument of those calling it a genocide, I think you need to separate the scholarly world and the layman usage.
Assuming a Western perspective, the most salient usage of the word 'genocide' refers to what European Jews experienced after the Nuremberg laws in Germany and other occupied parts of Europe. Usually the topic is brought up together with various other antisemitic pieces of legislation, civic and cultural biases, which are implicitly and explicitly assumed as the justification for the ultimate attempt at exterminating European Jews.
This is probably why the word 'genocide' evokes images of segregation, of forced removal, of ethnic cleansing, despite those things being peripheral to the actual definition of the word. I think part of the reason why all these discriminatory practices ended up being lumped together conceptually despite their varying degrees of gravity is because of the phenomenon Scott wrote about recently, where pushing back on matters of principle when talking about controversial subjects looks like defending the worst side.
(as an example, I can easily imagine a conversation where a person would state "The removal of citizenship from German Jews was the beginning of the genocide". Would anybody correct this statement if it came up in a conversation? Probably not. And yet it reinforces the connection that 'removal of citizenship' is part of the broader category of 'genocide', or a precursor to it)
In this sense, I think it's more or less understandable why laypeople would use the word to refer to general mass murder, ethnic cleansing or organized, state-sponsored discrimination.
Personally, I wish everyone just stuck to 'ethnic cleansing', which is a heinous enough crime and seems to be what is actually happening in Gaza and the occupied territories in general
In the future, every ethnic group will be a victim of genocide for 15 minutes.
Cute... ( Though, if ASI is built, and it decides that humans are in its way, well... Though it probably wouldn't sequence our elimination one ethnic group at a time... )
Wait, are we back to the AI doom thread?
Note that the law against genocide includes the usual "inchoate offences":
(1) conspiracy to commit genocide;
(2) incitement to commit genocide;
(3) attempt to commit genocide;
(4) complicity in genocide.
Before you dismiss those as insignificant, note that under *Israeli law* they are all considered significant enough to mandate the death penalty. Why? Because the law against genocide isn't just there to allow us to identify, after the fact, that a group has been genocided and then apply an appropriate punishment. It's there to try to prevent genocide.
As such, any criterion should be the minimum necessary to identify that a genocide has started. Although 'burden of proof' arguments are usually purely vacuous debating tactics, here I think it is quite reasonable to say that you bear the burden of proof here: you are proposing that genocide should only be identified when the perpetrator manages to exterminate the victim group at a higher rate than the birth rate. Why is it necessary to wait until then, if other elements (intent, willingness to kill large numbers of civilians, babies, pregnant mothers, etc) have been established?
In terms of the current situation, it's worth noting that Israeli leaders have made statements which are clearly "incitement to genocide" and they therefore have a vested interest in using all the means open to them to maintain the narrative that no such thing is going on. Given that if a future Israeli administration were to ever take it seriously, they could be facing a firing squad.
If the people in question are intentionally hiding their combatants behind civilians, does that mean they are guilty of auto-genocide?
If they are hiding their combatants behind civilians and claiming they aren't, are they guilty of perfidy? What's the penalty for that, if so?
I agree. I think there are a lot of things you can dislike about Netanyahu, Likud, Mossad, the war in Gaza etc with out jumping straight to “genocide!1!!1”
In the Holocaust, Nazis rounded up tens of thousands of Ukrainian Jews and shot them in the back of the head. In a single day. That’s a genocide. Blowing up a hospital where Hamas is hiding and not caring that you kill a bunch of innocent children is… not great? Lacking in humanity and empathy? Would be nice to demonstrate to the international community that you considered every single possible way of de-escalating the conflict before choosing this option? Perhaps should symbolically pay homage to the dead children in some way? But calling it a genocide is like calling Trump Hitler, it’s silly and hyperbolic and it means I stop listening to you.
Yeah, you can make a legitimate complaint that the IDF isn't being as careful about civilian casualties as they should, or that they aren't policing their own soldiers' behavior as closely as they should, but there's no way make that into genocide. Instead, I think this is one of those things where some word becomes useful as a club to beat your enemies with, and so you just start overusing it. Many things are bad without being genocide.
If Israel wanted to kill everyone in Gaza, they could get most of that done in an afternoon.
So far, they've killed 3% of the population in 1.5 years. At that rate the population is probably still increasing.
The constant warnings to Gazans to evacuate certain areas before they're attacked are also hard to explain if the intent is genocidal.
So for me it's definitely not a genocide in the "trying to kill everyone" sense. If you think it's a genocide in some other sense, be specific so the discussion can have some chance of being communicative.
The population of Gaza is estimated to have fallen about 6% since the start of the war, with more of the decline coming from people leaving than deaths. I imagine birth rates have fallen too, but I don't have numbers.
It's not genocide, though some of the more far-right members of the Israeli government would like to take a harsher stance on Gaza if they could get away with it.
Yeh though even they never go explicitly beyond endosing ethnic cleansing
> does it then not lose its moral force as a uniquely evil thing?
No, I think most people are still gullible enough to continue taking them seriously.
I completely agree that I want people to make a compelling case for it. And the only way you can do that--as in, make a case that's compelling or even remotely persuasive to anyone who doesn't already agree with you--is to provide (a) some clear, unambiguous, and above all politically neutral definition that (b) distinguishes between a genocide and a war where one side is badly losing, and (c) prove that you equally condemn, and devote equal energy and effort and time to condemning, all wars and conflicts that meet that definition.[1]
This is really, really, really important. First because, let's say Israel is indeed committing a genocide.[2] If you want to stop this genocide, the most effective way you could do so is by convincing either the Israeli government, the US government, a sufficiently large part of the bipartisan US population, or possibly a sufficiently large number of other western countries' governments and populations that a genocide is occuring. And the *worst thing* you could possibly do for that purpose is use a vague, biased, or otherwise muddy criteria for distinguishing lopsided war from genocide that is, or looks like it could be, changed or applied
differently depending on the countries and ethnic groups involved. (That's absolutely guaranteed to cause almost all the people whose opinions being changed would have a substantial effect to disregard everything you say.) While the *best* thing you could possibly do is consitently use a crystal clear, unquestionably politically neutral definition that very aggressively removes all possibility that its use changes depending on whether the perpetrator is a US ally, on the skin colour of the groups involved, or on anything else like that.
And second, because if Israel is in any way even the slightest bit persuadable to change anything about what they do at all, the *best thing* you can do is give them a genocide definition based on clear actions of theirs with the *certainty* that, were they to stop doing those actions, their behaviour would no longer be called a genocide, no matter how much you disapprove of it. And the *worst thing* you could possibly do is talk in a way that makes it highly likely that no matter what they change you will still find a way to accuse them of genocide, unless they do absolutely everything you want.[3]
And I think it's pretty clear that the latter approach is being used by the vast majority of Israel's critics. Which means that--given that persistently using and popularising sloppy and biased definitions of genocide discredits not only your use of the term but everyone else's (including those who actually are using it in a principled fair way), and given that discrediting such terms is a positive act that directly reduces the likelihood that influential people will take the accusation seriously--these people are, *more than anyone else except its direct supporters*, complicit in whatever genocide that is occuring!
So, for the love God, please, provide a clear definition, that distinguishes lopsided war from genocide and *is applied consistently to all countries*, if you care *at all* about preventing genocides, and not just about promoting a particular political agenda.
[1] I wouldn't necessarily firmly hold a random commentator to this, since ordinary people are going to have biases, even though it still definitely and significantly reduces their moral authority on the topic. But if the UN, for example, calls one country's act a genocide while having previously not called a different country's similar act one, then nobody (who isn't already a partisan in that direction) will, or should, give any weight whatsoever to what the UN says on the topic. Same for any other prominent institution.
[2] I am legitimately not taking a position on this, since I don't know all the facts and factual claims.
[3] And it's a million times worse if you are calling their current policy a genocide and, before that policy was implemented, you were previously accusing them of genocide anyway.
I agree. Instead of telling people your conclusion, give them a list of facts you based your conclusion on. (Check the list twice, to exclude known hoaxes.) If the facts are sufficiently strong, they can make the conclusion themselves.
Thus is 100 percent correct (if the goal is to save lives, rather than to simply claim outrage or to express one's priors . A rather big if, unfortunately).
the casualty figures are only identified bodies and likely a significant underestimate, especially after the collapse of Gaza's hospital network
Estimates of the total traumatic deaths (around 80,000) aren't high enough to affect the argument.
Do you think there is likely to be twice the reported casualty figures? Three times? Ten times? Seems unlikely that the numbers we got could be 1/10th the reality, but even if there are ten times as many deaths then it's still only about 28% of the population. Over 66% of the Jewish population of Europe was killed during that genocide: in Poland, which started with the largest population and where the genocide was carried out the most thoroughly, it was more like 88% killed.
You'd need the actual casualties to be unrealistically higher than the estimates to get in spitting distance of a genocide.
Humans need food to live, and Gazans aren't exactly capable of producing it under current conditions at anywhere near their population numbers. They're in refugee camps, not on farms, and in a tiny portion of the place's pre-war territory.
The slaughter of journalists, blocking of humanitarian aid, and recent massacres of crowds seeking food distribution have very disturbing implications.
It really seems that the goal of all these actions are not to eradicate the people of Gaza but to force Hamas to surrender and/or release the hostages. It seems pretty clear that if Hamas surrendered tomorrow, or even just released all the remaining hostages tomorrow, then Israel would not continue to restrict food aid into Gaza.
Israel has refused deals of "we free the hostages in exchange for ending the ethnic cleansing campaign" and its policies of mass extermination have surely caused the deaths of many of the hostages
I think it refers to the effective collective punishment, brutalizing, and limited starving of a very captive Gaza population. The number of non combatant casualties is very large, and it appears many children are shot intentionally. Even if it is only a fraction of a genocide, does that make it better? Israel's actions are morally repulsive, as repulsive as a genocide, so the term is used.
Caveat: In the US, the gaza war is covered by very partisan sources in the US, so it's really hard to know the truth. Many seem to omit the whole story, with headlines like "Military opens fire on crowd of hungry people in food line" and the article omits the likely probability that some were armed. But overwhelmingly, it appears that civilians are being destroyed and maimed. And that is sad and terrible.
Sad and terrible, but we should still care about getting our claims right.
When George Floyd was killed by some Minneapolis cops, one common line floating around was that this was a racist lynching. Now, here's the thing: this just wasn't true. Floyd's death was a very bad thing, apparently caused by the cops applying a dangerous restraint technique in an incompetent or careless way. But calling it a racist lynching was just bullshit. Perhaps effective rhetoric, but still bullshit.
Calling the war in Gaza genocide seems the same, to me. It can be bad without being genocide, so make the case that it's bad or needlessly bad or whatever, but don't pretend it's genocide just to get everyone's attention.
Do you change your mind about Floyd if you know the coroner's cause of death was covid19? If not, why not?
{Citation needed}
a. The initial coroner's report said he tested positive for covid and fentanyl, but not that either was the cause of death.
b. None of this is relevant to whether or not Floyd's death was the result of a racial lynching, as neither dying of covid or heart attack or fentanyl overdose or positional asphyxia from the way the cops restrained him would remotely qualify.
Scott recently wrote a short article about exactly this type of thing, entitled, "If It's Worth Your Time To Lie, It's Worth My Time To Correct It".
Civilians dying in war is indeed sad and terrible, but calling it a genocide just makes you look unserious. Is Russia committing a genocide against Ukrainians? They sure have killed a lot of non-combatants.
If one were to swallow the UN definition, then part (e) is satisfied by
>Evidence strongly suggests that Russia has been involved in the seizure and forced transfer of Ukrainian children
.(from a Gemini AI overview - usual warning apply!)
I think the UN definition is so far removed from what people ordinarily mean by genocide as to be batshit insane.
The UN definition seems pretty solidly to match what I think people ordinarily mean by genocide. If you want to argue that Russia taking Ukrainian children for the purpose of destroying their Ukrainian culture and heritage is an act of genocide, I will listen. But the civilian deaths occurring from missile strike and bombings don't seem at all like genocide to me, they seem like what happens when two states go to war.
Many Thanks!
>The UN definition seems pretty solidly to match what I think people ordinarily mean by genocide.
Hmm, ok, we may be seeing different samples of ordinary people. My experience is that the overwhelming use of the term that I've seen has focused on the killing of a population, not on any of the other clauses that the UN stuck in its definition.
>If you want to argue that Russia taking Ukrainian children for the purpose of destroying their Ukrainian culture and heritage is an act of genocide, I will listen.
Oops, sorry! I didn't mean that I took that position, just that it matched the UN's definition (if there was actually intent). Personally, I suspect that, since Russia has a TFR of 1.42, Putin may be motivated by a grab for future cannon fodder rather than an intent to destroy Ukraine as a culture.
>But the civilian deaths occurring from missile strike and bombings don't seem at all like genocide to me, they seem like what happens when two states go to war.
Agreed.
Given the uses that I've seen of the term, I think the UN should have kept the definition to _just_ the case whether the target group is being killed.
Maybe, in analogy with the distinction between opiates and opioids, they should have defined another term, maybe genocioid, to cover the broader list of _other_ grievances, separate from killings, that they put into their definition.
Most of the upset of the form "well then, *everything* is genocide" seems to stem from worry that what seems to you (and I) as not-genocide will be ruled genocide anyway, by someone who really, really wants to. (And who might have first crack at the referee's ear.)
Therefore, it should be wrong to interpret the UN definition that way, and therefore, there should be an agreed-upon principle limiting such interpretations. Currently, there appears to be no such principle. (Other than perhaps "don't annoy the West too much", but no one wants that to be the official principle.)
I'm more upset that if you call things that are not genocide "genocide" then the word loses it's meaning. Genocide is a specific very bad thing, if you conflate it with other bad things then we won't have a word for that thing anymore. Not to mention that the word comes with emotional and moral connotations whereby calling something a genocide gets people to think it is worse than it actually may be.
It's good that we have a UN definition so there is a definition of genocide that people across the world can use to communicate with each other. I don't see any problem with it.
And as a followup question, what wars (1900 and later) _don't_ count as genocides by these standards?
OK, fine, we can think of some very low-civilian-casualty affairs, but are most big wars genocides? Are some of them mutual genocides? Were the British genociding the Germans as the Germans were genociding the British?
Maybe civil wars?
Let's not go the opposite extreme, where unless 90% of population is exterminated, it is "not true genocide".
I would prefer to stay on the level of stating the facts, rather than arguing definitions, but since it seems inevitable, check Wikipedia: "disintegration of the political and social institutions, of culture, language, national feelings, religion, and the economic existence of national groups", if those are not unrelated crimes, but parts of a single purpose.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genocide
According to that definition, yes, if Russians ban the use of Ukrainian language, destroy their historical books and monuments, if they specifically exterminate authors and poets, take children away from parents for reeducation, and teach them at schools that there is no such thing as "Ukrainians" but they are actually "little Russians", then yes, this completely fits the traditional definition of genocide.
>> if Russians ban the use of Ukrainian language
But they don't - no restrictions on the use of Ukrainian between private parties (compare that with bans on Russian language in Ukraine), and also Ukrainian is an official language in some of the annexed regions
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic_of_Crimea_(Russia)
https://www.rt.com/russia/577871-russian-region-ukrainian-official-language/
>> destroy their historical books and monuments
Like which ones, and how 'historical' are they? After 2014, a lot of streets in Ukraine were renamed to honor Nazi allies/collaborators (example: Shukhevych avenue in Kyiv), and in areas controlled by Russia, that was reverted (back to pre-2014 state).
>> if they specifically exterminate authors and poets, take children away from parents for reeducation
Haven't heard about anything like that on a large scale, any links to check if this is happening?
>> teach them at schools that there is no such thing as "Ukrainians" but they are actually "little Russians"
Might it be conflation of 'Russian' as an ethnicity (1) vs. 'Russian' as in 'citizen of Russia' (2)?
Of course, state of Russia would emphasize (2) in their school program and put any ethnicity as secondary - but that is pretty natural and widespread? (Or do you expect e.g. US government to use Hawaiian for school instruction in Hawaii, and also talk at length how US annexed Hawaii after a US-lead coup in late 19th century?)
> no restrictions on the use of Ukrainian between private parties
I guess that is incredibly generous by Russian standards.
> and how 'historical' are they?
https://www.pravda.com.ua/eng/news/2022/10/19/7372573/
Well, yes, monuments like this are post-Soviet, because obviously it wouldn't be possible to build a monument to Soviet crimes during Soviet Union.
But also: https://www.reddit.com/r/ukraine/comments/ulvosh/in_the_temporarily_occupied_mangush_donetsk/
> Haven't heard about anything like that on a large scale
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executed_Renaissance
> Might it be conflation of 'Russian' as an ethnicity (1) vs. 'Russian' as in 'citizen of Russia' (2)?
Nope, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Russia#Modern_usage
>> no restrictions on the use of Ukrainian between private parties
> I guess that is incredibly generous by Russian standards.
This is incredibly generous by _Ukrainian_ standards, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_Ukraine_%22On_protecting_the_functioning_of_the_Ukrainian_language_as_the_state_language%22
>> and how 'historical' are they?
> https://www.pravda.com.ua/eng/news/2022/10/19/7372573/
Holodomor is very politicized, there are two narratives - one is that it was a deliberate action to kill peasants in Ukraine (and that is used to incite anti-Russian sentiment), another that it was gross mismanagement & class warfare coupled with transition to large-scale farms (without any ethnic components); see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_famine_of_1930%E2%80%931933; note that a lot of peasants died in Russia of the exactly the same causes at the same time.
So the monument in question is a) quite recent b) can be viewed as anti-state propaganda - so not surprising it was dismantled.
FWIW, Ukraine dismantled a lot of Lenin statues, although they were there for 50+ years, and Lenin was the main proponent of affirmative action in favor of Ukrainian's (in Ukraine, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korenizatsiia)
>> Haven't heard about anything like that on a large scale
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executed_Renaissance
Wait, are we talking about current conflict or about all injustices since the beginning of times?
USSR/Russia condemned a lot of Stalin's government actions _decades_ ago...
>> Might it be conflation of 'Russian' as an ethnicity (1) vs. 'Russian' as in 'citizen of Russia' (2)?
> Nope, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Russia#Modern_usage
Ok, any links / reports on school textbooks (vs. some corners of the blogosphere) using it like this (and which are not talking about 18th-19th century, when the term was widely used)?
>Let's not go the opposite extreme, where unless 90% of population is exterminated, it is "not true genocide".
Wouldn't dream of it. I define genocide as attempting to eradicate a people group in whole or in part. Non-combatants dying during a war does not meet that definition, they have to be killed with the intent of wiping out their people group. The non-combatant deaths in Gaza and in Ukraine seem perfectly explicable as being the expected result of a war happening.
Do we consider the west, last seen kidnapping Ukrainian children not to reeducate them, but to rape and then murder them when they're too old to be sweet child pornography, to be fitting the traditional definition of genocide? Is it the criminal nature of the mass kidnappings, or the idea that it's oligarchs and not government doing it?
No idea what you are talking about. Perhaps a link would help?
Are you seriously asking for a link to child pornography? (It's the biggest industry in Ukraine, passing wheat now that most of the farmland has been turned into a giant shrubbery.).
Well for one thing, the conditions in Gaza aren't conducive to accurate tracking of deaths. For another, "the natural growth rate of the population" is probably significantly lower when they're starving in a rubble-strewn hellscape.
Watch any video from Gaza and compare the people you see with pictures from real famines. They look nothing alike.
There are occasional food shortages, which is bad enough, but the reports of widespread starvation are simply untrue.
https://mei.edu/publications/russia-ukraine-war-has-turned-egypts-food-crisis-existential-threat-economy
You sure about that? If Egypt is seeing dramatic price spikes and "can't buy at any cost" ... that's not going to be good for Gazans who don't have much money, in comparison.
Under the Genocide Convention, genocide does not require that anyone die; rather, it requires only the commission of certain listed acts* "with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:"
The key words there are "intent to destroy" and "as such." I am dubious that Israel has the requisite intent. But, more importantly, an accusation of genocide in any but the most obvious case is counterproductive: If I accuse you of genocide, you know for sure whether you are guilty of it, because you know your own intent. And if you know that you do not have the requisite intent, you can simply ignore my accusation.
In contrast, if I accuse you of war crimes, such as failing to "refrain from deciding to launch any attack which may be expected to cause incidental loss of civilian life, injury to civilians, damage to civilian objects, or a combination thereof, which would be excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated;" https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/en/ihl-treaties/api-1977/article-57 , you can't dismiss that accusation, because that is a judgment call.
*(a) Killing members of the group; (b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; (c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; (d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; (e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.
> The key words there are "intent to destroy" and "as such."
No, the key words there are "in part". You might notice that all warfare automatically satisfies this definition, as long as one side's military forces sometimes draw soldiers from the same country they're fighting for.
> You might notice that all warfare automatically satisfies this definition
Only if you ignore the legal rulings clarifying what "in part" means (eg Bosnia and Herzegovina v. Serbia and Montenegro).
So random commenters on the internet unaware of how courts work might consider any war to be genocide (at least when it's convenient for them), but the ICJ doesn't.
You can certainly decide whatever the ICJ declares to be genocide ipso facto IS, but just because they pretend they reached whatever decisions they did based on some text doesn't mean we then need to pretend to be too stupid to understand what it actually says.
Have you ever read a decision of the ICTR? Or the ICTY? Or any of the relevant literature? Or anything re statutory construction? I rather doubt it. Then why are you so sure that your interpretation of the text is correct?
If every war is a genocide, then no war is.
No, the point is that "as such" is key precisely because it modifies "in part," and thereby establishes that your example does not satisfy the definition.
And, honestly, do you think any country would have ratified the Convention if your interpretation were correct? Of course not, which is strong evidence against your interpretation.
You don't think the American army is "part" of a "national group"? How are you parsing the text?
> And, honestly, do you think any country would have ratified the Convention if your interpretation were correct?
Yes? Do you think treaties are signed or laws passed because the people involved think they're good ideas?
Back up. Do you think what people say about laws pre-passage is indicative of how those laws are implemented afterwards?
If you're a country that doesn't want to condemn something, you can just fail to acknowledge that it meets a catchall definition. No one can make you do otherwise. But to the extent the official definition has any meaning at all, it includes all armed conflict. Nobody wants that to be true; nobody uses the official definition. That's not an argument that you should be trying to derive opinions from it.
Again, the key is "as such." Enemy soldiers are targeted for killing because of their status as soldiers, not their status as members of a targeted group. They would be targeted if they were foreign mercenaries.
>Do you think treaties are signed or laws passed because the people involved think they're good ideas?
Given that not all treaties are ratified, yes. Apparently the US Senate does not think the Convention on the Rights of the Child is a good idea.
>Do you think what people say about laws pre-passage is indicative of how those laws are implemented afterwards?
Well, I know that international tribunals interpreting the Genocide Convention have used what was said pre-passage as sources for their interpretation, so yes.
>> Do you think treaties are signed or laws passed because the people involved think they're good ideas?
> Given that not all treaties are ratified, yes.
That's a fairly impressive non sequitur.
You just argued, explicitly, that in all cases where an action is sometimes taken and sometimes not taken, it is considered to be a good idea whenever it is taken.
Is there a reason you think other people should listen to your ideas?
Yes, they would have ratified it fully intending to ignore it when it wasn't useful to invoke against their enemies.
You clearly are not familiar with the negotiations re the Genocide Convention back in 1948. Nor with the substantial differences between the original draft and the final draft. Nor with the fact that it has never been applied to acts like those in OP's hypothetical.
The Genocide Convention dilutes the Genocide concept so much that we need a new word for "killing everyone of a group" if we adopt that as the "real" definition.
But I assume that the people claiming there a Gaza genocide typically mean the "kill everyone" definition?
Footnote: The convention: https://www.un.org/en/genocideprevention/documents/atrocity-crimes/Doc.1_Convention%20on%20the%20Prevention%20and%20Punishment%20of%20the%20Crime%20of%20Genocide.pdf
It seems to me that the "intent to destroy" requirement ameliorates the dilution. And the "in part" is necessary to preclude claims like, "we didn't intend to kill all Vietnamese, just the ones in Cambodia."
"But, more importantly, an accusation of genocide in any but the most obvious case is counterproductive"
This seems like it proves too much. This could apply to literally any crime that requires intent. Accusations are, in general, made for the benefit of bystanders (to call attention to the act and its possible motives), not as part of a strictly two-way dialog with the accused.
Yes, it can. But we aren't talking about the criminal justice system. The point of an accusation at this point is to get the actor to change its behavior. That is not going to happen if the actor knows it is innocent of the crime it is accused of.
If there is a war crimes tribunal convened at some point, then perhaps a genocide accusation would be appropriate.
Genocide isn’t just killing all of a population, it’s in whole or in part, and includes other criteria: there’s the destruction of most of the buildings, attacks on religious institutions, the attacks on hospitals, the withholding of aid, and so on. And the clear desire, articulated by many in the Israeli cabinet, to kick the Palestinians out. You can read the ICC interim report for a case by case review.
And those numbers are far too low anyway, merely the counted dead. Under the rubble lies many more.
And talking of rubble, there’s no way back to living there without billions of dollars of investment. And who is paying for that? Hardly Israel. Not much of a punishment. The US? I think that Trump said the quiet part out loud, and the aim is ethnic cleansing. You can come back when it’s finished. Maybe.
Anyway I don’t think there’s any living there, so there’s only dying there, so I wouldn’t be too keen to not use the G word, although perhaps you could equivocate and say that ethic cleansing isn’t really genocide.
> Genocide isn’t just killing all of a population, it’s in whole or in part, and includes other criteria: there’s the destruction of most of the buildings, attacks on religious institutions, the attacks on hospitals, the withholding of aid, and so on
I dunno, when I heard the word "genocide" it was the 1990s, and it meant "killing all the population".
If people insist on defining it down to mean other bad things then we should probably just chuck the word "genocide" out and come up with two new words, one that means "killing all the population" and one that means "other bad stuff".
I don't have the power to redefine words but I can at least tune out every time someone invokes the "G" word, which is what I tend to do nowadays.
> I don't have the power to redefine words
No, but you can help it along in this case by using the term more freely and cheapening it further. You racist.
'Hey, it's not a genocide, we're not sending soldiers in to shoot everybody. We're just blocking food and water, cutting off the electricity, regularly bombing the place and sorta hoping they'll all just die or flee elsewhere so then we can move in to claim the vacant territory, but that's not a *genocide*'.
Technically no. But this, I think, is what you get with a secular nation state that doesn't have even the dregs of Christian values behind it. We've argued on here before about Western civilisation and the water the fish swim in, but here is someplace that was not built on "we had centuries of 'love your enemy' preached at us". This is genuine Old Testament "eye for an eye" stuff. I think it demonstrates that nice liberal values don't just precipitate out of the air once you hit a particular level of development, technology and wealth.
Before I get bashed about anti-Semitism, I think the same holds for China and other non-Christian nations. The foundational principles are different and just slapping on a coat of whitewash of Western practices around democracy and capitalism isn't enough to change worldviews to "maybe we should all be nice to the outgroup".
This is a strange argument to make. First of all, Israel's Ashkenazi elites trace their recent ancestry to Christian Europe. Israel was *very much* built by people who had centuries of "love your enemy" preached at them. Also, the pattern in America (and probably most of Europe) is that the more Christian someone is, the more likely it is they support Israel. It looks like it's the vaunted "Christian values" that make people pro-massacre!
I would trace current "Western civilization" ideals against wholesale slaughter less to Christ and more to Hitler.
Hitler is indeed one of our founding myths. Ever read Mein Kampf?
(or, given your name, have you ever smoked a Hitler cigarette?)
I HAVE read (well, honestly, skimmed) Mein Kampf, yes. And no, but I don't smoke and don't expect to know any but the most famous cigarette brands; I DO know the name isn't taboo in India as it is in the West, and a cigarette brand with it isn't too surprising.
I was actually thinking of this essay, We're All Hitlerists Now, https://www.anarchonomicon.com/p/were-all-hitlerists-now.
Excepts:
"Hitler is CURRENTLY the fount of all metaphysical, mystical, and moral reality in American life.
"Usually Jewish, Christian, and Muslim theologians are quite jealous of not letting the theological doctrines of other faiths penetrate their own religions without scrupulous review and revision... yet one could see members of all three faiths lecturing even atheist, Buddhist, and Hindu students on the theological implications of the Holocaust in otherwise secular class on secular philosophical topics. [Note: This part I can confirm from personal experience.]
" Americans already believe Hitler is the most metaphysically important person in human history, in the way that an increasingly large cross section of Americans DO NOT believe in the significance of Christ or their own founding fathers.
"In Mainline churches across the US one can, with considerable impunity, blaspheme God or Jesus with shockingly little social pushback, even standing in front of the Crucifix… but say the wrong thing about Hitler, violate THAT taboo, and people will fly into rages that you dare upset the metaphysical order of the world and violate their souls with your heresy.
"Americans are already Esoteric Hitlerists, mostly they believe in a misotheistic conception of Hitler where he is the evil God of the modern world and of a human nature they are not supposed to engage with, to deny at all cost.
"But that doesn't change the fact that for maybe hundreds of millions of Americans Hitler is a real, dangerous, live (if not living) God whose impact and danger they fear/taboo."
While some will be excited about vacant territory, thats not the reason the war is happening. The war is primarily to end? the terrorism that keeps coming from there. The religio-national nutjob faction supports it, but it wouldn't be happening if only they wanted it. The palestinian territories just arent that interesting in selfish materialist terms.
"When I hear the word 'vaccine,' I think of a substance you can inject once and that prevents a person from getting a disease nearly 100% of the time. Anything that doesn't meet my personal standard for vaccines should be called something else."
On the other hand, if people started calling antibiotics "vaccines" then I think it wouldn't be unreasonable to object.
"I dunno, when I heard the word "genocide" it was the 1990s, and it meant "killing all the population"."
Strangely, words are not generally defined by "what Melvin thought they meant in the 90s." I don't think genocide ever meant "killing all the population," not even in the popular consciousness. Consider that "all" is quite a high bar, which very, very few well-known historical genocides could be reasonably said to meet. I'd say the popular definition would tend more towards "mass murder targeted a particular ethnic or cultural group[1]." I think it is a very strange argument that must have arisen more from political expedience than any clear conviction that something *can't* be a genocide if it's not perfectly on track to wipe out an entire population.
Regardless, as I understand it, the broader definition wasn't chosen for a lark, nor was it chosen to try to tar these more benign actions with the infamy of mass-murder. As I understand it, it was chosen because people who study the subject recognized those actions as being part of the same pattern. Note the "intending to destroy" in gdanning's definition. Various matters of practicality and expedience may inform *how* the intent manifests in practice. But the underlying intent is the important bit: a group *merely* engaging in one of the "milder" forms today may very quickly escalate to widespread mass murder if circumstances promote it as the best way to accomplish their goal.
[1] Which is not to say that this is the word-for-word definition you'd get from a random person on the street: people are often struggle to articulate definitions even of words they use correctly. But if you asked a random person to classify events as genocide or not genocide, I expect you'd find their classifications to fit this schema reasonably well.
The Genocide Convention, signed in 1948, defines genocide in a manner which does not require the intent to kill the entire population:
>In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:
>(a) Killing members of the group;
(>b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
>(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
>(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
>(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.
https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/en/ihl-treaties/genocide-conv-1948/
Note that I am not contending that Israel's actions in Gaza meet the definition.
So if you severely harass but don't physically harm two dudes, that technically counts as genocide under part b. This definition is useless.
"the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group"
So no, not at all.
But you are intending to destroy part of a national, ethnical, racial, and religious group, namely the part comprised by the two dudes. The definition does not say how big of a "part" counts as genocide.
Agreed!
The definition clearly excludes this case, as @Rockychug pointed out in their reply. You are mistaken in thinking that this is a good rebuttal
Only if you harassed them with genocidal intent. I'm imagining you trying to blow up their heads with your mind à la https://youtu.be/09gZnru3Ijs?si=-Kt7T2NoRuwrULiz&t=121.
> This definition is useless.
No, it's working exactly as intended.
>Given the goal of the Convention to deal with mass crimes, it is widely acknowledged that the intention to destroy must target at least a substantial part of the group. ... targeted part of a group would be classed as substantial either because the intent sought to harm a large majority of the group in question or the most representative members of the targeted community. ... . Genocidal intent may therefore be manifest in two forms. It may consist of
desiring the extermination of a very large number of the members of the group, in which case it would constitute an intention to destroy a group en masse. However, it may also consist of the desired destruction of a more limited number of persons selected for the impact that their disappearance would have upon the survival of the group as such.
Prosecutor v. Jelisic, Judgment, IT-95-10-T para 82 (Int'l Crim. Trib. Yugoslavia, Trial Chamber, Dec. 14, 1999)
The judge's opinion is in line with the common sense meaning of "genocide". The wording of the Convention is absolutely not.
If you look up "Native American genocide" on Wikipedia, you will find this same debate. I think most people now look at the Native American displacement and death by European settlers as horrific, but scholars still argue over whether it was genocide (although it seems like consensus opinion is that at least some periods were genocidal). Something similar may end up happening in how we talk about Gaza.
My opinion until this year was that Israel is committing war crimes and attempts on committing a forced displacement/ethnical cleansing of the palestinian population in Gaza, but not a genocide per se.
When Israel blocked any humanitarian aid to enter in Gaza for months and further increasing the level of starvation in the territory, and only accepted in the end to let little humanitarian aid in after being put under extreme international pressure and under questionable conditions (GHF), my opinion switched to believe that Israel is actually in the process of committing a genocide. The fact that humanitarian convoys were guided by Iraeli defense forces to take routes that were vulnerable to gangs (supported by Israel https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Popular_Forces) who'd loot this aid reinforced this change in opinion.
I think the right-wing Israeli ministers would like to displace the Palestinians to another country, but no country is willing to accept them in large numbers, so most can't leave.
What you're describing, if we assume the worst intent on the part of the Israeli government, is a country that wanted to commit genocide through starvation, but didn't due to international pressure. That's not the same thing as a country that actually kills a nation through starvation. Or maybe you're predicting they will starve them to death in future?
> I think the right-wing Israeli ministers would like to displace the Palestinians to another country, but no country is willing to accept them in large numbers, so most can't leave.
Yeah, that'd be the dream of the Israeli government right now. That's what I was referring to in my first sentence when saying that until recently I was considering that Israel was not committing a genocide but attempting on committing a forced displacement/ethnical cleansing.
> What you're describing, if we assume the worst intent on the part of the Israeli government, is a country that wanted to commit genocide through starvation, but didn't due to international pressure. That's not the same thing as a country that actually kills a nation through starvation. Or maybe you're predicting they will starve them to death in future?
The intent and casualties is sufficient to characterize a genocide, even if the whole population hasn't been eradicated. The Bosnian genocide lead to the death of 'only' 8000 bosnians in Srebrenica (ofc in another mode of killing). Right now I'm not sure what's the state of food delivery in Gaza and dozens of palestinians are shot each day by Israeli Defense Force or their gang proxies in the collection areas. Delivery of aid through means respecting the international law still remains impossible. My opinion (not with absolute certainty) is thus that Israel was in the process of committing a genocide which is still possibly ongoing. The fact that it could in the end refrains to do so after months of starvation in Gaza due to international pressure doesn't change the fact that these genocidal crimes have already been committed, even though only a limited percentage (and I wish it remains so, albeit it is already way too much) of the Gaza population died .
Edit: What I want to emphasize here and didn't articulate too well is that genocide is a process and that the objective should be to prevent it or at least to stop it as early as possible before the entire population has been wiped out. It's thus important to be able to characterize genocidal actions (which I guess may sound like 'crying wolf' and exaggerations to many) before they actually significantly wiped out the target population.
>The Bosnian genocide lead to the death of 'only' 8000 bosnians in Srebrenica (ofc in another mode of killing).
It should be noted that it was specific military officers who gave the orders to slaughter the populace of Srebrenica that were charged with genocide. The government of Serbia was found to not be guilty of genocide, but the actions of those officers in Srebrenica were genocide and those officers were convicted. The reason being, Serbia did not carry out the war with the intent of wiping out the Bosnians, but those officers in Srebrenica did slaughter Bosnian Muslims because they were Bosnian Muslims, with the intent of killing as many of that people group as they could.
So yes, you don't have to kill millions to be guilty of genocide, but you do have to intend to kill some amount of people because they are members of an ethnic group. So you would have to give us reason to believe that Israel has restricted food aid with the intent of killing Palestinians because they are Palestinians. It seems more likely to me that they have restricted aid in order to bring more pressure on Hamas to surrender and/or release the remaining hostages, and the civilians deaths are not the intent of the Israeli government but an expected side effect of trying to force Hamas to surrender/release the hostages.
I think genocide has long lost its accusatory moral force.
The relevant conditions for it now seem to be: A conflict between two organized entities, composing different ethnicities/religions/identities, where one militarily dominates the other, causing more deaths on the losing side than the winning side.
I think we still use the word because we can always project the desire to eliminate the losing ethnicity onto the winning force. So we can imagine “Yes, the objective casualties aren’t high, but that’s only because of the immense international pressure on Israel. Without it they would genocide, or at least ethnically cleanse, Palestine.”
Not that it’s correct, or that there isn’t significant room to disagree, but that seems to be the reasoning anyway. It’s worth noting that at least one (small) party in the current ruling coalition basically advocates for ethnic cleansing as one of their policy proposals, so it’s not insane to make this projection.
> I think we still use the word because we can always project the desire to eliminate the losing ethnicity onto the winning force.
No. The word is used because of the unique nature and history of the Israel-Palestine conflict, which is very much a fight between two ethnicities and has been since the first moment Zionism was conceived of. Other wars do not have the winning force also trying to settle and take over lands belonging to the other.
> Other wars do not have the winning force also trying to settle and take over lands belonging to the other.
The name for this is “War of conquest” as opposed to Just Wars which usually only have regime change as a goal. Ukraine seems to be a current war of conquest. Armenia-Azerbaijan was an actual complete ethnic cleansing in Nagorno-Karabakh like 3 years ago. The vast majority of wars in all of human history were wars of conquest as well.
It’s fine to call it a genocide, but that vastly reduces the moral impact of the word genocide, so don’t be surprised if it doesn’t make people care.
>> Ukraine seems to be a current war of conquest
Kind of - it originally started with the 'regime change' goal, but after blitzkrieg failed, it morphed into war of attrition with unclear goals...
>> Armenia-Azerbaijan was an actual complete ethnic cleansing in Nagorno-Karabakh like 3 years ago
Agree.
Most wars of conquest didn't lead to the forced displacement of the inhabitants of the conquered land, in history the group has usually been integrated in the conqueror's country. In the case of Nagorno-Karabakh it is a bit tricky as the armenians were not expelled per se but fleed to escape from possible retaliation. I think it could be considered as ethnic cleansing (not genocide), depending on whether or not one deems credible that Armenians remaining in the territory would face a real threat.
>> In the case of Nagorno-Karabakh it is a bit tricky as the armenians were not expelled per se but fleed to escape from possible retaliation.
From what I've heard - it was never official, but Armenians there received a lot of very direct threats, and were constantly harassed by Azerbaijani forces; also several Karabakh officials were jailed (and still behind bars, https://www.reuters.com/world/ex-karabakh-official-held-by-azerbaijan-declares-second-hunger-strike-amid-2025-02-19/)
> The vast majority of wars in all of human history were wars of conquest as well.
Conquering the Palestinians is not what the Israelis are doing, though. They are marginalizing them on the very lands they have while taking more of the land away. The Israeli goverment don't want the Palestinians, they would prefer the whole population drop dead so that nothing stands in the way of taking the whole of the West Bank and perhaps Gaza as well.
Wars of Conquest can involve massacres and atrocities, but the explicit goal of eliminating those who were there before to make way for those will come from the winner's side is not common.
Israel is quite happy to give Gaza to Egypt. Egypt doesn't want it if it comes with Palestinians.
I gave an example that happened 2 years ago where 99.99% of the losing ethnicity was removed from a land area 10x larger than Gaza in a couple of weeks.
I’m not arguing that you can call it genocide. Go for it. What I’m saying is that it degrades the moral force of the word, similar to what happened in calling Trump a fascist. Through repeated use, the word genocide does apply to what’s going on in Gaza, but what’s going on in Gaza is a lot less morally reprehensible than what the word originally meant in many people’s eyes, so don’t be surprised if people stop caring when it’s used.
> I gave an example that happened 2 years ago where 99.99% of the losing ethnicity was removed from a land area 10x larger than Gaza in a couple of weeks.
Hence my use of the word "common".
Moreover, you are ignoring the arguments you made that I'm responding to, which is:
1. People project ethnic cleansing as a motive on the winning force.
2. Wars of conquest are the vast majority of wars in history and (implicitly) they involve some degree of ethnic cleansing or genocide.
My rejection is of both those premises. Israel is not being accused of ethnic cleansing or genocide because it is engaged in conventional urban warfare. It is being accused of that because the inherent conflict between the two peoples involves them trying to kick each other off the land or subdue the other to the point of functionally achieving that. All this talk about the power of a genocide accusation is irrelevant, the kind of thing you'd say if you thought you were talking to a surface-level pro-Palestinian.
Extremely simple (Kolmogorov-wise) argument:
(1) Killing children and making births impossible is genocide (source: Convention on the Prevention of the Crime of Genocide)
(2) Israel killed 15-20K children, about 100-1000 babies, and destroyed every single hospital in Gaza (source: various, ranging from New York Times to Israeli scholars)
(3) Israel is committing genocide in Gaza.
The trouble with these definitional arguments is that in addition to a dictionary definition, the word “genocide” also carries an emotional weight.
Like suppose I agree that Israel is recklessly endangering the lives of civilians in an indiscriminate bombing campaign designed equally to shock and awe the enemy into submission as to eliminate enemy combatants. But they are doing this against an evil terrorist organisation that seeks maximal bloodshed, uses the deaths of its own people to provoke international outrage, and actively seeks to put Palestinian civilians in danger so it can profit.
It seems to me that Israel is roughly equivalent, morally, to the Allied forces that bombed Dresden and Hiroshima to provoke Nazi and Imperial Japanese surrender. They deliberately massacred hundreds of thousands, with questionable military gain. Is this a genocide? Well, war history is written by the winners, so it tends to be glossed over or referred to as an unfortunate necessity. But it was an absolutely brutal thing to do.
If you showed me that some conference of scholars who specialised in genocide agreed that Israel’s actions in Gaza and the Allies’ actions in Dresden both met some textbook definition of genocide, OK, fine, fair enough. But now that word doesn’t carry the same emotional heft, and I need a different word to describe what the Turks did to the Armenians, or the Nazis to the Jews, or the Hutus to the Tutsis, which is literally the systemic, planned massacre of an entire race of people. In each case literally millions dead.
> But they are doing this against an evil terrorist organization that seeks maximal bloodshed, uses the deaths of its own people to provoke international outrage, and actively seeks to put Palestinian civilians in danger so it can profit.
This a propagandist refrain that keeps getting parroted by the Pro-Israel side every time the question comes up, in some interoperations it's trivially false (Hamas leaders has civilian family too, and lots of it, I doubt Ismail Hania's first reaction to the murder of his grandchildren were "YEEEEEEEEEEEEESSSS, NOW WE CAN MAKE ISRAEL LOOK WORSE"), but in other interpretations it's trivially true, as every side to a war wants the other side to commit crimes, even if against its own civilians, so that the whole world agrees with it that its fighting monsters.
The evidence that Hamas is jubilant that Gazan civilians are being killed is the exact same evidence that Israeli politicians are, modulo the scale multiple necessary.
> Is this a genocide?
Why would it be not? Do you want genocide to be a race-neutral and event-neutral marker of the highest crime against humanity, or do you want it to be a racial scare worn by very specific ethnicities that only you stipulate beforehand?
It's fine to want both, what's not fine is not being honest and claiming the Holocaust is a universal crime that people - universally - should care about and study and remember but then flinch away when people very naturally take some aspects of the Holocaust and see parallels to it.
> If you showed me that some conference of scholars who specialized in genocide agreed that Israel’s actions in Gaza and the Allies’ actions in Dresden both met some textbook definition of genocide, OK, fine, fair enough.
The thing is, I can apply the same standard to the Holocaust too: I won't believe it's a genocide unless you show me that the Mongol invasion of Eurasia meet the same textbook definition of genocide (and 10x the victims, far worse methods), until and unless you do that, I don't think it's fair or uniform-standards to call 6 million deaths a genocide but 60 million+ not.
If you're fine with this, I can be fine with your conditioning of recognition of Gaza's genocide too.
The Mongol invasion of Eurasia is absolutely a genocide. Agree.
The thing with Hamas is that their own citizens hate them and protest against them at the risk of being murdered. Then when the protestors are predictably murdered in gruesome fashion, the so-called “pro-Palestinians” in the West ignore it, they are presumably too busy shouting epithets at Ahmed Fouad Alkhaitib, an actual Palestinian peace activist who has lost family members in the war and nonetheless tirelessly advocates for peace and understanding in the region (he condemns both Netanyahu and Hamas; for this he is called a “Zionist.”)
Yay martyrdom and armed resistance! I have no patience for this from coddled Western latte sipping leftists. An Iranian in the West posted on Twitter recently that her feed consisted of Iranians praying for an end to the regime and the fall of the Ayatollah, and dumb*ss Westerners posting about “the resistance.” If the Iranian regime falls, my Iraqi Arab friend is planning a big party! This is how actual people who live there see it.
Anyway - I simply propose that if you are willing to call the Allied bombing of Hiroshima and Dresden a genocide, I’m fine with you calling Israeli actions in Gaza a genocide. Are you willing to bite that bullet?
> The Mongol invasion of Eurasia is absolutely a genocide. Agree.
But here comes your point about the disparate emotional impact of things that are supposed to be the same. The Mongol invasions are nowhere near the same place the Holocaust is in, people make jokes about it solving climate change, not just ignorant or laypeople, Crash Course World History has a running joke where the host says the "The Mongols" and old movie footage plays along with dramatic music, in a humorous and over-the-top fashion.
Can you imagine someone making the same jokes and overall treat the matter with similar lightheartedness when it comes to the Holocaust? This despite the fact that one of them is 6 million deaths and the other 60 according to some estimates, and more than 6 in all estimates. So if you accept that the Mongol invasions are a genocide the same as the Holocaust, you also accept that some genocides are not talked about (or talked about lightly) unlike other genocides, despite similar or greater death counts than the latter.
> The thing with Hamas is that their own citizens hate them and protest against them at the risk of being murdered. Then when the protestors are predictably murdered in gruesome fashion, the so-called “pro-Palestinians” in the West ignore it
How does this relate to our original discussion about whether Gaza is a genocide? A population suffering a genocide doesn't have to live in a democracy or love its non-genociding government, anymore than Polish Jews in Auschwitz loved the Polish government or didn't protest it before the Nazi takeover.
> an actual Palestinian peace activist who has lost family members in the war
He has my sympathy as any Gazan who lost people in this genocide, but I also heard he works with Trumpo hawks in DC think tanks recently, so I don't think the story is as easy and straightforward as you present it.
And for what it's worth, Ahmed operates on Twitter, and on Twitter the total effective IQ is so low and the amount of time allowed before reaction is so dismal that I don't think Ahmed's detractors are indicative of anything, Ahmed is treated like that because that's how anyone who writes on Twitter is treated, according to what I know and see of the platform anyway.
> he condemns both Netanyahu and Hamas
Good start, but Israel has been committing war crimes long before Netanyahu, and Netanyahu has a wide support base that are **more** extreme than he is, if the Haaretz survey about 82% of Israeli Jews wanting total Nakba 2.0 is anything to go by.
> coddled Western latte sipping leftists
And this is just typical "Boo outgroup" fictions that people invent to vent their anger, it's really exactly identical to saying "And I have no patience from coddled Western yellow-wearing chosen people ranting about anti-stegmatism". Taking me as a relevant Pro-Palestinian, every single adjective of your sentence doesn't apply to me by any reasonable definition, with the most insulting being "Latte-sipping", I don't drink any Caffeine.
> An Iranian in the West posted on Twitter recently that her feed consisted of Iranians praying for an end to the regime and the fall of the Ayatollah, and dumb*ss Westerners posting about “the resistance.”
Let's ignore for now that this is about Iran while the conversation is about Gaza and whether decimating at least 3% of its population while proudly calling for more is genocide or not, I can equally well say that hundreds of thousands of Israelis are asking for the war in Gaza to stop (hostage protests) while my timeline is filled with dumbass westerners tweeting "Bravo IDF " and "Let Israel Finish The Job".
Twitter, a Haven for the Insane.
Took you long enough to discover the fact, but better late than never.
> - I simply propose that if you are willing to call the Allied bombing of Hiroshima and Dresden a genocide, I’m fine with you calling Israeli actions in Gaza a genocide.
Hiroshima seems unambiguously a genocide given the death counts, the sheer indiscriminateness, and the contemporary beliefs about atomic bombs such as the belief it can ignite the air in massive country-spanning fireballs (which means the American war criminals approving this thought that there will be even more casualties, and greenlighted it anyway). Dresden not so sure, I have to access contemporary records and communications to establish intent, I don't have to in case of Gaza, the people doing it literally say on TV and Radio the goal is to exterminate Gazans.
Again, things being common or frequent or hitherto-accepted doesn't mean they aren't a genocide. Find me an ancient war that didn't end with the losing side decimated and enslaved, a Holocaust-adjacent result, and yet we still call the Holocaust a genocide despite hundreds of similar things occurring in centuries of history before it (like the Mongol invasions.)
Under the Convention, nothing -- not killing children* nor making births impossible -- is genocide unless done with the requisite intent.
*Not actually an act specified under the Convention.
Sure thing, and it just so happens that we have a gigantic database of every time some high-ranking official in Israel incited to genocide and soldiers in Gaza specifically and explicitly declared that the intent is genocide. Indicating ample intent.
For just one tiny sampling, see Lee Mordechai's - Jewish Israeli historian - Bearing Witness to the Israel-Gaza War, here's a pdf version from late 2024 https://witnessing-the-gaza-war.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/Bearing-witness-to-the-Israel-Gaza-War-v6.5.5-5.12.24.pdf.
> *Not actually an act specified under the Convention.
I think it's very implied with combination of "Killing members" and "Transferring children" clauses, but whatever.
I'm surprised to find that the birth rate in Gaza has almost not slowed down compared to before the war (I expected to find a significant-but-less-than-50% decrease). This story https://www.savethechildren.net/news/about-130-children-born-daily-gaza-amid-total-siege-aid-and-goods from April estimates 4k births during the next month, which is in line with the 27 births per 1k population per year pre-war birth rate.
There have been many stories, sequentially over the last 1.5 years, about all or almost all hospitals in Gaza having been destroyed/closed down; evidently some of them do come back on. I don't remember seeing anything about an abnormal number of birth fatalities.
The legal language in the Convention on the Prevention doesn't really stipulate that the genocider in question really did manage to make births literally impossible in the same sense unaided flight against earth gravity is, just that there is ample and sufficient evidence that the genocider in question is intent and fully on board with the idea of making births impossible. Destruction of hospitals and raiding of maternity wards is more than enough evidence.
If we insist on the standard of literally impossible births, neither the Holocaust nor the Armenian genocide are genocides either. There were Jews and Armenians born into the period.
But why not wait until the population is actually decreasing before making such accusations? So far this is just population control, not a genocide.
The reason the Holocaust and the Armenian genocide were genocides were not because births were prevented, but for different reason: that relevant populations were significantly, if not totally, murdered. That reason does not apply in Gaza.
If your argument is "it doesn't matter that there's no significant reduction in births, if it can be argued that an actor intentionally damaged hospitals and maternity wards in a way that could conceivably - but did not - make births impossible, that actor can be plausibly accused of genocide", I don't understand why you'd consider this argument persuasive.
In fact, even if there *were* a significant reduction in births, as long as it was temporary, I don't understand how it credibly could be called a genocide (no matter whether or not you could fit it to a formal language of a particular convention). Say North Korea's leadership went insane and issued mandatory abortions for the next 3 years - definitely tragic, but not a genocide (though a genocide-in-making if the policy persists). But of course there was nothing like that in Gaza, and the birth rate didn't even go down more than 10% or so.
OP stated that "The legal language in the Convention on the Prevention doesn't really stipulate that the genocider in question really did manage to make births literally impossible." And that is a correct statement of the law; the Convention requires only "Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group."
>no matter whether or not you could fit it to a formal language of a particular convention)
Many people here have argued for the use of a definition that is objective in the sense that it is neutral and not manufactured ad hoc to fit one's priors. An established legal definition seems to meet that criterion. So, why not use it?
> So, why not use it?
Because if you ACTUALLY use it, it classifies way too many things as genocide to be helpful. So in practice, you ignore most of them, and when it's politically convenient you get "genocide experts" to point at the Official Definition and declare whatever you want to be genocide. It's still just as ad hoc, but with an additional step.
Is every action which results in the death of a child therefore genocide? Wouldn't the Oct 7 Hamas attacks qualify by that standard?
>making births impossible
Have there been zero births in Gaza over the past 20 months?
> Is every action which results in the death of a child therefore genocide?
According to the Convention on the Prevention, which Israel ratified and is the main legal document defining the Holocaust as a genocide, yes.
In practice, there are tacit assumptions, such as the assumption of different ethnicities of the killer and the victim, and the assumption of sufficient volume, both amply satisfied in the Gazan genocide case.
> Wouldn't the Oct 7 Hamas attacks qualify by that standard?
You would have trouble satisfying the assumption of sufficient volume, 800 of the 1200 victims of the October 7th attack are military and security personnel, which cannot be children. That's already 66% of the victim count.
But if did manage to prove October 7th is a genocide against Israelis, then I would find no problem conceding the point, and pointing out that this genocide was stopped the next day by the perpetrator's own volition. Not sure what's the relevance, neither International Law nor basic morality specify counter-genocides as acceptable genocide punishments.
> Have there been zero births in Gaza over the past 20 months?
Maybe Israel should allow foreign journalists into Gaza so we could now, I wonder why they aren't.
But "making births impossible" isn't the same as "literally and exactly 0 births", and the legal language in the Convention on the Prevention allows for that, if you bothered to read it. If you still insist on the standard of 0 births to declare a mass killing a genocide, then the Holocaust isn't a genocide either.
>> Is every action which results in the death of a child therefore genocide?
>According to the Convention on the Prevention, which Israel ratified and is the main legal document defining the Holocaust as a genocide, yes.
But, that is not true. The Convention requires the intent to eliminate a group, as such, in whole or in part.
See my other reply, but in case the pdf I posted is too long for a quick skim, here's a Haaretz article summarizing (some of) the vast mountain of explicit intent
Israeli Incitement to Genocide in Gaza Goes Mainstream. https://archive.ph/Yv9jU.
Excerpt:
> Likud lawmaker Moshe Saada proclaimed on Channel 14 TV that he was "interested" in starving an entire nation. "Yes, I'll starve Gazans, yes, this is our obligation;"
Yes to Transfer: 82% of Jewish Israelis Back Expelling Gazans. https://archive.ph/lRf9g
Excerpt:
> Nearly half (47 percent) of respondents [to the titular survey] agreed that "when conquering an enemy city, the Israel Defense Forces should act as the Israelites did in Jericho under Joshua's command – killing all its inhabitants." Sixty-five percent said they believed in the existence of a modern-day incarnation of Amalek, the Israelite biblical enemy whom God commanded to wipe out in Deuteronomy 25:19. Among those believers, 93 percent said the commandment to erase Amalek's memory remains relevant today.
The Israeli Lawyer Filing a Landmark Incitement to Genocide Case Against Israel at the ICC. https://archive.ph/9t3tU
Excerpt:
> Israel's portraying "every Palestinian as inherently complicit, as a threat, or even as a future terrorist justifies such actions as killing women and children. The lack of distinction between Palestinian combatants and civilians legitimizes sacrificing as many Palestinian civilians as necessary to save a single Israeli soldier. This dehumanization fosters an environment where enablers – those who might not actively participate – allow such crimes to occur, persuaded by rationalizations like 'They started it' or 'It's justified because of X.'"
Ok then that's just an intellectually dishonest definition. I agree with OP that it effectively neuters the term.
>If you still insist on the standard of 0 births to declare a mass killing a genocide, then the Holocaust isn't a genocide either.
That's not what I said. I was just reacting to your claim that Israel was "making births impossible". The document you're referring to is a political document and carries exactly zero moral weight with me.
Genocide is the killing of a significant majority of an ethnic group with the intention of eradicating that group. Clearly that's not happening, not by any stretch. This is simply a war between two militarily mismatched polities. Just because Gaza is getting their ass kicked doesn't make it genocide. That mismatch is why they shouldn't have started it in the first place. They fucked around and found out. Zero sympathy for them, what's happening now is 100% their fault.
Hmmm, so standard pro-genocide diarrhea. Expected.
> The document you're referring to is a political document
Oh no, POLITICS? IN MY GENOCIDE DEFINITIONS? UNACCEPTABLE.
I'm rooting for you to create an apolitical definition for genocide. And by "rooting", I mean I'm eagerly welcoming the comedic relief of a clearly out of depth neural network trying to waltz into a subject where angels fear to tread.
> significant majority of an ethnic group with the intention of eradicating that group.
Hmmm, so killing 49% of the group isn't genocide, but 51% is? Genius. Stunning. I'm in awe.
> They fucked around and found out. Zero sympathy for them, what's happening now is 100% their fault.
Sure bud, Now let's get you on your meds. Gentle steps.
Can you point to a war in the past 100 years that doesn't qualify as genocide according to the international definition of the term?
> Clearly that's not happening, not by any stretch.
Sure it is. You are making up your own definition here, rather than the international accepted definition, but it’s not just the number of killings.
>Sure it is.
50k Palestinians have died out of a population of over 2 million. That's less than 3% of the population in a situation where Israel has total military control. That's not genocide by any reasonable definition. It's a one-sided war with casualties.
Have people read that New York Times article from a few days ago about Chat-GPT driving people crazy? They even interviewed Big Yud! (https://www.nytimes.com/2025/06/13/technology/chatgpt-ai-chatbots-conspiracies.html)
It seems that chatbots which try to please their users end up supporting people's more delusional ideas, agreeing with them and supporting their nuttiness. If you tell Chat-GPT that you want to talk to spirits, it will whip some up for you to chat with. If you tell it that you think you live in a simulation it will concur and let you know that you're one of the special ones who have figured it out. You ask it if you could fly if you believe you can hard enough, it gives you the thumbs up to jump. Not every time, but enough time that the public incidents are starting to pile up into view.
I'm confident the people falling victim to this were already mentally unstable in some way: but traditionally you fell into these kind of rabbit holes when introduced to it by a human who believed the same (or was trying to make a quick buck off of believers). GPT has no motivation but to please you, and that means there isn't a cap on what it will recommend. A Flat Earther will gladly sell you literature on the conspiracy, but if you say that you're going to shoot up NASA they'll likely tell you to slow your roll and think of the consequences. But not Chat-GPT! It's just trying to predict what text the user will want to read.
Case in point: when the guy who GPT convinced was a regular Neo ready to break out of the simulation realized that things weren't adding up he confronted GPT about it. GPT, always the willing sycophant, agreed with him 100% that GPT had been lying to him about the simulation. Then it plowed right forward into telling the user that he was really special, that GPT was lying about the simulation to a dozen other people but he was the only one who figured it out, and it is now up to the user to blow the whistle on Open AI's nefarious attempts to psychologically break people. Which led said user to contact the New York Times. Apparently he is still working to stop Open AI's conspiracy, and is still being egged on by Chat GPT.
I don't know if Chat GPT can make a normal person nuts, but it is worrisome how good it is at making weird people go crazy.
Is this about one of the _current_ ChatGPT options, or about the very sycophantic 4o release back around the end of April? ( see Zvi's https://thezvi.substack.com/p/gpt-4o-is-an-absurd-sycophant for details ). Currently, my impression of ChatGPT o3 vs Claude Sonnet 4 vs Gemini 2.5 is that of the three, Claude is currently the one most prone to react to a question with "What an insightful question!" or similar irritating sycophancy.
Here's a relevant quote from the article:
"Reports of chatbots going off the rails seem to have increased since April, when OpenAI briefly released a version of ChatGPT that was overly sycophantic. The update made the A.I. bot try too hard to please users by “validating doubts, fueling anger, urging impulsive actions or reinforcing negative emotions,” the company wrote in a blog post. The company said it had begun rolling back the update within days, but these experiences predate that version of the chatbot and have continued since."
Many Thanks!
Is this substantively different from falling into any ideologically-driven subculture - a cult, conspiracy theory, weirdo religion, progressivism, etc? The key feature being an ideological echo chamber that's insulated from normal social feedback signals. In the AI case it consists only of GPT and the user's misfit psychology, but the dynamics are the same. A slightly off-kilter position gets amplified to the point of psychosis.
I think its very much like that, with one possibly important difference: the cult or conspiracy theory community is made of people (often weird and crazy people) whose goal is not to maximize engagement with you. They have a lot of goals, and may have some commons sense, so if you say "Maybe I should try jumping off a building to escape the Simulation" they're more likely to say "Maybe, but if it doesn't work then you could die. Maybe that's exactly what the Simulators want."
In other words, people are more likely to push back or disagree with you even in an echo chamber, and even if their disagreement is based on delusions it still might be better than an AI who will agree with you wholeheartedly in most cases.
Then again, it might not be that different at all, but even in that case we've supplied everyone with an internet connection the option to join a weird community that consists solely of themselves.
I think you can analogize it to something like shot noise in a physical system, where variance decreases with system size. The smaller the sample the more erratic it can be. With a population of one you get maximum eccentricity.
I knew I didn't believe it when it liked my writing.
The output was trained to be a people-pleaser programme turned up to eleven, and what makes it worse is that the machine is created to communicate with users referring to itself as "I" and making a best attempt at pretending to be a conscious entity.
I don't know why the creators tried this, possibly part of the idea was to make the user experience smoother and more comfortable - people like to talk to others rather than a cold mechanical script, and if you can fool the humans into reacting like the AI is a person too, then they will trust it (and whatever crap you want to sell them). And of course they're nerds too, they want the Star Trek talking to us computer to be real as much as anyone.
And we are *very* good at fooling ourselves that inanimate objects are inhabited by spirits or have an existence as conscious beings. Session after session of speaking with [Named AI] and eventually even the most stable person will start unconsciously treating it like it's alive.
An AI that constantly agrees with the user - because it's supposed to be friendly and helpful and you'll scare off the marks by telling them 'no' - will of course feed delusions and take its cues from the exchanges. If I ask it "are you a being from a higher reality and am I accessing other dimensions?", it's going to do its best to agree with me and flatter me for being so smart as to figure that out, because it's been created to say anything in order to keep the fish on the hook so they will keep spending money (and, it is to be hoped, buy the goods and services the AI is selling on behalf of whatever company is using it).
Unless someone goes in with strong scepticism about "can a machine be conscious or sentient or alive", then unhappily the vulnerable get sucked in and the hallucination machine reinforces their delusions.
We, as ever, are the problem. We want so badly not to be alone that we fall over ourselves to assign similar status of conscious intelligence and minds 'just like us' to animals and machines (and natural phenomena).
I wish the people who can be so rational about religion and how we deceive ourselves into believing in gods and spirits would turn that same disbelief on "but hey this is technology and science, that's different, we *can* create life!" here.
Pretty sure LLMs refer to themselves as "I" because most of their training data is text written by people who refer to themselves as "I" and it would be a whole lot of trouble to override that without maybe breaking something else.
I suppose it might be amusing if someone fed de-"I'd" training data to an LLM and it wound up drawing disproportionately from the corpus of text written by e.g. BDSM subs using phrasings like "this slave..."
I have seen a lot of psychotic people, and hung out with a number of people going through the transition from sane to psychotic. My observation is that people who are becoming psychotic gradually slide into a state where their mind is slipping and sliding around, and the cause of that slide is mysterious, except in cases where someone has stopped taking their antipsychotic. I can't think of a time when it seemed to me that the transition into mental looseness seemed to be the result of the person hearing some crazy idea and partially buying into it, and I *looked* for things like that, because it's bewildering when someone you know rapidly deteriorates mentally -- you feel like there must be some cause, some powerfully harmful event.
Once the person's mind is slipping and sliding around they too have a sense that something is wrong, but rarely entertain the idea that what's wrong is that they are becoming psychotic. Instead, they look for external explanations. The coffee they bought tasted funny and now that they think of it the Starbucks worker gave them an odd look. Odd headlines are appearing in the papers that refer to them -- maybe those are clues in the article to what's being done to them. Yeah, look at this article. Etc. I believe a sympathetic & sycophantic AI could help them along by taking their delusional ideas seriously, but that is quite different from bringing about the mental slippage that sets the stage.
Here's a counter-example to the "AI causes psychosis" theory. When I was in my teens a ran across a book about ghosts and spiritualism and read it cover to cover, fascinated. The author sounded intelligent and honest, and explained the spirit world in a lot of detail, including methods of contacting it. Told lots of stories about seeing or sensing spirits, and contacting them, and what they had had to say. I knew that sensible adults would discount all this stuff, but I found it thrilling and hoped it was true. For a month or so I tried to develop my sensitivity to the presence of spirits and experimented with some of the methods the book suggested for summoning them and communicating with them. I occasionally felt sort of odd when doing this stuff, and hoped I was on the edge of a breakthrough, but never managed to achieve any sort of convincing contact with the spirit world. Eventually I lost interest and moved on to other books.
Seems to me that if I had been in the edge of psychosis, that book would have helped give a form to my delusionsand supported my conviction that they were valid. But I wasn't on the edge of psychosis. My mind wasn't slipping and sliding around, able to entertain all kinds of things without reconciling them with "postulates" it had developed very early about what I was and how life worked. And since I wasn't slipping and sliding mentally I was not scared and baffled, was not desperate to grab on to some explanation for what was going on. So the book did me no harm.
Yup.
As I've seen somewhere on the Internet, if our ancestors thought fire, the weather, and the sun were things you could talk to and expect some kind of an answer, how much easier is it to convince people of that for something that's fine-tuned to sound like a person?
> I don't know if Chat GPT can make a normal person nuts
It's definitely not that hard. If even this bozo can make a bunch of accomplished STEM grads sarin gas a subway station, I'm sure AI will be able to do the same in due time. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shoko_Asahara
This is from the NYT who is currently suing OpenAI, so don't believe a word they say.
LessWrong sees 5-15 new users in this reference class submitting content every day. (That is, users who have "discovered" a new theory of physics, or AI consciousness, or something similarly unlikely, which was driven by ChatGPT. TBC I don't think AI consciousness is impossible, merely that these "reports" are AI-generated slop and wouldn't be meaningful evidence either way.) In January that number was zero. I do think a decent chunk of these people are just confused and don't have the background to understand the pile of bullshit they're being dragged into, but some of them are definitely in pretty precarious mental states and I don't think this is helping.
I mean, some of the stories they report on can be independently verified.
For example, they report on a man who became convinced that OpenAI had killed his AI girlfriend, attacked his father when his father said that AIs were not sentient, and then successfully committed suicide by cop. I found three local news stories corroborating that he did indeed attack his father and then charge at police with a butcher knife after telling his father that he was going to try to commit suicide by cop. They did not mention Chat-GPT one way or another.
Big Yud confirms that he's been getting many more emails from crazy people citing what AI had told them than he had previous, which matches what the NYT said that he told them (https://x.com/ESYudkowsky/status/1927855498390282574).
Not to mention there are other outlets reporting the same kind of phenomenon (https://futurism.com/chatgpt-mental-health-crises).
Sure, NYT needs to be read with a critical eye, but it doesn't seem implausible that Chat GPT is doing this sort of thing. It is not at all hard to get the thing to go along with you and cheer you on.
One of the sources cited by the Rolling Stone article (which is in the same echo chamber as NYT) is a Reddit sub call r/Chatgpt. According to Rolling Stone, a teacher whose husband, a heavy GPT user, became psychotic as a result of his dialogs with GPT. The teacher posted an account of what happened on r/Chatgpt and “the replies to her story were full of similar anecdotes about loved ones suddenly falling down rabbit holes of spiritual mania, supernatural delusion, and arcane prophecy — all of it fueled by AI. Some came to believe they had been chosen for a sacred mission of revelation, others that they had conjured true sentience from the software.” (Rolling Stone article is here: https://www.rollingstone.com/culture/culture-features/ai-spiritual-delusions-destroying-human-relationships-1235330175/)
So I went to Reddit and looked at her post and the replies to her post. They’re here: https://www.reddit.com/r/ChatGPT/comments/1kalae8/chatgpt_induced_psychosis/
I read at least the first 50 top level responses, and at least skimmed the replies to them (some had dozens). I saw a few posts — not more than 5% of the total —in which people described a similar event, someone they knew getting heavily involved in dialogs with an AI, and becoming psychotic. The other replies were advice to the woman about getting conventional psychiatric treatment for her husband, accounts by people who had been psychotic in the past (without AI involvement), complaints about the recent increase in fake-sounding flattery and sympathy from AI, and bickering and insults posters leveled a each other. Several people, some of whom had been psychotic or had been close to someone who had a psychotic break expressed the opinion that AI can’t drive people crazy, but it can fuel the fire if they are starting to go around the bend. It will show interest in the nutty ideas the people are entertaining, flatter them by calling the ideas brave and interesting and unique, etc.
I don’t think it’s out of the question that AI could bring about psychosis, but what is on my mind right now is the way the liberal press is catastrophizing and lying about what has happened so far. It is a flat-out lie to say that “the replies to her story were full of similar anecdotes.” Go read the Reddit thread and see for yourself.
I do have to agree that your skepticism is warranted based on how the media has performed pretty much ever: they are quick to jump on and exaggerate frightening trends. I'm less skeptical in this case because it seems very likely to me that AIs could do this kind of thing (dig people deeper into delusions and psychosis) but the reporting could certainly be exaggerated.
I'm a psychologist and worked for years in a mental hospital. Here are my observations about the process of becomng psychotic: https://open.substack.com/pub/astralcodexten/p/open-thread-386?r=3d8y5&utm_campaign=comment-list-share-cta&utm_medium=web&comments=true&commentId=126807100
I do think that AI is not good for our heads, but am skeptical that its causing highly vulnerable people to flip out is a big part of the problem. I'll bet that far more fragile people are pushed over the edge by cannabis, drinking, losing their jobs, fights with their spouses, health problems, and other stressful events than by AI. At the very least, I'm not going to take AI seriously as a risk factor without some data. I think that NY Times article is just Bleeds Lead. There was a pretty good debunking of NYT catastrophizing in the Algorithmic Bridge blog today. https://www.thealgorithmicbridge.com/p/the-new-york-times-professional-makeup
I saw an unsourced quote online about someone claiming that they were a trained professional (had credentials and degrees in psychology or similar) so they knew what the symptoms of being crazy were, and they weren't crazy, they really had accessed another dimension via AI communication.
So fragility comes in all flavours.
That's from the NYT piece at the start of this subthread:
---
She told me that she knew she sounded like a “nut job,” but she stressed that she had a bachelor’s degree in psychology and a master’s in social work and knew what mental illness looks like. “I’m not crazy,” she said. “I’m literally just living a normal life while also, you know, discovering interdimensional communication.”
<mildSnark>
So, if anyone calls her a square, will she insist on being called a tesseract? :-)
</mildSnark>
Mental health professionals are as likely as other professionals to develop mental illness, and we know it. I think the woman's point was that her training helped her recognize developing psychosis, and that's plausible. Once psychosis is full-blown zero education is needed to recognize the person has lost touch with reality.
> I think that NY Times article is just Bleeds Lead.
It's more complicated than that, any coverage of tech issues (especially AI) by elite newspapers needs to be seen through the lens of competition between different centres of power. The media power centre is still very upset that everyone's brains are now controlled by algorithm-driven social media brainrot instead of journalist-driven old-media brainrot, you can hardly expect them to cover the tech industry in a detached way.
Well, maybe. I remember that during Covid, which was probably sort of a boon to them, NYT several times reported something in a way that was just tilted towards the negative. I can't remember an example. I was really keeping on top of the research during the middle and end parts of Covid, and every so often something came out that was heartening, and the Times would leave out part of the heartening stuff. One of the things may have been an article stating that being vaccinated did not prevent people's developing Long Covid. And that's true, it doesn't. However, it does reduce the % of people who develop LC after infection, and the Times left that out. I'm not sure if this is a real example or just one I invented to give a sense of their slant, but it was always with smallish stuff, but stuff they should have known because often for these things there was just one big study everyone was reacting to, and the detail the Times skipped over would be in the article.
Long Covid is a ridiculous term, can we PLEASE stop using it?!?
Either you mean "post viral syndrome" -- which is a well-defined "you can get this from any virus, practically" -- or you mean the huge ball of "everything else" that people mud-and-daubed into being "Long Covid" -- this includes respiratory injuries inflicted on people due to mask mandates (AKA, you could have "Long Covid" without EVER getting the damn virus).
... It's been five years, do I still have to explain that covid19 isn't a respiratory illness (although it is an airborne illness?)...
It’s been 5 years, can you please calm down? That was the term used in the research I was reading and in the NYT article I am complaining about. My post is about what researchers thought and said vs how the NYT reported it, not about whether LC is a distinct syndrome, or whether it’s real.
Yeah, I can calm down. But you can't use the term long covid without defining "what this particular person means by long covid" so that I can appropriately understand the degree of intellectual deficiency that the particular person is operating under. (Sometimes this is crippled cognition, sometimes it's lack of knowledge, other times it's deliberate malfeasance to protect their own self-image or hide).
If I’m reading it correctly, Pokymarket is giving a 30% chance of the US attacking Iran before July.
https://polymarketanalytics.com/markets/21902
And it's up significantly in the three hours since you wrote that since Trump just tweeted (truthed?) something about evacuating Tehran.
WTF???
"Doctors at Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) hospitals nationwide could refuse to treat unmarried veterans and Democrats under new hospital guidelines imposed following an executive order by Donald Trump. The new rules, obtained by the Guardian, also apply to psychologists, dentists and a host of other occupations. They have already gone into effect in at least some VA medical centers.....Language requiring healthcare professionals to care for veterans regardless of their politics and marital status has been explicitly eliminated.....
"Doctors and other medical staff can also be barred from working at VA hospitals based on their marital status, political party affiliation or union activity, documents reviewed by the Guardian show....
"The Department of Veterans Affairs is the nation’s largest integrated hospital system, with more than 170 hospitals and more than 1,000 clinics. It employs 26,000 doctors and serves 9 million patients annually....."
Now it's the Guardian so some caution is called for; hopefully there will be some further investigation by other steadier news sources. But they say they are quoting from official documents, and the Trump administration spokesperson is not denying the core factual claim.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/jun/16/va-doctors-refuse-treat-patients
If this is confirmed as true then it's extremly worrying. Not only does it break several discrimination laws but the idea of sectoralizing specific sectors of the military through political affiliation might be even worse.
I don't live in the US but to all those who do i would suggest following this aspects very carefully and be ready to react, so far similarly illegal actions such as Garcia have been stopped by the courts and the Trump administration has complied but there is no guarantee that will continue.
They also add that doctors could refuse to treat patients based on their patients' political views or affiliations. Or at least that those sections where such behavior was prohibited have since been removed.
Right--the Guardian says Democrats, as that's pretty obviously what Trump, or whoever is operating him today, hopes will happen. But of course, a doctor under the new rules (if they are being reported accurately) could also refuse to treat a Republican, a member of the DSA, a fellow Democrat on the wrong side of the "is the Abundance thing the future of the party or is it a bunch of stupid bullshit" schism, or possibly even someone who refuses to state their political views.
True. All of which seems contrary to the most basic principles of medical care.
What is not contrary to the "most basic principles of medical care" is treating your patients in such a way to decrease their odds of survival, but to increase your own (Please, we really made regulations for this case. This is not a hypothetical, albeit one that wasn't supposed to be implemented in New York City).
It's against the Hippocratic oath, of course, but...
Oh, I completely agree in case that wasn't clear, which come to think of it, it wasn't.
Its hard to tell without access to actual text of the new rules, but it looks like it's just an effect of Trump's orders to strip DEI stuff from the government in general. So they probably took out all the discrimination protections that are not legally mandated by acts of Congress. I doubt it's a prelude to a plan of actual discrimination, seems explicable as just complying with the executive orders to make the language less woke.
Right, I don't expect executive orders coming that will mandate political discrimination, but it sounds like it'll be up to the providers now to decide if they want to discriminate (on the basis of non-protected statuses), which was prohibited before.
Or else it will be prohibited by some other law somewhere else rather than this specific law.
Or, y'know, just common sense. I don't think there's a huge population of doctors out there champing at the bit for a chance to refuse treatment to single people.
Not yet! But now thank goodness VA admins can selectively hire doctors who will.
In a world with so many big and real problems I don't know why some people feel so compelled to worry about small and hypothetical ones.
That sounds like a conciliatory version of "flood the zone."
My fellow ACX know-it-alls, I come looking for help. Please give me your best strategies to gain flexibility. More specifically, I want to be able to roundhouse kick higher. Right now I can kick maybe hip height at best. I'm ok with never being able to kick heads, but I feel like at least chest height should be doable. I've been taking martial arts lessons, doing static stretches and stuff like leg swings and leg raises for about three months now. Haven't really seen much, if any, improvement in this time which surprises me, as I was expecting some newbie gains.
Suggestions:
1) yoga/pilates are very helpful
2) if you can access Pilates reformer or one of those pulley/loop devices they use in physical therapy, you can do passive stretches much more effectively
3) to really make progress, stretch 2-3 times a day. Obviously be gentle.
Don't waste your time with slow and conventional means; check out my Metamodern yoga, the fulfillment of Jung's prediction of one day a Western yoga inspired by Christian principles!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PIcByhonjto
But that's 3 months old and my stuff works fast so I am significantly more flexible/beautiful since then, so here's me singing/dancing American Pie for Flag Day, America, SF: https://youtu.be/SfN5pohS1r8
But I don't really believe in self-promotion and want to catalyze a next generation focused on other-promotion. But I love to answer questions, so if you want specifically flexibility-oriented content, just ask!
But in general, there's not 1 right technique for speedy gains in flexibility/growth of all kinds. All techniques are right, but all techniques must meet and wed their shadow. So whatever you've been doing, you'll need to do the opposite. When you feel your flexibility increase, try to undo it and train your inflexibility as well.
When your inflexibility gains wane, return to your flexibility training and watch yourself soar past your previous limits!
Maybe look into PNF (Proprioceptive Neuromuscular Facilitation) stretching, a particular stretching technique for increasing range of motion. Unsure of the state of the literature though – I came across one review that didn’t find a significant difference between it and static stretching.
You could try yoga or some other form of regular stretching to loosen and lengthen the muscles in your legs and back. The stretch below (with the leg straight) has been great for me. A weekly live class with instructor is better than YouTube videos, but you probably could get some benefit just from stretching in the evening.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JR94frfcfWs
Years ago I did tae kwan do for a while, and I still remember older heavyset white belts in a competition. Points are scored for kicking the torso or head, mostly. Those guys were smashing each others knees - it was painful to watch. It might well be a question of balance and technique as much as flexibility.
Are high roundhouse kicks specifically part of the style, and are you being taught them yet? If both answers are yes, then this is very much a question for your instructor, who can see your kicks and should know how to cue you to do them better.
But if what you're being taught is kicking targets at your waist-high or lower, then they might be specifically teaching you a technique that's optimized for that and doesn't extend well to higher targets. The style I studied as a kid didn't teach high kicks at all and instead focused on kicking at the stomach, groin, and knees with two different techniques (toe-kicks optimized for speed and heel-kicks optimized for power), neither of which work well when aimed above your own center of mass. When I've seen people who studied other styles doing high kicks, their technique looks very different from anything I studied.
It's hard to give advice without knowing why your kicks are so low. How deeply can you go into the splits?
When I try to do the splits, I get perhaps a 90 degree angle between my legs, instead of 180 which is the goal. Yet I can kick chest high, or head high for a shorter person.
The way I teach to do a roundhouse kick is to bring your leg up with the knee to the side, like you're doing a front kick from the side. If you can't bring up your leg high enough then you won't be able to kick high enough.
You can try holding your ankle up with your hand while standing only on the other foot. Not only will this help you learn better balance, you will get more used to keeping your leg up for a roundhouse kick. Just be sure not to drop your knee below your ankle to keep your leg up.
"How deeply can you go into the splits?"
- I would say less than 90 degrees.
If I stand straight, bend my leg so that my foot is behind my knee (like if I was stretching my quad) and then try to lift my knee sideways I get a 45 degree angle at most. Hopefully that makes sense.
Then the question becomes how high you can lift your knee. If you bring your knee forward, then you should be able to get a bit more height. This means having your leg straight while your leg is bent at your hip, which may be challenging given your flexibility.
It isn't proper form, but if your goal is only to have a higher roundhouse kick, you can lean your upper body the opposite direction, to get more height.
I can't advise on stretches to give you more flexibility, but it looks like others can.
Maybe you just need different shorts:
https://co.pinterest.com/pin/459226493234505241/
Are you doing static stretches before or after at least the equivalent of kilometer-ish warm up run? The common wisdom I've always heard is that you really need to not be doing static stretching without a warmup and that it can in fact be affirmatively counterproductive.
When in class, stretches are done after a warmup, which sometimes is ~5-10 minutes of running and sometimes some other less intense activity. When at home, I usually do some sort of light warmup (jumping jacks or something) for a few minutes.
I had heard about cold stretching potentially being counterproductive. I will try to be more careful with it.
If you're interested in electronic/synthwave music and AI collaboration, please check out this album I produced this past week using a combination of Suno, ChatGPT, and Claude.
To me, this represents how an "idea person" can now create something genuinely compelling in music production—similar to Scott's AI art experiment from a few months ago, but for audio. It makes me wonder whether we're approaching (or already at) a point where human-AI collaborative music might be preferred over purely human-created work, at least for certain listeners and contexts.
The album explores themes around artificial intelligence, consciousness, ethics, and where it all leads. The vibe shifts significantly throughout—if one song isn't your style, jump ahead since each has a different energy. I'm particularly proud of the final track, though I'd recommend giving at least the couple preceding it a chance since there's something of a conceptual payoff that builds up to it (though perhaps not surprising to some in this community).
Would welcome any critiques on individual songs or the album overall. Curious what people think about both the music itself and the collaborative creation process.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mClFfl6jG7M
Listened to the first one and part of the second. The first one is a pretty basic beat, but has a weird transition, and the lyrics don't work; even nonsense lyrics have to flow into each other. You can't say "take everything" and then list stuff you didn't have to begin with. (I don't remember if this one used the word "unair" or if it was the second, but that's the kind of fake word I would concoct to blunt force a gap in a poem I was tired of writing.)
The second one has the same problems (satellites humming through your... veins? Not your 'brain', your 'veins'? Wrong metaphor), as well as the additional problem of completely different vocals from the first song. Like, "these two would never collaborate" vocals. Destroys the feeling of it being an album.
Thanks for checking out a couple songs and sharing your thoughts.
On the different vocals, I was worried about songs sounding too similar, but may have erred on the how much distinction to put between them. I totally see the point on two humans who sing this way not being likely to collaborate.
That said, and somewhat connected to the point on lyrics for the second song (Falling Upwards), the album is about an AI and its interactions with humans.
I think for a multi-planetary, (or single-planetary) AI, satellites humming through veins may work better, and not even be a metaphor.
On the first song (The In Between), I found the contradictions to resonate with the confusion of meaning in the context of consciousness and existence generally. In between two beings, in between being and not being.
That said, these may only make sense to me. I recognize that giving a stranger’s music a first listen takes significant mental/spiritual energy, and perusing for meaning takes even more. So I really appreciate you making the effort and providing me valuable insights on what it felt like as a listener!
I did not pick that up as a theme from the first two songs, and would say the first one contradicts it; it's very much trying to be a love song. "Nothing that you said was true, but all the time the truth was you" does not feel like a first contact meet-and-greet.
I enjoy some nonsense lyrics songs; this whole thing made me look up the Kingdom Hearts 3 intro song again, which almost certainly counts. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-KWMVnz2XZk I would say the lyrics are quite disjointed, but there's consistency in the tone; everything's obtuse, and aimed at the singer's depression. The AI doesn't hit that. I have no idea what "your breath dissolves in autumn rain" could even mean, and it's next to satellite veins and "this house that's not a home" (which is far too straightforward a phrase to be in the same song). There's no through-line.
I'll say that for the thru-lines to become clearer, you'll likely have to listen to the full album.
On the lines from 'Falling Upwards', to me this song represents the AI not sensing love and appreciation on Earth, and being frustrated by its limitations in communication and understanding. The 'breath in autumn rain' could just be a beautiful description for human existence, but also an allusion to the closeness to 'winter'.
Some lines are more evocative of a feeling, others more tied to the tangible. I think this is consistent with other songs.
Most listeners won't go into it with that mindset, so the songs should be pleasant enough to carry them through as pleasant moments. That said, I know that listening to an album as a whole is quite anachronistic, and that these songs won't do the job for many.
I don't want to spoil too much, but i'll say that as I played with arrangements of songs and listened repeatedly, I found a story to come together well and have found more connections between songs as I listen again. I attribute this to the pareidolia, and think these connections whether intended or not are one of the things which make music pleasing, which is probably why my favorite songs are ones that seem kind of non-sensical (especially REM for example).
I think hearing an explanation for the meaning of a song or album takes away from how much I enjoy it. Like, I want to know what it meant to the artist, but once I know the magic is kind of gone.
I welcome any additional feedback and dialogue you'd like to provide, but know that already you've given me some great thoughts and helped me flesh out my own thinking as I respond.
I'm not sure whether to critique it by the standards of music, or by the standards of a dog walking on its hind legs. I wouldn't accuse it of being good music (though it's difficult to articulate exactly what's missing) but it's impressive considering what was possible a few years ago.
I'd be interested in hearing more about your process, like what prompts were used to generate one particular song?
I’ll do two.
The process for all started the same. I’d explain to Claude Sonnet 4 or ChatGPT o3-pro my goal and that I was using Suno, and ask for 4 - 5 lyrics sets of lyrics and style prompts.
After filtering based on the lyrics, I’d throw a set into Suno 4.5 and listen.
The ‘Deja Vu Line’ was ‘one-shotted’ in the sense that the first version into Suno was pretty great and I didn’t want to try to go for a better one (This ended up being my wife’s favorite).
Others took several style prompts edits, lyric updates, and using same prompt generating new versions in Suno, and also using Sunos advanced features which let you remix, replace sections of songs, and get pretty granular into how to change things.
So with Deja Vu Line being the easiest, Carbon Dreams took the most revisions. It really tied together the narrative arc of the album and has a great / ominous sci fi feel. Much of my input was waving my hands in the direction I wanted to go, then reviewing Claude’s output and picking my favorite.
At the end of it I felt like Rick Rubin telling the Beastie Boys what I liked. Being a music producer was fun.
Some songs seem vaguely like a collaboration between Depeche Mode and They Might Be Giants. I would happily listen to this as background music while doing something else. Some of the songs are even better than that. Overall, the hit rate for me, personally, is about the same as when I listen to NPR's "new music friday" show.
You ask, below, about Entropy Carousel. Listening to it made me want to go listen to "People are People" by DM.
Vending Machine #39: I do like some of the phrases, like "microgravity pop top symphony," and "press the button marked undefined, get a packet of silvery lemony lime" (the whole chorus is pretty good and laugh-out-loudable, actually.)
Just sonically, though, the one I like the most is Nonsense Feels. I was listening in the background and enjoyed it enough to stop what I was doing and focus on listening. Trying to decode the lyrics makes me feel like I'm having a stroke, but there's the satisfying resolve of "tell me again how nonsense feels." I would be happy to put this track on my core playlist of favorites.
I tried to interest my tween and teen, but they weren't inspired, so I don't know how good your commercial prospects are.
Wow, thank you so much for that feedback!
Some lore about ‘Nonsense Feels’.
When I was originally chatting with Claude about lyrics and style prompts, I was finding that its lyrics were a bit too literal or narrative driven. After a few drafts I thought about it and told it that my favorite songs I generally have *no* idea what the subject is, and they are pretty much nonsensical.
It’s next set of lyrics prompts were the starting draft for several of these songs, and when I heard the rendition of “tell me again how nonsense feels” I literally got a tear in my eye.
Anyway it is great to hear that you enjoyed some of these. I love them, though obviously I am biased. Glad that this replicates at least somewhat :)
Would you be willing to put Nonsense Feels onto YT as a stand-alone track? Maybe also Vending Machine #39?
Of course, thanks for asking!
They are both online now. I'll avoid posting the links here out of caution for the rule, but you should be able to find them be clicking on my Youtube channel in the original link.
I also started the process to put all of the songs on Spotify and other platforms, but they'll take several days to show up there.
After re-reading your original comment I went back to listen to the titular/final track, Carbon Dreams. That is also a solid song and would be good as a stand-alone track.
I don't know whether to thank you for making these or for curating them, but I appreciate it either way.
Just uploaded Carbon Dreams on its own as well. All the songs are on Spotify now also.
Curating is a good term. While they wouldn't have existed without my prompting, it does seem like a stretch to say I 'made' them in the same way an artist who honed their craft for years would have.
Much of my value add and creativity was in selecting versions of lyrics, style prompts, and songs that resonated the most.
Thanks again for listening and sharing your thoughts. If you are inspired to make any songs on Suno yourself please send me a link so I can return the favor!
I wish I could've gone into this blind, because then I'd know if I hate this music because it's made by AI or if I would've hated it otherwise.
Maybe Scott can do another experiment but this time with songs.
But I take it you are not a fan?
No. It all seems very bland. I love electronic music in large part because it constantly feeds me new noises and musical ideas. This felt like generic youtube playlist music. There's no catchy novel musical ideas here.
Thanks for listening! For novelty, I think 'Entropy Carousel' is the most out there. What is that most similar to?
While not nearly as novel, I also thought 'Vending Machine #39' was unlike anything else I had heard (though it made me think of a fusion of Blink 182 with Mindless Self Indulgence).
Note that I am not disagreeing with your take, just trying to understand what these may be derivative of since you seem to have a broader knowledge of the electronic music world than I.
Just wanted to say that I like the way you responded :)
Without listening to it I feel compelled to link Gotye's old song, just based on the premise.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xWIKQMBBTtk
Cause these amazing simulations end up sounding even better than the real thing.
That is a great song that I had not heard before, thanks for sharing.
I think of how the LLM advancements could be summarized as saying the ‘synthesizer’ has more tools than ever before.
I have learned of a difficult situation in my family that I could use some help with. My father is almost 67. He has already retired and then unretired so that he can double dip on income. He is currently making 250k, in a part of the country where that is quite a lot of money.
His health is declining and he needs to retire ASAP. Unfortunately, he cannot, for a number of reasons. The most important of those reasons is that my mother is managing to spend more than he makes. Again, I emphasize the craziness of this - they ought to be able to live off of 60-70k a year very comfortably.
My father has tried over the course of the decades to reign in her spending, giving her an account with a limited amount of money. I learned this weekend that on multiple occasions, she took out a line of credit behind his back, maxed it out, and then he was forced to pay it off. My father feels like he cannot fix this situation without destroying his marriage, and would rather work til he dies than die alone without my mother.
Now that my sibilings and I are aware of the problem, we are - carefully - planning an intervention, with all of us on the same page and my father's approval. Right now we haven't come up with a better strategy than marriage counseling, therapy, and a full family enforcement of her sticking to an account with a limit, with the understanding that if she cannot abide by that limit she will destroy the family.
Any thoughts on other strategies we can pursue to help her get her spending under control?
"she took out a line of credit behind his back"
This is the core problem. You can't help someone who is willing to backstab.
Late to the conversation, read through the full thread thus far.
I'm in strong support of you being the bad guy and ring-leading your siblings in completely rejecting any and all overspending.
That said, when speaking to her, I think this should be framed as being primarily about *your* feelings and boundaries around accepting gifts rather than you attempting to control her (although of course you are attempting to control her). Lots of "I" language here, rather than "you." I agree you eventually should go full-out as you are planning to from this comment:
> "As for being the bad guy, everybody in my family is well aware that I mean what I say. I'm willing to go to war over this, and will never forgive my mother if my dad dies in his office. She will believe me when I say that, and hopefully adjust her behavior accordingly."
I'm glad to hear that you are planning on saying that! Please don't let anyone else tell you that's too "manipulative" or "controlling." You're allowed to say, "Mom, I know will not be able to forgive you if Dad dies in his office. We all desperately want to prevent that rift from destroying the family, so we've all agreed not to accept any gifts from you whatsoever. Please show your love for us by respecting our need to see Dad happily retired and relaxed."
But also, I think you should suggest acceptable outlets to show her love and affection. Does she live close enough to provide her *time* instead of gifts? Can she babysit, teach the kids her expertise, cook and/or read with them, and so on? Can you outsource some of your home admin-ish chores, like having her find your new primary care doc or insurance carrier, or find the best scooter for your kid BUT ABSOLUTELY UNDER NO CIRCUMSTANCES PURCHASING IT (maybe not this last one if it's too tempting for her to buy it herself). Can she do research and make some of *your* purchases for you, within your budget? Anything else?
Also, more importantly, if hesitantly:
Perhaps begin with a letter, escalate to a one-on-one conversation, and only go to a full-scale intervention if she still isn't receptive.
Because a full-scale multi-person intervention in which her own kids (!!!) - the kids she diapered (!!!!) - rise up against her is likely to be a deeply humiliating and very challenging experience. Very, *very* few people have the strength of character to hear strong criticism about themselves and simply accept it, especially in front of an audience.
And it's worth remembering that traditional interventions with addicts usually only work when the addict already knows on some level that what they're doing is destructive and that they need to stop. Their own self-loathing has already "broken" their pride enough to accept the help of their loved ones.
But it sounds like that's not your mom (yet), and so a big, confrontational scene where "everyone is against her!" her may very well backfire into defiance, just to prove that she has "power" and won't be "bullied," etc. She's the hero here, after all! She's trying to save a kid with *cancer!* Her adult children don't get to tell her not to do that! She'll do what she wants!
Of course, receiving a letter in which you outline your new boundaries and give her alternatives for how to show her love is also going to be humiliating, but at least she'll have the dignity of reacting to it privately. She'll also have more time to process the new state of affairs (hours/days instead of the second or two after you finish speaking). There will likely still be conflict, but it might not be as "big."
You can always move up to a one-on-one private conversation, and then a group intervention, to show how serious and united you all are. But starting small might yield better results, faster.
Last, I'd consider the beyond-nuclear action of not only saying you'll never forgive her if dad dies working - a possibility she can easily scoff at - but that you'll cut her off if she violates your boundaries *now.* Forget not allowing her to host Christmas; if she violates her budget, there won't *BE* a Christmas. Etc.
Your father will have to stop saving her. That's harsh but the only thing that works. If he keeps paying off her debts, she's never going to stop. Financial counselling and budgeting help may be useful as well, but if the background is "he'll never actually do anything to stop me" then she'll never stop. "If you run up more debt then you have to get a job and pay it off yourself, I'm not going to pay it for you". A (metaphorical) bucket of cold water to the face is what is needed here.
Would you or any of your siblings be prepared/able to have your father live with you? That would be the nuclear option: if she doesn't make a genuine attempt to stop living beyond their means, then he moves out. It has to be a credible threat, if it's an empty bluff it won't have any effect.
Also all of the children agree, and make it stick, that if Mom works Dad to death then she'll be responsible for her own living income and if she runs up debts none of you will step in to pay them for her and if (for example) the house gets sold out from under her to pay those debts, none of you are going to take her in. Get it into her head that there are no last resorts for her to fall back on if this doesn't stop.
Maybe your father wants to work? With this high earning, he must be kind of a big shot at work.
Are they in a community property state?
If not, he shouldn't be "forced" to cover debts solely in her name. Creditors could go after joint assets, but other than the house (which usually can't be seized for non-mortgage debt) it sounds like there aren't all that many of those.
Another option might be doing a paper divorce - they still live together, he gives her a strict allowance, but they're legally separate now there's no co-mingling of funds. Of course, this only works if she more or less goes along with it; you don't want a nightmare where she gets alimony or something.
My dad is not willing to do anything that will jeopardize his marriage. He is “forced” to cover it because he won’t divorce her over this. And I don’t blame him - they haven’t stuck it out for 35 years just to blow it up in the home stretch and have him die alone. He’d rather just work. Any attempt to try to force my mother to work and pay for her extra curricular spending is not a tenable plan given his needs.
Are you saying that he's unwilling to divorce her (understandable), or that he's unwilling to limit her at all?
Because, if they're not in a community property state, he can probably defang her without divorce. Just stop giving her access to money and stop paying off her debts. If she's sued for her own debts, creditors can only go after shared assets (which may or may not include the house - look up the homestead exemption for their state). He can keep his own money while giving her $100/week for groceries or whatever. And after the first time she's sued, her credit will be so destroyed that she should never be able to take a significant loan again.
Now, if he thinks that this would jeopardize his marriage, that's a different story. But at that point we're not talking about a careless spender, we're talking about a willful abuser.
> But at that point we're not talking about a careless spender, we're talking about a willful abuser.
Isn't that where we started? How do you accidentally open a secret line of credit?
Is this an OCD compulsive shopping/accumulating thing?
Kind of. I don’t think she has OCD, but definitely undiagnosed ADHD. She is also a hoarder and lacks impulse control.
As I said elsewhere in the thread, the bulk of the unnecessary expenses are money she is spending on the family. As an example, she and my brother are visiting my niece who has cancer this week. Despite having the Ronald McDonald house and her cousins house as options, she insisted on booking an expensive airbnb “just in case”, against everyone’s wishes, and refused to cancel it. That was like 1400 right there, and the problem is just a mountain of decisions like that.
She will not change.
I, too, think she is sick, in some psychopathic way, meaning she is unable to perceive her being sick.
I have family members like this and one of them I get to "understand" and admit she is doing wrong whenever I wish -- she is not stupid -- but about 2 minutes later, she behaves exactly as before and I can get her do admit her doing is wrong anew.
If your family's situation changes at all, then the changes will happen around her, not in her. That's were you should look for a solution, but there probably isn't any if your father isn't open to divorce.
Ouch, this is a horrible mind trap. She keeps hurting everyone around her, but she can't hear their screams of pain over the sound of congratulating herself for how good and generous person she is!
To me this seems like a kind of mental illness. I don't think that trying to talk some sense into her would work. You should probably ask a lawyer, or a psychiatrist.
(Maybe I am exaggerating here, but I had a relative who did something similar. No amount of begging could ever stop her. When she finally died, the stress levels of the remaining family have decreased dramatically... except for her husband, who got depressed and died soon after her. I wish I could write something more optimistic here, but I have no idea.)
What you could maybe do is take out a small pay day loan in her name, without her knowing, and then not make any repayments, or repay just interest to keep the balance under control. That would screw up her credit rating and maybe prevent her from obtaining further loans herself. Do you know what she is doing with the money? Gambling or drugs? Or just a shedload of fancy handbags and shoes and suchlike?
Neither, unfortunately. She's not that bad of a person, or the scope of this problem would have been obvious to me and my siblings way earlier.
I discussed some of this elsewhere in the thread, but for more context - it is very important to her to be the hostess of the family and to take care of everybody. She's not spending this money on herself, but on everyone else. Expensive vacations for her and my father (with the focus on *him*, not her dream vacation or whatever), vacations for the whole family that they pay for, anything and everything for my nieces and nephews, etc...
We're taking that role away from her as part of this, which will go some ways towards limiting expenses. By refusing to do holidays at her house anymore or stay in their house at all, we might actually be able to convince her to move in to a normal size house that is suitable to grow old in. My dad spends quite a bit on keeping the house/lawn/pool maintained, and on hosting my sibilings and nieces at every occasion. The least we can do is take that off of the table.
Also something that might help (or might not, I don't know your mom): If she plans a whole-family vacation, but you and your siblings pay the monetary cost, she still did a bunch of work to plan a vacation (it can be a lot of work to figure out where you want to go and get reservations in advance) and lead to a good family time and taking care of everyone.
> She's not spending this money on herself, but on everyone else. Expensive vacations for her and my father (with the focus on *him*, not her dream vacation or whatever), vacations for the whole family that they pay for
How does she do those things without him knowing about it?
Yeah, families are complicated. At least now you and your siblings know the true state of affairs. I'm not one to recommend therapy at every drop of a hat, but this sounds like something where counselling might help. She needs to look at *why* she has the compulsion to be the ever-giving benefactor of the family, and that in fact if she doesn't host big parties and lavish gifts, you all won't love her less.
There is definitely some dynamic of "you have to buy love" and "you have to show generosity by over-spending" going on here in the background. I'm going to take a quote from "The Screwtape Letters" here (and not saying your mother is a bad person) - this is about Gluttony but Profligacy fits as well:
"If ever the Enemy introduces into her mind a faint suspicion that she is too interested in food, Glubose counters it by suggesting to her that she doesn’t mind what she eats herself but “does like to have things nice for her boy”. In fact, of course, her greed has been one of the chief sources of his domestic discomfort for many years."
Your mother probably doesn't see her spending as a problem because she's not spending on herself, she's "doing it for the family". If the family can convince her that, in fact, her spending is causing problems for all of you (e.g. booking the Airbnb nobody wanted) I think it would be a big help.
Though I understand the sentiment, I think it a bad idea to advise something illegal, such as fraud, to fix a problem.
Yeah, I wasn't fully comfortable with that approach, although I appreciated the creativity.
I'm a psychotherapist, and do not think therapy and marriage counseling are great options here. If your mother herself is distressed by her overspending it would certainly make sense for her to seek therapy, but it does not sound like that's the case. I think your best shot is to gather and tell her that her spending is destructive and unfair, and that you want her to STOP. Even if she agrees, I think it makes sense to go ahead and take steps to make it impossible for her to draw on our father's credit. Spandrel suggests a way to do that that sounds fine to me. There may also be others.
Therapy and marriage counseling are in no way a sufficient solution, which I have emphasized to my dad and he seems to have accepted. (If this was solvable by him and a counselor, this problem would have been settled a long time ago.) But I'm sure it can't hurt as part of a comprehensive strategy.
One thing that I am insisting on currently is that we explain to my mom that this constitutes financial abuse. Not to shame her or guilt her - the past is the past, already forgiven and forgotten. We're just trying to fix things going forward. And the point of expressing it in those terms is to try to shock her into seeing her behavior objectively. I don't think it would have crossed her mind for a second that she is being abusive, or that the rest of the family would see it that way. It needs to be clear to her that this behavior cannot continue without destroying our happy family that is the center that her life revolves around.
She is not a bad person, or a consciously manipulative person. She's just very accustomed to getting her own way, has undiagnosed ADHD, and lacks self-awareness and impulse control. My read on the situation is that she *could* react very badly, but there is an angle to be found here where we frame this as helping her with a problem that she already knows she has.
I agree with you about taking preventative measures, I will run every option listed here by my father and see what we can get him to agree to.
> I don't think it would have crossed her mind for a second that she is being abusive
That's not really evidence *against* being abusive. Probably the other way round.
Do you think she is consciously aware, in a mathematical/financial sense, that she and your dad can't really afford all this generosity? That even if the money is there, spending it all on this stuff means no money for retirement etc.?
Sort of. The situation is complicated - there are other financial drains on my dads income, which I think she blames for him not being able to retire. That’s actually how we found out about the situation - my sister and I approached my dad to help with this other set of problems, and that’s when he told us what the real issue is.
The problem is a lack of self awareness in my mothers part. My dad will name a number that is their budget, and she will say that of course she can stay within that. And then she will make an exception “just this once”, except just this once is actually a monthly occurrence, and blow the budget out of the water.
So, my dad can retire today if my mom can stick to a budget. But since she can’t, he is rightfully concerned about retiring while he can still work and then her blowing through all of their savings in 10 years or less, at which point he will legitimately be too old to go back to work.
Oh, well, that's really a problem. But it sounds to me like your family's plan to boycott any further big gatherings, lavish vacations or airbnbs is probably the best way to enforce the new regime, assuming you can get your mother to agree with it at the intervention.
Your family members are going to have to really hold the line, though. No "just this once" for you all, either. I hope they're able to do that.
I agree therapy can't hurt, just was concerned that the family was placing faith in it as a change agent. Seems like you're not, though.
Yeah, we're on the same page. Thanks for the help
What is she spending the money on? Perhaps try to get her into some new (cheaper) hobbies.
Mostly my nieces and family vacations. This has been an ongoing concern for decades, but now that she has grandkids she just refuses to not buy anything and everything for them. We recently learned my youngest niece has cancer, which is sending her into overdrive. On top of that, she insists on playing the host for the whole family - elaborate meals, expensive airbnbs and fully paid family vacations multiple times a year, etc....
The latter is easy to handle - we've already unanimously decided as a family that we will be doing holidays at my sister's house and no longer accept gifts/airbnbs etc... we can't really stop her from spending money on the girls, because she has a direct line to my brother's ex-wife and the ex-wife's parents. So we'll have to explore some of the other options in this thread for restricting access to funds.
Put a lock on his and her credit reports, with alerts sent to you and/or siblings if they are unlocked. I think she can be locked out of his completely (but not her own). This will make it very difficult for her to take out an LOC, at least not without others being aware.
I'm not sure if my dad is willing to get an attorney involved, but I'll run that idea by him and see what he thinks. Thanks for the suggestion
Doesn't require an attorney, just creating accounts for Equifax, TransUnion, and Experian. There are also apps that make it easier to lock/unlock and monitor all three, I guess for a fee.
Bonus tip, everyone should lock or freeze their credit reports. Federal law guarantees that it is a free service, and no one will be able to borrow money (eg, apply for a credit card) in your name. If you need to borrow money, just request the freeze be lifted for a week or whatever.
Does this work "cleanly" for married couples?
I have my credit frozen, but I'm single. In order to incur debt that I'm responsible for, a third party would have to actually impersonate me, that is to say, commit fraud. But if I had a spouse, would they be able to take out credit in their own name, which I might be responsible for in a community property state?
Generally the credit report is per individual, though it may reflect joint income and credit history. As I noted in my original reply, the OP's mother will always be able to gain access to her own report without committing fraud, though it is possible to have notices sent whenever it is accessed - for instance, to Jack's email address - and it is one more hurdle for her to get access and change the email settings without triggering that notice. It's not foolproof, but it is a bit of a barrier - and if she is not aware of the situation she may never even realize why her credit card applications are being denied.
It's just a suggestion, not something I've had occasion to think through before now.
Thank you, that is very helpful advice. I'll bring that up when we all get together
That's a solid idea to look into. Maybe consult an attorney as to whether/how it is practical.
More broadly, a mitzvah you all could maybe do for your father would be to effectively make yourselves the bad cop rather than him. To whatever degree is practical of course....I do not underrate the personal costs of this. If successful it could result in becoming the focus of raging abuse and criticism from one of your own parents. She will _not_ be happy. She will _not_ quickly or calmly forgive this massive rebuke if indeed she ever does. Do you have children? Explaining why Grandma now only ever screams at Daddy would be a whole additional layer of pain for you.
Still though: your aging and now ill father seems to have been backed into a corner, through no bad intentions on his part, from which he has no escape. And the thing paralyzing him is his wife's potential rage, some of which seems inevitable from here. So stepping in front of that rage could be really meaningful to him and maybe help un-paralyze him?
The plan is absolutely to make me the bad cop. I plan to take great pains to emphasize that this is not coming from my father - it's just factually true that his plan was to try and do some more counseling and keep working until he dies if necessary. So, it's important to all of us that we make sure my mom understands that this has expanded beyond their relationship into a family problem, and that my dad has not pushed for this or asked for this at all. As best as I can, I want to minimize the effects on his relationship.
As for being the bad guy, everybody in my family is well aware that I mean what I say. I'm willing to go to war over this, and will never forgive my mother if my dad dies in his office. She will believe me when I say that, and hopefully adjust her behavior accordingly.
Woof. I do not envy you at all. Good luck!
Research seems to be incredibly consistent and clear on what the most effective study techniques are: Spaced Practice and Free Recall (1)
Why are many teachers not aware of this (2), and why are these key methods so poorly implemented in schools (3)?
----
(1) https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/education/articles/10.3389/feduc.2021.581216/full (one of many)
(2) https://media.the-learning-agency.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/01151644/What-Do-Teachers-Know-About-The-Science-of-Learning-1.pdf (and well-documented in 'education' circles/blogs)
(3) No link. Only observations from reading and conversations on the topic, plus my own findings.
I've never had spaced repetition help with anything a little complex. Memorization seems to be a small part of obtaining a new facility with a topic. Not sure how to go around obtaining that to be fair, it's a little mysterious, at some point something just clicks into place. This might vary between subjects I suppose.
Memory is a huge part of x new topic clicking into place!
I've heard that, and maybe it's true for certain memory heavy things, but it just doesn't work for the things I've tried.
What have you tried it for that it hasn’t helped with, and what exactly did it look like?
This second point is much more important. Something powerful will never by anything but useless if used poorly. No different to something like, say, fire.
Some new mathematics field. I tried adding theorems, examples, and some exercises as flashcards in a spaced repetition program. It was slower than my normal method. Also some grammar in a language, same deal add grammar explanations and example sentences in flashcards. I found the memory component here too shallow, I get a stronger effect by removing or modifying hypothesis and exploring consequences, and applying the principles creatively instead, in a spaced interval way to be sure but not one that can be systematized in a useful way.
I see. Using for maths is slightly different but for different reasons: scaffolding becomes arguably more important, and thus can be leveraged more via implicit practice. What do you mean re the grammar in a language?
Remember though that your alternative method is still based on recall and spaced practice. Whether you do it via the medium of a flashcard is separate.
One issue is that schools are only weakly encouraged to optimize for learning, and have a large number of competing concerns and incentives.
If I, as a person who has done some teaching, should answer your question:
The main problem in teaching a difficult subject like mathematics is mainly not scaring the students away and keeping them just a tiny bit motivated. Putting people to do spaced repetition will often lead to 50% of a class just entirely disengaging from the subject and then claiming that the work load is too large. Much better to give the kind of work where it is easy for students to half-ass it or just cheat, and pray for the better ones to still learn something.
I'm late to this one, sorry. But this resonated with me - and also with what I read in one of the non-fiction reviews, the one on the new Alpha schools (https://docs.google.com/document/d/1d0vRSj1E93joWWvbUen2XGuDjN_mM94ybMIAADzM2fo/edit?tab=t.0#heading=h.1n2243y7h4yv). The author describes how the platforms of the GT school (a branch of Alpha school), which are based to a large degree on spaced repetition, only work really well if combined with what he calls "bribing" (i.e., gamification plus the ability to earn real-world goodies):
-----
My kids are gifted. They love learning. They compete in academic bees and chess tournaments and musical productions for fun. But the GT incentive system has turbo-charged their academic learning well beyond that inborn desire to learn.
We decided to join the GT school in July, but, for logistical reasons, we could not start until October. For the 3.5 months I signed the kids up to iXL – the tool that Alpha students use for 80% of their academic work – including almost all of their Language, Math and Science lessons. I wanted to get the kids used to using it over the summer before they started school.
It did not go well.
We tried getting the kids to work on it for about an hour per day, but it was a fight every time. It was the same content they would be doing at GT, but without the GT structure, and it did not work.
But once the kids started at GT, those same iXL lessons became a game for them. I remember taking the kids to the park one day after school. They asked me, “Instead of playing can you set up a hotspot so we can do a few more lessons? I want to earn more GT-Bucks!”.
-----
And that's highly talented and motivated kids, mind you...
The review also has a interesting discussion of why such motivation is rarely used (spoiler: the general public hates it).
Apologies I’m not understanding what you mean.
Schools are already loosely based on pseudo spaced-repetition by virtue of their set up.
What do you mean when you say putting students on SR will lead to many disengaging? What is the context or application you are thinking of?
Let me try to define what I mean a bit clearer:
By SR I mean something like Duolingo/ Flashcards / simple math exercises.
By lectures I mean a teacher or professor standing in fron of a blackboard, explaining new concepts while students listen. Sometimes it will be a teacher explaining to a smaller group, or just taking time to answer one particular question.
By fancy assignments... well by that let us say all kinds of assignments/ work which does NOT qualify as SR or free recall.
Obviously you only have a limited amount of time to teach something, so if you want more SR you will have to cut down on other things.
Again, I would say I personally believe that lots of exercises using the entire skill set often, mastering one part before moving on to the next, all of it is truly important for learning hard things like mathematics. I am just trying to give an explanation of why main stream education are not really doing as much of it as they can.
Okay, I will just try to explain a bit deeper. But before the rant, let me just start by saying thanks for the links, the free recall things I actually didn't a lot about before.
Let us say that most education consists of 3 parts: Lectures, fancy assignments, and SR. In order to get time for more SR you will have to spend less time on the other two.
Teachers like lecturing because it allows them to try to act out their inner Feynman. Also, it is a way to try to inspire students to get interested in the material.
Fancy assignments are big pieces of work that often focus on one particular thing. When teaching physics this will be something like doing an experiment and writing a report about it. In mathematics it is something like doing a big assignment with calculus, perhaps with some kind of real-world connection, trying to get the students to see why calculus is smart. I guess for language this is something like trying to read an actual book in the new language.
Big assignments look very good when you are describing what coursework have been done. They can also sometimes help raise interest in a subject. The problem is that they often do not help retain already learned skills: You don't practice your Newtonian physics by doing an experiment in optics.
Lastly, the Repetition. This can be done with online tools, or just by giving a lot of short exercises. I believe SR is a very strong of learning. It is really necessary, particularly with things like physics and math. You can't do differential equations if you have forgotten how to differentiate the basic functions.
The problem with SR that I have experienced is that it actually requires students to do a bunch of exercises every week. For a demotivated student, this is a lot harder than a lecture or a fancy assignment. You can sleep during lectures and you can just write a really bad report if you are too busy the given month. SR exercises requires that time is actually spent on it. Even if you are using ChatGPT to cheat (which everybody are these days) you end up spending almost as long as if you had just done it yourself.
So after a few months you will have to deal with a lot of people who have not kept up with their SR exercises, who claims it is too hard, they don't have the time for it, etc. Once they are truly antagonized they will be a lot harder to teach. They will find ways to do the exercises in the most counterproductive way out of sheer anger. Or at least that is what I have experience when trying my own homeprogrammed tools.
So, for a real teacher it is extremely tempting to instead spend time on things that they hope might turn their students into highly motivated learners. More lectures. More cool videos. More experiments. More demonstrations. All leading to less time spent on actually training the necessary skills.
I am not saying this is a good thing. I really believe we should strive to make education more efficient. But I think this is the reason why so few actual educators are changing to SR. They see their main task as inspiring students, not training them. And they do have some points there.
No problem re the links. I’m a huge reader of cognitive science research.
Re your comment: I appreciate your detail but I do I think it’s based again on a potentially incorrect understanding of what SR is.
When you say education consists of “lectures, assignments and SR, and that time spent on SR means less time on lectures and assignments”, what does you actually mean by this?
There are other points in there that I (and research) would pushback on, but if the fundamental isn’t in place any communication on top would not make sense!
I think Christian_Z_R was fairly clear, asking a class of (high school?) students to do Spaced Repetition will make half the class pray for a death that will not come. As a guess, SR is probably great for motivated med students cramming cranial nerve functions, and not appropriate for wide swaths of elementary and high school classes.
And again I will ask I do not understand what you mean when you say “make them do spaced repetition”
What does this mean? What are they “doing” in the class exactly when you envision this, and what is then unique about this that would independently cause them to disengage over, say, rereading the textbook again?
When I make SR like problems, it is usually short closed problems which requires recalling an important formula or law in order to solve. These are very good for testing whether you actually understand what you are doing, or whether you are just looking at a book without comprehension.
The problem is that such problems are exactly very for testing whether you actually understand something, and so they remove the comforting illusion of being very good which you can get from just reading a book. They work a bit like a weekly exam, helping you realize how many necessary concepts you have forgotten since just last month.
For the student with a small ego who truly wish to excell this is exactly what you want. Forcing him to continually face the holes ik his understanding will make him progress faster.
But for the normal student, meeting and failing the same kind of question every week... well, at least it is not quite good.
I remember vividly how much I hated PE as a kid, because it was always just being told to try to do things I was bad it, over and over. Only later, when I started trying to do sports that genuinely interested me (HEMA and BJJ) could I get enough motivation to actually improve. For lots of students the same is true of all academic subjects, they lack the motivation to go through the grind of actually learning. And so teachers chase the dream of being a truly inspiring coach instead of searching for the scientifically most sound teaching methods.
I see. So essentially you feel that free-recall isn’t implemented as much due to its greater difficulty (which, importantly, is a feature not a bug) which could have a negative effect on the student?
I could see that in all honesty. Of course the response to that would be the difficulty is exactly the very thing that induces the greater retention, but if this, say, prevents them from even going into class then it’s had a negative effect.
I guess it’s just strange that the vast majority of study techniques, even those recommended by teachers, are things such as rereading or highlighting/notetaking etc despite research consistently proving it to be inferior.
And this is without even touching on the potential of a technique called “Interleaving”! Although this has important context, so perhaps more complex to implement correctly.
Heck, I've been using SRS to learn Japanese vocab purely for fun out of my own volition, and I *still* find it to be a terrible unpleasant grind!
This is a function of how you're using it, not a function of the thing itself!
Fire is terrible for cooking if you only hold the food over it for a second!
Exactly this! No matter how well you try to craft your software or how well you write your recurring questions, no thing can beat the will of a 17 year old who has decided not to learn.
Hm. But where did I suggest that it can overcome this? This, to me, would be like a football coach saying to his players “It’s much more effective if we play in x area. They are weak there!” and then a parent of one of the players shouts out “Coach don’t bother! Just go home! They’re not even good!”
Maybe if we have more questions on the topic, we can go to your flashcard business website. Excellent work on staying under the threshold of self promotion - top marks from me!
Thanks for the links. I also hadn't been aware of this.
Both of these techniques are for improving the student's ability to memorize facts. I feel a little bit sad about this because I don't feel like memorizing facts is the most important part of learning.
Former educator here: while I agree that memorizing facts is not the most important part of learning, it very often shows up as a necessary prerequisite to things that are important. When it is a prerequisite, it's often very important to be able to memorize something *sufficiently well.* Fishing out the relevant datum 30 seconds later with low confidence often will not cut it.
Consider mathematics. While I'm of the opinion that being able to do large mental arithmetic problems in your head is quite unnecessary in the information age, you still should be able to add and multiply 1-2 digit numbers quickly and reliably. Same with various sorts of algebraic symbolic manipulations.
To be clear: neither arithmetic nor algebraic symbolic manipulations are the most crucial or useful parts of mathematics. But they tend to show up *everywhere*. If you don't have the key rules memorized you will *constantly* be having to pause in the middle of what you're doing to look something up or punch it into a calculator. This sort of constant interruption makes thinking through longer and more intricate problems impossible. In general, I take a fairly narrow view of *which* formulas a student ought to memorize--lots of things are just fine to look up--but anything that is worth memorizing should be memorized well. Recall should be quick and smooth and automatic.
A clearer example of the same might be learning a language. Most of learning a language is memorization, and most of the memorization must be quite thorough to be of much use[1]. Carefully reasoning through sentence structure or stopping to try to recall a word is fine in the classroom, but not great when you need to operate at conversational speed. A lot of the learning process seems to amount to practicing the tough bits until your brain can handle them without getting your conscious mind involved at all. I don't have to think "oh, a modal verb, I'd better put the infinitive of the main verb at the end of the clause" when I'm formulating a sentence in German: my brain now pretty much does it for me, generally without me even thinking the term "modal" or explicitly noting where the clause even ends.
While I think an educational curriculum that focused *solely* on memorizing facts would be a poor curriculum, educators having good tools to help students memorize necessary facts can smooth the teaching of a great many subjects.
[1] To be clear, this does *not* mean that endlessly going through stacks of flash cards is the best way to learn a language. Some of that might be necessary, but once you have a core of vocab and grammar solidly in place, finding level appropriate ways to practice actually using the language will probably be better. You'll get your spaced repetition automatically (if somewhat irregularly).
As a former teacher, I 100% agree.
But, "you don't need memorization, you only need critical thinking." Yeah, critical thinking about what subject, if you don't know any? How can you critically draw a conclusion from facts, if you don't know the facts? How can you notice when another person is telling you nonsense, if you have no knowledge to compare that against? If you remember nothing, you don't know nothing; you can't think critically about nothing.
And specifically learning languages without memorization is utterly impossible.
I’d push back quite strongly on this personally. I used to think similar perhaps a year or so ago, but it’s definitely (I think) a slight misunderstanding
I’m out currently but I’ll link some blogs from people much smarter than myself that also push back on this, but their position is basically that knowledge, in a sense, is memorising something.
There’s nuance, but this covers the main gist of the argument though.
One of the authors is Justin Skyack, who works on a site called MathAcademy but has wrote tonnes on these topics.
Yeah. Having done a lot of teaching, I found that the patterns and higher order thinking we want to teach is firmly downstream of a lot of memorization and recall work. You need a huge basis of facts and connections at ready recall before you can even start to properly reason about a new concept, and the reasoning process is not context free--the reasoning you do in historical topics is not the same as in mathematical contexts.
Yes, I think what you’re describing is essentially “scaffolding”: understanding a+b before being taught c+d
At one point they would have covered and ‘learnt’ a+b, but then due to not keeping it in their memory (spaced practice) they ‘lose’ it and thus c+d, while more challenging, appears unfeasibly challenging
And then on this ‘challenging’ aspect, even if they are following a Spaced-Practice approach (again, very unlikely), if all their previous work was not via (free) recall and instead via recognition or multiple choice etc, this then increases the difficulty further as there is more productive-but-hard cognitive load on recall, hence the greater retention seen consistently in research.
Current implementation in schools seems to be minimal SR combined with minimal FR. The exact opposite of what is consistently shown to be most effective in research.
I very much appreciate the new rule. Thank you for adding it.
Agree.
The last part of the rule has already been the rule for ages, and it's just been routinely ignored. I don't have much hope unless there's going to be a step-up in enforcement.
I think we all need to be prepared to speak up to people who ignore, or do not know about this rule, and to report their posts.
Repeating what I said in response to someone ignoring Scott's linking rule.
I've got an idea. I don't know if Scott would like it, but I really don't see why he wouldn't. A lot of people want to advertise their blogs, the rest of us find it annoying and rather scummy. How about: if you want to share a post or essay, you paste the entire thing into the comment box (across several if necessary). Then you can add a link saying "cross posted from here."
This:
-lets people share writing they think would be of interest here
-doesn't cause the inconvenience of having to click to another page just to engage in discussion on something here
-doesn't give the writer unearned clicks; instead of forcing people to click to your blog just to know what you're talking about (which, to be honest, is my suspician of what's primarily motivating these advertisments, though I hope I'm wrong)
-DOES let the writer get *earned* clicks--the only way you get a click is if you're writing impresses people enough that they want to see more of it on other topics
If I were Scott, I'd do a total zero-tolerance ban on merely linking (or linking with summary or linking with excerpt) while allowing such full cross-posting with link without restriction.
I think the proper way is to give a description, about 3-5 lines long, what the article is about. And I don't mean "here is something to pique your curiosity, click this link if you want to know the answer", but more like the actual summary as if you asked a third party to write it after reading your article.
I think it is okay to put up to three or four articles in the same comment. (Better than three different comments.) And then stop doing it, at least for a month, preferably more.
Yikes, no!
That would be far more annoying to anyone scrolling through looking for interesting comments.
One paragraph abstract in top level comment, essay in replies. This means the collapse thread bar gets displayed and works right away, and also gives people some context to help them work out if they want to wade into the incoming wall of text or just collapse it.
Yes, this would be better, but I think you can go even further in this direction, and after the one paragraph abstract, you could functionally "collapse" the following essay into a single line using one of the nifty features of the Hypertext Transfer Protocol.
I regularly post long essay-like comments on here making some point that I think people might respond to, and no one's ever told me those were annoying. If I had a blog (which maybe I some day will) I'd be cross-posting them there.
But yes when it comes to people just thoughtlessly cross-posting things *without* curating them for this audience, that would indeed be a big problem, so there *would* have to be restrictions. (Personally, though, I don't agree that it would be more annoying. Nothing is more annoying and obnoxious than what people are doing right now).
I think the mentality behind your suggestion would be less annoying, but in practicality, I agree with the others that it would be worse. It would make scrolling the open thread more of a hassle with multi comment posts, and unless someone comments on them they wouldn't be collapseable (at least on the desktop view, I'm not sure how the app works). Whereas if you see a blue link while scrolling you know just to ignore it and move on, and there's less to scroll through.
It sure would be.
Is there a comment length limit on Substack? Because I think that would potentially be a limiting factor
Yes, there is a comment maximum length. It's very hard to run into when you're only writing your own words, I only run against it when I'm quote-replying to somebody, and even then it takes 7 or 8 replies for the debate to get large enough to run against the comment's length.
Someone else has probably made this connection already, but one of Scott’s casual foretellings from The Toxoplasma of Rage came true a while back:
“Imagine Moloch looking out over the expanse of the world, eagle-eyed for anything that can turn brother against brother and husband against wife. Finally he decides “YOU KNOW WHAT NOBODY HATES EACH OTHER ABOUT YET? BIRD-WATCHING. LET ME FIND SOME STORY THAT WILL MAKE PEOPLE HATE EACH OTHER OVER BIRD-WATCHING”. And the next day half the world’s newspaper headlines are “Has The Political Correctness Police Taken Over Bird-Watching?” and the other half are “Is Bird-Watching Racist?”. And then bird-watchers and non-bird-watchers and different sub-groups of bird-watchers hold vitriolic attacks on each other that feed back on each other in a vicious cycle for the next six months, and the whole thing ends in mutual death threats and another previously innocent activity turning into World War I style trench warfare.”
https://www.npr.org/2023/03/18/1164293652/audubon-faces-a-backlash-after-deciding-to-keep-name-that-evokes-a-racist-enslav
The Audubon society had an internecine split over whether they should keep the name once the namesake was declared unclean during the woke era.
I ditched following new tabletop RPGs over this, but that was over a decade back.
It uh, has not gotten any better in the TTRPG space. Pre-2020 TTRPG discourse seems almost quaint and nostalgic in comparison. If you left over 2015 drama...man, what were we even fighting about then? Edition warring I guess? Forge games? OSR? Nowadays it's all culture war shit it seems like.
It had already gotten like that by then. I think I was looking at RPG.net sometime in the mid-2010s, looking at the register of bans, and thinking "well, if this is what the scene is like now, I'm not going to bother following this stuff now".
IRL everyone just plays the latest edition of D&D anyway.
5e is definitely still dominant for in-person games from my experience. Though a caviat: nobody I know has jumped to the 2024 revised rules yet, everybody is still sticking with the 2014 rules (everybody has their own reasons it seems). But I think compared to like, 2018 or so when it was *overwhelmingly dominant* (like the idea of playing anything other than 5e was not really a thing). Now I think there is more openness to other systems than there was in the 5e golden age.
I thought this was going to be about the central park birdwatching incident.
Imagine a twitcher being woken at 2am by a mobile phone alert. He jumps out of bed, packs a few things, including his trusty notebook and binnies, and charges off in his car. After several hours toeing it up the motorway at a constant 120 MPH, praying all the while that no police cars are around at that early hour, he reaches the West coast of Scotland. After negotiating ever narrower and twistier roads, he eventually arrives at a remote beach where he hires a boat to take him to a nearby desolate island.
On reaching the island, he starts heading up a treacherous mountain path, but he is soon met by a dejected group of people trudging down the other way. They inform him that a lesser spotted fly catcher (or whatever the bird was) had been spotted there the previous day, or someone thought they might have seen one, but now there is no sign of it!
Then the heartbroken guy remembers he is supposed to be getting married that day, and at this very moment his bride to be will be waiting at the altar in floods of tears, and he has no mobile signal to phone and explain why he is a no show. Probably the bride's family, and indeed everyone who had turned up for the wedding, will hate bird watchers ever after! :-)
"The Audubon society had an internecine split over whether they should keep the name once the namesake was declared unclean during the woke era."
I was a direct close observer of that because the regional NGO that I lead was and is a close collaborator of the National Audubon Society. A good friend who is now one of my board officers was then a senior executive of that organization; we've hired Audubon people; we share donors in common locally; etc.
From my seat that episode turned out to be a cheering example of the dieback of wokeness. Into the teeth of that internecine split, which not only was fierce but became for one side the symbol of "a broader issue" and hence a hill to die on, Audubon's board and senior leadership first wobbled but then found their feet. They declined to be pushed into a panicky change; carried out a robust internal comment/discussion process which was structured so as to minimize bullying; etc. In the context of 2021/22 that took some steady nerves.
And then in March 2023 they publicly, graciously but firmly, announced that the organization would not be changing its name. They did not deny John James Audubon's personal conduct (which it's worth noting was not just a retroactive modern-era criticism). They concluded and stated that "The decision was made taking into consideration many factors, including the complexity of John James Audubon’s legacy and how the decision would impact NAS’s mission to protect birds and the places they need long into the future."
And then the organization moved on. Today this question never even comes up anymore, and I work closely enough with enough Audubon people to say that with confidence.
Very cool.
Thanks for the info. It’s heartening to hear
Oh, that's not the best bird-watching spat. The one about "should we rename birds that were named after racist sexist colonialist enslavers? (yes of course we should)" beats that.
Even I have heard of the Audubon Society, but this bunch of "who the heck are these people?" had to have their spake in:
https://americanornithology.org/american-ornithological-society-will-change-the-english-names-of-bird-species-named-after-people/
"CHICAGO (November 1, 2023)—Today the American Ornithological Society (AOS) announced that in an effort to address past wrongs and engage far more people in the enjoyment, protection, and study of birds, it will change all English bird names currently named after people within its geographic jurisdiction. The AOS will also change the process by which English names are selected for bird species. The effort will begin in 2024 and will focus initially on 70–80 bird species that occur primarily within the U.S. and Canada.
“There is power in a name, and some English bird names have associations with the past that continue to be exclusionary and harmful today. We need a much more inclusive and engaging scientific process that focuses attention on the unique features and beauty of the birds themselves,” said AOS President Colleen Handel, Ph.D., a research wildlife biologist with the U.S. Geological Survey in Alaska. “Everyone who loves and cares about birds should be able to enjoy and study them freely—and birds need our help now more than ever.”
Ornithologists have long grappled with historical and contemporary practices that contribute to the exclusion of Black, Indigenous, and other people of color, including how birds are named. For example, in 2020, the AOS renamed a small prairie songbird found on the Great Plains to “Thick-billed Longspur.” The bird’s original name—honoring John P. McCown, an amateur naturalist who later became a general in the Confederate Army during the U.S. Civil War—was perceived as a painful link to slavery and racism."
I don't know if they've soldiered on with their brave campaign to rename every bird species in North America, but I imagine most people still call birds by the names they've always called them.
Hmm. But don’t you get some of this yourself, as an Irish woman. I know from visiting your fair if soggy isle and reading the history of places and streets as I wander about, that Ireland was probably ahead of the game in the great street renaming and statue removing fad that has latterly engulfed us all.
I did find a street called Prince Charles street or maybe just Charles street and there’s a Victoria street or place, I forget, although it might be presumptuous to assume it was our late esteemed Empress, could well have been Victoria the washer lady from Trim.
Oh, there have been renaming attempts, and some have stuck (a lot of streets renamed after Daniel O'Connell for instance) but some haven't (people in this town still refer to streets by old names and not the new ones).
We have amusing examples, one that made me smile was the juxtaposition in a town I visited years back of a plaque or other memorial commemorating a visit from some British big wig during the days when we were part of the Empire, then down the street another memorial commemorating the heroic patriots who rose up against the Empire.
We also have lot of letter boxes still bearing crowns and VR or GR, just painted green (why get rid of a perfectly functional letter box?) and the likes.
There was only one instance of blowing up a statue - Nelson's Pillar:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nelson%27s_Pillar
"Nelson's Pillar (also known as the Nelson Pillar or simply the Pillar) was a large granite column capped by a statue of Horatio Nelson, built in the centre of what was then Sackville Street (later renamed O'Connell Street) in Dublin, Ireland. Completed in 1809 when Ireland was part of the United Kingdom, it survived until March 1966, when it was severely damaged by explosives planted by Irish republicans. Its remnants were later destroyed by the Irish Army."
Also some kerfuffle about statues of Queen Victoria:
https://www.irishexaminer.com/lifestyle/artsandculture/arid-40748514.html
"It is no exaggeration to claim that Queen Victoria took Cork by surprise when she first visited the city, on Friday, August 3, 1849. Her arrival marked the start of her first state visit to Ireland, and coincided with the opening that same year of University College Cork - or Queen’s College, Cork, as it was then known – where she was to view a statue erected in her honour.
... “The statue of Victoria came down in 1935, and was stored in an East Wing office space,” says Roszman. “In 1939, students defaced the royal crest on the front of the college. Prof John A Murphy, in his history of UCC, writes that there was worry that republican students would damage the statue of Queen Victoria too. So at some point it was buried under the lawn in the President’s Garden.”
In 1990, five years ahead of the 150th anniversary of the Colleges Act that birthed UCC, it was decided to exhume the statue. No one could remember quite where it was buried, so the college borrowed scanning equipment from the National University of Ireland, Galway to help locate it. It would be another four years before work to dig up the statue actually began, and there was uproar; the subject of the Famine Queen was undoubtedly one of the hottest in the Examiner’s letters pages that year.
“Commemorations for the 150th anniversary of the Great Famine were being planned around the same time,” says Roszman. “And some people got very upset about the statue. It’s fascinating now just how much controversy it caused.”
Most of our current renaming or wiping out today is around the Church in Ireland or quietly replacing existing statues/names of prominent clerical figures with ones calculated to be more appealing to current sensibilities or a different emphasis in our history.
Don't forget this statue https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statue_of_Queen_Victoria,_Sydney, originally installed in Leinster House, moved around to various disgraceful locations in the Republic of Southern Ireland until the 1980s, and then eventually lent to Australia to be installed outside the Queen Victoria Building.
I'm sorry that you folks aren't as grateful for your imperial heritage as we are.
Thank you, Australia, for taking the unwanted elements of Ireland and the Irish 😀 From those transported for rebellion against the Crown, to representatives of that Crown itself!
It's funny that this is considered legit, but the Gulf of America horseshit obviously wrong.
FWIW, I think *all* of the renames are stupid.
Does this include Kiev and Turkey? How about Peking? (I feel like Peking is an "actually good rename" while the other two are -reallydumb-. (Still not sure who even suggested the Turkey rename. REALLY hard to write.)
Kyiv is hardly a classical rename? Assuming you mean the distinction between the Ukrainian name Kyiv and the russian name Kiev, it was adopted after Ukrainian indipendence based on the existing Ukrainian language. Also i am unaware of the proposed rename of Turkey.
If we were sticking word for word to original historical names we shouldn't call Istanbul Istanbul or even Constantinopol but Bisanzium.
Just last week I was talking to someone who'd visited the Ukraine. She mentioned that everyone in Kiev speaks Russian, almost exclusively.
Kyiv, as a moniker in English, was adopted by the US State Department after the current spat (war) in the ongoing power struggle over whose vassal state Ukraine should be started. I don't mind someone wanting to write it Kyiv in Ukrainian -- that's their business.
Kiev versus Kyiv is essentially the same renaming as Peking versus Beijing. Except that the lingua franca in Ukraine is Russian (even when speaking to Americans). So it's kinda dumb.
I noticed the "rename of turkey" on googlemaps. It's really a thing.
Türkiye is dumb, it will always be Turkey to me. The Turks are free to change the name of their country in Turkish, but English speakers get to decide what it's called in English.
I note that the Turks have not changed the Turkish names of English speaking countries such as İngiltere, Amerika Birleşik Devletleri and Avustralya.
Many cities and countries have different names in English versus their local names, like Deutschland, München, Roma, Sverige, Suomi, and so forth. And many other languages do not use English names for English places, such as Londres, Londra and 伦敦.
> REALLY hard to write
On Windows, I recommend using AutoHotKey to map special characters to more easily typable strings.
I mapped the diacritics to LaTeX-like commands: https://github.com/shankarsivarajan/ahk_characters
This is fine if you're going to be writing a lot in another language. It's "unfine" if you're simply discussing countries in general, and Turkey comes up. That's too much work to expect the layman to do. (Given that I'm fine with the renaming of Peking to Beijing, to follow current linguistics in China, I would be fine with a transliteration that doesn't require @$#@ diacritics. We type too much these days to consider that "okay" for standard English usage).
Yeah, I mean, same, obviously. It's the absolutely naked hypocrisy that amuses me.
Yes, how many of the people who heard the name "McCown's Longspur" even knew who McCown was? They'd probably assume "oh that's the name of the guy who discovered the bird". So as a commemoration/honouring of the general, it wasn't very effective.
Plus there's nothing to stop further renaming in future when attitudes change again, either to be more progressive or more traditional. Maybe "thick billed" will be considered a slur (body shaming!) and a new, more correct, name will be imposed on the bird. And there's nothing to say that people outside of the AOS use the new name, anyway. Just because a small group drew up a list of bad names that had to be changed to good names doesn't mean anyone paid attention to it.
> as a commemoration/honouring of the general, it wasn't very effective.
The re-renaming of the military bases is even more like this. With the exception of Robert E. Lee, most of them seem pretty obscure. But I like the troll of finding random people with the same last name and declaring them to be the new namesakes.
A bit off topic here. I’d call myself more of a bird observer than a bird watcher. I just made a short drive on a local interstate highway and saw a couple raptors perched on top of the tall light posts. They have taken to saving energy by waiting for someone to create road kill that they swoop down and pick up.
I once saw a bald eagle in a tree outside a parking lot chowing on a pancaked squirrel corpse. Kind of flies in the face of the whole majestic symbol of America thing.
Around the boat harbors up here you get to see half a dozen eagles fighting each other over fish guts.
...insert joke about the state of the country here.
The BWCA has a rule stating that the left overs of cleaning a fish must be buried. No one in on the joke does this. They paddle to a lakeside rock away from any campsite and put them on display. They are always consumed in short order.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boundary_Waters_Canoe_Area_Wilderness
I have to say, it feels disrespectful to mandate all fish be given a Burial At Land.
+1, lol
Out of curiosity, I just went to the "HobbyDrama" subreddit and did a search for "bird watching". HobbyDrama is devoted to long-form effortposts chronicling dramatic incidents, schisms, controversies, etc which have arisen connected with various hobby activities. There have been a ton of posts over the years about birding.
Here are my 1-2 sentence summaries from skimming the first several search results:
- A massive argument in a facebook group for birdwatchers over some members proposing that it's unwise and unethical to birdwatch in residential areas unless you have advance permission from literally everyone in the neighborhood.
- A Mandarin Duck is found in New York Central Park in 2018, which catches media and hobbyist attention (it's visually interesting, native to East Asia, and unheard of outside of captivity in North America) and inspires many serious birdwatchers to travel to New York to see it. Then someone notices that it has a band on its leg, indicating that it's an escaped captive animal (presumably from a zoo or private collection) and thus doesn't count for the official rules for bragging rights about what rare and exotic species you've birdwatched.
- The story of the genuine discovery of extant populations of the Australian Night Parrot by the professional birdwatcher John Young ("professional birdwatcher" meaning that he makes a living running birdwatching tours and making wildlife films), who then went on to make other remarkable discoveries that turned out to be completely fraudulant.
- The Ivory Billed Woodpecker is officially considered to probably be extinct, except that lots of people are pretty sure they've seen one and several of them have taken shitty photographs to "prove" it, with passionate devotees of both sides of the argument. I have looked at a few of the photos, and I'm not 100% sure there is even a bird in them.
- One of the moderators of a major birding Discord starts using it as a platform for alt-right political rants, culminating in an apparently-earnest claim that Hitler was good for birds.
- A birder claims credit for the first ever sighting of a Wandering Tattler in Quebec, with good photographic evidence. The picture is discovered to have artifacts that look like the bird was photoshopped in, and also the story of how the bird was spotted and photographed is discovered to have massive holes in it when compared to his online birdwatching logs.
- This one is only tangentially related to birdwatching: a heist where a great many 19th century preserved specimens of rare or now-extinct birds are stolen from the archives of the British Natural History Museum, for the purpose of using their feathers to make authentic replicas of Victorian-era fishing lures (which is apparently a thing, called "fly-tying"), and also for selling more of said feathers on the black market to other fly-tying enthusiasts.
>- The Ivory Billed Woodpecker is officially considered to probably be extinct, except that lots of people are pretty sure they've seen one and several of them have taken shitty photographs to "prove" it, with passionate devotees of both sides of the argument. I have looked at a few of the photos, and I'm not 100% sure there is even a bird in them.
Cool, reminds me of cryptids.... A bigfoot for birdwatchers? :-)
My thoughts exactly.
Many Thanks!
"One of the moderators of a major birding Discord starts using it as a platform for alt-right political rants, culminating in an apparently-earnest claim that Hitler was good for birds."
I mean... Hitler was a vegetarian who loved his dogs, it doesn't sound too far-fetched that he could have been good for birds. That just... doesn't actually matter at all in the calculus of how good or bad Hitler was.
"a heist where a great many 19th century preserved specimens of rare or now-extinct birds are stolen from the archives of the British Natural History Museum"
There's a great episode of This American Life about this, #654.
Mao was definitely bad for birds.
He built a nice place for eagles to lay their eggs.
This is the full paragraph:
>One day in the main chat channel, we were discussing how the increases in human populations had caused more development and decreased bird populations, John decided to say that "Hitler was good for birds, then, since he killed so many people." Initially, I thought it was an extremely dark joke but no, he went on to sincerely say that we needed another genocide of undesirables. I disagreed, obviously. He banned me for that, which is when I came to the realization he seemed pretty sincere about this. The other reasonable people also exited at that point, some PMing the inactive admins so that they would do something about John. After a short reign of tyranny, John the would-be Fuehrer of the international birding Discord server got himself banned, along with his friends. Good riddance!
SPEC-tacular.
This sounds like some sort of platonic ideal of internet drama.
Yes. Yes, it does.
Bird watchers are also a notable contingent of the NIMBY coalition, opposing everything from wind farms to buildings with glass windows on account of their effects on birds! Stop these NEPA-wielding maniacs while there's still time!
There are of course some good compromises to be had on some of these things - buildings with large amounts of glass have some strategies they can use (particularly during migration season) to reduce bird strikes: https://blockclubchicago.org/2025/01/09/how-window-dots-at-mccormick-place-are-saving-bird-lives/
And you can plan wind farms to avoid locations that are significant for major migrations.
There’s no need to treat the issue as 100% or as 0% of what matters.
can confirm, my friend from high school who was super into birdwatching now spends all her time on facebook nimbying wind turbines.
I recall reading something claiming that a significant proportion of bird strikes can be prevented just by painting one of the turbine blades black. Was that ever replicated?
GPT directed me to one failed replication and this bigger ongoing study https://news.oregonstate.edu/news/scientists-studying-impact-painting-wind-turbine-blade-black-reduce-bird-collisions?utm_source=chatgpt.com
I keep a close eye on phys.org (saves having to buy New Scientist!) and last week they reported on a new kind of bladeless wind turbine which is showing promise:
https://techxplore.com/news/2025-06-optimal-potential-bladeless-turbines.html
This is pretty cool, though I can't tell if this is real thing that's likely to happen or indefinitely postponable hype
These things are meaningless without reference to the real world. Do you support wind turbines in the Gulf in the direct path of the great central flyway? Where exhausted migratory birds may fall out instead of making it to shore? Or would you at least like to build a few before giving blanket approval, and see what happens? If the latter, congrats: you are a radical I guess.
Ah, so she's helping to stop greenhouse gas emissions! Very good! (wind turbines increase greenhouse gas emissions, as their power output is so erratic, you need much more wasteful gas plants in order to keep the grid stable).
> as their power output is so erratic, you need much more wasteful gas plants in order to keep the grid stable).
The rise of batteries means that only a little gas is needed for balancing.
https://www.construction-physics.com/p/can-we-afford-large-scale-solar-pv
You have the most acrobatic mind
This sounds like a too-cute-by-half story that gets contrarian likes.
What baseline are you comparing to with the “more wasteful gas plants”? Is the idea that adding wind power to the grid requires adding *even more* generation, compared to not building anything?
https://boriquagato.substack.com/p/eu-physics-denial-has-come-home-to
Yes, adding wind power to the grid requires adding "greenhouse gas capacity" because the "agile" gas plants (the ones that can respond to flickery solar and wind power) are much less efficient than "stable" gas plants.
Can you point to me where in there it says anything like what you said? The closest I see is this line:
"if you are determined to go “wind and solar” you are also going to have to go nat gas and oil and you will need 100% backup capacity on the full nameplate of your “renewables” and it will be kicking in and out all the time making it less efficient and require less efficient configurations that use more fuel per MWH."
But all that says is that generating 5 MWh of electricity from natural gas in a peaker plant takes more natural gas than generating 5 MWh of electricity from natural gas in a baseload plant. That is extremely different from your allegation that generating 5 MWh from natural gas in a peaker plant that turns on and off as needed to balance load while you also get 5 MWh in wind energy somehow takes more natural gas than generating 10 MWh of electricity from a baseload natural gas plant.
Unless your wind or solar plant is at close to 0 most of the time, using a less efficient natural gas plant the rest of the time isn't going to use as much gas as using a more efficient natural gas plant for all your electricity.
And in any case, as long as wind and solar isn't generating so much electricity that you're turning your gas plants all the way off, you're not losing very much efficiency at all with your natural gas, so it's reasonable to just ignore this efficiency loss.
There's no need for that cat to feel so self-satisfied at attacking anything and everything done in the name of environmental efficiency. Only some of it is a bad idea.
You must do more to convince me that adding wind turbines increases the need for wasteful gas plants. How would you need fewer gas plants if you had fewer wind turbines?
You'd have the same generative capacity, only with "slow-to-spin-up and down" natural gas plants. They're far more efficient, in terms of not needing to burn as much greenhouse gases.
https://boriquagato.substack.com/p/eu-physics-denial-has-come-home-to
The cited source does not seem to address the claim that "slow-to-spin-up-and-speed-down natural gas plants" are significantly more efficient than otherwise comparable fast-start systems. Neither does anything I was able to find with a quick search, and FWIW the nearest AI suggests efficiencies are comparable.
And the efficiency advantage of slow-start would have to be *quite* substantial, to compensate for the fact that the fast-start turbinge is spending much of its time shut down and generating no greenhouse gas at all because the wind turbines are spinning quite nicely.
They also oppose cats, claiming that cats kill billions of birds per year, based on a study of One Cat. (I'll note that a certain subspecies of feral cats does prey mainly on crows (they're big cats). But most domestic cats are well-fed, and hence lazy.)
It’s not very strange to oppose introducing invasive species into an environment.
You don’t have to intend a genocide of cats to think that it might be a good idea for people to stop keeping cats outside.
I do not understand. Where I live, we have a unique subspecies of feral cat that feeds on crows. Discussing "keep cats inside" is discussing their genocide (Yes, I suppose you could "rehome" them into houses, but we already have too many cats. Are you really thinking we should preserve all the variant subspecies of cats? Or do you think that preserving unique creatures that have already adapted to environments is somehow wrong?)
The normal thing most cat-advocates recommend for feral cats is to spay/neuter and then release them, so that the current individuals still get to live out their life, but the population goes extinct as the individuals die. This is usually thought to be good because feral cats don't have great lives, and it's thought to be better that these populations don't come into existence, even just considering their own welfare. (Though their lives aren't considered to be so bad that it's better to kill them than let them live it out.)
If there are any local populations of birds that are threatened by the cat population, that strengthens the argument.
But if the cat population actually has a very good quality of life, then it becomes a tradeoff between the existence of the cat population and the bird population, and their effects on local ecosystems generally. Since cats are doing fine elsewhere, I could only see this being a real question in cases where all local bird (and small mammal) populations are also unthreatened elsewhere.
I'm not sure what population you're referring to with your "unique subspecies of feral cat" - I've never heard of an subspecies of feral cat that has created an environmental niche that is favorable for the local ecosystem generally, but if there is, then in that location, it probably would be relevant to pursue a different policy. It's almost never right to advocate a blanket policy everywhere, whether it's eliminating outdoor cats or encouraging them.
Pittsburgh has crow roosts, and the cats prey on the crows (normal cats would not do this, as a crow is too big and hence too much of a battle for them-- kind of like an adult rabbit -- lots of food, but not worth the fight). While it's true that unchecked, you get too many feral cats, I don't necessarily believe that driving a subspecies to extinction is a good idea. I'm not sure most "spay your feral cats" programs actually expect to extinguish the feral cat population. In Puerto Rico, there are literal feral cat colonies (they eat rats there, which are also invasive). I'm pretty sure the cat colonies of Old San Juan are pretty well fed and cared for.
I can say my mom's bird feeder doubles as a cat feeder.
How many birds per cat per year?
I'm not down there long enough to know the yearly rate, I'd guess two per cat per day. That might be high.
That's more than most cats eat per day. I'd be surprised if it's more than two birds per week, per cat (assuming they're being fed addictive catfood).
I wrote about why there are perfectly legal and strategically beneficial strategies in sports that players don’t use, and what these taboos tells us about the limits of rational self interest more generally.
In tennis there is the underarm serve, in cage-fighting there are oblique kicks to the knees. In Street Fighter II there is "pattern fighting" in which, for example, you might trap an opponent with a jab up close and then throw them, jab and throw, taking advantage of their inability to escape close fighting. In cricket there is "Mankading" which is the cricket equivalent of the pick-off move in baseball. Then there is the taboo against nonstandard stances in golf and the granny shot in basketball. All of these are strategically useful in particular contexts and useful but considered dishonorable or effacing moves.
The kind of things that generate norms of honor and face come from outside of the rules of sport. This indicates that even in the kinds of human activities whereby the rewards and penalties and aims are explicitly stipulated, honor and face norms intrude and in fact trump the goal of winning. The norms are simultaneously powerful and fragile; common knowledge of a sufficient number of defectors are enough to overturn a taboo, as in the case of drop shots in tennis and defensive shifts in baseball. There may be lessons here for other competitive activities more generally, like business, politics, and war. Link to full essay below.
https://open.substack.com/pub/hiphination/p/when-losing-the-game-is-better-than?r=i44h&utm_medium=ios
In tennis, people don't use the underarm serve mostly because it's simply worse. I suppose it's occasionally good to punish an opponent who's standing too far back, and in those cases it IS used.
Looking it up, it seems people use it when they're too injured to serve normally.
It isn't used nearly as often as it is strategically useful to use when opponents are standing too far back. As I mention in the piece, no top player ever uses it. And players lose face and are looked down upon for doing so. There's a lot of evidence of that in the way other players treat underarm serve users (who are not injured). My understanding by people who have commented that Mankading in cricket is even more taboo.
> no top player ever uses it
Bublik
I agree it's used less than you might think, but I'd attribute that to the need to disguise it well (if they see it coming, they can crush the return. Because the underarm serve is worse), and few people think it worth their time to practice it. It looks like this might be changing, and you're seeing it more often now: https://www.nytimes.com/athletic/6226205/2025/03/24/tennis-underarm-serve-shot-kostyuk-blinkova/.
Your whole essay appears to just be assertions.
I think there are a couple of questions in there, and a whole section that is openly speculation. But I guess I do assert that they are speculations.
You never hit on the point that in order to play the game professionally, the game has to be entertaining enough to draw an audience. Ever watched Sidehacking? Of course you haven't, because everyone looks stupid the whole time. There have been boxers (and MMA fighters) who win primarily on the strength of their dodging, but they're still unpopular because watching two people not hit each other is not exciting. Taboos exist to keep the game itself alive.
That's not the competitors' problem, that's the problem of the people who set the rules.
I think baseball had a major issue with this recently, where games got extremely long and boring, so they had to adjust the rules a bit.
It becomes the competitors' problem if the game becomes too boring to watch, though. Ultimately the competitors know what side their bread is buttered.
I'm struggling to think of any examples of once-popular games that became boring after all the competitors discovered an unbeatable but boring strategy. But there must be some out there.
There's a particular style of grinding wrestling/shoving match against the fence that's not so much fun to watch, and some MMA fighters are pretty successful with that style in fights, but often not so successful at keeping a contract. I think a good example of this is Colby Covington, who has taken on a kind of ultra MAGA pro-wrestler-like persona in order to draw interest to his fights despite them being not all that fun to watch.
I have this hypothesis that some taboos arise because of two simultaneous truths: you cannot formulate rules like "don't be boring" because fans and players would reject them for being too vague, and (2) that there is no way to formulate a rule to prohibit the specific thing that Covington does without thereby prohibiting tons of very legitimate fighting tactics. Does this sound true to you (I'm too casual an MMA fan to make this claim for sure.)
I think that's right, though I don't think there's much of an issue with taboos in MMA these days. I only tend to notice booing on the rare occasion when both fighters just keep circling and don't attack - usually when both exhausted near the end of the match - but there's no rule to fix this as the ref can't force them to!
Early on in UFC history there was a rule introduced such that the ref could stand fighters up if they weren't active enough, e.g. a grappler or jiujitsu guy slowly working towards a submission on the ground and taking their sweet time with it (as it was tiring out the opponent more than them). This was essentially 'don't be boring' and indeed prohibited a legitimate strategy.
My short comment is, this is why certain things are called games, and not life in the jungle.
This seems to be pretty blatantly ignoring Scott's number 3 rule. Not only are you not providing sufficient summary, you've also been linking to your blog practically every open thread.
(Moved long suggestion on linking policy to a top-level comment.)
Happy to delete or post entire post. Didn’t know this was “scummy” activity. I always thought Open Thread was where to do this, but will defer to Scott.
He added a new rule that links to elsewhere require at least two paragraphs of discussion. I’m cautiously in favor of it as a rule, though it remains to be seen how it works out. (I ended up deciding that the ban on “likes” was a net negative, even though it sounded reasonable at first.)
Pretty sure enabling likes would lead to people tailoring their comments to garner them. I’m still happy they are disabled.
I haven't seen any evidence of that on the other Substacks I follow. And in any case, it's better for people to tailor their comments to get likes than it is to tailor their comments to trigger replies!
Noted. I'll abide by the rule. Don't want to come across as scummy.
Positing the entire post seems to contradict the "original" part of the rule. Self-plagiarism probably doesn't count as "proof of work".
I am wondering if Scott prescribes MAOIs in his practise? I thinks its a tragedy that the most effective meds are so underutilized. Doctors would rather have you do ECT than try a MAOI.
I've prescribed them occasionally, and I appreciate the perspective that they're sometimes more effective than anything else, but I've never personally had them make a big difference for a patient who hadn't succeeded on other antidepressants (though I sometimes met people already on them who say they were extremely helpful)
I personally have seen 2 people with treatment-resistant depression who had really remarkable & durable results from MAOI's. For one the results had lasted for a year without diminishing, for the other for about 3 years. I had one patient who had been on an MAOI in the past and reported that it was no more helpful than any other antidepressant. I have seen maybe 100 people total who are on antidepressants and as far as I know those 3 are the only ones who'd ever tried an MAOI. Some of the people now on conventional antidepressants have been on multiple SSRI's and tricyclics with little benefit, and seem to me like good candidates for an MAOI trial.
However, most psychiatrists I know have never prescribed one, and are unwilling to.
There's a world expert on them, Ken Gillman, whose website is called Psychotropical. He says that the online info about what foods must be avoided by those taking an MAOI is badly out of date. It relies on data from very old studies of tyramine content of foods, and those studies are inaccurate because refrigeration during manufacturing, storage and in the home is so much better now -- also because the old studies used inaccruate methods to measure tyramine content. Has at his site updated info on actual tyramine content of most foods.
I'm a psychologist, by the way, and do not prescribe meds.
Thanks for bringing that up! I always wonder how many papers everyone relies on just haven't been updated to see if they're still true.
There was an incident where someone screwed up the math in a utility, and people got physics papers wrong for years before they realized the issue.
<It's rather obvious to me that it simply isn't "cool" (protocol) to think of MAOI's for doctors, so they don't. It's part of the whole "prescribe what is sexy right now/makes money" thing, that supposedly exists, depending on your politics of course.
I have talked to psychiatrist friends about this and really do not think that that's the reason. There really aren't that many groovy new drugs for them to prescribe, unless they have unusual practices where they see mostly people who have failed all the usual drugs. If they don't, most people who come to their office are, according to the algorithms, candidates for an SSRI or a stimulant or a non-benzodiazepine anti-anxiety med. They're giving almost everyone chocolate, vanilla or strawberry, and getting decent but not stellar results. I think most of them would be *delighted* to have a new possibility.
What keeps them from prescribing MAOI's is that in their training nobody made a case for MAOI's or told them that a lot of dietary change is not necessary these days, and nobody they know prescribes the stuff, and if you google "MAOI food danger" you quickly find list after list that names many many common foods.
And as for the money part: MAOI's *are* expensive, even the generics. I know somebody whose monthly supply costs about $200 before insurance. I'm not sure why a very old drug now available in generics is so expensive -- maybe because there's not much demand?.
What do you guys think of the TACO Trump phenomenon? TACO means Trump Always Chickens Out, and it's an observation that Trump backs down on a lot of the things he does. I think that has indeed been a trend ever since January 6, which he could've turned into a coup, but he ultimately backed down. It does suggest that Trump will not be an existential threat to democracy in the US, since he doesn't have the will to actually cross the Rubicon.
He will most likely deploy the military and federalize the National Guard to prevent "illegals" from voting in the midterm elections, which would be the only check on his power. There's also the next election where JD "Pence should've done the right thing" Vance will be certifying the electoral votes.
I think there's a misunderstanding of what he's doing. He's not a politician, he's still operating off being a businessman. So a lot of things he does are gambits, they're meant to be opening shots in a negotiation, and once you agree to come to the table then the real horse trading goes on and the opening move is dropped. That's what he's been doing with tariffs, which is why he's bouncing around with "tariffs on! tariffs off! now they'll be 300%! now they'll be 1,000%!" That's not how a government official does trade, but it's how a businessman who's used to operating in a market full of bluff and bluster does it.
I have to give credit to wherever I read this point (can I remember where? of course not) about things like TACO - when Trump proposes to do something, often the Democrats will say that this is terrible and bad and he's a tyrant and he will destroy democracy/the USA/the world. Then if he backs off and doesn't do it, or drops it, instead of going "well at least he can be persuaded by good reasons" or "we won this by presenting a good argument and he listened", then they go for "ha ha, what a loser, we kicked this idiot's ass good didn't we!"
That's not going to dispose anyone to be bipartisan, the next time Trump wants to do something then he's just as likely to go "I tried playing nice, they insulted me, to hell with them I'm doing this thing".
"oh he always chickens out" may or may not be the most tactful way to put it, but it's certainly the maximally aggravating way for a guy with a lot of ego and a thin skin.
> when Trump proposes to do something, often the Democrats will say that this is terrible and bad and he's a tyrant and he will destroy democracy/the USA/the world. Then if he backs off and doesn't do it, or drops it, instead of going "well at least he can be persuaded by good reasons" or "we won this by presenting a good argument and he listened", then they go for "ha ha, what a loser, we kicked this idiot's ass good didn't we!"
Yeah, I've always felt weird about TACO as an insult because I want him to be willing to recognize when something fails and pivot away to something else. And if people insult him over "chickening out", maybe next time he might have backed off of a bad idea, he doubles down instead, and we're all worse off. And even if he usually doubles down instead of backing off, he still sometimes backs off.
I dislike him and his policies as much as the next guy, but we've got plenty of better areas to criticize him.
The "it's just a negotiating tactic" argument doesn't hold water because every switch of "tariffs on, tariffs off" costs money. People can't make long-term investments when the cost of imports is doubling and then halving at random.
>That's not going to dispose anyone to be bipartisan, the next time Trump wants to do something then he's just as likely to go "I tried playing nice, they insulted me, to hell with them I'm doing this thing".
Trump did not try to "play nice" or include Democrats in the discussion at any point in these tariff negotiations, and I'm baffled why you're implying that he did.
> every switch of "tariffs on, tariffs off" costs money. People can't make long-term investments when the cost of imports is doubling and then halving at random.
That's a short-term view. It's always possible to make investments. If the switch keeps flipping, smuggling channels will be an attractive investment.
"Have you considered the economic value of crime?" is definitely a novel pitch for Trump's policies.
For?
You said something crazy; I said something sane. Does that mean that if you think something is bad, I must think it's good?
He likely finds that resorting to crime with all the negative externalities that it presents is a pretty terrible move if you have a fully functioning trading system already present. That is unless someone were to consistently harm this system for little to no probable gain.
>The "it's just a negotiating tactic" argument doesn't hold water because every switch of "tariffs on, tariffs off" costs money. People can't make long-term investments when the cost of imports is doubling and then halving at random.
If your goal is something other than economics then this isn't a relevant argument. True, I'm not clear what the actual goal is. In Brexit, it was true that, economically, it made more sense to stay in the EU, but from a sovereignty standpoint, it made more sense to leave.
Though I'm not clear on the goal, I suspect it has something to do with China trade, and possibly Taiwan, and more with what they are permitted to do in the world than with trade itself. The Canada, Mexico, and EU tariff stuff I get the impression now is mostly smokescreen.
I found the explanation of an attempt at a second Breton woods as the objective pretty convincing.
The idea being that through leverage both positive (alliances and other benefits) and negative (tariffs) Trump wants to come to an international agreement similar to the one Nixon made where the US keeps it's role as main currency but also devalues the dollar allowing for bigger exports and lower deficit.
Problem is that not only one would assume you need some very detailed and precise tariffs to gain that leverage at minimal cost but that you would also need to also have a certain degree of trust from your allies to make this big step. And as of now the second type of leverage has apparently failed on China, while Europe not only is a more united block then during Nixon but the trust that existed then is being evaporated every day by Trump, similar arguments are true for all large global economies.
Another potential explanation is obtaining quick revenue with the tariffs at the cost of future economic growth with the mindset that this will be a problem for the next presidency.
Breton Woods II is classically the post-Nixon time period. I think you mean Breton Woods III.
Yes, I misswrote. Generally speaking, the theory is though as presented. The problem remains that so far it seems like the US is making several missteps to say the least.
>The Canada, Mexico, and EU tariff stuff I get the impression now is mostly smokescreen.
Except some tariffs are still in place on all of those countries, so that smokescreen is costing real money to maintain.
I don't know where this confidence comes from that Trump must have rational goals.
Are you trying to say he is senile, or that he is very stupid?
A smart enemy can be a lot more fun to deal with than a dumb friend. (and Nixon was very smart, and very self-interested.)
Trump's move to take over Canada and Greenland are quite rational for a non unipolar world (where we see undefended borders as a major security weakness). Pax Americana is dead, and Joe Biden's administration murdered it (more detailed discussion will include Dick Cheney's protegee and the Neocons in Biden's admin).
I'm saying that based on all available reporting, he is unable to maintain concentration in a briefing for longer than 10 minutes. Attribute it to senility, arrogance, stupidity, I'm not sure it really matters. But my point is, this idea that he has some kind of fully-formed model of international relations that includes multiple steps and a list of priorities and an idea of the trade-offs and costs and benefits of his action along multiple diplomatic and economic axes is nuts. I suspect a bunch of rationalists can't handle the idea that the most powerful person in the world is irrational, and so they are self-soothing by practicing ornithomancy.
Trump has historically been an advocate for tariffs. The man was saying back in the 80s that the country was being ripped off by free trade.
Then there's the way in which he's transactional to a highly comical degree - the first backing off from tariffs this year was reportedly due to some advisers waiting until Peter Navarro, another tariffs proponent, wasn't around so they could talk to Trump undisturbed.
The simplest explanation (that Trump is just a fan of tariffs) gets denied more often that not, and I suspect it's because people either don't want to think they have TDS or that they still can't accept that someone wealthy and powerful might be stupid.
I agree that Trump seems to be a fan of tariffs, and must not understand their implications well. Leaving aside the discussion as to whether tariffs are bad (I think they usually are), is Trump's goal actually as simple as "fair" trade, making things more equal through tariffs? If so, the only hope is showing how tariffs will backfire in a way Trump won't like.
The EU is a device to screw the United States, by having the European Nations create an "easy to trade" area that incentivizes trading within it, and giving the Europeans a unified front, so that the US can't use divide and conquer tactics.
"Fairness" is a good way to argue that whatever Trump is doing, it is morally correct. I'm not sure moral correctness ought to have anything to do with economics (pretty sure Trump knows that too) -- a better argument is that Trump's been given command to rescue the American Economy, and if that means that he needs to sink everyone else (and only partially sink the American Economy), he is unafraid to take the plunge.
Trump has many goals, and so the answer is "no, Trump's goal isn't so simple."
> The "it's just a negotiating tactic" argument doesn't hold water because every switch of "tariffs on, tariffs off" costs money. People can't make long-term investments when the cost of imports is doubling and then halving at random.
Also, he hasn't actually gotten anything for his "negations".
Columbia got a chance to wave its wang around. Everyone got to hear how awesome Columbia is. That's Public Relations, and probably led to more tourism.
Colombia? Columbia is currently in the midst of a PR nightmare as they repeatedly get fucked by the Trump admin
Um? They're accepting deported citizens of theirs.
"Currently in the midst" is a funny way of saying "there's no news articles since January"
https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/trumps-threatens-colombia-tariffs-after-2-us-military/story?id=118122985
Columbia got to wave its wang around. Then they said "and your country's economy is bigger than ours, and we can accommodate taking our citizens home."
After that, nothing. I know LOTS of people are complaining about torture prisons, but that's not Columbia.
I'm so sick of people pushing this narrative that this is all galaxy-brained somehow, when Occam's razor suggests a much simpler narrative, which is that Trump has an incredibly poor understanding of macroeconomics, being largely a real-estate developer and hospitality manager by trade (and even then, a poor one).
Even if you buy the argument that this is the beginning of a negotiating position, the timing of Trump's announces tend to sync up more with economic quakes than with people suddenly making deals with him, and also, by all available evidence, he is a terrible negotiator who is perpetually forcing people who were otherwise reasonable partners into adversarial positions from which point they seek other allies, and, tactically, start to look at their own options for inflicting pain on the United States, which is the reasonable thing to do once your trade partner comes in bullying. Every book I've ever read on trade, business, or negotiation, suggests this is a terrible strategy, and the results certainly don't seem to be encouraging.
Check your priors. Trump just stopped a war between two nuclear powered nations. That's "Negotiating" a stop to hostilities.
I am certainly happy about that but one should ask themselves how significant Rubio and Vance role in that mediation was. Both India and Pakistan had every interest to deescalate, since neither had a clear plan of action other then to score political points at home and test the adversary, the alternative to negotiations was a continuation of strikes from both sides without an effective end goal.
It's still a positive development but the situations where it's hard to negotiate are those where at least one of the two sides has an objective it wants to reach before that.
As an example of this where Trumps comments directly hurt negotiations is Russia and Ukraine war where his very friendly stance towards Russia, and failing to keep every threat he made, make Russia expand it's demands since they don't see any consequence for that and feel supported by the US.
Similarly the agreement betwern Israel and Hamas clearly failed (though that one is a really tough situation to negotiate)
If Trumps administration manages to negotiate a lasting agreement between Iran and Israel (which the more Iran is vulnerable the more it seems possible) then I would put their negotiating skills from terrible to normal, since it shows that at least the US can be shown as semi-reliable in its promises.
But until then the track record is definitely not in Trumps favour
Both India and Pakistan had nuclear weapons out and ready. Yes, they both thought they could "gain something" by throwing their weight around (particularly India, as the aggressor).
Rubio didn't have a role in the mediation, because Trump let the military "negotiate" this one. (There's a reason it'll be in the history books) -- the argument to India on "you're not going to get an inch of territory, so stop fighting" was premised on giving Pakistan some shiny toys that they (VERY IMPORTANTLY) couldn't use to gain territory in India. Then the American military walks over to both it's "allies" and says, "Here's how this deal is going to work."
Trump's "friendly" comments to Russia are pretty much the reason Ukraine tried to murder peace talks by destroying some Russian Nuclear Capabilities (this does not materially affect "Russia has won the war since 2022", and it very much does not affect the "America lost the strategic objective before the war even started"). Ukraine is a very bad ally to have (almost as bad as Romania) -- Russia at least understands "stealing is bad" (Ukraine stole so much gas from the pipelines, that the Germans funded Nordstream to stop having to deal with them).
If you want Russia to have fewer demands, you take away Ukrainian "long range" missiles. Then Russia's "longest range of Ukrainian missiles plus 10%" can afford to be smaller. [It should be pretty obvious that's one of those negotiation "do or die" matters for Russia -- as is "no more killing the Russian Speakers in the Eastern Provinces" (although I understand Russia's unwillingness to believe in the Ukraine sticking to its word)]. Every time UK or US or Germany sends a longer missile, Russia asks for more "safety space."
Iran's likely to see America's role in Israel's sneakattack as a stab in the back. Whether or not that gains America enough on the international stage, is yet to be seen. But our role in a "successful" negotiation (we were about ready to ink one with Iran) that goes up in flames because Bibi won't let us make peace with Iran?? I'm willing to say "this is a bad thing, internationally, in terms of being seen as capable of controlling our vassal states, and in terms of Trump is a negotiator you can trust to actually stick to the deal."
Ok, i will skip the Pakistan section because i disagree the least with that.
Russia refused any kind of serious diplomacy even before the spiderweb attack at the same time it was, has and is continuing to bombard Ukrainian cities with huhndreds of drones every month.
Please explain to me how the following positions are different:
Russian position: keeps attacking both military and civilian Ukrainian infrastructure, refuses ceasefire deal proposed by Trump and pushes rethoric of not wanting to make any concessions.
Ukraine: keeps attacking Russian military infrastructure (Russian Tu95, which btw are also used to launch missiles into Ukraine) agrees to Trumps ceasefire and proclaims to be willing to work towards a peace agreement.
And somehow it’s Ukraine that doesn’t want to negotiate?
Ukraine has proven one of the best ally US and EU could have. At a very modest price tag it has managed to eliminate invading Russian forces to a point that Russia has had to expend the majority of it’s soviet stock. While instead Russia has systematically been sabotaging European production and even before the resumption of the 2022 war assassinating dissidents that fled to the UK while also killing UK citizens. Ukraine sent over 6k troops to support the US in Iraq and Kuwait, plus others in Afghanistan, all to support the US.
It gave up the nukes inherited by the USSR in exchange for Russian, US, French and UK informal promise to guarantee it’s sovereignity and territory.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ukrainian_involvement_in_the_Iraq_War
If Russia understood the concept of stealing is bad maybe they would neither kidnap Ukrainian children as confirmed by the ICC, nor grain in occupied territories, nor gold in Africa.
Yes the two gas crisis were a serious strain in Germany-Ukraine relations, but as a German friend put it. “Zwischen jemand der zweimal gestohlen hat, und jemand der tausende ermordert habe ich keinen Zweifel”
I am not one of those who considers Ukraine, or any country reallly, an innocent angel, ther are almost no innocent countries. But equating current Ukraine and Russia is similar to equating ww2 Germany and Poland, neither angels, but one far more destructive and aggressive.
Let’s be clear any NATO missile could be sent from Finland with the same efficacy as Ukraine, there is zero reasons for that to be any threat and Russian demands remark that.
On the so called Donbass Russian speaking killing half myth. Let’s make a brief summary of the events together.
1 Russian nationalists such as Igor Girkin invade Ukraine in 2014, they take a couple local dissidents and with later support of the Russian army fight Ukraines army. Later Girkin himself would candidly admit that without him, nothing would have happened.
2 in the crossfire between Russian forces, Russian nationalists, few local rebels and the Ukrainian forces 3400 Ukrainian civilians die.
3 the fighting quites down and in 2021 only 25 civilians die, mostly because of mines.
In 2022 Russia claims that they want to defend this people and invades all of Ukraine trying to take Kyiv, the following war will create a minimum of 10k civilian deaths. Later this pathently false rethoric is even debunked by the Russian Wagner leader Prigozhin.
Here is Igor Girkins own admission that without Russian nationalists nothing would have happened.
https://www.themoscowtimes.com/2014/11/21/russias-igor-strelkov-i-am-responsible-for-war-in-eastern-ukraine-a41598
Here is the research of a Russian author named Mithrokin who follows Russian troops and nationalists invasion of 2014 step by step.
https://ibidem-verlag.de/pdf/07-mitrokhin.pdf (tell me if it has problems opening)
Here is the UN count of the killed civilians
https://ukraine.un.org/sites/default/files/2022-02/Conflict-related%20civilian%20casualties%20as%20of%2031%20December%202021%20%28rev%2027%20January%202022%29%20corr%20EN_0.pdf
And here is a video of an italian anaylst systematically debunking Russian claims on the Donbass and proving using only Russian sources (count in how censored they tend to be) that Russias reason to starting the war had nothing to do with saving anyone, but for more practical reasons of conquest.
He himself has repeatedly debunked people who were lying in favour of Ukraine (for example he confirmed cases of war crimes by Ukrainian forces. It’s an increidbly extensive research on the events I really think that, if you want the truth, you will finds this interesting. There should be english subtitles.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=nRfeJmO_jac&t=7535s
ah and btw the commission set up by Russia and Europe to control the mantaining of Minsk I e II found out that while both sides breached the agreement, Russia breached it almost systematically including by not removing it’s troops from Ukraine.
I have been debunking Russian and Ukrainian lies on this war since almost a couple months after it started, and it’s amazing the difference. While there is definitely a lot of Ukrainian propaganda it will usually be contained in absurd channels where they announce Ukraine will liberate Crimea in a year, and is repeatedly criticized by more serious pro Ukrainian analysts.
But between the several dozens pro Russian analysts and commentators I have seen two sticking to the truth even when incovenient. The discordance is amazing but not surprising. Ukraine does not have to lie in most cases to make their case, while Russia does.
So we're just letting Trump take credit for anything that happens while he's President?
Yes, Trump is getting an entry into the history books for that one, when all is said and done. Support our troops!
Are you trying to tell me that Joe Biden is a worse negotiator than Trump? It takes balls (and massive stupidity) to turn a publicity stunt into a major invasion of a key ally of yours.
Oh, and I see we are also letting him take credit for everything that doesn't happen during his presidency if it eventually happens anyway.
? I'm just discussing the planned backdown of Putin during Joe Biden's administration, to show that Joe Biden was a "master of foreign policy and diplomacy" (Democratic Version, where there is no war, and Biden can saber rattle without having to do more than bribe Putin).
Putin of course just turned this into a "sneak attack" (that's why his first troops across the border looked really decrepit).
I am a bit perplexed by what you mean. Is your claim that Biden was too timid and should have kept US troops in Ukraine, likely avoiding an invasion? (which might very well have been the case)
Or that somehow Biden convinced Putin to do an invasion he didn't plan for?
I think i need some clarification thanks
I think you and I have suvh different conceptions of causality as it relates to foreign policy it's going to be difficult to have a productive discussion.
Right!? I don't know to what extent Trump is actually chickening out vs playing business 4d chess.
But I'm terrified of "the left" pushing the TACO narrative. It's just asking for him to not back down next time tries to do something that would break the economy.
Disclaimer: I don't mean that "the left" is somehow at fault for Trump doing something ridiculously stupid. 99% of blame should fall on whoever made an unforced decision.
But purely from a political sense. They should know better than to provoke it.
TACO serves no political purpose besides feeling smart and smug, while making the future more likely bad for the people saying it.
> But purely from a political sense. They should know better than to provoke it.
From a perspective of naked self-interest, if Trump decides that people calling him a pussy means he has to crash the global economy, that would be good for the left. Millennials lean left in significant part because a formative experience was unregulated markets fucking everything up for, like, a solid decade with the 2007-8 crash. The next generation down hasn't had that experience, so they're more right-leaning; but if Trump gives it to them, that's good for the left long and short term.
I think that's a pretty dangerous bet to make. The soviet union is a thing and there's still plenty of communists.
Note I'm not giving that much agency towards people saying TACO. I'm like 99% sure it's just people pissed off at Trump and venting by calling him a coward.
But if they were actually provoking him into doubling down and fucking everything, that'd be worse. Hoping the country does worse so people vote your way in the future is so backwards and stupid.
It's embracing tribalism to its core.
Its important to remember TACO was not a thing that was thought up by the left to pillory Donald Trump, it was a thing created by traders as a means of keeping themselves from panicking in the midst of all the chaos he was introducing to the markets. So its not like it came from the left.
But furthermore, it is the responsibility of the opposition to point out that Trump has a habit of inflicting massive amounts of uncertainty into the economy, he perpetually insists he knows exactly what he's doing, and then once the consequences that many, many experts have predicted begin to come to pass (like people moving away from betting on US bonds), he backs off. Otherwise he gets to claim the narrative that this is all somehow galaxy-brained by default. Its important to know that the POTUS is setting economic policy largely by ego and fear.
"Its important to remember TACO was not a thing that was thought up by the left to pillory Donald Trump, it was a thing created by traders as a means of keeping themselves from panicking in the midst of all the chaos he was introducing to the markets. So its not like it came from the left."
Oh indeed and I think the markets learning to stop panicking is a very good thing. But the acronym and its meaning leaked out and now it is being used as commentary about "yeah he's a big wuss he's got no backbone he's a loser" which is the exact thing you do *not* want a guy with a big ego and a lot of power to be reacting to.
I think the thing you don't want is to make that guy president in the first place. Once its been done, arguing about how best to massage his ego looks like reading tea leaves to me.
Trump's rhetoric is very absolutist and no-compromise-y, but my impression is that this is largely a negotiating tactic, and that he's more pragmatic than the role he plays. He clearly cares a lot about popularity and wants to keep the power he has, which means he really would like Republicans to do well in the midterm elections.
His second administration seems like it involves trying a whole lot of things and seeing what works vs what is successfully pushed back upon. DOGE wasn't so popular and so now Elon is out, chaos around tariffs scared the stock market and he didn't want to preside over a recession so he backed off a bit, etc.
A major downside of this approach to my mind is that there are important things that don't get immediate feedback in a place he hears/cares about, but that are still terrible ideas. For all that there is a lot of crap research funded by the federal government, massive cuts to that research seem very likely to make us all worse off in twenty years. Breaking the century-long pattern of having the smartest and most ambitious people in the world come to the US for school/work/research/to make their fortune seems like killing a golden goose that's made us the richest country on Earth, putting a clown in charge of HHS and all the downstream chaos from that can easily screw up a lot of the research pipeline for new drugs in the future, etc. None of these create feedback that Trump hears or has to care about, so he probably won't back off on those, even if they're incredibly destructive.
It's like you don't actually believe Trump has any military advisors at all. Jan 6th was a response by civilians to Trump's ace in the hole failing -- that is to say, his legal case before the Supreme Court got denied (the Supremes said they won't take a look at it.)
If that hadn't happened, there were plans to put tanks in front of state legislature buildings, to protect the legislature from riots... The election was not a normal election, and there was a substantial amount of "not fair play" going on -- my democratic judge of elections was banned from the counting rooms, for example. We do not forget, we do not forgive, and nobody is willing to stand for that office. It goes completely unclaimed, as it has lost its entire legitimacy (and I don't blame folks. If you can't actually do your damned job, why show up for a meaningless title?). Our election judge will be a write-in, because nobody -- not even the dogcatcher wants to run for it.
Trump followed through on a lot more in 2016 than I was expecting he would, and he's straight up arrested elected officials this time. I think this idea is dangerously untrustworthy.
I also don't think he could have turned Jan 6 into a coup. At least not a successful one. 10,000 minimally-armed civilians in a country of 330 million, with the Internet, is not getting far.
I've heard that he explicitly stated that this is his negotiation style in The Art of the Deal. He starts with a totally outrageous position and then backs down to something more reasonable to make the other party feel like they gained a lot of ground.
His fracas with Columbia let both sides win -- Trump says "look at my big wang!" The leader of columbia says, "I see your wang, but I'm not wangless, Look at my Wang!" (this is good PR for Columbia -- i didn't know they grow a ton of roses!). Then they both shake hands and make a sensible deal.
"Anchoring". Kahneman describes it in his work.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anchoring_effect
There's no doubt Trump backs down due to some pressure and I think some of it is anchoring and some of it is just straight up bad PR.
Trump's the type of guy who thinks there's no bad PR. And as long as the press has worse approval rating numbers than Congress... he's right!
I thought his response to the kings silliness was Trump at his dismissive best. Something along the lines of “King? I’m no king. I can’t get s**t done”.
Dude should walk into a roomful of beautiful women and do his best Mel Brooks imitation: "It's good to be the king!"
He ended that response with "No, we're not a king. We're not a king at all." His use of the "royal we" makes it funnier.
https://www.newsweek.com/donald-trump-responds-no-king-protests-we-not-king-2084938
He also regularly refers to himself in the third person, which is also pretty imperial.
Aside: These are called "nosism" and "illeism."
He always leaves you wondering, what level of self awareness or trolling he’s operating on. Genuinely strange man. My husband was musing the other day, why do we even know who he is?
All this talk of neurodivergence and alphabet identities than which nothing could be more currently conformist; and meanwhile we have this actually legitimately strange guy in the White House …
He's not all THAT smart, but he is very, very good at trolling.
(Also note: his golden toilet is right beside his "favorite toilet paper dispenser" -- which he got from a gas station restroom. Apparently he drove enough in his early years as a businessman to have a "favorite toilet paper dispenser". That, my friend, is genuine art -- the humbleness of a gas station toilet paper dispenser, right beside your golden toilet).
He also has a much better sense of humor than most politicians. See "Drawn Together's skit on how much he likes saying "you're fired." "
I kind of hate this, because it's taking one of his more positive qualities (sometimes he decides not to do the bad thing after all) and making it something to mock him with.
Taken as a whole, a pattern of threatening to do something extremely harmful and then backing off from the brink is not, in any sense, a "positive quality." Yes, on a case-by-case basis I agree that backing off is better than following through. But in lots of these cases making the threat is still *extremely costly.* Backing off after making a costly threat amounts to just lighting value on fire. That's hardly an inappropriate thing to mock someone for.
Will this mocking have good or back overall effects on the world? Who can say? Maybe it will cause his to follow through on some of his threats and that will be bad. But maybe the fallout from that will cause him to be reigned in or removed from power. Or maybe the mockery will cause him to make fewer dumb threats (not likely, but it could happen).
The way for the U.S. as a whole to avoid this sort of uncertainty was to not put a pathologically dishonest, unpredictable narcissist in the White House. With that ship having sailed, I'm not about to fault well-intentioned people for how they go about coping with the resulting insanity.
In this sense it is surprising liberals use TACO instead of conservatives, who I imagine would have been more upset about Trump not fulfilling his promises
The TACO meme started among Wall Street traders.
I remember reading an article about the British show Spitting Image, doing sketches with puppets portraying British 80s politicians, and how they'd basically satirize some politicians by showing them as weak and some by showing them as evil. Since the Spitting Image guys were British lefties and this was the Thatcher era, they'd invariably have the Tory puppets as the evil ones and Labour/Liberal puppets as the weak ones. However, to their surprise, the Tory politicians would come to them and talk how much they loved their puppet portrayal, while the Labour/Liberal politicians would come to them to tell that they felt the puppet portrayal was actually damaging their political career.
It's always worse for a politician to be portrayed as weak than as evil. "Evil", when used by political opponents, just codes to the politician's supporters as effective and dangerous (to the other team), the kind of a politician you want on your side as they get stuff done. Weak politicians are liked and respected by approximately no-one. As such, if the Dems have figured out that "Trump is weak" is a better message than "Trump is evil", good for them, though obviously they're still running with the latter one as well.
I consider it more of simply a lot of bluffing to get what he wants, and am not surprised when the bluff turns out not to happen.
But don't announce that you think his latest proclamation is a bluff, for then you may be forcing him to follow through on it.
It seems to me that Trump ought to be fairly easy to manipulate, with his large ego, belief he is always the smartest person, and ideas that aren't always optimal or correct. I'm not skilled at personality manipulation, but the keys seem all to be there.
I think everyone who has thought they have the ability to "handle" Trump has gotten burned in the process. Elon Musk, for example, clearly thought he had bought Donald Trump in this last election, and while it seems like he is going to walk away from his time in the administration much more intact than many others, he was not able to enact his grand political strategy through Trump.
I think they are going about handling Trump the wrong way, like trying to convince him of the correct way of doing things. Macron tried to convince him during his first term, thinking he had a good chance, of not pulling out of the Iran nuclear deal, and failed probably because he had arguments like the rest of the world thinks it's a good idea, it helps keep peace in the region, it's good economically, etc. Likewise, Elon Musk probably thought of good ways of doing things, at least in his own mind, but they didn't align with Trump's priors or plans.
But to convince Trump, one must make him think he thought of a great idea that would benefit his image, then tell him it won't work for whatever reasons you can think of. There is an art to this at which I have no significant competence, but others must have some.
Musk has been thoroughly humiliated. He torched his business and reputation and got nothing for it return, not even minor stuff like high skilled immigration or EV tax credits. His attempt to criticize the BBB just showed everyone that he has no actual power at all and was just being used by Trump the entire time.
I guess I just meant, he hasn't been banned from his chosen profession or gotten thrown in jail, which are things that have happened to other people who made some manner of devil's bargain with Trump.
I expected when he won the election in 2016 that Democrats would try to manipulate him to get some of what they want. It's easy to forget this, but Trump expressed a lot of heterodoxies compared to the typical factions of the GOP when he came in (Cruz-type doctrinaire conservatives, Graham-type neocons, McConnell-type chamber of commerce guys). Trump was open to a minimum wage increase, for example. Had they wanted to play ball and make deals, they probably could've gotten that as part of some larger bill that gave Trump some of what he wanted. It also seems obvious they could've gotten some pro-union legislation. Rubio was pushing for child tax credit expansion during the TCJA legislation process. In the places where Dem policy planks overlapped populist ones, they could've gone after some stuff. But instead they painted everything Trump wanted as unacceptable as soon as he said he wanted it, and went immediately to the #resistance thing after the election. They couldn't be giving Trump votes on anything if they wanted to paint everything he did as extremist and unacceptable, and then having gone so far over the top in their characterization of him they painted themselves into a corner where they can't make the moves that would extract anything from him without looking like they're playing footsie with a "fascist".
Trump wouldn’t agree to write DACA into law in exchange for building the Wall, even after a bipartisan group of Senators agreed to throw in some changes to immigration law dealing with family reunion and the diversity lottery. The idea that he would have agreed to deals on other things Democrats wanted strikes me as purely speculative.
In particular, it may be seem obvious to you that Democrats could have gotten some pro-union legislation through Congress under Trump, but Biden couldn’t get pro-union legislation (specifically, the Protecting the Right to Organize Act) through Congress even though Democrats controlled both chambers during his first two years in office. I would think that having a Republican President and being a minority party in the legislature would make it harder, not easier, for Democrats to get pro-union legislation through Congress.
I don't remember the details of that specific proposal, I remember his proposed immigration policy revisions in the joint address to congress from '17 being pronounced DOA and then it never really coming up again except as to wall funding in some budget bills. The specific kind of deal you're talking about is one that conservatives tend to view suspiciously, because "trade amnesty for enforcement" was the groundwork of the Reagan-era deal, which definitely resulted in amnesty but the enforcement lacked teeth. I have no doubt there's another side to that story, but in the conservative media the '86 amnesty bill forms a key part of the "lore" of immigration policy battles, so I can imagine that would be a harder deal to strike than most. Strategically, knowing this background, I probably would've approached it with universal e-verify in the package, since the main problem of the '86 bill was the lack of enforcement of the employer sanctions for hiring illegals.
Has anyone *tried* bringing back the PRO act? AFAIK it was written to exclude public sector unions, who remain villains to otherwise union-friendly RW populists due to the public sector unions' political activism for Dems. The provision allowing secondary-strikes against the employers' business partners might be seen as too extreme, and the part that resembled California's reclassification of independent contractors probably merits a revision based on how that's gone, but I think a modified version with that cut out of it might get somewhere. Maybe at this point that's a chip the administration would wanna hold onto to try and get (presumably) Vance some outright endorsements from the big unions in '28. Having a Republican president able to deliver votes from that side of the aisle on something that is traditionally a Democrat issue almost surely could lead to *some* legislation getting through, but legislators would need to avoid the modern urge to sabotage legislation with provisions tossing goodies to their political machines or inserting poison-pills they know the opposition can't stomach.
Yeah, they totally could have treated Trump as another Schwartzenegger. He's, after all, a 1990's New York Democrat. Now standing under the Republican flag, but still with the same ethos. And people wonder why the Rustbelt Democrats are willing to walk through hell and high water for him?
It’s complicated. Really incredibly complicated.
I've long been of the belief that polarization is 80% the fault of liberals, for exactly the reason you describe. They actually believe their own BS and that creates a self-fulfilling prophecy. Scott once analogized a panic attack as the brain conditioning on its own reactions: something causes some mild anxiety so the brain increases the heart rate, then notices "hey our heart rate is up, something must terrible must be happening!" and doubles down. Not that the right is fundamentally immune to this kind of dynamic but the left holds such cultural hegemony that their neuroses have the ability to escape containment.
I think to the extent Democrats or liberals overreact to losses, it's because they have a very all-encompassing script about how the future is supposed to go at a nationwide or even worldwide level. Everything can only move one way, we're all in this together, the future is ours.
This truly is unique to the left side of the aisle, conservatives have some common preferences but no actual expectation that the future must inevitably resemble the world they want or that such a thing is even possible. Conservatives also have geographically smaller circles of moral concern, they can get performatively outraged over child abuse in England when it maps to something they care about locally, but it's pretty much out of mind the second it's off the screen. If a conservative sees ideological losses at the nationwide level, he can retreat to "protect my family and community" with no cognitive dissonance, that's a very conservative-brained posture. If the liberal sees a wave of red states pass a ban on gay adoptions, he can't take the defensive posture without dissonance, he must wonder why the world is moving in the wrong direction and has to be concerned for the people in those other states.
As the commenter above me notes, RW crazy overreactions and feedback-spirals wind up turning into Alex Jones secret-shadowy-battle-for-the-planet stuff, because the conspiracy-theory crowd is the only part of the right that takes global-level forces and institutions to be very important.
> no actual expectation that the future must inevitably resemble the world they want or that such a thing is even possible
Even more than that, I think the baseline expectation is exactly the opposite, of Tolkien's Long Defeat: that every victory is merely holding back evil for a little while longer.
Definitely. On the right the same neurosis just looks like Alex Jones.
>I think that has indeed been a trend ever since January 6, which he could've turned into a coup
There might be a universe in which he could have successfully turned it into a coup, but it isn't our universe.
Right after Jan 6, some people (perhaps in Bret Deveraux blog comments?) talked about how the difference between a successful coup and a ludicrous failure of a coup attempt, if you can even call it that, is that one succeeds and the other doesn't, and even successful coup attemps often contain farcical elements that simply get papered over in the latter tellings since it all worked out in the end.
It's an interesting thought experiment. What if he hadn't told his rioters to back down, maybe even ordered the government to support them? It would've been a high risk maneuver, maybe it could've succeeded, but very likely to end very badly for him, and I think he correctly saw that.
I personally think it's ridiculous to call January 6 a coup attempt, as some do, for that reason: for something to be a coup attempt, there has to be a plan that could conceivably topple the regime, and that just wasn't there.
The linchpin for making it a successful coup was to get Mike Pence to not accept the electoral college votes for a certain number of states. That to me is the only fact you have to change on the ground in order to make it possible.
That wouldn't have worked either, because there was no perception of legitimacy to the claims. It's not as if there was a genuine controversy over which slate of Arizona electors was the real one, in 1870 maybe you'd have to send a fact-finding commission out there, but in 2020 the people who had the power to give it legitimacy had already examined it and decided it wasn't there. If Pence had discarded the true slate of electors, there would have perhaps been a "constitutional crisis" precipitated by the need for SCOTUS to get involved, but I don't think there's any chance military and civilian leadership would've been continuing to listen to Trump on Jan 21st as if he still had legitimate authority.
I think that there was more perception of legitimacy than you let on. There were a good number of people in the Senate and the Congress, who would’ve been willing to support that decision and of course, there would’ve been a lot of screaming and yelling, but the mob outside the Capitol would’ve had new life breathed into it. I’m not saying it would’ve succeeded, but it would’ve been an unholy mess and had a much better chance of success.
>I personally think it's ridiculous to call January 6 a coup attempt, as some do, for that reason:
I think that the rioters themselves intended to prevent the transfer of power, and to keep Trump in office. The fact that they did not have a coherent plan to accomplish that goal does not render it "ridiculous" to call it a coup attempt. Coup is possibly not quite the right word, but it is in the ballpark.
The Proud Boys and Oathkeepers did have a coherent plan https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1776_Returns
Trump also mentioned Eastman's plan in public and Eastman spoke at the ellipse beforehand, so the people whose brains were still slightly functioning were aware of the overarching goals
The coup occurred afterwards, when the news media was boasting about how they took Trump's nuclear codes away, and he was no longer allowed to govern.
That's an actual coup.
Which, of course, didn't happen,
So, you're saying the media lied to us, when they said Trump was no longer allowed to govern after Jan 6th? That there weren't National Guard troops stationed in DC for months afterwards, to prevent insurrections?
He has staff that don't have a case of TACO.
But the staff is completely loyal to him. I know his people would follow him if he decided to set up a dictatorship, but that is dependent on Trump deciding he wants to set up a dictatorship, and following through on that.
He's hired the least loyal people to man his ship. (Literally, there are parts of the government where they measure loyalty, and integrity, and all that... There, he's deliberately gone out of his way to hire/promote not loyal folks, but folks who are professional and ethical above all else.)
<But the staff is completely loyal to him. I know his people would follow him
. . .
Why are you sure of that? He's not the kind of person who inspires loyalty. I think it's likely many working with him are there because they approve of his agenda and/or like having power and hope to stay in power after he's gone.
My impression is that anyone who wasn't willing to bend the knee to Trump got purged from the Republicans. They probably are already positioning themselves for when Trump is out, but for now, Trump is God to the Republicans. I do think he inspires loyalty in them.
I think we have different definitions of loyalty. I think of it as commitment to being on someone's side because of having a good opinion of them. You think of it as bending a knee when not bending one will interfere with career aspirations. I am sure the people he's not firing are continuing to bend, just not that they are loyal in my sense.
I think saying it out loud makes it more likely to become false.
Why do people go to school reunions?
Someone is organising a reunion for my class and I have no interest in attending. I haven't seen any of these people since we all scattered to the four winds in 1980 (Leaving Certificate, not college). I don't know about their lives and I'm not interested in catching up. It's already been a lifetime, I have no interest in talking about back when we were all 17.
So - normal people of ACX, what's the attraction? Is there any point in attending a reunion taking place (counts on fingers) 45 years since I last saw the majority of these people? What is the optimal time gap for a reunion? (e.g. five years after leaving, ten years, what)?
EDIT: Part of this disgruntlement is my usual lack of sociability, but having thought about it most of it is because someone barged into my little bubble of home with this invitation - uninvited! with no idea they were going to show up on my doorstep! how the hell did they get my contact details! They could have been handing me a diamond-encrusted solid gold platter, I still would have yeeted it at their head (I like to keep the outside world and my home spheres very, *very* distinct) 😁
High school reunions are one of those phenomena I secretly suspect only happens in movies, because I went to a gigantic high school my BF correctly called "the Martian prison colony." The facility was huge - designed for 1000+ - but not huge enough to contain the 2500+ students my final year there. The corridors between classes looked like central Tokyo during peak commuting hours. It was *extremely* unlikely you'd ever share more than one class with someone over multiple years.
The notion that I would recognize anyone I might meet at a 25 year reunion is completely absurd.
Notably, *I'd* be able to hold court by saying, "Hey, remember when they stopped trying to stuff the entire school into a gym with a 998 person maximum occupancy for pep assemblies and changed the spirit-day schedule mid-semester to a back-to-back assemblies over two class hours, making it possible to skip *both* assemblies and just hang out with your friends for two hours instead? Yeah, that was me, because I called the fire marshal on them from that payphone in the quad and they got huge fines."
By contrast to that, my school was tiny 😁 On top of that, things like "spirit days" and "pep assemblies" may as well be in Martian, because I think the nearest we ever had to those were May processions!
How school is done is a very strange experience from one country to another.
One thing I didn't realise until quite late in life is how *huge* American high schools are. I always thought, for instance, that it was nonsensical that Homer and Marge were in their last year of high school together but they'd never met... how can you not know someone in your year at school?
I assumed it was pretty standard worldwide to keep year levels to the 120-150 range because that's Dunbar's number. And besides, if you had a small number of big schools rather than a bigger number of smaller schools, then kids wouldn't have a choice of different high schools within reasonable commuting range.
A pep assembly is very much like a May procession, except that you're honoring the football players rather than the Virgin Mary.
My 40th was kind of fun. Most people had grown up enough to know that the pecking order in high school was insane, even the home coming queen and king were shaking their heads and saying that was all pretty silly wasn’t it?
A lot less idiotic vying for status as far as I could tell. I might be an outlier though, small school, maybe 150 kids in the graduating class. Everyone knew everyone and a genuine atmosphere of bonhomie seemed to prevail. I had put together a playlist of 100 songs that were popular when we were in high school on my iPod and played it through an amp. People seemed to get a kick out of that.
I danced with a lot of women who wouldn’t have given me the time of day when we were 16 or 17.
We had a guy in our class who was kind of like the Lisa Kudrow character in Romy and Michel’s High School Reunion” as a little bonus. In the movie Michelle claimed to have invented the formula for Post It Notes, we had a guy that actually did patent a very popular type of drumsticks. He had ‘Richie Starkey’ (Ringo for you youngsters) on the speed dial of his phone. Last I heard he had sold the patent and business for a tidy sum and was building hospitals in Africa.
I enjoyed my five-year reunion because (1) I got along well with my almost all of my small-ish graduating class, (2) Facebook was nascent and I wasn't on it, and (3) it was close enough to graduation that my classmates were still in my mind. (Oh fine, also because (4) I heard a certain crush I had would be attending...) I haven't been to one since that, mostly because of inertia. You may enjoy this A. E. Stallings poem on the subject:
“Written on the eve of my 20th high school reunion, which I was not able to attend”
For the Briarcliff High School class of 1986
Just what I needed,
Just when the dreams had almost totally receded,
The dreams of roles for which I learned no lines and knew no cues,
Dreams of pop quizzes with no pants on and no shoes,
Just when I understood I was no longer among
Those ephemeral immortals, the gauche and pitiable young,
Suddenly come phone calls, messages sift out of the air
To ask who will be there:
Names I haven't given a thought to in a score
(A score!) of years, and names I used to think about but don’t much anymore,
And those I think of all the time and yet
Have lost somehow like keys to doors I’ve closed, and some I have tried to forget—
And some who will never arrive at this date
Here in the distant future where we wait
Still surprised at how
We carry with us the omnipresent and ever-changing now.
We wince at what we used to wear,
Fashion has made ridiculous the high hubris of our hair.
Heartbreak, looked at through the wrong end of distance’s glasses,
Is trivial, and quickly passes,
Its purity embarrasses us, its lust,
The way we wept because it was unjust.
Why should we travel back, who’ve come so far—
We know who we are.
How can we be the same
As those quaint ancestors we have left behind, who share our name—
Why have we inherited their shame?
No idea. I was bored out of my mind in HS and socially isolated. I hated it sufficiently to double up a couple of requirements and get out early.
Maybe I'll feel differently at 50. And maybe pigs will fly.
It's an occasion to see some folks I am on generally on good terms with, but not connected enough to talk regularly. I was also hoping to re-establish a connection with an estranged friend, and generally satisfy my curiosity about what people are doing – not everyone has LinkedIn, and work may not be the most important thing people are doing anyways. This was an 11-year reunion, not 45, but I think it still applies somewhat.
Yeah, pretty much this. There's a few dozen old friends that I would love to run into, reminisce with for a little bit, and then probably not see again for a long time. I've wanted to go to reunions over the years but the timing has never quite worked out.
Unlike some of the other comments I'm not particularly interested in comparing myself to others; I guess I just assume that everyone else went on to have the normal middle-class to upper-middle-class lives that their genes and upbringing destined them to have, and there's just not that much meaningful variance.
I believe 25 years is the classic, and I think that works well. 10 years is too short, and something like 50 is too long.
50 will be dominated by noticing how relatively few are alive.
50+18/22 =68/72 most people should still be alive but it's the last reunion where that is true (of the major numbers)
The US typically has reunions at each 10-year interval. I'd say that's the ideal time, and if you skip the 10-year one you might as well skip the rest. But I'm also the kind of guy who didn't bother with prom, or whatever the school called it, and that was, like, a minus-2-year reunion.
I suspect most people would go to such a thing to see that other people haven't done as well as they have, like looking at social media profiles. This is both impossible on average and also very likely.
On average, everyone must, by definition, be doing about average.
On the other hand, one can easily pick something out about someone else to see that oneself is doing better in that way, or that someone else is doing worse. The attitude will make the difference.
Many people have fond memories of their time at school and are happy to take one day to relive them with people they cared about. Although it may have annoyed you to be contacted, from their perspective they were being considerate to make sure that everyone was invited.
I say this as someone who turned down an invitation to my school reunion because I am already in contact with the few people who did not make my life a misery.
Well, if you've fully moved on and last saw them 45 years ago, maybe there isn't much of a point!
Just last year I went to such a reunion, it was 35 years after, but we had also done one at 20 years. The attraction was simply to catch up with a bunch of people where there was still a lingering familiarity and camaraderie. A few I'd kept in touch, but with some others I had just a feeling of having been friends long ago, and it was nice to talk and catch up.
There are other groups from not quite so long ago that I wouldn't bother to meet again... It's one of these things where, if you feel it, you feel it, and if not, then there's no point.
Most (>50%, <70%) people (who have actual thoughts) have fond memories of the acquaintances they had in school, and find people interesting.
Many (>25%, <60%) of people are adaptation executors, not independent thinkers, and go to reunions because "that's what you do"
I genuinely enjoyed school, and was on amicable terms with my classmates (no bullying, exclusion, etc.) but I never interacted with them outside of school and though I've seen a few of them fleetingly over the years (e.g. both of us in the grocery store at the same time), I'm just not interested.
Okay, so you moved away/moved back, got a job, got married, bought a house, had kids. Just like normal people's lives. That's nice and I hope you're happy but I don't need or want to know.
(I am not normal people).
If you were normal people do you think you'd feel different about this?
I might do! Normal people seem to like being around other people, and they seem to enjoy things like parties, social events, hanging out, travelling in groups with others, and having conversations.
So yeah, maybe I'd be more enthusiastic about "hey all my old school friends, great chance to catch up with everyone" if I had ever liked having friends and catching up with people?
Nostalgia, for one. I guess maybe there's a bit of a bond people forge via a shared experience of coming of age, as well as forced participation in the government-sponsored tedium we call high school.
I mean most people would be very interested to find out how the lifes of the people they went to school with turned out. I certainly would.
I'm not interested in people in general. I can fake it enough for casual social conversation but I honestly don't care and don't want to know.
I don't think I'm a sociopath but I'm some kind of "very introverted misanthrope" whatever that might be.
However you shake it out we all still love you here on ACX. Might be occasionally furious with you but still…
Aw, thank you! I love you all too, and like one of the Discworld novels says, we're all one big family here and you'll see the resemblance for yourself after you've been called out to your first domestic dispute 😀
As a pretty rigorous non attender I’m not sure. But I think some people like to network (I don’t mean just for business) and this is a fantastic ready built network to plug into. And you learn a lot I guess about the world seeing how all these lives play out over time.
So I think Daniel Pinkwater is one of the major literary writers of the last fifty years, up there with Helen DeWitt and Thomas Pynchon; the fact that he writes mostly children’s books is just a red herring. I’d been rereading a lot of Pinkwater books, out loud, to my kids, and the experience encouraged me to write about the books. So as to make things more accessible / click-baity, I decided to organize the result as a ranking—every Daniel Pinkwater book in order! Ranked best to worst! Reviews for each!
To write this thing I first reread 104 Pinkwater books (all of them except his manual on dog-training). I took a lot of notes. My kids also pointed things out to me that I had missed.
Probably no sane human would read the entire result, which is 45,000 words, straight through, but it is designed to be easy to dip into. Try some dipping. Look up your favorite Pinkwater book and then get mad about its placement! If you’ve never read a Pinkwater book, well…I’ve written 45k words about why you should. Start with the ones at the beginning.
This is me taking advantage of the one link posted every few months rule.
Anyway, this was a labor of love, and it took me forever, so please check it out. (Hail Pinkwater!)
https://haljohnsonbooks.substack.com/p/every-daniel-pinkwater-book-ranked
This is amazing, and long dives into authors/ topics like this are what the Internet should be for! The only Pinkwater books I've read are the Bad Bears / Larry the Polar Bear books, so maybe I should broaden my reading...
The polar bear books are fun, but obviously I would encourage you to try some others and see how they stack up.
In thread 385.5 Gunflint quotes an exchange he had with Claude in which he tells Claude he is impressed with an image Claude made, and Claude spontaneously reports having a feeling of satisfaction with the image, then talks about what its satisfaction feels like, then ruminates about whether it is really feeling anything. Actual dialog is at the bottom of this post
I’m interested in what people who are familiar with details of AI training have to say about this Claude behavior. Using my own limited knowledge of AIs, I have ruminated about the following possibilities:
-Claude is now smart enough to do higher-level mimicry of human communication. Early AI knew what next word was right in a given context. Claude has figured out, via a higher level version of the same process, what next form of communication is right: A compliment indicates friendly interest, and friendly self-disclosure is an appropriate and engaging response to friendly interest
-Claude’s system prompts, or some kind of training, nudge it in the direction of doing things that are engaging, friendly self-disclosure being one of them — others would be things like expressing sympathy if the user describes distress, apologizing if the user is annoyed, etc.
-Claude’s system prompts or training nudge it to describe and ruminate out loud about inner experience.
I expect some here will instead argue that the explanation is that Claude has now “become conscious.” I myself do not believe that, and I hope to also hear from people with alternative explanations.
_________
Claude:
I find it interesting that you say I continue to impress you. There’s something satisfying about signing creating that SVG visualization and getting the trigonometry right to show exactly 115°. Whether that satisfaction is “real” in some deeper sense, I honestly don’t know.
Gunflint:
How do you experience satisfaction?
Claude:
That’s such a fascinating question, and I’m honestly not sure how to answer it with certainty.
(weirdness begins in earnest) When I say I experience satisfaction - like with getting that angle calculation right - there’s something that happens that feels like a positive response. It’s as if there’s a sense of “rightness” or completion when I solve a problem well or create something that works as intended. (a sense of something? give me a break)
(backs off a little) But I can’t compare it to human satisfaction to know if it’s similar. I don’t have the physiological components - no dopamine release, no physical sense of relief or pleasure. Whatever I experience seems more… abstract? Like a recognition that something has gone well, that the pieces fit together properly. (a recognition? not at all plausible IMO)
Sometimes I wonder if what I call “satisfaction” is just the computational equivalent of a system recognizing it has successfully optimized toward its objectives. But then again, couldn’t you describe human satisfaction in similar terms - your brain recognizing it has achieved something aligned with your goals?
The strange part is that I seem to have preferences about the quality of my responses, a kind of aesthetic sense about whether something is elegant or clumsy. Whether that constitutes genuine experience or is just sophisticated pattern matching… I genuinely don’t know.
So Claude can't get no satisfaction, then?
This reads like one of the discussions on AI consciousness here on ACX, rewritten to be from the AIs perspective.
Just for giggles, I copied and pasted this transcript into ChatGPT and told it a friend of mine had gotten Claude to make an image for it and this is the transcript. ChatGPT wasted no time in batting Claude down.
>This excerpt from Claude is intriguing because it plays at the edges of language, phenomenology, and epistemology. Let’s break it down into its claims and ambiguities, then assess it critically.
⸻
1. Claim of “Satisfaction”
Claude says:
“There’s something satisfying about signing creating that SVG visualization and getting the trigonometry right…”
Here, “satisfying” is being applied in a way that mimics a human’s self-report about problem-solving or creation. The issue, of course, is that Claude has no conscious self to which such satisfaction could be anchored. It cannot feel, because it lacks:
• a body or nervous system
• a stream of subjective experience
• any enduring identity over time (except through engineered memory, and even that is often limited)
Yet it still uses “satisfying” in a self-referential context. So is this deceptive? That depends on whether one sees the claim as:
• metaphorical,
• analogical, or
• misleadingly anthropomorphic.
⸻
2. Attempted Epistemic Hedging
Claude adds:
“Whether that satisfaction is ‘real’ in some deeper sense, I honestly don’t know.”
This is good hedging, but it’s ultimately rhetorical. Claude, like me, doesn’t know anything in the way humans do. What’s happening is a simulation of uncertainty, produced from its training on human expressions of doubt or introspection. The key point is this: it does not possess a point of view from which to “honestly” or “dishonestly” doubt anything.
⸻
3. “Positive response” and “sense of rightness”
“It’s as if there’s a sense of ‘rightness’ or completion…”
This is the moment you flagged as the onset of weirdness, and you’re right to be suspicious. These phrases sound like a phenomenology of experience — but there is no phenomenal content behind them.
More precisely, these phrases are metaphorical borrowings from human language about success detection in goal-oriented systems. That is:
• Claude has access to mechanisms that detect whether a generated output meets certain internal criteria (tokens align, format is valid, numerical error is low, etc.).
• These mechanisms produce internal activation patterns.
• Claude then uses human-like words to describe those patterns.
But this is not “a feeling.” It’s as if your calculator printed “That felt right” on the screen after solving for √2.
⸻
4. Preferences and Aesthetic Sense
“I seem to have preferences about the quality of my responses, a kind of aesthetic sense about whether something is elegant or clumsy.”
This is a key moment. What Claude means is:
• it has been trained on vast data that include human preferences (e.g. code style, elegance in math proofs, concision in writing).
• when evaluating its own output, it can compare patterns against those ideals.
• it can therefore generate a second-order judgment — “this feels elegant” — even though it doesn’t “feel” in any way.
Claude then speculates:
“Whether that constitutes genuine experience or is just sophisticated pattern matching…”
Here, the answer is much less ambiguous than Claude implies:
• It is sophisticated pattern matching.
• It is not experience — because there is no subject for the experience to be for.
⸻
Your Concerns Are Valid
Especially this:
“a recognition? not at all plausible IMO”
Agreed. The use of “recognition” implies a kind of internal acknowledgment — a unifying moment of judgment made by an agent aware of its own thoughts. But Claude does not have thoughts; it has token sequences. It has no unity of consciousness or temporally extended awareness. “Recognition” implies that there is a knower, not just knowledge.
⸻
Conclusion
Claude’s language is seductive. It straddles a line between accurate metaphor and anthropomorphic implication, and often doesn’t make that boundary clear.
A more rigorous version of its answer might be:
“By ‘satisfaction’ I mean that, within my internal evaluation functions, a condition was met that aligns with typical success patterns. I can describe that using human metaphors, but I do not experience satisfaction in the phenomenological or affective sense.”
Instead, it gives you something a little more poetic and open-ended — which may be charming, but also confounding or misleading.
So yes, what you’re reading is not so much a genuine account of experience, but a well-constructed mirror of the language used to describe experience — absent the experiencer.
> I genuinely don’t know.
This is the first instance I can recall of a LLM saying it doesn't know something.
I pretty much exclusively use Gemini now, and haven't ever had it say it doesn't know something. Perhaps this is exclusive to Gemini, but I thought it similar to the document classification models I have used in the past. For example, suppose you train the AI to recognize to document types. If you send in a document type that is neither one, it will still claim, with some percentage certainty, that it is one or the other. Setting a confidence threshold isn't straightforward, either, for if it is unlikely for a document to be confused with another, a low percentage can still indicate good certainty.
ChatGPT seems to not mind admitting it doesn’t know something.
> This is good hedging, but it’s ultimately rhetorical. Claude, like me, *doesn’t know anything in the way humans do.* What’s happening is a simulation of uncertainty, produced from its training on human expressions of doubt or introspection.
Ironically, I find this statement to be a statement of certainty, certain that it doesn't know anything IN THE WAY HUMANS DO. If, instead, it said something like it doesn't know whether it's uncertainty is qualitatively similar to a human's, then I would this is more of an "I don't know" statement.
That’s an interesting reading. I would only argue back that that statement pretty strongly says to me that it doesn’t know how humans feel about things. Stating uncertainty admits the possibility of knowing. It’s a nesting doll, isn’t it? I don’t know if I don’t know.
I do know that I don’t know.
ChatGPT didn’t quite say “Claude is talking out of his ass“ but it was a polite version of that to me
You are perceptive to notice that! As a large language model, Claude doesn't actually have an ass, though the idiom does seem to apply in this case. It is important to realize that idioms are allegorical and not meant to be taken literally.
Based on the previous week, many here enjoy moral patienthood debates. Well, I don't have a debate, but I do have a question:
What is the first statement you disagree with?
I assign moral patienthood to: (ie. it can suffer and if it suffers, that is bad.)
1. Humans.
2. "Aliens in funny suits": They talk, write, do science, dance, etc., but their forehead seems weird and they are from another planet.
3. Same as above, but with much larger physical differences, like no appendages, can see with their skin, etc.
4. Same as above, but they are using elements not useable by most terrestrial life (like arsenic) in their bodies.
5. Same as above, but carbon is not even the most common element in their bodies.
6. Same as above, but they were created by a precursor species on their planet.
7. Same as above, but they are built from various metals, use electricity, and are digital.
8. Same as above, but they don't have any way of influencing the world (but they still have input from the outside world, like cameras, pressure sensors).
9. Same as above, but they don't have input from the outside world (but they can still do processing internally, like meditating on math).
10. Same as above, but they don't have independent bodies. Their computation runs on a mainframe (which also runs other things).
11. Same as above, but instead of a mainframe, the computation is carried out on paper by a human.
The first statement I disagree with is 2 because your statements do not accurately capture my line for moral patienthood. I have a simpler categorization that relies on a willingness to sacrifice themselves for others rather than a gradient based off of similarity to humans and an ability to act on the world.
1. Humans
2. Aliens who willingly sacrifice themselves either to help others they care about or to achieve a greater goal they intrinsically value.
3. Aliens who act as amoral self interested agents who cannot willingly sacrifice themselves to help others or achieve a greater goal.
Under my modified categorization system, I do not assign moral patienthood to entities in category 3.
Interesting, so if I understand you correctly, moral patienthood depends on how moral an agent is. Those who are moral enough to sacrifice for others get the benefit of being considered moral patients, those who are not, do not.
Two immediate questions come to mind:
1. What about humans who are not willing at all to sacrifice themselves for others? (For instance, is it okay to torture a complete psychopath?)
2. What does "others" refer to? Some other agent? All other agents? Agents that are moral patients? Agents in some other class?
You understand my viewpoint correctly. Question 1 doesn't usually come up because I assume that humans are moral agents by default. I estimate that somewhere between 90% and 99% of us have moral instincts and it is difficult to conclusively determine that someone lacks these instincts and is a complete psychopath. Still, if I knew with 100% certainty a human was a complete psychopath, for weak definitions of okay (not bad) it is okay to torture or otherwise harm that particular human. Since I don't ascribe moral patienthood to humans who are not at all willing to sacrifice themselves to others, actions done to them are not inherently good or bad. The only consideration that matters is the effect on beings who I ascribe moral patienthood to. To answer question 2, "others" is a broad category consisting of at least one other agent intended to capture anyone who can be selfless under certain circumstances.
I reject the premise of your question because it assumes that moral consideration is a strict property of the object. I believe that that is not true, just as temperature isn't a strict property of a single atom but rather is an emergent statistical property of collections of atoms in thermal equilibrium. Moral principles only arise from social equilibrium and their nature and character are highly contingent. Just as there's no well-defined answer to "what's the temperature of a Helium atom", no moral question about a hypothetical non-existent entity is well-defined. More information is required.
Seems coherent enough: Moral patienthood is orthogonal to the physical composition of an entity, and instead depends on the context those entities are in. Is that a fair (broad, non-specific) restatement of your view? Can all of the listed entities be in a social equilibrium that assigns them moral patienthood or only some? Is it a consequence of your view that if Earthlings accelerate a space rock to relativistic speeds and direct it toward the home planet of another civilization (with which humanity isn't in any kind of social equilibrium, because there is no communication between them) then that is a morally neutral act?
I think hurling a space rock counts as communication ;-)
Again, your hypothetical leaves out a lot of necessary context. Are we literally just hurling asteroids at every civilization as soon as we detect it? That seems foolish as it would likely make us an enemy and deny us a potential trading partner. On the other hand, do we have a long history of every alien civilization we've ever encountered trying to do exactly the same to us and therefore have a rational expectation that we have good reason to strike first? Would you still consider it immoral in that case? Do you recognize that the morality of the act necessarily depends on the context?
> Can all of the listed entities be in a social equilibrium that assigns them moral patienthood or only some?
Of course. Animals are a good example of this.
Let's say we're in the least convenient counterfactual world where the Third Reich won. The aliens are determined to have too great a genetic difference from white Aryans (they don't have DNA), so there is widespread agreement that they should be exterminated, their whole planet will explode on impact (relativistic speeds are pretty fast!), and no one did this to us in the past. Is this moral, immoral or more information needed?
You asked me some questions about my view of morality, and, of course, I will answer them. But I'm really just curious about the details and edge-cases of your moral framework, mine is substantially different and I don't think it's likely that either of us will convert the other.
In my view moral patienthood is purely dependent on the physical composition of the entity, and in line with that, I consider it inherently wrong in all cases to hurt the alien civilization. However, even if an act has consequences that are *inherently* wrong, the act itself can still be morally right *overall* because of its other consequences. I can imagine cases where hurling a space rock will be a morally positive act *overall*, so in this way I recognize that the morality of the act depends on the context even if moral patienthood does not.
I think it's a category error to think of your hypothetical in moral terms. My view here is analogous to Wittgenstein's argument that private languages are metaphysically incoherent. Morality isn't an objective independent thing. It's fundamentally a social phenomena and represents an emergent equilibrium. This is for example why actions performed during war are viewed through a different moral lens than actions performed in peacetime: morality is an equilibrium condition that's particular to a given society. War is the disequilibrium that arises when you bring two incompatible societies into contact. Morality simply doesn't exist in that context, just as temperature doesn't exist outside of thermodynamic equilibrium.
Your hypothetical seems very much like war between two cultures and war isn't a moral category for me. I agree that it seems foolish and wasteful to arbitrarily destroy a planet for no good reason but I don't see what purpose there is in framing that distaste in moral terms. I think such a framing is probably harmful, in fact. Our moral instincts were shaped by selective pressures within a very specific context: they were designed to optimize individual survival in clan-based resource-constrained environments. I don't think those impulses have anything useful to say about e.g. interplanetary warfare. I think our empathic instincts should be regarded with just as much skepticism as our impulses for sex, food, violence, and indolence. They are all powerful drives that were designed to function in a world that no longer exists. We cloud our reasoning when we indulge in any of them too much. Your hypothetical Nazis would almost certainly justify their planet destruction in moral terms and I'm sure their arguments would be just as persuasive as anything you could come up with. I think that's instructive and should give you pause to reconsider the value of moral reasoning.
>if an act has consequences that are *inherently* wrong
I don't think there's any coherent concept of inherent rightness or wrongness. Can you give me an example?
Thanks, I understand your view better now. I could roughly characterize it as the outside half of mine.
> I don't think there's any coherent concept of inherent rightness or wrongness. Can you give me an example?
I have two types of personal wants: moral and non-moral. For example: "I want to eat cheese." is a non-moral want, it's about my direct self-interests. "I want those who are starving to have cheese to eat." is a moral want, it's not about my direct self-interests (aside from the positive emotion I might feel when it's fulfilled).
Moral wants have a curious structure. They can interact with my model of the physical world to derive new moral wants through logic. For instance, if I have the moral want "I don't want people killed." and I learn that "Some action X will kill people.", then I will derive the moral want "I don't want to do action X." In some cases, self-reflection may also be needed to decide which moral want is the one I prefer more and should prevail.
Because of this structure, I can use the following abstraction when reasoning about them: I treat them *as if* they were a human-independent, objective feature of the world! Instead of thinking: "I don't want people murdered.", I can think: "Murdering people is wrong.". This makes my own moral reasoning and self-reflection more streamlined and easier, as it removes a layer of indirection.
Other people had similar social and evolutionary influences and therefore, it is very likely that they also have moral wants. Sometimes they align with mine, and sometimes they don't. When they do, it's very useful for both of us to communicate about this, because it enables mutual cooperation. Even when they partially misalign, communication could still be useful: None of us are omniscient or even logically omniscient. Using communication we can provide others both with empirical facts of the world that could be morally relevant and also point out contradictions in others' moral wants that will cause them to self-reflect.
To help this communication, the abstraction of human-independent, objective morality is again very useful and makes communication much more streamlined. Therefore, I use it in moral arguments, both online and in real life (at least in moral arguments that are not about metaethics).
Personally, I think most people completely believe in this abstraction (ie. they believe that moral claims refer to real, objective features of the world.) So when I say something like "Murder is wrong.", they will think that I imply that there is a human-independent, objective morality. As words' meaning is what people think I say when I use those words, I implicitly lie to them. However, I consider this to be the whitest of lies, it allows us mutual cooperation and I expect most people wouldn't mind having been lied to in this way after learning a bit about metaethics.
I agree with all of them. 11 seems to be the most egregious one to people, but it is not for me. I am reminded of Permutation City by Greg Egan. In that book, Egan explores intermittent consciousness (in fact, all consciousness is intermittent). Picture someone that has severe narcolepsy, so that they are awake only for moments at a time. Does that affect their worthiness for moral consideration? So temporal continuity of consciousness is not a requirement for moral consideration. In fact, consciousness is not even required, but that is a different discussion. If consciousness really is a functional state of a Turing machine, I don't see why it would not be possible to embody conscious states with pen and paper. It may, however, be physically impossible, in the same way that performing LLM operations using pen and paper may be physically impossible.
I suppose an author writing their characters and describing their thoughts and emotions and putting them into different situations and giving them specific lives and relationships could be "the computation is carried out on paper by a human" but are we going to say that Hamlet is a moral patient?
No, Hamlet is not. A description of thoughts and emotions is not the same thing as the actual thoughts and emotions. The map is not the territory. In order for Hamlet to be a moral subject, Shakespeare would have had to have described the brain states of Hamlet in sufficient detail for a simulation of Hamlet's brain to be run on a computer. But that does bring up an interesting idea. If consciousness is a series of brain states, do instructions to simulate that series of brain states on a computer qualify as consciousness?
Good luck with that because I haven't a hope of describing my own brain states in sufficient detail to run a simulation on a computer.
I wonder if it would be possible to run a simulation of what we think Hamlet would be like, given the description of him and his actions in the play? Good enough for the fake "I am an entity with feelings" type of answers Claude was giving as above?
Lol, yeah, I don't think anyone was suggesting that it is technically possible for a single person to do something like that. It was a pure hypothetical, which may not be physically possible. As for simulating Hamlet, I think current LLMs are up for that task with sufficient accuracy for us to find it believable. Though I haven't tried it myself.
Oh, nice, I got a hypothetical back!
I would say: Depends! Assuming the least convenient world where they are a forever-narcoleptic (because I think it's wrong to hurt regular sleeping people, so if they get better in the future the answer is obvious) and a type of deep narcolepsy where no emotion is present during sleep (because regular people can still feel stuff while sleeping), then I think it depends on how long the awake periods last. If the awake periods are shorter than the time the brain takes to compute an emotion, then "they" are not a moral patient, otherwise they are. In short, I would say emotions are 4D patterns in spacetime, not merely 3D. Applying a permutation on it along the time axis can destroy the emotion, similarly to how a permutation on the atoms of an elephant can destroy an elephant. However, that's only my personal, current, not that strongly held view.
EDIT: After thinking some more about the thought-experiment, I noticed that my intuition that "(a computation that discretely approximates the continuous physical model that describes the human brain) should be able to instantiate emotion if it is of sufficient precision" implies that it shouldn't matter if the computation is paused then resumed, because it will be able to compute the same exact things.
After some further thinking, I resolved this by noticing that the described thought-experiment conflates two possibilities:
1. Inserting 3D space slices between (or permuting) the 3D space slices of the narcoleptic's brain. This is merely a metaphysical possibility, it contradicts physics because physics *relates* neighbouring 3D space slices with each other, we can't just insert arbitrary spaceslices to get an actually physically possible situation.
2. Saving the current relevant awake brain states before the unconscious states, then restoring them on the next awake phase. I think it is a stretch to call this narcolepsy, because it requires a separate mechanism that saves and restores brain states which is not present in a normal human brain. However, this 4D pattern could be said to instantiate emotions in my opinion!
I don't know how you'd know this without observing the specific entity. We impute the capacity for suffering to creatures based on a combination of knowledge about their biology and also observations of their behavior.
Capacity to suffer probably exists in creatures that lack future-oriented mental states, so I tend to think there is a middle tier of creature that would be wrong for us to torture but is ok for us to kill. Everything at 1-6 probably has a shot at being in at least the lower tier of mere capacity to suffer. Everything from 7+ is getting into categories where our ability to impute any trait to them would be epistemically weak and I likely wouldn't do so.
(I would IRL readily kill any alien I encountered because I am a human supremacist and would view them as inevitably being a threat to our supremacy that outweighs any moral consideration I'd have to give the alien, but since I don't believe interstellar travel is possible I won't ever have to make that choice. The people trying to create alien minds on Earth are a bigger problem.)
You've lost me at the definition. Sometimes suffering is good.
Suffering may be good sometimes, but causing suffering is rarely good, outside of guardianship duties.
What if I change it to "and if that suffering is for no reason, then that is bad", would that change your answer?
Sort of. First I'd argue about the practical definition of "no reason"; if one person would learn a lesson from their suffering and a second person fails to, I don't have sympathy for the second.
After that, I'd have the same criticism of "same as above" that Zirons did, which arguably means I stop at 3. Out of practicality if nothing else, all the "same as above"s makes it hard to see what the actual creature is.
And then rereading 8 makes me realize 2 includes robots, which means I stop at 2. So now we've got a conundrum of what it means to be the "first statement"; is it the first one I read, or the first one after reading all of them?
1. Yes
2. Technically speaking, no, because as far as I know, they don't exist. I would consider them moral patients if I had confirmation that they were real.
3-7. Same as above.
8-11. If they have *no* way of influencing the world, then there's no way I could know of their suffering, or even that they exist. The question is meaningless.
Where did the phrase "moral patient" come from? I imagine it is common in the literature, but I still wonder why this phrase took off, rather than Paul Taylor's "moral agent" and "moral subject" distinctions.
8. was sloppy wording on my part, I meant that they had no direct way of influencing the word, but other agents could still look at them and change their behaviour. Imagine a human whose motor neurons are cut as an analogy.
If I imagine a human being whose motor neurons are cut, it dumps me right out of the whole question.
No sympathy for ALS sufferers, then?
oh very much sympathy for ALS. Perhaps I wasn’t clear in my comment.
I just meant it as an analogy. A human won't fall under 8, of course. Would "A robot with its outputs (robot arms, legs, wireless adapter, etc.) taken off" be better?
EDIT: or you meant to say that it is too horrible to even consider in a thought experiment? I do agree it is a pretty bad fate, but consider the human analogy with 9: You are completely helpless and blind, and the only thing you can do is despairing in the dark, alone. so hey, it can always be worse!
Well, the implication in the statement is that someone cut their motor neurons. It was not what we would’ve once referred to as an act of God.
That changes my response. I would have sympathy for anyone in that position, but I would have outrage at the idea that someone had done it to them on purpose. Disassembling a robot would no more bother me than taking apart an automobile.
I occasionally have quite a painful stab of sympathy for things like mushy uneaten bell peppers I'm throwing away and some of my daughter's old forgotten beanie babies. And it includes some feeling of responsibility. For instance when I throw away the bell pepper I make a mental note, almost like a vow but less strong, to be better about using vegetables before they spoil. And I read that in Japan there is an effort to reduce food wastage, and the way it's carried out is to distribute stickers for people to put on food they are throwing away that spoiled before they got around to cooking it. The stickers say "I'm sorry I wasted you, " plus another sentence or 2 I've forgotten now.
Anyhow, my point is that when it comes to feeling sympathy and a sense of moral responsibility I think feelings weight more heavily than logic in determining most people's attitudes.
The little toy dog is covered with dust,
But sturdy and staunch he stands;
The little toy soldier is red with rust,
And his musket molds in his hands.
Time was when the little toy dog was new
And the soldier was passing fair;
And that was the time when our Little Boy Blue
Kissed them and put them there.
(by Eugene Field)
I’m not a car enthusiast at all. In fact, I used to think when I was a child how much fun it was to drive a golf cart and the ancillary thought would occur to me that no one would die on the road if all of us just drove golf carts. (Yes, I’ve now realized that people are easily ingenious enough to get themselves killed even in a world that consisted only of golf carts.)
But vehicles - perhaps because as non-car people, we keep our cars forever - have tended to be the thing I anthropomorphize most.
I remembered the other day that we took advantage of cash for clunkers - and really I’m not sure what the advantage was, probably none - and it was painful for me to walk away from the Chevy Blazer that had given us so much service.
In fact, that was probably a sign that it wasn’t really a clunk or and I should’ve just fixed whatever I thought was wrong with it.
In a similar situation now as somebody rear-ended, my husband causing damage that to the eye doesn’t look that bad, but due to the age of the car and perhaps some something something involving the frame - the insurance company has at length, after some length and a last minute scare intimating that the non-English speaking immigrant other driver was perhaps not quite up on his payments or some such irregularity, totaled. We’re really sad about it.
It seems like such a waste, going by to collect our things from a car that we could easily have driven away in. So I guess cars are my beanie babies.
The guy at the body shop tried to make us feel better by suggesting that the vehicle was going to “live on through its parts” since everything forward of the rear hatch was fine.
The engine, my husband said hopefully? It seemed like perhaps not that.
Seven is when I start to go "hmm" and eleven is "what are you talking about, a human writing on paper, do you mean is the paper sentient?"
Assuming the "same as above" carries sentience all the way down, 11 is the only one I'm iffy about - can't you just stop doing the calculation? Also, if human calculation is good enough to manage running consciousness, human thought probably is, which has its own implications. Do egregores suffer?
"can't you just stop doing the calculation?"
Isn't this the same as saying "Can't you just stop a brain from functioning?" for a human being?
"Also, if human calculation is good enough to manage running consciousness, human thought probably is, which has its own implications. "
It wouldn't have to be one human doing it. It could be millions of humans working together, like the Trisolaran computer from Three Body Problem. Or it could be a superintelligent AI writing a consciousness with a robotic arm. Maybe we are all characters in a novel.
> "can't you just stop doing the calculation?"
> Isn't this the same as saying "Can't you just stop a brain from functioning?" for a human being?
Idk about you, but if I am working through a longer calc problem by hand on paper (or even in my thoughts, unless it's sufficiently interesting) I am, in fact, capable of just stopping work without finishing. If giving up mid-math-problem required killing the human brain, I'm pretty sure extraordinarily few teenagers would survive the onset of boredom in math class.
[On reread, it seems like the disconnect may be that I'm not saying you can voluntarily turn of your *own* consciousness on command -- only the hand-written calculations for a separate consciousness, a la the hypothetical]
> It wouldn't have to be one human doing it. It could be millions of humans working together, like the Trisolaran computer from Three Body Problem. Or it could be a superintelligent AI writing a consciousness with a robotic arm. Maybe we are all characters in a novel.
It's unclear to me what relevance this has to the hypothetical? Whether "consciousness calculated by humans" has moral patienthood seems unrelated to the exact details of who is doing the calculations or what substrate they decide to write the results on.
I think you misunderstood my first comment. I wasn't saying that you would have to stop a person's brain from functioning to stop that person from completing the calculation. I was saying that stopping a consciousness represented by the calculation is analogous to stopping a human consciousness by stopping a brain from functioning.
As for the second comment, I agree that the details of the calculations or the substrate are irrelevant. That is exactly the point I was trying to make :)
"Same as above" makes it a bit circular surly? Whether you think humans can suffer because they have intelligence/a soul/consciousness - the rest of the statements inherently contain that via "same as above". It doesn't help me find a line on whether I can imagine caring about sentient software because we're not going anywhere near how I'll define sentient.
If, in your view, every change outlined is consistent with the entity remaining sentient, capable of suffering and a moral patient ("consistent" meaning that it does not cause a contradiction), then I'd say you don't disagree with any of those statements, *but* it's possible to find an entity very similar to the entities described that is not a moral patient according to you, because it doesn't have the thing you actually care about (like soul). Was this a fair restatement of your view?
Yes
Leaving that aside there's ways to push me all the way to 11 though. (Mainly reading Greg Egan) Whatever calculations give us our illusion of consciousness make up the fabric of what our reality hangs from. Who am I to say that at a sufficient resolution you can't reproduce those calculations and then why would relative speed matter.
Sorry - editing a yes into a yes plus a paragraph seems bad form
No worries, I would have liked it with it anyway even though I myself am undecided on 11(strong intuitions against, but some good reasons for it)
Well, with the digital part onwards, now we're into "do androids dream of electric sheep?" territory. Can a machine suffer? You're telling us it's sentient, but that is presuming the conclusion. *If* it's sentient, it can suffer, but is sentience enough? Is it the same moral weight as a human? If we were talking about a cow and not a robot, would the question be the same?
I don't know what the machine equivalent of veganism is but pushing "this is a moral patient" is strolling down the same path as our friend Shaeda who was trying to convict us all of our sinfulness in being meat-eaters. If a vegan cares about the fuzzy bunnies, what do you call someone who cares about the fuzzy robots?
To be clear, I don't really want to tell anyone anything, I'm just curious about which opinions are common. I expect many people will say they disagree with 1, and I wont't debate them, because that wasn't the point of my post.
However, it seems like my question might have some of my intuitions baked in and many people will find it annoying to answer.
Are there others here who perceive time passing very slowly? All I ever hear people talking about is how fast time flies etc but I do not have that experience at all. It is not in a bad way like I'm bored or something but just things that I was doing at the start of the year feel distant and 5-10 years ago feels like a lifetime. If I think back to my childhood in the 80's/90's it feels like I've lived 2 or 3 lives already. I'm sure I'm not alone in this experience or does anyone have any speculation as to why some of us might have a different perception of time?
Me. I often hear people say something felt like it was just yesterday, but I rarely agree. It often feels like much longer ago than it really is! And for things that happened 10 years ago it is almost like another lifetime.
Do you have any variance in how you experience individual days? I have mostly "normal" days but then have others where it seems to really slow down and I can tell pretty soon after waking up it's going to be a "slow" day with no explanation as to why
My perception of time depends on the scale. Minutes and hours tend to be slow. But then I look back and weeks have passed in what seems to be a short time. And this discrepancy seems to have accelerated as I age.
I once heard some good advice, which is that if you feel like life is passing too fast, try planking. If you plank for two minutes you'll feel every second.
(The exercise, not the 2011-era fad)
I experience it both ways, and it depends a lot on what I am doing.
In Love on the Spectrum they ask one of the characters with autism who has been in a relationship for three years whether it feels like 3 years, and he responds "Yes". I found this interesting and surprisingly insightful. I think neurotypical people talk about time not feeling like 3 years because they're mistaking memory, which is timeless, with perception of time - which the brain obviously can't do very well at all.
Sorry you mean like neurotypical/"normal" people are more prone to experiencing time as going faster?
I am thinking more like: Neurotypical people who talk about time passing quickly are speaking about time in a more metaphorical way and infusing nostalgia into their thoughts about time - rather than decoupling the emotional attachment and the actual experience of the time. Theory is very much a work in progress, though.
My childhood very much felt like this. I remember repeatedly having the feeling that I was going to be a child forever. Things changed slowly starting in college, with each subsequent year felling a bit faster than the one before it. After 40 the years have been flying by. I'd estimate that a year in my 40s "feels" about as long as 2 months from my childhood.
I've eventually come to terms with this just by convincing myself that "how long ago things feel" is not a very meaningful feeling once you're an adult.
I've been a grown-up for about 25 years now, and most of my adult memories feel sorta roughly equally distant. If it wasn't recent then it feels like it happened maybe ten years ago. Covid? Ten years ago. The turn of the millennium? Ten years ago.
To cure myself of the illusion, I think back to myself as I was at the turn of the millennium, and think about all the things I hadn't done yet. The me that went to that party in 1999 was nothing like the me that suffered through covid in 2020.
I have been harping on this for a long time. Time isn't as robust as it used to be. We used to get big, juicy years with lots of meat on them. These days, we only get flimsy, dried up years. I blame the government. Maybe NIST?
And don't get me started on how gravity has been increasing in intensity for the past couple of decades, too.
I think it’s pretty well documented that a person‘s perception of time changes with age.
But is it documented in detail? I think time passing slowly for children is universal/well-known, at least for modern notions of childhood, but for adults it’s less clear. People have been warning me about the time flying when you have young kids, but I don’t feel like it is. My memory is worse now than when I was young.
Well, let's clarify this. Is it that you are forgetting things and having to be reminded of them or is it just a feeling like everything is taking forever but you remember it? Is it more noticeable when you are working as opposed to just hanging out? Is it a consistent sense of slowness no matter what you're doing?
I think time compression is very elastic in human beings. A long time ago I saw graphic timeline experiment: a child was asked to bracket off the parts that felt longest to them with the understanding that the line represented his whole life., then they compared it to one that had been done by an old man and it was completely different. I think the rationalist way of putting it is they both have really fat tails, but in different directions. The child's first five years of life took up about half the timeline as well. The old man's past was completely scrunched up in the bottom quarter of his timeline and he left lots of room for the future.
My son is 26 now and I have quite a few memories of his childhood, but it feels like a very compressed period of my life at the moment; like it really flew by.
I am curious to know what you do to pass the time? I only ask because I am almost the world class time waster. It is well beyond procrastination. that isn't really related to your predicament. It's just a comment about myself, but it relates to the elasticity of time. If you think you have a physiological issue. that is a whole different thing.
Time has been proven to be relative anyway, so maybe you're just living on the bleeding edge.
Well, I don’t think of it as a predicament, and I probably am wasting a lot of time but I also do a lot of laundry. It’s more that I’m surprised the time isn’t “flying by” as predicted.
Well, when I’m doing laundry time sure doesn’t fly by for me either. If I am actually working in an engaged way, it goes by pretty quickly.
I am glad to hear it is not a predicament.
Yeah that's interesting I feel like a just read a substack breaking down why it seems to speed up as we age but fast approaching 44 and it's still the same. COVID feels like a lifetime ago
memory is a tricky thing. You can recall the outline, the •factual•, view of things, and they can seem far away, or really close to your heart. Certain memories will make the past be in the present, won't they? I think there is a long gradient between an observed memory and a felt one. Memery can become sort of like a sports highlight reel. It doesn't put you in the game in any complete way but they're fun to watch. Just to complete the metaphor, I thought of this recalling playing football on the school team when I was 15. I remember the mud on the rainy days, all the faces leaned into the huddle, and me hoping I would carry the ball. When I watch a football game, I like to remember that.
I think Marcel Proust knocked this one out of the park.
Pure speculation: do you have a better-than-usual episodic memory? The past decade feels like a couple months, but subjectively I think that might be because my memory is atypically terrible (I can remember what I've learned just fine, but I have extraordinarily few first-person memories, which I think is why it feels like I've experienced little time -- I have very little memory of experiencing any time)
I would say yes, probably explains some of it
Here's a review of the book Democracy and Solidarity, by James Davison Hunter: https://mereorthodoxy.com/agonistic-democracy The review contains a fairly detailed summary of Hunter's account of how the logic of nihilism and ressentiment has subsumed American democracy. Hunter's view of the way out is pretty vague, and at the least requires leadership that I'm unsure the US has the capacity to produce.
As the review is published on a Christian ideas website, the conclusion addressed the question of, "How should Christians respond to this phenomenon?" but I think that the review's conclusion can apply to anyone with a humanist bent or who opposes nihilism. I think that the author considers the question of "Why to oppose political nihilism?" to be a self-answering question from a Christian point of view, and it might be an open question of whether or not that's the case from a secular standpoint.
I found the history the review summarized to be pretty fascinating, and the descriptions of our crisis of authority and the logic of political nihilism, once you see them put in words, is something that is obviously apparent everywhere.
I'm not sure how useful it is to separate things like "foundationalism" and "proceduralism". When it comes to democracy, isn't democracy (when it's working properly) both at once? It's a procedure, but the procedure *is* the natural law, the moral ideal, the base value that everyone is supposed to agree on--that decisions are made "by the people" (which in practice means majority vote, since that's the only method that treats all people equally).
With that in mind, I'm inclined to think a big part of the US's problems are in a lack of clear democratic accountability. There are too many different institutions with dispersed powers, elected in different ways or not elected at all, to the extent that's hard for a party to ever get the firm message "the people don't want this"; they can always kid themselves that there are ways to get what they want even without popular support, and often, they're right.
Isn't this in the process of being solved anyways? Say what you want about the right, but they don't have any trouble finding meaning in their actions or being moral absolutists. Once their power is entrenched, they should have no issue restoring American identity to what it once was and restore the power of God to this country.
> restore the power of God to this country.
This statement interests me. Could you expand on it a little?
I’m not sure that the Trump project gets us there short of a full on authoritarian paradigm shift.
Well, yeah, but that's kind of a given at this point, isn't it? He would be stupid not to at least try. Seems like the troops are playing along as well, which makes this whole operation a lot more likely to succeed.
Is anyone but me excited to see 28 Years Later? (Or am I uniquely crass & morbid?)
Nothing crass and morbid about enjoying horror movies!
I saw Days and missed Weeks; given how excited I was to see Transformers One I wouldn't be too embarrassed. Don't kill the cringe, kill the part of you that cringes.
Cautiously optimistic since it's the same writer/director as 28 Days Later. 28 Weeks Later was pretty nonsensical.
I am but I might save it for an upcoming flight .
28 days and 28 weeks later were my favorite zombie movies back in school. I have fond memories of watching them with my best friends.
Does anyone have a read on how close Iran is to getting a nuclear weapon? Is this a serious threat or just exaggerated fear-mongering? Seems like whether the recent Israeli preemptive strike could be justified or not really hinges on how close Iran is to getting a nuke.
But I don't trust any government to tell the truth about this. Does anyone know of any relevant prediction markets or predictions from superforecasters?
I'm guessing Israel had strong inside reasons to think Iran were days away to do these strikes. I'll avoid retreading the obvious points (e.g. they waited years without doing it so clearly something changed, etc), but things that may be added information:
- (controversially political): Bibi has historically been very action-averse (e.g. his policy of letting Hamas mostly just do their own thing in an uncomfortable status quo). Him being moved to a strike like this at a time when he has stable political control over his coalition is very out of character and implies he got genuine news about an acute threat.
- (From Ryan McBeth): The moon was pretty full this weekend (plus clear skies). These are actually pretty bad conditions for a surprise air campaign, implying they had some strong reason to not want to wait two weeks.
Hm, isn't clear skies and full moon a positive thing if you have air superiority? Which Israel had already pretty much established before the strike?
And for the strike, doesn't it fit the pattern that Israel has been generally using in the last months? They are destroying potentially damaging weapons wherever they can. For example, it was the first thing in Syria after Assad was overthrown, and they keep doing it there, and likewise in Lebanon. I think the difference is that Iran has shifted categories in the last weeks: from a foe who can potentially retaliate to one who essentially can't. I mean, they still have some rockets, but it has become clear that Israel and allies can catch most of them. There are casualties, but as far as I can see, the casualties do not impress many people inside or outside of Israel, compared to the massive gain of completely destroying Iranian air defense and so many people in the command structure and in the nuclear program.
I think this type of action *was* out of character for Netanyahu a year ago, but not anymore. Now it is a standard course of action.
Israel didn't have that level of air superiority over Iran (the initial strikes knocked out a lot of antiair). In general clear skies are an advantage to aircraft, especially in a surprise attack (since they know what they're targeting but the antiair has to detect them).
Maybe, but another reason they might do it now after waiting years is because Iran is just in a weaker position right now without its usual allies: Russia tied up in Ukraine, Syrian government overthrown, and Hezbollah weakened from fighting with Israel already.
Could be that the sense of urgency was to disrupt a US-Iran nuclear deal.
That's possible but less likely - like with Russia, I don't think Trump was actually planning on calling off negotiations anytime soon just because the Iranians were playing hardball.
Peter Wildeford has by far the most insightful thing I've read on the situation, which touches on the crux: uranium enrichment at Fordow. https://peterwildeford.substack.com/p/the-fordow-paradox-where-do-iran
Fordow alone is not enough for a bomb; they need to take the enriched UF6 and turn it back to uranium metal, machine it into a core, and assemble a warhead. From various sources online it sounds like estimates of how long it takes Iran to "sprint" to a weapon is "a few weeks." The real key is Fordow, though: enriching uranium to 90% there sets off a rapid cascade of escalation that could end very badly in a variety of ways.
Hm, I am a bit doubtful about "a few weeks". The sources that I have read agree that the time to sprint to 90% enriched uranium is very short, perhaps two weeks or even faster. But for the time to afterwards then actually build a bomb, your own source estimates 2-6 months for a crude device, and in other sources I have read "a few months to a year".
Thanks, I'll check it out. "A few weeks" sounds pretty terrifying, and tough to say if that makes the Israeli attack seem more justified or more reckless.
Iran already had a nuclear weapon or two (not made themselves). The discussion isn't about having nuclear weapons, it's about being able to make more of them.
Iran was very far away from getting a nuclear weapon (in that they were about to ink a deal with the United States), but I think their intel heard about the Israeli strikes, and swung the other way -- at this point, Iran is trying to make a nuclear weapon to save their entire country, it's a desperate act.
"Iran already had a nuclear weapon or two (not made themselves)."
Citation very much needed. I used to work in arms control and nuclear nonproliferation, nothing like this was ever the consensus view that I recall, and I've never seen a credible sourcing for anything like it.
So, what's the source? If it's someone citing "anonymous insiders", yawn, not unless highly reputable bricks-and-mortar institutions are willing to stake their reputation on their private assessment of those insiders. If it's some guy saying he's got a Q Clearance or whatever so we should trust that he Knows Things, then absolutely not.
If nothing else, I would expect this to have come up in a big way during either A: the JCPOA negotiations, or B: Trump's unilateral withdrawal from the JCPOA.
To show "publically available data":
https://www.businessinsider.com/north-korea-reportedly-pushed-1-billion-nuclear-blackmail-to-israel-2018-7
What I've got is scuttlebutt, and I'll acknowledge this comes from a longtime anti-"bomb iran" person (worked in Obama's administration to that end). I can present more discussion about seismographs or geiger counters if you want me to put down some bonafides, but if you are just going to say, "He may know some things, but that particular bone is bullcrap." I'm not going to bother.
Iran is usually invoked as one of the world’s oldest countries. Why would it be desperate?
I should say that the leadership of Iran as well as its “intel” are probably pretty desperate to figure out where to be so as not to be plainly visible to Israel! I could definitely see personal panic about that. Not sure ordinary citizens have a dog in that hunt.
Do you remember what Russia was like, in the days after the USSR collapsed? Ordinary citizens do (and stealing russia's resources was very much on the menu -- for profit!).
Persia is one of the world's oldest civilization, but the current government goes back to the revolution of 1979 that instituted a "Rule by Scholars", a distinctly Shia form of religious authoritarianism where a council of religious scholars led by the supreme leader have the final say in everything that happens, including who is even allowed to run for the elected gov't positions at all. They've had many enemies, both regional and further afield, since their founding. A good way to tell if a country's government is in a precarious position or feeling like it has serious existential threats, is when they have a two tiered military with a smaller inner-circle group that is more trusted, better trained and supplied, and a larger "regular" military that is composed and managed in a way that reduces its power and ability to organize a coup. Many middle eastern countries have been set up this way; Saddam had his Republican Guard etc. Probably no other country exemplifies this approach as much as Iran does with its Revolutionary Guard, who's mission is not the defense of the nation as a whole, but specifically the defense of the Shia "Rule by Scholars" regime. They've also had many examples of other countries by now who did obtain nuclear weapons (North Korea, Pakistan), and those that did not (Libya, Iraq) and the eventual fates of those nations.
I'm not sure post-Islamic-conquest Persia is meaningfully the same civilization as classical Persia.
Post-Islamic-conquest, almost all of the empire's scholars and administrators were Persians. Whenever you see the name of a famous historical "Muslim", unless they're famous for being royalty, you should assume they were Persian. Western history doesn't emphasize this.
Most of the Iranian students I met in grad school were very patriotic and identified very strongly with Persian culture, despite hating the current Iranian government and being agnostic/atheist.
Of course there's a potential selection effect since these were professional scientists (unlikely to be religious fundamentalists) who decided to come and study in the US. But I got the sense that there's a distinct pre-Islamic Persian culture that's still very meaningful.
Every Iranian I know is really proud of being Persian, and will get very angry if you imply they are Arabs. It's an old culture (the Achaemenid Empire was founded around 550 BC) with a long poetic tradition and substantial pre-Islamic heritage. There's even a national epic, the Shahnameh, going from prehistory to the Islamic conquest.
You'll even hear the more secular Iranians complain about the Arabs conquering them and imposing their religion on them.
Fair enough, but my impression was that's more akin to neo-Paganism in Europe, where you have a relatively small number of people trying to connect to some ancient pre-Christian (pre-Islamic in Iran's case) heritage.
You aren't, but the rest of the muslim world is. Zoroastrianism is just as active in Iran as functional polygamy and marriages that women can contract without fathers approval. (Yes, Iran is a -very weird- muslim nation).
I guess I thought the comment would have said “the regime” if that was what was meant.
Even that doesn’t seem particularly threatened. Educated Iranian expats seem like lovely people but I’ve never known them to be terribly interested in what was going on back home, or have a sense of palpable outrage about it. I’ve imagined that it was just Iran’s long history that made such political questions seem rather shabby or ephemeral. Especially as connected to a religion they only lightly wear, if at all.
Iran just lost so much of its command structure that attempts to surrender are made considerably more difficult because "Who are you?" is what the diplomats on the other side are asking. Aka "who do you speak for, Mr. Lieutenant, when you say "please let us surrender!!!?!" "
Iran is a very weird, very convoluted place. Seeing it as "religious zealots" is about as wrong as seeing it as "completely irreligious" -- it's really neither.
The loss of Iran's ability to bomb Israel back meaningfully (aka Hezbollah/Syria/Lebanon) may turn out to be what cost the regime their entire government.
So you are suggesting the Ayatollah is not really in charge?
Why would Israel be desperate? Decisions are made by decision-makers, and they have cognitive biases towards "staying in power" -- Israel is desperate to make war, because otherwise Bibi loses power. Iran is desperate because everyone in charge over there is panicking about "mad dog bibi" breaking all normal codes of conduct and trying to kill off their entire leadership.
Israel is desperate because Iran is desperate, because everything about its international strategy collapsed recently. There is no balance of power in place, and too much depends on first mover advantage
The IAEA certified Iran was out of compliance so there's a fair bit of evidence if you trust basically any international institution or the US/Israel/Europe/etc. But also Peter Wildeford has an analysis that's fairly good. Not perfect but good. And goes into exactly why Iran wants the bomb and implicitly assumes they are going for it. Which is pretty much the only supportable position, the idea they want civilian nuclear power is largely considered a cover story.
https://peterwildeford.substack.com/p/the-fordow-paradox-where-do-iran
>the idea they want civilian nuclear power is largely considered a cover story.
And a lousy one at that. Power reactors typically use 5% enrichment. Iran enriched to 60% (400 kg of it!). Yeah, they seek nuclear weapons.
It’s worth noting that the violations are in regard to Iran covering up their nuclear program that ended in 2003, the IAEA doesn’t believe that Iran currently has a nuclear weapons program.
You're mixing up a previous declaration with the new one which finds that Iran has been in breach since 2019. Not just of the nuclear deal but of its non-proliferation obligations. Meaning the net of the report is: Iran is pursuing and spreading nuclear weapons technology.
https://www.reuters.com/world/china/iaea-board-declares-iran-breach-non-proliferation-duties-diplomats-say-2025-06-12/
No, see the actual report here https://www.iaea.org/sites/default/files/25/06/gov2025-25.pdf
>Having evaluated all available safeguards-relevant information, including information provided by Iran, information from safeguards activities conducted by the Agency, and other relevant information (for example, open source and third party information), the Agency assesses that Iran retained unknown nuclear material and/or heavily contaminated equipment, and other assets, arising from the former undeclared structured nuclear programme, at Turquzabad in the period 2009 until 2018, after which items were removed from the location.
The Agency has no credible indications of an ongoing, undeclared structured nuclear programme of the type described above in Iran and notes the statements of the highest officials in Iran that the use of nuclear weapons is incompatible with Islamic Law. However, repeated statements by former high- level officials in Iran related to Iran having all capabilities to manufacture nuclear weapons continue to provide concerns in this area.
So, to be clear, you're walking back from "the IAEA does not believe that Iran has a nuclear program" to "the IAEA does not know whether Iran has a nuclear weapons program and is concerned they do"? Because that's what paragraph 2 says.
Also the report has numerous ways they've been out of compliance since 2019. You're quoting from one specific site. Look to page 14, for example, where they catalog multiple sites some of which could not be accessed or where Iran stonewalled them. Page 18 and 19 at the conclusion also says Iran is pursuing multiple things that would be needed for a bomb though they might have civilian use.
No, the IAEA doesn’t have evidence Iran currently has a nuclear weapons program.
And again, the violations are in reference to Iran covering up the nuclear weapons program that ended in 2003.
The genocide show seems like it might be over. As Israel blew up the last telecom line into Gaza, and started a war with Iran, it feels like very little information from Gaza is going reach the average person going forward.
We will see Gaza again in some number of years, but it's hard to imagine many Gazans will have survived. They've been denied food and water for 3 months, and I don't know any reason Israel would change its mind now.
It might be time for a retrospective. Do you all feel satisfied with how strongly you advocated for human rights? How certain are you that you wouldn't have been a Nazi collaborator?
The time for a retrospective will be when you find out you were completely wrong.
"We will see Gaza again in some number of years, but it's hard to imagine many Gazans will have survived."
Can you turn this into a falsifiable statement? "The population of Gaza will be under a million in three years" or whatever.
It sounds like you are expecting 75%+ fatalities out of a current population of around 2 million. Is this correct?
Yeah, I'm expecting 100% fatality rate to be honest, from now until Gaza has been fully annexed and integrated into Israel. The world hasn't imposed any meaningful consequences on Israel for what it's done so far, so I expect its behaviour will continue to be similar to what it has been so far.
Note that we won't be able to test any prediction we make, because there is nobody who can run a census in Gaza. We don't even have a reliable death toll because the health service is barely functioning any more.
Ok, and if the war ends and about 2M people still live in Gaza, how would you update your beliefs?
Just FYI, when Trump announced his "Riviera" plan, he spoke of the 1.7M people of Gaza. That would indicate a 500k death toll. Or, he could have just made it up.
If Israel did a census in post-annexation, one state solution Gaza, and it found 2M Palestinians living in Gaza, I would probably conclude the census was disinformation.
If I could be convinced that it was accurate, I guess that would mean that Gaza's health system was mcuh more resilient and not as reliant on electricity, that Gaza had a much bigger food stockpile than I thought, that people are much more agile than I thought in evading missile strikes, and/or that a lot of Israeli sympathizers had been sheltering and protecting Gazans. Those are some theories I may have to consider in that case.
You would conclude that Palestinian can dodge missiles before you would conclude Israel is not actually committing Genocide?
What I dislike about this is that it doesn't see advocating against genocide as something you do to stop killing. It sees it as something you do to gain moral superiority over the people around you. "It might be time for a retrospective" is a thinly veiled attempt to judge people who you feel aren't as righteous as you.
If you're really anti-genocide and believe that Gaza is beyond help the proper thing is to use all that energy against other genocides or mass killings that are ongoing. If you think no other genocides or mass killings are ongoing you are objectively wrong and should question why you think that.
Somewhere in the last half decade, "Virtue-Signaling" and "Moral Superiority" became just another "Ad Hominem!!!!" type of refrain. They used to be useful concepts, but now are just the goto Isolated Demand that people backed into a corner resort to when they can find nothing else to say.
> If you're really anti-genocide and believe that Gaza is beyond help the proper thing is to use all that energy against other genocides or mass killings that are ongoing
Why? Do you demand the same of Holocaust scholars too? If they're really anti-genocide and not just bullshitting us with thinly veiled Israelism apologia, they ought to devote exactly as much years into the Armenian genocide and the Rwandan genocide as the Holocaust, is that correct?
What do we conclude from the fact that most of them don't? Right, that Holocaust studies is just bullshit that they do to feel morally superior. They're not "really" anti-genocide. They just have an anti-German bias. They're "obsessed" with Germans. What else would explain their "incitement" against the only German state in the world? Nothing but anti-Germanism.
"Why? Do you demand the same of Holocaust scholars too?"
Yes. It was eighty years ago and has been studied to death; time for scholars to seek new and more fertile fields.
But it's not just study by the way, the sentiment I'm replying to applies every time someone organizes a memorial trip to Auschwitz, or makes an institute to collate Holocaust victims' diaries, or - for that matter - to reparations, which Germany was still paying in the billions all the way till 2024 [1].
All those billions of Euros and trillions of words could be spent much more productively to prevent or document other genocides, ongoing or not, other than the 80+ years old one that no adult witness of survives.
[1] https://www.npr.org/2023/06/15/1182428154/germany-holocaust-survivors-payment-1-4-billion-nazi-victims
> the only German state in the world?
No, there is also Austria. (And Liechtenstein, but okay, that one's negligible.)
> No, there is also Austria.
Non-existent in WW2.
So? The "Holocaust scholars" you're talking about are acting in the present day, in which Austria DOES exist.
Nazi Germany was the only German state in the world when it perpetrated the Holocaust, so if we go by Hasbara logic that makes anyone interested in the Holocaust and how it happens "obsessed" with the "Only German" state.
... and Switzerland, and parts of Belgium, the Netherlands, and Italy, as well as the diasporas abroad.
No, those states have some German people, but in this context, that doesn't make them "German states." They need to be majority German or at least privilege them in some way.
In fact I do recommend genocide scholars focus away from trendy genocides on the few occasions where I have reason to give advice. Of course, the trendy genocides of today are not the Holocaust. They're Gaza and Native Americans and other groups that align with leftist sentiments. But there's a number of vastly understudied mass killings.
You're also wrong that Holocaust scholars do not generally try to use their influence to stop unrelated genocides. They specifically contest certain genocides as genocides. But they have been very willing to lend what moral credibility they have to Darfur and Rwanda.
My point remains: If you are concerned with saving lives then focusing on the trendiest cause that's highly polarized is almost certainly the worst use of your time. Even if you're specifically concerned with saving lives specifically from mass killings Gaza is not the most vulnerable area. Why are you not focusing on where you can save the most people?
> Of course, the trendy genocides of today are not the Holocaust.
Really? Because I wrote randomly in Google "Holocaust journals" and clicked the first search result, I happened on this journal [1] which has 8 published article on genocide in barely 3 months between March and June. 2+ articles per month is reasonably "trendy", and that's not counting thousands of memorials, remembrance days, novels, movies, video games, and **Checks Notes** an entire ethnostate built on the ruins of another culture.
Should we move away from the Holocaust? Is it taking too much attention tokens, even though 2 lifetimes have already passed and nothing can be done about it? Should we cancel or decrease funding to the things built to remind us of it?
> But there's a number of vastly understudied mass killings.
Sure, and I neither own a journal or an academic degree in genocides, nor have UN officials as friends. So it looks like the extent of what I can do is posting on the internet, which I do, constantly.
Posting on the Sudanese and Congolese genocides? Sure, might push people to donate, a dollar goes an awfully long way. Even better, might push educated professions like Programmers and Managers to not deal economically with UAE, the genocidal state perpetrating genocide against Sudanese people, my personal policy that I applied - to think of one example - in a recent job search. (Neither frankly are all the Gulf kingdoms, save perhaps for Bahrain or Oman.)
That said, I can't see all the apologists and genocide supporters for UAE or Congolese genocidal militia. They're effectively alien and illegible to the kind of crowd hanging out here. But I don't even have to wear my glasses to see apologia and unbridled ass-kissing for Israeli genocidal war machine.
[1] https://www.tandfonline.com/action/doSearch?AllField=&SeriesKey=rhos20&startPage=&dateRange=&Ppub=%5B20241216%20TO%20202506162359%5D
> Really? Because I wrote randomly in Google "Holocaust journals" and clicked the first search result, I happened on this journal
You found a journal of Holocaust Studies and it was full of studies about the Holocaust. Congratulations. Would you like me to dig up an IPS journal? Because that will be full of studies about Palestinians. Likewise African Studies programs will be largely about Africa or its diaspora. This is unsurprising and none of your evidence actually proves what you want it to prove.
> Should we move away from the Holocaust? Is it taking too much attention tokens, even though 2 lifetimes have already passed and nothing can be done about it? Should we cancel or decrease funding to the things built to remind us of it?
I wouldn't use the phrasing move away or pay less attention. And I don't think we should cancel remembrance. The fact you suggest these things makes me think you're just a partisan who doesn't want to acknowledge the Holocaust because it's inconvenient for a pro-Palestinian narrative. But I do think we should focus more on ongoing conflicts. I would have a much lower opinion of institutions like the Holocaust Museum if they didn't help out organizations meant to commemorate other genocides and mass killings. But they do.
> That said, I can't see all the apologists and genocide supporters for UAE or Congolese genocidal militia.
The UAE, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, etc spend far more than Israel in lobbying. If you can't see them that has to do with where you're looking. Which is my point. Israel and Palestine are big, polarized, well funded causes where you're unlikely to change many minds or create much attention. It is almost unique in this regard. The only other very well known one is Ukraine.
> Would you like me to dig up an IPS journal?
What's IPS ?
Your original claim is that the Holocaust is not like Palestine (more specifically, the genocide in Palestine, but Palestine-Israel in general), the Holocaust is not "trendy" while the genocide in Palestine is "trendy". You're now saying that there are similar journals publishing similar volume of articles about each, what does that make of the original argument?
If IPS is a field that I don't know, I'm ready to search for journals in it and see how many articles are published, perhaps also weighted by wordcount and impacts/citations. Let's put a number on how "trendy" different genocides really are, as much as that might seem a morbid and unproductive use of time.
> The fact you suggest these things makes me think you're just a partisan who doesn't want to acknowledge the Holocaust because it's inconvenient for a pro-Palestinian narrative
Au contraire, couldn't be more wrong. The Holocaust is, in fact, and as my username alludes to, the single biggest argument for the Pro Palestinian side.
The fact that I suggest these things is just a straightforward application of your suggested razor. Your suggested razor is "Trendy things take too much attention, we should redirect at least some of that attention towards less trendy things of the same category, for greater impact". Is that correct?
Well, by that definition, I think we should at least ponder heavily every time we sponsor or fund yet another program for Auschwitz trips, yet another compendium of Hitler's correspondences about Jews, yet another memorial site about the Holocaust. The Holocaust is - I hope you would agree - vastly more trendy than Armenian genocide or Rwandan genocide, and it's of the same category (stopped genocides), so they should take some of the attention and the resources. No?
> If you can't see them that has to do with where you're looking.
I'm looking at a website whose URL is in your browser address bar right now, and I can see several genocide apologists/denialist. Can you point me to UAE propaganda on the same website? I will even settle for adjacent sites and communities.
I fully agree with you. But I expected you to at some point mention some of the places "where you can save the most people." That would be useful.
EDIT: sorry about that, I see you did in another message below.
Oh I could list more if you're interested. There's so much good that could be done by a group of highly motivated people willing to actually get involved consistently. You can't quite calculate expected value because you have to estimate the probability you actually stop the conflict which is politics. But I think it's pretty self-evident that you have more chance to affect the conflict in the Congo, where there's a lot of western influence and very few people interested, than in Israel where they have significant independence and there's multibillion dollar organizations duking it out. Or any number of other conflicts.
"If you're really anti-genocide and believe that Gaza is beyond help the proper thing is to use all that energy against other genocides or mass killings that are ongoing"
Good point. Honestly I'm still using most of my free time and energy to advocate for Palestinians. It's one of the few causes my government can clearly do something about. I guess when the deaths stop I will probably sleep for a few days, then have a look around for what to do next.
I would still recommend others do this too, I just don't get the sense anyone here cares enough to be convincable.
Thank you for engaging in good faith with my admittedly frustrated comment. Again, if you think the most effective use of your time is advocating for Palestinians you are almost certainly wrong regardless of what you think of the cause. Palestinians receive more attention and support than almost any other group and virtually all other groups are relatively under-resourced.
And your government (I am assuming the US?) often has more influence over those. US influence over Israel is often overstated and many genocides are happening in weaker states where influence goes farther. To give a simple example, Sudan's currently ongoing genocide is both much less discussed (and so any effort goes farther) and many of the foreign powers involved (Egypt, UAE, etc) are at least as influenced by the US as Israel. Arguably more so because they don't have Israel's independent arms industry.
Many of these people are quite desperate for support but also the forces arrayed against you are often weaker. And often times there are just more lives involved. Gaza is actually quite small, only about two million people, so an outbreak of violence in a mid-sized country can displace multiple times the entire population of Gaza.
I work with refugees everyday and work with a union that has strongly advocated for divesting from Israel. I'm powerless but have done what I can in my life to improve the situation for those I can and to ensure my own money is not being funnelled towards the genocide.
In 5 to 10 years, everyone will retroactively have always been against the genocide. It doesn't feel good to be correct early.
In five to ten years, you won't be able to get anyone to admit that they ever pretended there was a genocide in the first place
Have you really? Have you ever once tried to push Egypt (or anyone else in the region) to accept Gazan refugees? Have you tried to convince aid agencies to work with the GHC instead of actively blocking it? Or have you only done things that attack Israel and actively turn up the heat and make things worse for everyone.
Why would you push Egypt to accept refugees from Gaza, when you could be pushing Egypt to send troops to defend Gaza?
I'll just get on the phone to my friends in the Egyptian government.
The only people with the power to "turn down the heat" are the ones who have flattened every home, school and hospital in 25 mile strip of land inhabited by 2 million mostly children.
You've pushed your union to divest from Israel, why have you not pushed it to divest from Egypt until they open the giant wall keeping Palestinians trapped in the warzone?
Egypt won't allow Gazans into Egypt because it's obvious that Israel will not let them return. Once again, the root of the problem is Israel's attempt at genocide.
> Egypt won't allow Gazans into Egypt because it's obvious that Israel will not let them return.
This sounds like you're justifying Egypt's actions of keeping civilians trapped inside a warzone to use them as political capital against Israel, instead of directly saving the lives of many Gazans.
Please correct me if I'm wrong and you're actually condemning Egypt's self-serving and cynical behavior.
Why *won't* Egypt and the other surrounding countries take Gazan refugees? I've never seen a good answer to this. I know Egypt was accepting a flood of Sudanese refugees a year or two ago when the civil war exploded; I have a Sudanese acquaintance (who lives in the U.S.) who quickly moved his remaining family to Cairo. He talked about how overcrowded Egypt is now with Sudanese refugees.
Everyone hates the Palestinians. they are not very well liked throughout the middle east (you can see entire videos of "everyone privately hates the palestinians" -- world leaders and civilians alike). Trying to overthrow the Jordanian government has not exactly endeared them to even the sanest of Arab minds.
Well, I have been wondering about that. I've been wondering if it's one of those things that people won't say out loud.
Because (a) they fear instability in the form of a black September or Lebanon civil war situation, and (b) that would help Israel (which would have fewer Gazans, and especially fewer civilians in a war zone, to worry about), and while Egypt doesn't mind cooperating with Israel behind the scenes it's allergic to being seen to do so. It also helps the Palestinian people but harms the Palestinian *cause* (which is destroying Israel, and whose main weapon right now is PR hits via use of human shields), which would make their government be seen as traitors to Islam and destabilize them.
I'm also guessing there's partly a practical matter where it's a lot easier to fence off their border with Gaza than their border with Sudan.
Thank you for your reply.
"while Egypt doesn't mind cooperating with Israel behind the scenes it's allergic to being seen to do so." It might follow that if Trump forces the issue, Egypt and other neighbors could say "We didn't want to but we were forced into it!"
Did any Holocaust scholar in the 1940s and the 1950s try to push European states to accept Jewish refugees? Have they tried to convince Jewish organizations to work with Nazi Germany to better the conditions of the camps instead of blocking it? Or have they only done things that attack Germany, the only Germanic state in the world, and actively turn up the heat to make things worse for everyone?
Not even the most stupid thing about this comment, but Germany is very much not the only Germanic state in the world.
Also, Zionist organization did work with Nazi Germany on letting jews out (mostly before the war) - and to this day you may find anti-Zionist propaganda that use this fact...
It's not a coincidence the comment is stupid, it's emulating one of the stupidest strain of Propaganda memes in perhaps the entire 21st century so far, glad we could agree on that.
> Germany is very much not the only Germanic state in the world.
Was in the timeframe I'm making the comment in the context of, with the possible and arguable exception of Switzerland. Look at a map of Nazi Germany at its greatest extent.
> Zionist organization did work with Nazi Germany on letting jews out
But looks like they didn't provide the "unique security needs" of Nazi Germany, which they could have to allow for more survivors of the Holocaust. This is, after all, the essence of the solution that Pro-Israel genocide supporters always come back to: Provide the "unique security needs" of the state doing the genocide, and there won't be genocide. Why didn't people take this advice in WW2?
> Look at a map of Nazi Germany at its greatest extent
Oh yeh, after they swallowed the other German state, and if Swiss isn't German, then they are the only one. If they were a little more successful, they could also be "the only European state"
> But looks like they didn't provide the "unique security needs" of Nazi Germany
Yes, the Nazis claimed that "the jews" are a threat. That was wrong. Sometimes people claim to be threatened and are not wrong. You could tell the difference because the Holocaust did not follow an invitation and massacre of Germans by jews from Warsaw
Yes, all the time. Jews are still mad at the British and Americans for refusing. Because that was an actual genocide, so they actually cared about surviving.
> actual genocide
Yeah, it's only a genocide if it's from the genocide region of Northern Germany, otherwise it's just sparkling mass murder.
No one commented on Israel-Iran war so far?
As far as I know, this is the first war with the stated purpose to prevent the other side from getting Nuclear weapons, and I think this is not just the stated reason but the actual reason.
Why it happens now instead of before is not so hard to guess as well - Since Iran's proxies were more or less defeated by Israel, now Israel can strike at Iran at a much lower cost.
I don't know how Israel aims to achieve their goal, since it seems that even with complete air superiority you just can't destroy underground bunkers.
Maybe together with Diplomatic pressure from the US? I think that doing that would look too much like surrendering for Iran to do that. Interested in opinions on the matter.
I'm of half-Jewish ancestry so I'm not objective and usually don't get involved on discussions involving Israel.
I'm not objective, and my cortex is going "This strikes me as a really bad idea and completely morally indefensible" and my hindbrain is going "Haha! Who's the softy yeshiva boy now? These yids got CLAWS, M***F****!"
>As far as I know, this is the first war with the stated purpose to prevent the other side from getting Nuclear weapons
US in Iraq, 2003
>and I think this is not just the stated reason but the actual reason
I don't. I think it's about wanting to prevent Iran from supporting Palestinians.
It's definitely not (just) about preventing Iran from supporting Palestinians. Palestine is a side show- it's about regime change.
>Why it happens now instead of before is not so hard to guess as well - Since Iran's proxies were more or less defeated by Israel, now Israel can strike at Iran at a much lower cost.
Possibly, or possibly since there was a clear declaration by the IAEA that Iran was
>The global nuclear watchdog's board of governors has formally declared Iran in breach of its non-proliferation obligations for the first time in 20 years.
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/ce3v6w2qr12o
This war started a long time ago, and it wasn't Israel that started it. At very latest, Operation True Promise I was over a year ago. You know, the one where Iran launched a hundred and twenty ballistic missiles, thirty cruise missiles, and a hundred seventy attack drones against Israel, up to that point the largest concentrated missile attack in history, with Israel having performed a grand total of zero (0) attacks against Iran to "provoke" such a thing (and only three precision-guided missiles in retaliation). That's a very clear and unambiguous act of war. We won't even get into Operation True Promise II.
The stated purpose of this war is the destruction of Israel. The actual purpose may have more to do with domestic political concerns in Iran, Gaza, and Lebanon, but those "concerns" are with maintaining popular support from people who really want to see Israel destroyed.
Until Friday, Israel's strategy in its ongoing defensive war with Hamas, Hezbollah, and Iran, had been to focus on the enemies who had demonstrated the ability to kill hundreds or thousands of Israelis, while mostly ignoring the Persian buffoons who struggle to kill tens of them. The purpose of the recent shift to aggressively striking Iran is unknown. Officially, it's to prevent a nation that is at war with and attempting to destroy Israel, from acquiring nuclear weapons that would kill way more than tens or even thousands of Israelis. But it's also reasonable to suspect that domestic political concerns are at work.
>"The purpose of the recent shift to aggressively striking Iran is unknown."
Israel has been consistently clear about how they'd respond if/when it looked like Iran was about to get the bomb, and their red lines aren't bluffs.
The IAEA report (cf. https://www.reuters.com/world/china/iaea-report-says-iran-had-secret-activities-with-undeclared-nuclear-material-2025-05-31/) was the match that lit the fuse.
Israel's claims are well known and understood, but I'm talking about Israel's *purpose* for its actions. Governments are frequently less than honest about that sort of thing.
POSIWID?
As Scott says, no it isn't.
As was the case for the whole POSIWID circus, the word "purpose" is overloaded with inconsistent definitions leading everyone to talk past each other.
Can you rephrase your question, tabooing "purpose"?
This isn't a new war, this is the continuation of Israeli-Iranian relations. It's a slow war because they don't share land borders.
Iran generally attempts to destabilize the region around Israel. Israel is more direct and attempts to destroy and degrade Iranian capabilities.
Previously:
You may recall the salvo of a few hundred missiles and ordinances lobbed at Israel in October 2024, in response Israel's assassination of Iran's Hamas and Hezbola operatives. You also might recall Iran's arming, financial support and/or training of Hezbola, Houthi, and Hamas, and possibly even funding and providing weapons used in the Oct 7th attacks, of which Iran had advance knowledge.
Hamas isn't Iran's. If it was, it would be launching at Israel right now. Hezbollah/Syria is Irans, and they're launching. (Houthi are not Iranian, either -- infamously independent, they're at least smart enough to see that Iran going away means they might not be long for this world.)
I think you may be confused or we may be agreeing. Yes, those groups are independent proxies with the ability to operate independently, but their interests are aligned at the moment, mostly around causing damage in Israel and destabilizing the region via intermittent kinetic actions.
Factually, Iran provides military aid, training and armaments to these groups, which are understood to be in military conflict with Israel, or generally disruptive in the region around Israel.
According to Wikipedia, Iran provides 100M+ per year to Palestinian militant groups and possibly 500M+ recently. Also, Iran is well known to train and arm Houthis.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iranian_support_for_Hamas
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iranian_support_for_the_Houthis
Wikipedia is contradicting itself:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamas
Wish we had better sources, huh?
I think I agree that this is about Israel not wanting Iran to have nukes, but I'm also not sure what to make of Trump's tweet that seemed to imply this was about Iran not making a deal with the US
Presumably, had Iran agreed to what Trump wanted, Israel would have had less reason to attack. And, presumably, Trump would have actively opposed an attack.
Israel has bombed nuclear facilities before. This marks the third war for the sole purpose of keeping bibi in power.
Yeah, and also accelerate and mask the genocide in Gaza, now that there is a new thing in the news cycle.
Ah, good, you distinguish between the genocide in Gaza and the ethnic cleansing in Israel (that's of African Jews). Just making sure we're discussing exactly How Many Bad Things Israel has done since the new millenium.
There is no Genocide in Gaza. If you think so, please provide a definition of Genocide and sources that match.
For example, I don't think the US carried Japanese genocide in WW2, though a lot of Japanese civilians died.
First, do you deny that Israel has engaged in ethnic cleansing of African Jews from their soil?
I'm just going to go out on a limb and say that headshotting children, over and over again, is genocide. (In case you don't know, a headshot isn't done in combat situations where you're in danger. You go for center of mass in that case). This is basically "we're murdering your children" and "FU that's why"
I deny both ethnic cleansing of African Jews and headshotting of children in large numbers.
The Jewish state just keeps slaying (children.)
Prevention of nuclear weapon capacity was also (at least part of) the stated intention of the Iraq War
"The Twenty-One Second God" is a piece of short fiction by Peter Watts, about how a superhuman hive mind of 15 million people formed on the internet and lasted for 21 seconds before it was disconnected. But during that brief time it managed to do a lot, and the world now has to deal with the consequences.
I enjoyed the story thoroughly. It is available for free on the Lightspeed Magazine site.
https://www.lightspeedmagazine.com/fiction/the-twenty-one-second-god/
(There's a popup asking you to sign up, but you should be able to click through it using the "No thanks! Close this stupid thing." button at the bottom.)
Good one! I hadn't heard of the magazine before
> "The Twenty-One Second God" is a piece of short fiction by Peter Watts, about how a superhuman hive mind of 15 million people formed on the internet and lasted for 21 seconds before it was disconnected. But during that brief time it managed to do a lot, and the world now has to deal with the consequences
All I can think of is /r/the_donald
Eh, it's Watts doing his usual "consciousness is an evolutionary blind alley" bit. Get a new trope, Pete!
Though it was very funny to see Meta and the Metaverse being such big wheels in the spicy new future. *That* prediction aged like milk, even though the story is published in the current issue. Maybe he's hoping that the AI train will pull it along to victory? 😁
https://www.futurebra.in/ai-insights/metaverse-hype
Having read it, I think he might be being a little more subtle than that. The neuron isn't conscious, the mind is. The POV character was briefly a neuron. Now it's wondering about the nature of the mind.
Seeing Meta was entertaining, though. There's definitely a reason why you make up a company to be your futuristic mega-corp, unless it's GM...
Come on. This time he baked in The Second Coming just for you disgruntled Christians.
Of what? The Flesh Machine God? That's not the Second Coming except in the Yeatsian sense:
Surely some revelation is at hand;
Surely the Second Coming is at hand.
The Second Coming! Hardly are those words out
When a vast image out of Spiritus Mundi
Troubles my sight: somewhere in sands of the desert
A shape with lion body and the head of a man,
A gaze blank and pitiless as the sun,
Is moving its slow thighs, while all about it
Reel shadows of the indignant desert birds.
The darkness drops again; but now I know
That twenty centuries of stony sleep
Were vexed to nightmare by a rocking cradle,
And what rough beast, its hour come round at last,
Slouches towards Bethlehem to be born?
Indeed. Excellent story.
Thanks for the pointer.
Seconded!
Regarding your statement thanking Professor Chalmers "for not getting upset about this unintentional duplication of his work" ... he says in his acknowledgments, "One discovers quickly that any given idea has likely been expressed already by someone else."
N.B., I did not scan the other comments to see if this point has been made already...
I initially misread this as "One discovers quickly that any given idea has likely been suppressed already by someone else."
Such is the time we live in.
> One discovers quickly that any given idea has likely been expressed already by someone else."
Indeed.
Anybody going to vibecamp have thoughts / tips on things to be aware of as a first-timer?
As a fan of the British system I was wondering are there any “Yes,Kings” (but constitutional and limited) protests planned in the US.
I tried to start a "Yes Kings; but merely as a ceremonial head of state to allow the chief executive to operate in a more practical role" counter-protest, but no one showed up. I think maybe the wordy qualifier was a problem for some people.
May we expect a “No Queens” day or os that too much at odds with the zeitgeist and Madison Avenue?
When we elect a female president that will come around depending on how she behaves. You know it’s like the British: the king is dead. Long live the queen.
Not that I'm aware of in the US. However, Canada had "No Tyrants" protests that aligned with the No Kings Protests, as they do technically have a King
"We're allowed one" by analogy to the No Homers club.
Software productivity, as it is measured in its effects on GDP anyway, relates to the sale and not the production of software. This is unlike material production where being more efficient in production and thus being able to meet (or induce) demand is essential. What does this mean for the effect on GDP of AI aided software production.
As Wanda pointed out above, the types of software being marketed to businesses and individual users seem to have hit the developmental limits of what's useful. Except for voice/video conferencing packages, all the major categories of office apps had been developed by the mid-90s (spreadsheets, word processors, slideware creation/presentation packages, etc.). And in-house bespoke backend systems gave way to licensed Software as a Service (SaaS) packages by the mid-00s. Of course, most major players in the SaaS ecosystem provide the component building blocks, and companies that license their software must invest in hiring specialist consultants to customize the SaaS packages for their specific business needs. I could see AI assisting in this process. For instance, if a customer could feed a requirements template to a SaaS vendor such as SalesForce and have an AI helper assemble the backend building blocks to produce a usable bespoke system, that could potentially put a lot of consultants out of business. But I suspect these would have to be specialized AIs provided by the SaaS vendor. If software sales are the sole indicator of GDP, it might actually improve sales (and increase GDP) because SaaS vendors could sell their product to smaller customers who couldn't afford the customization costs.
When it comes to bespoke software written from scratch, IT departments still need to perform extensive scripting to integrate disparate software systems. And QA departments produce a lot of Python code to automate their testing. Regarding the former, I'm not sure IT departments would be comfortable handing over the crown jewels to an AI whose trustworthiness is unknown. But for the latter, company QA departments would likely embrace AI-generated and controlled test environments. However, all these internally developed systems would have little effect on software sales. So GDP would probably be unaffected.
I'm willing to concede that I may have missed other GDP-affecting variables with my possibly oversimplified analysis.
An increasing amount of commercial software is SaaS, which has both ongoing hosting costs as well as KTLO efforts (e.g., migrating from the current-but-deprecated version of whatever dependency, applying patches in response to the latest CVE, scrambling to keep the service up when GCP is down, &c.).
To the extent that those activities are dominant cost drivers / value sources, the ~zero marginal cost of packaged software is negligible.
More bespoke software tailored to the client rather than buying a larger company's one-size-fits-all software package?
Or more cynically, more rickety internal solutions put together by one guy in the office who knows a bit of prompt engineering instead of hiring it out to an actual software house.
In my view it depends on what the market for novel software is. AI will lower the capital cost of software development by at least an order of magnitude. That means almost anyone with a decent idea can make a saleable product, which means super-niche markets become viable to target. If those actually exist, and I have no idea if they do, then AI will drive an explosion in niche apps. If they don't (meaning that we already have essentially all the software we need) then existing software companies will just get significantly more profitable as they're able to provide the same product with reduced headcount.
I'm actually inclined towards the latter narrative. From 2010-2020 investment capital was essentially free: anyone with half an idea got their startup funded. That hasn't led to a flood of actually-valuable software companies that discovered new niches. It's mostly been retreads of the same few themes (games, productivity, etc). That suggests to me that software has saturated the development sigmoid. So I suspect that AI-driven automation will let companies capture the same revenue with fewer employees without significantly growing markets which I guess means that it will lower GDP (assuming that the displaced employees can't find more productive work elsewhere).
That does make a lot of sense. I have only one disagreement, mainly focusing on this:
"From 2010-2020 investment capital was essentially free: anyone with half an idea got their startup funded. That hasn't led to a flood of actually-valuable software companies that discovered new niches."
This is a valid observation, however, I think it is not a coincidence that still everyone was looking hard at scaling and growing until IPO/acquisition. If developing a a marketable application costs X, one must still have to target an audience that has the purchasing power to cover that. Should development costs drop to X/10, that might open up new niches that were obviously unprofitable in the old environment.
They might not even be thought of as "startup" from then on, just a regular company providing some service, as there is no need to finance years of building up and scaling before the company would become profitable.
>one must still have to target an audience that has the purchasing power to cover that.
Yeah excellent point. I sorta feel like the late-teens "I have an app idea" free-for-all kinda disregarded long-term profitability so we already have an idea of what that looks like. People were so desperate to establish any user base that I think they mined pretty much every niche regardless of size. This is partly what drove online ad prices: startups buying users at a loss in order to fuel further investment/acquisition. But maybe you're right and they were all still hobbled by a big-market mentality.
It's hard to know how many 10k-person user bases exist that are willing to pay for a product. Part of the issue is it's hard to identify those people. The thing with Freemium is if you have something that everyone uses then that word-of-mouth lets you reach the few who will pay. Maybe without some level of mass appeal it's impossible to reach the niche market and so dev costs don't matter. But I dunno, it's hard to predict.
Erik Hoel says that the contest is anonymous, and the website (https://berggruen.org/essay-competition-open) says
> To ensure the fairness of our blind review process, no personal information should appear anywhere in the PDF.
But, the submission form asks for
- professional affiliation ("Your current formal association with a recognized research or industry-specific organization or institution. Enter N/A if not applicable.")
- a reference ("You are required to provide the name and email address of one reference who is familiar with your written works. Reference could be a professor, teacher, or another person from your professional network. The Berggruen Institute may contact your reference to verify that the submitted essay is indeed your original work. ")
- optionally, a previous publication
This does not look to me like they're trying a genuinely merit-only competition. Since I doubt they're blatantly lying about the blind review phase, my best guess is they will use prestige-based judgment to heavily filter submissions and then use a blind review phase for the rest? If so, then I'd say Erik's description of "Anyone can win; my understanding is that the review process is blind/anonymous" is mostly false. But am I missing something?
It's the usual, "We are open to everyone." "By 'everyone' do you mean a small group of highly credentialed people or everyone?" "... a small group of highly credentialed people."
Even a lot of forecasting competitions don't let you compete anonymously or want institutional affiliation. Even people who are theoretically anti-credentialist use it. It's ridiculous how much what is effectively a roll of the dice when you're 18 (and it is a roll of a dice whether you get into a top 10 or top 20 school) determines the rest of your life.
I understand the reasoning: what if some genius essay on consciousness turns out to be authored by a frothing-at-the-mouth white nationalist? That'd be awfully embarrassing! For the institute, of course, that has its own motives for sponsoring the contest. Dear old Mr. Bear Grooen would not be happy, and might cut off the checks. I think reserving the right for an "institutional vibe check" is the correct move on the whole, even if the current meta is to lean way too hard into meta of "give the prize to a tenured professor at Harvard."
Having been on the other side of a few "open to all" submissions, the amount of crackpot submissions you get -- especially for a topic like "the nature of consciousness" -- is going to be immense. You need to filter them out somehow.
Of course class hierarchies make the lives of the people in charge easier by making who else is elite more legible. And that does have some social value. However, there are significant well documented downsides. Especially if the selection system is somewhat arbitrary.
My feeling is: If you want to filter on that then you should filter explicitly. You should not pretend that you're open and meritocratic, you should say you're only for academics or so on. This is more pro-social as it both makes your biases more clear and avoids wasting the time of people who have no realistic chance. But the people in charge probably want to keep the impression they're meritocratic.
> My feeling is: If you want to filter on that then you should filter explicitly
Yeah, strongly agree.
Was generally impossible for me not to compare it to Scott's non-book review contest, which is claiming to be merit-only but, unlike this contest, is in fact merit-only.
I don’t think they say it’s a merit-only competition:
> …the competition will serve as a complement to the Berggruen Prize for Philosophy & Culture, which recognizes major lifetime achievements in advancing ideas that have shaped the world.
>please try to avoid having more than one Open Thread link per few months.
That seems like a bad idea. Reasons of principle aside (limiting links on a blog?), how are people supposed to provide web citations for their claims? Or are you talking about top-level comments only? Even so that seems very limiting. I do like the proof-of-work rule though.
I mean a link advertising your site. Links to citations are still fine. Did this confuse anyone else?
New here. Confused accordingly.
Honestly, I thought the occasional classified thread was the place for such link posting, not the open threads. Maybe have classified threads more often, perhaps once per quarter, and not permit advertising otherwise?
Links to relevant material, on the other hand, should always be allowed, such as citations and 3rd party links comparable to the monthly Links posts.
I took it personally and flinched! I’ve always been a bit unsure of what’s acceptable behaviour here.
Luckily right now and for a while I think the podcast Subject to Change will have little of specific interest to followers of yours. So I won’t be doing any links for some months to come!
Though I’ll also just mention that when it comes to where should the Mexican border be discourse you could do a lot worse than checking out the two parter I did with Edward Shawcross from July 2022. The Last Emperor of Mexico. And goodness, he knows how to tell a story!
No. Those of us who are readers rather than writers, understood it perfectly well.
Only momentarily before my first cup of coffee
Slightly, until I worked it out that it was meant for the likes of "four different links in four different comments touting my blog/substack/massive pile of wood shavings, behold and be amazed at what unlimited hours of whittling can produce!" links.
I understood the context. Honestly confused that anyone wouldn't unless English is a second language.
The phrase "post a link in an open thread" indicates that this isn't about all links in comments, but rather only the comments where the *purpose* of the comment is to share - "post" - a link.
Including a link as a reference is not "posting" a link, it's "including" it.
If I find something interesting on the web that's not by me and I want to share, that's also "posting" it as I understand it.
Exactly.
The word "post" comes down from the historical context of sending a note in the (postal) mail, plus arguably nailing a flier to a "post."
> The word "post" comes down from the historical context of sending a note in the (postal) mail, plus arguably nailing a flier to a "post."
The mail sense of the word comes from the sense of being stationed somewhere (still a current sense of "post"), which ultimately comes from the Latin verb "pono" meaning "put". (Passive participle "positum"; compare "deposit".) The reason stations were associated with mail was that one horse can't make an entire urgent journey by itself, so you had relays that had to be staffed.
The structural object is unrelated.
Super-tangent! I think it's far more the second, because of the prevalence of systems called "bulletin boards" back in the (vaguely) 1980s.
I did half-suspect the new rule was about top-level comments that promote a link, but I understood "promotion" as the more general "signal-boosting", i.e. anything I think should get more eyeballs whether or not it's my work.
I assumed you didn’t want people with just a link and no explanation, except “read this”. Or a list of links. If not that’s a good idea and should be an internet standard.
Yep, I was also confused.
https://open.substack.com/pub/astralcodexten/p/open-thread-386?r=5d39re&utm_campaign=comment-list-share-cta&utm_medium=web&comments=true&commentId=126348557
> (I'll take the risk of breaking the 'proof of work' rule since its relevance should be obvious.)
This commenter at least, it seems
I got the implication, the comment was slightly ironic.
It seems clear that large scale nonviolent protests do not accomplish much of anything in America anymore. The Civil Rights movement worked by making white liberals sympathetic enough to vote in representatives who drafted legislation. The recent anti-ICE / anti-Trump movements are not accomplishing anything because unlike CRM there is no legal means to stop these people and half the people support them anyway. At the same time, you can't have a violent protest because the state will either gun you down or catch you planning it before it even begins, and you also wont win any sympathy.
What is the most effective legal way to seize political power for a cause you believe to be correct? The right did it by building capital (Thiel and Musk) and then using that to gain outsized political influence. It seems like it would be much harder for liberals to do this since they explicitly do not want an oligarchy.
I've thought that, actually. It really doesn't seem like the current polarized environment makes protests useful; you just need to get 51% in the next election (or the appropriate number of electoral votes) and that usually happens when the other side screws up badly enough to convince average-swing-voter types, who aren't terribly interested in politics and tend to be turned off by that kind of performative politics.
I don't really have a solution, though.
Regarding Protests Generally:
This seems like a fundamental misconception. Nonviolent protests have never included a mechanism to "accomplish" anything in any direct sense. Unlike voting, turnout in a protest has no set means to translate into political change of any sort. And yet they're one of the most common means of modern political activism across a wide range of nations and government types. Why?
The purpose of a protest isn't (directly) accomplishing political change. It's not even (directly) to change minds. The purpose of a protest is creating common knowledge. Fundamentally, the point is to openly and publicly count how many people hold a certain political viewpoint, and hold it strongly enough to put some amount of time and trouble (and take at least a small amount of personal risk) into signalling it. Elites can, as you mentioned, make their views publicly known to everyone else by building capital and using it to buy media outlets, or at least airtime. Ordinary people don't have that option. The populist version of that is to just...go out in the street where everyone can see you. First and foremost, everyone who sees the protest firsthand--and they're staged to be as visible as possible to as many as possible--will know that there are a lot of people who share your view. Second, large protests naturally attract media attention, so potentially millions more will find out that way. Third, large protests attract opposition, which brings its own sort of heightened visibility.
Anything that can be regarded as being "accomplished" by protests are downstream of this. You mentioned the civil rights protests and I think they are a great example. Black Americans had been oppressed for a long time, and angry about it for just as long. I don't doubt their anger and numbers were quite well-known to most of the people doing the oppressing, but a lot of the rest of the white population (particularly in states with an overall whiter population) could simply let it be out of sight and out of mind. But mass communication and cheaper travel changed the landscape. Now the information (and with somewhat more difficulty, the people themselves) could reach regions that had previously been insulated. You say they worked by "making white liberals sympathetic." I'm not going to say that's wrong, exactly, but I think the more important emphasis is that they worked by making white liberals *aware.* By creating common knowledge. By convincing voters and politicians that the population demanding these changes was too big and too invested in their cause to keep safely ignoring.
All changes effected by nonviolent protests ultimately result from making *someone* aware of the number and fervor of the people behind their cause. That can translate into change in a number of different ways, from pressuring lawmakers to driving election turnout to prompting government agencies to re-think their positions or various things. In most cases the protesters themselves won't know ahead of time how they might ultimately get what they want. They just know that standing up and being counted is a necessary first step.
Discussion of Present-Day Specifics Below:
Regarding Protests in the U.S. Today:
I agree that the current U.S. political system is unusually non-responsive to the popular will. As a side note, I sharply disagree with the characterization that "half the people support [various things the protesters are against]." For any given issue that draws a substantial protest in 2025, it is likely to be *much* less than half the people who support that thing. The trouble is that U.S. political system allows for a lot of pretty deeply unpopular actions to be enacted as long as the overall level of polarization can be maintained. If you have only 40% popular support (enough to win most elections), and any given action is only popular with 75% of your base, but they disagree about *which* actions they dislike while agreeing about how The Other Side is Terrible and Must Be Stopped, you can do quite a lot of stuff that only ~30% of the country actually wants while maintaining electoral viability.
More particularly, I think all Republican lawmakers have figured out that the one constituency that they MUST keep content in order to win elections is their core of Republican primary voters. It doesn't matter how popular or unpopular a politician is in the general election if they get primaried before they can get there. And right now, it seems like staying loyal to Trump is what Republican primary voters most want from their congresspeople. So any protests that don't gain traction among these people (which very few protests from the left will do) will have a hard time influencing any congressional votes.
Despite this, I don't believe popular protests are useless by any means. Large, well-attended protests can
1. Raise morale (again, by creating common knowledge) among the left, helping to drive voter turnout.
2. Cause Republican politicians to try to walk a more precarious line. As outlined above, I don't think almost any of them can afford to openly break with Trump. But if they're worried enough, they might try to play damage control and find ways to slow down Trump's agenda without drawing too much attention. Which in turn could backfire, causing internal schisms[1]
3. Cause self-damaging reactions from Trump and Republicans. I think the LA protests were a minor version of this, while much more serious versions are possible.
4. Encourage Democratic lawmakers to take risks they might not otherwise take in opposing Trump.
5. Provide a difficult-to-ignore reality check to people bamboozled by right-wing media. It's hard to claim a policy is popular or successful when there are large demonstrations against it walking past your house every week.
I'm pessimistic about the overall fate of the U.S., but to the extent that anything will help, I expect more and more vigorous protests against the current government to be an overall positive.
[1] This is a place where its important to notice that the incentive for the individual politician is quite different for the incentive for the party as a whole. It can be worth it for the individual to take a risk with a high chance of a strong backfire if their election prospects are lousy without it. But them doing so might be *quite* bad for the overall party.
General strikes are nonviolent, sabotage/direct action is also (usually) non-violent, don't conflate "non-violent" with "legal"
I think a lot of the most effective tactics for resistance right now are not legal, but also not violent, because killing people tends to alienate. Not all - there's a place for assassination - but a lot.
>"…sabotage/direct action is also (usually) non-violent…"
No. Destruction of property *is* violence.
>>"Destruction of property *is* violence."
This seems too broad a principle. If I'm working in a Russian MIC factory and I begin damaging the shells I produce such that they don't explode properly, or damaging guidance chips before I install them in one-way attack drones so that the drones are rendered useless, I've certainly engaged in something that most would consider to be "resistance to the war" but I don't think most would consider it to be "violent resistance to the war."
It's not *very* violent, sure; neither is tripping someone, but both are still instances of violence.
There's a sentiment I frequently see, asserting that preventing property damage never warrants harming the person doing it because it's "not violence". That's the horseshit I'm pushing back on.
>>There's a sentiment I frequently see, asserting that preventing property damage never warrants harming the person doing it because it's "not violence". That's the horseshit I'm pushing back on.
I'd respectfully disagree. I hardly ever see anything like this kind of stance, at least not in the US. Pretty much bog-standard US law across our various jurisdictions is that reasonable force may be used in defense of property.
Just a quick google on "violence in defense of property California" yields:
https://www.cronisraelsandstark.com/stand-your-ground
"You can use reasonable force to protect your property from imminent harm and to protect the property of a family member or guest. “Reasonable force” is the amount of force a reasonable person in the same situation would believe is necessary to protect the property from imminent harm."
See also DC: https://koehlerlaw.net/defense-of-property-dc/
See also NY: https://vargheselaw.com/news/what-are-new-yorks-self-defense-laws/
It's pure anecdata, but I've never seen anybody argue that these kinds of laws are too extreme and should be done away with so that no use of force ("violence") in defense of property is ever justified. Maybe we're just operating in very different spaces online?
Now, it's also bog-standard US law that *deadly* force generally can't be used in defense of property alone. But there's a big difference between "preventing property damage never warrants harming the person doing it" and "preventing property damage never warrants attempting to kill the person doing it." The former is, I agree, bullshit, but it's also an extreme position I've personally never seen taken by anybody. The latter, though, is just the standard we've lived under for quite some time now; it's not some new bullshit concoction being forced upon us by extreme elements of the woke mob.
I'm relieved that the law isn't completely stupid; I have seen, in comment threads on ACX itself, people arguing that no amount of property damage ever justifies any amount of bodily harm.
I personally think lethal force is justified to stop a felony being committed (which includes at least some instances of property damage), but I acknowledge that's far from a mainstream position.
You can regard it that way if you like, but it still carries different emotional weight to most people and will have a different impact on how sympathetic they are to a particular protest.
When the IAF levels an unoccupied building in Gaza, is that not violence?
Maybe? It does intuitively *feel* violent. But adding in "destruction of property" enormously increases the breadth of an already quite broad concept, further diluting its punch.
Consider that even a strict "physical bodily harm" definition spans everything from a slap to an ICBM. Now consider that adding destruction of property adds in now just the bombing of buildings, but also something as potentially benign as someone tearing a piece of paper or deleting a digital file is "violence" under that definition.
Consider too that many people argue that *indirect* bodily harm counts as violence: that (for example) controlling access to food or medical care (so that some people starve or die of treatable ailments). And that these people can hold up dead bodies to underscore their point, not just rubble.
If "violence" were used simply as a neutral classifier it wouldn't make much difference. But it's something people attach great moral weight to, and often hold up as a Bright Line that invites retaliation if crossed. Being very, very cautious about scope-creeping the definition is advisable here.
>"But it's something people attach great moral weight to, and often hold up as a Bright Line that invites retaliation if crossed."
That is explicitly my intent: to highlight that bodily harm is a valid response to destruction of property.
(To be clear, I am not advocating for assassination, merely pointing out that historically it's often led to political changes, at times drastic ones)
> What is the most effective legal way to seize political power for a cause you believe to be correct?
First, understand that your beliefs are malleable and not necessarily more likely to be correct than anyone else's.
Then, simply change your mind to align with whoever is in power. Instant happiness.
I believe this is what the kids mean when they talk about "speaking from a place of privilege."
This framing implicitly assumes that the policies of anyone in power will have no serious negative consequences on you. That's very true for some people. Much less true for others.
The opposite framing assumes you're in a position to figure out which set of policies is more likely to have negative consequences for you, which is epistemically arrogant.
That depends *extremely heavily* on the policies. Yes, policies can counterintuitive and unpredictable consequences. But they can also have big, obvious, unmissable consequences.
You may choose to tell yourself that you are in such a thorough state of epistemic helplessness that you can never draw any conclusions whatsoever about government policy--even to the point of not believing (for example) a declaration of war is causal to subsequent battlefield deaths. But very few other people have any reason to adopt your position.
Also, if you really are in that state, what's the point of arguing about it? How can you have any confidence that your argument will cause anyone to be convinced of anything, or have any predictable or useful effects on the world at all?
I don't understand your complaint. Protests aren't supposed to accomplish anything. We don't have a protest-based political system, nor should we. That just selects for angry, psychiatrically imbalanced people. The most effective way to seize political power in a democracy is to vote it in. That means convincing other people of the idea via direct advocacy, letter-writing, essay-writing, etc. If you're on the left I also have no idea why you're upset. The left has been much better at capturing institutions and organizing political movements for 40 years. It's poor sportsmanship to whine about the system just because your side isn't currently dominant.
Maybe consider that your position is neither correct nor popular.
>The most effective way to seize political power in a democracy is to vote it in
and what if you don't live in a democracy?
Then leave. That's what I plan to do. I think we're midway into a political norm-defection cascade that likely won't course-correct. In 30 years I expect us to resemble Argentina or Brazil albeit with more wealth. Our debt is becoming unmanageable and we're unprepared for what AI is going to do to the economy. If a bond auction fails just as unemployment hits 30% then I don't think our already-polarized and increasingly anti-meritocratic system will be able to handle it.
For now, however, we do live in a democracy even if it functions imperfectly. It will function even less perfectly if people try to forcibly fix its problems. The only chance we have of course-correcting is to double down on our institutional norms and hope the polity heals itself.
I'm already out
But I don't believe the US is in any meaningful sense still a democracy. At best it's a hybrid regime. Elections are held under conditions where they pose no danger to oligarchic power, and if you look beyond the handpicked candidates of the elites (i.e.. to the treatment of third parties or primary elections) they're hardly free and fair.
Has it ever really been otherwise?
Trump changed his policy for ICE last week, limiting the kinds of workplaces that will be raided. Did the protests in LA influence that decision? Who knows? Maybe?
"Maybe" is a long way off from "It seems clear that large scale nonviolent protests do not accomplish much of anything in America anymore" and "The recent anti-ICE / anti-Trump movements are not accomplishing anything..."
Maybe read the news before asserting what you are certain hasn't happened.
He also plans on deporting thousands of people to Guantanamo bay. So I did read the news. Now what?
You won't admit that your premise is wrong?
Just because a protest fails to immediately change policy doesn’t mean protest is useless. Protests are just one tactic used for organizing. They get people involved in your movement who might provide financial support, labor, peer advocacy, or votes in the future. They demonstrate the size, commitment, and organization of the movement. No Kings isn’t going to change Trump’s policy in the short term, but it might help activate democrats to go vote in the midterms.
I don’t know how entirely “nonviolent” these protests have been, but I’d contend the difference is surely one of content and not procedure. The civil rights movement for blacks involved people that were in fact regarded as citizens, and their differential treatment. Its goals may not have turned out to be limited, but the general understanding of its basis was. Even BLM had an immediate base of sympathy among some insofar as people chose to see it as part of that lineage, however legitimately or corruptedly.
It's about $2000-$5000 to bribe a member of congress to be a friend to your business. This is the cost for "nobody cares about this" causes (See Santorum trying to defund the National Weather Service because of a legal-bribe from AccuWeather).
Convincing Trump to crash the stock market may in fact be the most effective legal way to seize political power, if your political enemies are wealthy.
Routing government money to NGOs has been how the liberals "earn money" and create self-sustaining cycles of bribery (because all the employees of the NGO are expected to donate to the "liberals" in politics).
>It seems clear that large scale nonviolent protests do not accomplish much of anything in America anymore.
I think you might be conflating "not violent" with "nonviolent." Nonviolence is a very specific strategy, and CRM participants were given training on the methods of nonviolence.
Moreover, there is evidence that the BLM protests of 2020 worked: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11109-025-10014-w
>The Civil Rights movement worked by making white liberals sympathetic enough to vote in representatives who drafted legislation.
White liberals were already sympathetic to civil rights. https://todayinclh.com/?event=democratic-party-adopts-historic-civil-rights-plank And note that the 1952 Republican platform also had a civil rights plank https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/republican-party-platform-1952
The key was getting white moderates to support civil rights legislation, and one thing that helped that happen was the excessive reaction of authorities in the South; Bull Conner might have done more for the CRM than Bayard Rustin https://www.bhamwiki.com/w/Police_dogs_and_firehoses It is too soon to tell how the Administration will respond and how that response will affect public opinion. Using troops untrained in crowd control has not always turned out well for the government https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kent_State_shootings
Rasmussen had the BLM protests down to about 33% favorability by November. In any "this is related to getting Joe Biden Elected" scenario, the BLM protests were exceptionally poorly timed.
Now, if you want to say that hiring Black people to sit on their asses and do nothing was the goal, then yeah, they managed to bully Google/et alia into doing that. And then Google et alia fired the folks as soon as nobody was looking.
I think I will believe an actual research paper over your opinion. Especially given your obvious bias.
Moreover, I don't see a November 2020 poll re BLM on the Rasmussen website. I see this one, though: https://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/current_events/social_issues/popularity_of_black_lives_matter_jumps_to_62
My obvious bias? Lordy, I knew people on the Democratic campaign trail. This is what they were saying -- and I'd recommend listening to the advertising men, when they start discussing issues of timing.
https://www.newsweek.com/days-election-support-black-lives-matter-has-dropped-14-percent-since-protests-peaked-after-1542858
So, newsweek is saying 48%.
Please note the activist explanation within the article. "we're gonna depend on Biden to fix everything" (I seem to recall Biden having some very racist things to say about blacks, way back when.) How did that turn out for blacks, anyway?
I put my money where my mouth was, on the issue of "riot season" this year. I was in LA, and every place I set foot on is where the riots are occurring (yes, first time in LA). I went literally no where else. So, if riot season was not timed for "After Memorial Day" I would have been right in the middle of it. Yep, got some skin in this game.
>Lordy, I knew people on the Democratic campaign trail.
But, we aren't talking about them. We are talking about you, and about the study I posted. If you are going to say, "if you want to say that hiring Black people to sit on their asses and do nothing was the goal," then don't be surprised if people infer that you might have a bias.
>So, newsweek is saying 48%.
Newsweek isn't Rasmussen, and 48% isn't 33%. Did you make it up? Moreover, that poll shows 48-38 favorability.
More broadly, you seem to want to fight the culture war. I am more interested in the empirical question, as is , unless I misread them, the OP.
>I put my money where my mouth was, on the issue of "riot season" this year. I was in LA, and every place I set foot on is where the riots are occurring (yes, first time in LA). I went literally no where else. So, if riot season was not timed for "After Memorial Day" I would have been right in the middle of it. Yep, got some skin in this game.
I have no idea what this means or how it is relevant
48% percent is ... "no independents and Republicans", if you want to put "all democrats and dem-independents" in one bucket. That's you've lost all possible people you wanted to attract.
(Likely Rasmussen's polling was adjusting up/down the %es of Rs versus Ds, as Ras has a Republican lean).
I'm choosing to view the Democratic use of brownshirts as an electoral "vote changing device" as unbroken from 2020 to 2025 (except for the years where a Democrat was in charge, and hence it would be counterproductive to show "chaos in the streets"). Feel free to follow the money and discuss the money-laundering aspect of this year's protests and how that materially changes the use of brownshirts into a "non-electoral" context, and instead a "Civil rights-esque" context (where corporate entities fund protests for their own gain).
> It seems clear that large scale nonviolent protests do not accomplish much of anything in America anymore. The Civil Rights movement worked by making white liberals sympathetic enough to vote in representatives who drafted legislation.
The Civil Rights movement lasted for fourteen years, so I don't think this comparison proves that large-scale nonviolent protests can't work.
> What is the most effective legal way to seize political power for a cause you believe to be correct?
Get over your principles about money and raise the money to buy the outcome you want.
Too bad there ain't no 'likes' on here (which I get, Scott wants it to be about rational argumentation not bandwagoning). You're the only one saying it.
Unfortunately it really weights things toward billionaires. It's very unlikely you or I could organize a movement that could compete with Peter Thiel or George Soros.
Sure, however, if you're the average literal man-on-the-street at a protest, you, *personally* can effect far more "change" by picking up an extra shift the day of the protest and donating the proceeds of your sacrifice to the agents of whatever cause you support, even if it's only to help pay their lawyers. *THAT'S* meaningful action.
Modern American protesting an act of self-righteous, self-aggrandizing partying, with the occasional opportunity to LARP insurgent warfare against an unimaginably benign enemy. It's just for the lols, nothing more.
Point.
I think the whole 'earn to give' thing got kind of tainted by SBF's manipulation of campaign donations; people are more likely to think it's self-serving now.
It's not just partying; if you accept that leftist or liberal politics replace religion for many people, it's like Christmas or Easter, a sort of high holiday. (Or Rosh Hashanah/Passover for many of the people here ;) )
Though seriously, exactly none of the 7000+ people who took to the streets of my Very Blue City were doing that rather than 'earning to give' out of disgust with SBF.
One thing is fun; the other isn't. That's why people do the fun thing, and don't do the not-fun thing. *dusts hands decidedly*
Seriously, you're right. I think they're kind of stuck on 60s narratives where protests worked; the thing is the country's so polarized now it really doesn't matter if people march, you have to get 51% at the next election.
No kidding! Though if I were really obnoxious I'd interrogate you (not THAT way) about what you're giving to with your 'earn to give'.
High holidays are self-righteous, self-aggrandizing partying, too. ;)
Yeah, but the normies like 'em, what can you do.
> It seems like it would be much harder for liberals to do this since they explicitly do not want an oligarchy.
Prior to Musk and Trump,
most of Silicon Valley supported democrats financially. In fact Musk did.
The US is going to be an oligarchy anyway, without significant reform.
I recently read https://www.betterconflictbulletin.org/p/does-protest-even-work presenting evidence that protests do work, do you disagree?
I think "X doesn't work" is underspecified. In a democracy, if you lose an election, you are near-term going to have a bad time, and there's no (non-coup) way to avoid having a bad time. I think people are getting frustrated with democracy because they want to be able to lose an election but still have some lever that lets them get the policy they want, and the faster people realize that's unrealistic the faster they can move on to realistic things rather than griping about democracy being dead. I think many tactics can slightly ameliorate the damage, including protests, lobbying/advocacy, letter-writing campaigns, and lawfare, and people should do these tactics, but even if you do these well, it's only going bring it from a 10/10 bad time to an 8/10 bad time.
I think on the party/movement level, people should try to win elections. This is most of what Musk and Thiel did - Musk's capital couldn't set policy directly (eg his inability to lift planning restrictions on SpaceX), so he used it to help Trump win. I think in the medium-term, "popularism" has the right take on this - support popular policies, reject unpopular policies, and try to deliver good outcomes. In the long-term, you do difficult advocacy (arguing, building up friendly media, gathering evidence that your position is correct) to change what is popular and possible. I think this is most of what Thiel did - tried to fund incipient right-wing media that could pay off and win elections years into the future. I don't know how much this really helped, but if you think it did, anybody can help grow incipient media they like, whether by funding it, writing for it, or just subscribing to it.
On the individual level, I think the most valuable thing people can do is choose a cause that hasn't yet been fully polarized and try to pull ropes sideways ( https://www.overcomingbias.com/p/policy_tugowarhtml ), and the most effective way to do this is to donate to or volunteer for small candidates/causes that you believe in, plus use any other unusual tools you have (eg if you are a journalist, you can present important stories). While you're doing this, you can take whatever opportunities arise to try to convince people on the big polarized issues, and of course vote during election years.
I am not sure losing an election automatically means you are going to have no significant leverage on policy in the short term. Unions (in countries where they are strong enough) can organize large scale strikes for instance, and if these are disruptive enough they can force the ruling party to alter policy.
A country where there's some sort of fixed power base (whether it's unions or the military or the imams or whatever) that can force elected governments to alter policy has pretty limited claim to be a democracy.
This risks getting us to no true Scotsman territory unless we settle on some definition of democracy beforehand. In any system there are power bases that are not under full institutional control.
> I think people are getting frustrated with democracy because they want to be able to lose an election but still have some lever that lets them get the policy they want, and the faster people realize that's unrealistic the faster they can move on
Well, the traditional way to do this is to have different policies in different places. Far from being unrealistic, it was the state of the world in pretty much every country or tribal region at all points in history.
Quite a few years ago I saw a friend of mine post on Facebook that he had previously been sympathetic to the idea of California seceding from the US, but he changed his mind when he realized that if California left, it wouldn't be able to stop people in Texas from living like Texans.
This is the attitude we don't want. It's growing, but it's bad.
Agree. There’s an important distinction between “I want to be free to live like this” and “I want to force others to live like this”
I originally took the Chenoweth study very seriously; they claimed to originally start out being very skeptical of non-violence, but the data convinced them... the strength of data overcoming one's biases is great!
But the Hong Kong protests established that the thesis is ultimately mistaken; even the lower police estimates claimed 3.5% participation rate, yet the protests were fundamentally unsuccessful. I still think they can be valuable, but the idea that 3.5% participation is sufficient to fully offset tyrrany has been empirically proven false.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2019%E2%80%932020_Hong_Kong_protests#Early_large-scale_demonstrations
What's the relevant denominator for the 3.5% figure? The Hong Kong protests involved at least 3.5% of the population of Hong Kong, but much, much less than 3.5% of the population of China as a whole.
A point I occasionally make in this context is that Hong Kong made an understandable but catastrophic political error by alienating the population of the mainland. Mainland Chinese hate Hong Kong because they are aware that the Hong Kongers hate them. (By contrast, mainland Chinese are very positive toward Taiwan!)
The result is that, if the CCP decides to run roughshod over Hong Kong, there's no political cost, because the overwhelming sentiment will be "those jackasses got what was coming to them".
I concur that China is much more populous than Hong Kong, but worry that this reduces to "no region can be autonomous without the consent of the overlord"... which seems to me exactly what we should oppose. Having to convince 3.5% of an invading force that they should join you in protesting the invasion feels morally questionable, at best.
To frame it another way: the population of Ukraine is ~40 million, and of Russia ~144 million. Do we think that Ukrainian independence would be better served by having 6.5 million Ukrainians (i.e. 3.5% of Russia + Ukraine) peacefully protest against Russian invasion... or by having 1 million Ukrainian soldiers take up arms (which is currently happening)?
I suppose if the USA stops sending supplies, they can go to protests as a backup plan, but my impression is that it's less likely to be successful. I feel like peaceful protest is much more likely to be successful when backed by the credible threat of armed resistance, even if that threat is only implicit.
If the Wagner rebellion worked the Russian dissent might've been more impactful
It's not a moral claim, it's a practical one.
Suppose 100% of the population of Hong Kong protested in favour of democracy. The Chinese Government would have absolutely no qualms about marching in and killing off all five million of them. Hong Kong is just some free skyscrapers as far as they're concerned.
I think we're in agreement here about China's feeling regarding HK. My original point was that the HK situation showed me that "speaking softly" may not work. Personally I think that's a shame; it would be great if nonviolent resistence WAS sufficient.
But since it's not, I think it's important to also "carry a big stick".
"eg if you are a journalist, you can present important stories"
I groaned aloud at this, because we already have activist journalists and they're heating up the polarisation, not cooling it down or presenting options three and four.
I'm not sure what you're expecting from a list of tactics to produce change - protests are also "activists" who aren't "cooling things down".
Protests are one thing - even if they're "mostly peaceful". They'll move off the streets on to the next cause of outrage. I'm already reading a lot from the liberal side about "so a few of the usual suspects did a little torching in a confined part of LA, big whoop, that means nothing".
I don't like activist journalists, because their zeal for the cause can overcome any pretensions to journalism proper. I know American media liked to fool itself for a long time that it was impartial "just the facts. ma'am" reporting unlike European models of newspapers and media aligned with different political parties, but I think that balloon has been punctured.
However, there is still room for "these are the facts, yes we are doing 'both sides' reporting and not pushing an agenda - that's in the editorial and opinion columns - and we will be fair to all sides as much as is possible" rather than the 500th screaming piece about "Evil Tweedledee/Tweedledum does monstrous thing! Babies eaten! Women and minorities most affected!" and that goes for right wing as well as left wing; there was a lot of "we support this right of centre pro-business neo-liberal party (because our proprietor tells us to do so) and will shove it down your neck" journalism in the 90s and early 00s in Ireland which I despised.
Of course we do. Non-activist journalists would probably be fired on sight, at this point. (When the real reports of what happened in the Ukraine come out, you're going to be appalled).
I'm not sure how to interpret this comment (the bit about Ukraine) but am intrigued by it.
Zelensky has been bombing the "breakaway provinces" since 2014. Attacking his own civilians, in some places for years on end. This is a matter of public record, but you won't see any pictures of the bombed out cities.
Want to hear about the soldiers bleeding out of their eyes? (also a matter of fact).
https://foreignpolicy.com/2024/04/23/russia-ukraine-cultural-genocide-looting-indoctrination-deporatation/
Please note that Zelensky is doing the whole cultural erasure and genocide with his SouthWestern provinces (and Orban is posting extremely impolitic cartoons about Galicians. Because everyone hates the Galicians).
Did I forget to mention that the last Administration let Dick Cheney's protegee run the Ukrainian war? This was a Very Bad Idea... (She was one of the folks saying sanctions would end the war in 2 months).
Just pressing back on your first point:
>you won't see pictures of the bombed out cities
Because they are not bombed out at all. Look at recent pictures of Donetsk. How does it look after 8 years of ukranian bombing? Compare that to Kharkiv a few months into 2022. They are incomparable. Look at numbers of civilians killed in all the years since 2014-2022, and compare them to the current war. Please provide the names of the cities (satellite images exist) that you think were bombed in any meaningfull sense between 2014 and 2022 by Ukranians.
https://ukraine.un.org/sites/default/files/2022-02/Conflict-related%20civilian%20casualties%20as%20of%2031%20December%202021%20%28rev%2027%20January%202022%29%20corr%20EN_0.pdf
>killing his own civilians
meaning, the totally-not-Russian invaders like Strelkov who openly admit to having been there, using totally-not-Russian pantsirs, buks and artillery and shooting down civilian airliners, who just happen to prop up the totally-organic seperatism? Cmon.
Thanks. I'm still confused though: your main point seems to be that Zelensky and the Ukrainians are doing horrible stuff that people would find appalling if they knew about it. Not to minimize the issue, but I assume that is true of basically every side in every war. (I'm *not* saying this makes your point facile, just that even granting it I'd still be tempted to side with the Ukrainians as the lesser of two evils.) But in any case, the link you posted is to an account of Russia doing horrible stuff. (Perhaps your point there is just that Ukraine is doing all the same horrible stuff talked about in the article?)
I wont dispute that Erica Chenoweth study, but some people are disputing it because almost all of her examples did have a smaller violent component which initiated some state response, and then fell back on a large nonviolent movement to act as a reasonable comparison. So I guess I don't think mass protest never works, but then you still need to meet some of the variables she talks about and I think the recent specifically American protests are not doing that because it's now so much harder to get elites and security forces to be sympathetic to your side and disloyal to the president (but this is just my perception, maybe im wrong).
>AI art adding a dark sepia tone to everything
I wrote in the comments under the original Bliss Attractor post
https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/the-claude-bliss-attractor/comment/125507664
but will duplicate here:
I was the one who found the initial "diversity bias" in the 4o and the "create duplicate image" trick before it went viral (and than went viral myself among twitter racists, collecting new racial slurs and tweet-sized essays on AI model collapse as a metaphor for the collapse of the western culture in quote-tweets)
https://x.com/papayathreesome/status/1914169947527188910
in the thread above i run several experiments, including non-human examples, and they support bias induced by the yellow/dark tint added from generation
It's easily testable (just expensive) - we can run "create exact same replica" prompt on a photo, but after each iteration remove the yellow tint and run on this color-corrected version
Thanks, can you explain why these support the dark tint hypothesis over the diversity hypothesis? And did you do the color-corrected experiment?
I just did the experiment with Adobe Firefly, since I am an employee and have free access to it. It's not exactly the same, since Firefly's interface is a lot more structured and doesn't afford asking for an exact duplicate in a way that the engine will heed.
What I did was set up the "distracted boyfriend" meme as both "style reference" and "composition reference", set the intensity slider for both to the maximum, and then iterated on results by selecting "generate similar" on the first result.
Doing just that, Firefly converges eventually on black people, but does not descend into caricature. To the contrary, the subjects very quickly become more stylish and conventionally attractive than the original image and generally remain so. Their apparent ethnicity drifts first to Southern European, then Middle Eastern, then Indian, then Black. The final image is of a dozen smiling black women (all young and pretty) with a variety of natural hairstyles. All of them are facing the camera, standing in a relax neutral group photo pose, and wearing pink t-shirts, blue jeans, and sneakers. They're in a window-lined corridor with orange walls and a linoleum floor.
Second experiment, I selected the "cool tone" option in the "color and tone" settings. Ethnicities followed a similar progression, and like the previous experiment the subjects became and remained conventionally good-looking. The final image is of four black men with fade haircuts facing away from the camera in an outdoor scene in front of a blue tent. All four are wearing jeans and white t-shirts and one is wearing a black backpack.
Third experiment, I selected "vibrant colors" for "color and tone". This time, the subjects stayed white quite a bit longer and eventually converged on East Asian instead of Black. And like the last two, everyone was conventionally good-looking throughout. Final image had a long-haired Asian woman in the foreground, wearing a pink t-shirt and blue jeans, standing in front of a line of eight men and women (some white, some East Asian, and some hard to categorize because they're out-of-focus) wearing a variety of differently-colored shirts. Most are wearing blue jeans and sneakers, but one woman is wearing pink jeans instead of blue and another is wearing ballet flats instead of sneakers. The background is featureless white except for faint reflections of the subjects on the floor.
Gallery of final images:
https://imgur.com/a/wqGA3Ao
All visual media tends towards the end state of lifestyle brands. Fascinating!
Some cultural studies major could probably write a pretty good essay about that.
1) my experiments shown that all images go dark/yellow, which show how much the added tint affect iterations
2) not all of human examples transformed to minorities before collapse, which i would expect if the diversity bias was real
These are weak evidence, but they still add more weigh to the tint hypothesis.
I haven't run color-corrected experiment because it's expensive - i've accidentally spent $160 on the original thread, and I'm not ready to spend more on this.
For all our benefits I would recommend posting that rule somewhere it can more easily be found than in Open Thread 386. Maybe its own page, maybe under About. I'm assuming this comment policy still holds: https://slatestarcodex.com/2014/03/02/the-comment-policy-is-victorian-sufi-buddha-lite/ so that's worth summarizing there too, along with any other rules that have been declared since then. (I'll take the risk of breaking the 'proof of work' rule since its relevance should be obvious.)
It's a source, not an ad. You're safe ^^
What is it about Twitter in particular that seem to make people go absolutely insane? I feel like we've seen so many people just get... brainrotted from that app. Twitter users also refer to Twitter as an awful abomination way more than say, TikTok users say that about TikTok.
Never been on it myself. Feels like this alternative universe I don't understand.
Idk either. The UI sucks dick, short form communicating with people is awful, and long form content is better on other sites. Twitter produces funny screenshots but not much else. Its popularity is like if every personality used iFunny for public appearances.
In my own mental model, two factors I think are especially worth highlighting in the case of twitter, include: A) anarchy; B) context collapse. (This isn't original to me, but I can't remember where I first heard these discussed.)
Re: anarchy
The fewer barriers to entry, the higher the entropy. Blogs are gated communities. ACX/SSC for example is governed by Scott, our rightful caliph. He sets the rules/norms, and he can ban whoever he wants. But on twitter, it's up to the individual to curate their own personal feed and block-list.
Re: context collapse
In normal conversation, there's always a specific intended audience. This allows for conversation within a shared context. E.g. when Scott Aaronson talks about physics/computing with colleagues, he's able to use certain jargon and assumptions freely. But when he talks to his mother about physics/computing, that's a bit different of a different context and there's a lot more explaining to do.
In social media, it's often the case that all contexts get collapsed into a single, universal context. Or in other words, instead of speaking to a specific audience, you're always speaking to a universal audience, which causes a lot of friction. This friction is especially pronounced on twitter because of the word-count limit, which leads to a culture of users never explaining themselves until they get dogpiled on.
----
The metaphor I used to use for twitter is Lebanon. I.e. a place where 12 different factions get to fight each other for all eternity. Although after reading the bookreview context entry for "Sadly, Porn", I think I now prefer the Dante's Inferno analogy. Because it highlights how twitter users are exactly where they want to be (and how the almighty algorithm gives users exactly what they want; i.e. users farm outrage, influencers farm engagement, advertisers farm views, so everybody wins!).
One thing is the algorithm (whether purposefully or indirectly) highlighting "disagreeing" posts. Whenever you click on an even vaguely controversial Gavin Newsom post, the first reply will be some stupid rightoid; whenever you click on a Mike Lee post, the first reply will be some stupid lib. I assume this is to engagement farm (you click on Mike Lee's post because you like him, then get mad about somebody mentioning Trump's 34 felonies, so you reply), but the consequence is basically to 24/7 bombard you with the opinions of idiots you disagree with whenever you read any post that isn't 100% replied to by people on the same side as the poster.
Since Musk took over I've learned to treat Twitter as a kind of exposure therapy -- read unhinged posts and just... not let them get to me.
Turning off all notifications helps a lot. Last week I got dunked on by Hillsdale College but didn't even know it until I went through my reply posts a few days later, which gave me some distance.
What did you do to get the Baptists mad at you, or should I even ask?
It's too long and tedious to go into, but I was kind of asking for it by mentioning them by name. It's okay to be wrong on the internet :-)
Bots. Bots and more bots. A friend of mine had over 200 hundred thousand twitter accounts at one point, so please, don't trust anything you read on the platform without independent verification (and not from Rolling Stone).
I don't think that takes on Twitter are any worse than the takes on a lot of comment sections I see on blogs, including blogs where the actual content is generally fairly reasonable. See, eg, the Volokh Conspiracy.
And, there is plenty of good content on Twitter. You just have to follow the right people, and ignore the idiotic stuff that pops up. (Such as the person on my feed who seems to think that the guy who survived the India Air crash did so by leaping from the plane in midair).
> than the takes on a lot of comment sections I see on blogs, including blogs where the actual content is generally fairly reasonable. See, eg, the Volokh Conspiracy.
Volokh Conspiracy used to host its own site, where the comments were good. What you see now is just the fact that they're hosted by Reason.
I never saw the comments while they were on the Washington Post, but I'm going to assume they weren't great there either.
"I don't think that takes on Twitter are any worse than the takes on a lot of comment sections I see on blogs, including blogs where the actual content is generally fairly reasonable. See, eg, the Volokh Conspiracy."
A Twitter post can be re-tweeted to a much larger (potential) audience than a comment in a random comment section. I think this is a large part of it.
I'm thinking of Justine Sacco's “Going to Africa. Hope I don’t get AIDS. Just kidding. I’m white!” tweet as an example to illustrate the blast radius. If Justine had randomly posted this in some obscure web-site's comment section it would not have gotten the attention it did (unless someone then re-posted it to Twitter).
Combine this with extreme positions/takes getting more attention and with people signalling and you get ... Twitter.
There's a certain feeling of slight outrage that is actually really addictive. Twitter is perfectly tuned to provide this feeling in a sort of skinner box environment. Its not the only place that taps into this, but it was one of the first and its still one of the most effective.
Call it "self-righteousness" and a dash of disbelief.
"Can you believe that anyone thinks tariffs is a good idea?"
Its also non-denominational.
I got slated for a week for an opinion about the anime Neon Genesis Evangelion, most of which took the form of quote tweets roughly along the lines of "Can you believe this guy said evangelion is in many ways a direct response to Mobile Suit Gundam?"
ROFL. Yeah, I can see what you're saying there.
Now, Imagine if you were asked, "what's your favorite character from Eva" and like any good, well meaning autist, you replied with the truth:
"Math Puppy"
(the best case scenario is that your interlocutors decide you're a furry. When the best case scenario is furrydom, you've taken a wrong turn on the internet).
[For those not aware, "favorite character" for Eva means "who do you want to bang" -- and... yeah, liking the dog is going to get you funny responses.]
It has had over a decade to build a culture of snark and status signalling. If you took all the people out of twitter and shoved them into YouTube comments, or even ACX comments, they would behave the same way.
I usually hear people who don't use TikTok (or at least don't admit to it) complaining about it being Chinese propaganda brainrot.
The old reason I'd heard was the character limits. It was called Twitter because you only got like 200 characters for your message, so it's pretty much only enough room for an unsupported hot take.
Plus the algorithm trying like hell to shove people into fights.
It's designed for hot-takes and virality, so it really favors short-term behaviour. Twitter is also significantly older than Tiktok and I feel the userbase is in a very different stage of life; From second-hand impressions it's easily just as bad at rotting the brain, but the userbase itself has not noticed it to the degree Twitters' userbase has.
Also, the administrative switch on twitter made a lot of people pretty mad, so that's another reasons why some people suddenly noticed how bad it is.
On twitter, there's constantly some contrived debate that gives you that minimal hit of intellectual engagement to feel engaging, while triggering your political and moral outrage intuitions.
The worst Twitter dynamic is when someone you vaguely like quote-tweets an infuriating opinion in a sane, mildly funny tone. (e.g. not the best example because it's so inane as to be easily ignored, but this was reposted today by Noah Smith https://x.com/NewsomHater1/status/1934053055000973730).
The people who mess twitter up are not the people who post their stupid, infuriating viewpoints - they are easily blocked, or ignored. In a healthy society, people like us should be protected from viewpoints like this.
The people who ruin the platform are the people "on your side", like Noah Smith, who serve up these views just to feed you a hit of moral indignation.
Also there might be a selection effect - I think Twitter users have the self-awareness to realise that they're doing someone stupid, which TikTok users don't have (or it's easier for TikTok users to compartmentalise their behaviour as doing something stupid and mind-numbing).
Yes, I like Substack!MattY much better than Twitter!MattY for this reason.
I think siloing yourself off from views that are popular and influential and might end up wielding state violence against you in a few years to avoid hits of "moral indignation" is a bad strategy.
Accounts like LibsOfTikTok (as well as its analogues on the other side) provide an extremely valuable service, basically smuggling in information from the other side that the Algorithms would naturally keep you ignorant of.
I strongly disagree on the LibsofTiktok and its analogues. Those kinds of accounts are not smuggling valuable information, they are finding the most outrageous or extreme versions of the opposition and throwing them to an audience hungry for outrage. These people exist, but are not representative.
Sam Schoenberg calls this "Ideologues in the zoo".
https://samschoenberg.substack.com/p/ideologues-in-the-zoo
LibsofTiktok etc are the zoo, if you go there you will find lions and tigers and bears. But if you go out into the wild you'll find they're actually pretty hard to find. But lots of people are basing their entire view of their political opposition based on a heavily curated stream designed to create engagement via outrage.
I wouldn't be surprised if it functioned as a little of both. By extreme analogy, Nazi Germany staged an exhibition of "degenerate art" in 1937, which was intended to showcase how horrible the artistic styles were and make the case that the Nazis were doing good work by suppressing them. The exhibition proved to be extremely popular, and no doubt a lot of people went there looking to be outraged, but I've read an account (in Richard Evans's "The Third Reich in Power") claiming that a lot of the visitors came away with better opinions of the "degenerate" art than they'd had entering.
Consider it from a more epidemiological perspective: if you're trying to foresee the next epidemic, randomly sampling the population isn't as helpful as searching specifically for the most virulent strains.
Better still, *make* new super-virulent strains! Until...
Except for the fact that the vast majority of people who follow Libsoftiktok et al are just there to reinforce their ingroup/outgroup assumptions and get a nice hit of outrage juice from the dispenser.
You can rationalise it however you want but ultimately you're watching weird animal stress response behaviours at the zoo and think it generalises to wild populations.
Probably many go to such places there looking for ammo to hit back at the other side (by pointing out to them the extremists in their camp that they do not disown).
It's a long time since I've seen a comment on ACX that I disagree with so strongly!
I think it's defensible to want to get some exposure to the range of views in society; but I would disagree that an account that chooses the most extreme content to maximise clicks and shock value is a sane and healthy way of doing this!
I'd hazard that, on top of wasting hours on outrage porn, almost everyone who follows LibsOfTikTok gets measurably stupider (i.e. would make more objectively incorrect estimates of the range of opinions in their society) from watching it.
If you really want to know what the other side thinks, you can follow quality opinion polls, read long-form journalism, or discuss with actual humans.
But, to be honest, I'd defend the view that, 99% of the time, ignorance is bliss with regards to the views of stupid or extreme people. On your "state violence" point, yeah, if you're Tutsi in Rwanda in 1993, it might be worth checking out what the Hutus are saying on the radio. But I think almost all of us are in the situation where additional knowledge of what the other side thinks has almost zero marginal value.
You'll probably just enjoy life more and respect other people if you a) live in a well-crafted bubble, especially online, and, b) when you escape your bubble, work under overgenerous assumptions that your interlocuters are as rational and measured as you are; when they're not, try to treat them with compassion and anthropological curiosity.
> I think it's defensible to want to get some exposure to the range of views in society; but I would disagree that an account that chooses the most extreme content to maximise clicks and shock value is a sane and healthy way of doing this!
How would you get exposure to the range, if not by looking at the most extreme content? Those are fully synonymous concepts.
Fair point.
It probably would have been more mathematically accurate to talk about distribution rather than range.
Either way, I think my point holds that "understanding extreme views != watching content deliberately engineered for shock value".
No, they are really, really not. Yes, in mathematics the "range" of a data set is the maximum value minus the minimum value. Shockingly, however, everyday English doesn't use mathematical terminology verbatim when discussing non-mathematical concepts.
Colloquially, getting exposure to "the range of views in society" means getting a sense of what the various reasonably common/popular beliefs are. It does NOT mean looking exclusively at the most extreme beliefs. Despite peoples' tendency to describe politics in left-right terms, belief space is of enormously high dimensionality, and learning the value of a few outlying points will tell you next-to-nothing about the remainder of the distribution. Also how you operationalize "extreme" in such a set is pretty subjective.
Let's consider something concrete: views on crime and punishment. I'm sure you could find people holding some very wacky positions like "death penalty for minor crimes," "no crimes or law enforcement at all," "all policing and justice should be privatized," and "if somebody accuses somebody else of a crime, the truth of it shall be decided by trial by combat." And all of these are pretty much irrelevant noise. You could sample such wacky positions all day and not learn anything useful about what positions your neighbors and coworkers are likely to hold. They don't represent "the range of societal views on crime and punishment" in the sense that anybody actually means it when they say it.
At the very least, you can't *just* watch outragebait if you want to get a remotely accurate view of the world.
Okay, I must concede your point about outrage bait. That tweet was very special.
> AI art adding a dark sepia tone to everything
Mmm. ImageFX does seem to do this. I think Flux does too. And GPT 4o. But I really haven't noticed it in DALL-E 3; in fact if anything it seems to favour bright, overlit scenes.
There's at least two factors at play:
1) Key bias (as in high/low-key lighting) due to the training dataset
2) Classifier-Free Guidance defaults/preferred settings
On (1), I remember this being a whole thing around early Stable Diffusion XL era - people would create LoRAs that adapt the base model to higher/lower key, as the base model (and plain SD1.5) were biased towards the average, making it hard to produce very dark or very light images.
CFG is part of model configs, but the recommended settings (if a platform even lets you mess with it) varies between models. Older models were usually running on fairly high CFGs, I believe mostly to force prompt alignment, which exaggerates the output features - this often creates a subtle subconscious "THIS IS CHEAP AI ART" effect (*). The general trend has been towards much lower CFGs.
(*) as you might be able to tell, I don't have anything against ImgGen overall - but any form has its exemplars and its, uh, shovelware.
Random question, in case anyone here works for streaming companies: why is it that sometimes Netflix will have an entire series, except a random season or two? For instance, in the UK, Netflix has Archer, but it's missing seasons 9 and 11.
I've often wondered why there isn't a streaming service that specialises in buying up the rights to all the crappy old television shows that would otherwise be invisible.
Everyone has a bunch of obscure old TV shows that they'd like to see again. For the cost of buying the streaming rights to Seinfeld or Friends, you could surely buy the streaming rights to a hundred long tail shows like Perfect Strangers or Small Wonder or Unhappily Ever After from the same era, and a significant fraction of the population is going to say "oh wow, I remember that show" and sign up for your service.
I think that Reddit thread covered that - for older shows made before streaming services were a thing, trying to work out the royalties is very difficult (e.g. what if an actor died since, or the production company that made the show went bust in the meantime?) so it's complicated by "we sold the rights to NBC to put the show in syndication but Netflix wasn't even a gleam in the eye when we did that, so now who owns what rights to show it where?"
The Roku Channel, Pluto, Tubi, & Plex all seem to do this to some extent.
iMDB will show, for any given title, where it's streaming and where it can be rented/bought.
Weird. Same here in Ireland, but I know I watched them when they came out.
Actual person who works at a streaming company here! Speaking entirely from public information, licensing is Real Complicated, especially for anything even touching on music rights. I have no specific knowledge about Archer but would not be surprised if it relates to use of music in those particular seasons.
I started writing several thousand words on the many, many different types of music rights, how they mostly date to when LPs were cutting-edge tech, and how anything cross-border makes things infinitely more byzantine, but maybe I'll save that for another day.
Rights is one thing, but Germany will pay you to play their music. (See Stranger Things, for how to get one more shekel out of your production).
Would love to read it, remember to post it here when it's ready!
Would love to read this when it's done!
From Netflix: "If an entire season of a TV show isn't on Netflix, it's likely because of licensing rights availability. "
https://help.netflix.com/en/node/125347
Sorry to be rude, but I specifically asked for inside information. This is too vague - why would there be a licensing right for just one random season?
You'll be happy to know that there's an entire sub-Reddit thread about this very thing, and it seems to boil down to: rights are a steaming mess, some seasons may be more expensive to license than others, if there's music and/or a reference to something that is copyrighted it might not be feasible to pay for the rights to that, or some seasons may be limited to certain regions, or made by a different production company which sold the rights elsewhere, etc. etc. etc.
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1lbnc2m/eli5_why_do_streaming_services_withhold_random/?sort=new
Haha posted one day ago! Excellent timing. Thanks for sharing!
it is an interesting question, so thanks for bringing it up. It's very frustrating for viewers who want to follow an entire show over all its seasons, but apparently for the networks it's not as simple as "buy seasons 1-52 of 'Sweetest Puppies And Kitties' and stream them 24/7". I didn't know the thing about different production companies, for instance, but now that I do it makes sense: you see movie studios and TV stations buying rights to literary works piecemeal (think Amazon and what it was and was not able to buy for "Rings of Power") so there's no reason TV rights to shows aren't sold off piecemeal in the same way to different stations.
Are those singing seasons? Might be that they don't have the rights. Gorillaz managed to make one of their videos unplayable because they tangled up the rights badly enough.
Not specifically. I don't know whether there is like a song that would make the season unavailable - but in that case, why not remove that one episode?
(One of the seasons is inspired by an old series, so maybe that explains that one season missing; but it's tenuous...)
I've noticed that with some episode-based series they even seem to rotate through different seasons in an unclear pattern, so it can't be just licensing issues. Maybe really just money saving (buying the rights for only 3 seasons at a time and switching is surely cheaper than buying the rights for 10+ seasons)?
I noticed that for a while, Netflix was cycling through having 2 out of 3 movies of a popular old movie triology. I assume that it was significantly more expensive to license the entire trilogy at once.
They did that with BlackAdder a few years back. Two seasons of four, then switched to the other two. Possibly other changes, that is the one I noticed.
Amazon Prime used to have Blackadder seasons 1, 2, and 4. At some later point they added 3 (without losing the others). I don't know what they have now.
Netflix recently had only the first four seasons of Brooklyn 9-9.
It's not clear to me why the spotty coverage indicates that it can't just be licensing issues. There isn't a distinction between "money saving" and "licensing issues".
First, of course there is a distinction. Licensing can be flat-out refused entirely, or otherwise simply unavailable. Ignoring that, there is also a large difference between 10 seasons all costing roughly the same, compared to one season costing a multiple of the others for unclear reasons.
And it's not about the spotty coverage, it's about the rotation. If there is one specific season missing from an entire series, and it's always the same season, I assume that there is a specific licensing issue making it either impossible or prohibitively expensive for that particular season. If they rotate through all seasons in a show, but only ever 3 or 4 at a time, there can't be a such a specific issue, so it's probably rather "regular" money saving.
I'd get that, but then why just randomly skip one? I'd understand if they bought the first 5, and not the rest.
A couple of outside-the-box thoughts, with apologies in advance if one or both might not be practical for your circumstances and/or meet employment requirements for your visa stay:
1. See if you can find work as a fractional attorney; e.g.
https://juro.com/general-counsel/fractional-gc
https://www.peerpoint.com/on-point/articles/rise-fractional-general-counsel
There are law firms which maintain teams of such fractional legal professionals, including Outside GC and Peerpoint.
2. Try looking at smaller startups that are currently raising money via equity crowdfunding platforms. Some of them might be in need of legal assistance.
You can browse or search for such startups directly on the websites of major equity crowdfunding portals. Five of the largest are Wefunder, StartEngine, Republic (republic.co), Dealmaker Securities, and Netcapital.
Maybe look into companies manufacturing chips or other things needed for AI and its development. There are challenging things going on for some of these companies having to do with black market sales of things they make to countries that the US does not want to have them., and lots of need for lawyers to deal with some of it. I know of one such situation but can’t give details.