100ProofTollBooth
Dumber than a man, but faster than a dog.
No bio...
User ID: 2039
100ProofTollBooth
Dumber than a man, but faster than a dog.
7hr ago
I'm getting a strong sense that poison is my best option here. I'll give the trap a day or two. I believe it is one single mouse, not multiple.
But then again .... poison.
100ProofTollBooth
Dumber than a man, but faster than a dog.
7hr ago
A-ha! My mistake for missing this angle. I was posting very early this morning due to some insomnia so my mind wasn't very sharp.
In the case you outlined, about these two monopolizing discourse within a group, my perspective would be to 100% not try to change the dynamic no matter what kind of social cache you have. Then, avoid hanging out with these people to the extent possible. If it's a work situation, I can understand that's difficult, but I feel it's the only option.
Let me re-use my "Lauren" example. Fudging her exact age a little to protect privacy, let's say Lauren is about 42 years old. She is divorced. She is on every dating app and none of her dates - ever - goes well. Or maybe the first one goes alright but by date three there are "red flags" everywhere. Would you be shocked - shocked - to learn that my opinion is that Lauren is the problem in these romantic trails to nowhere? Lauren has poor social skills and does not pick up on the clues people have been sending her for, probably, about 30 years. While this may make my tiny heart hurt a little, I am also experienced enough to know that trying to coach a full grown adult through basic social skills is the losingest of all propositions. If they haven't adjusted by now it can be a sign of actual autism or other such disorders but, far, far more likely it is a deep character flaw. Often times it is inherited. I wouldn't be surprised to learn that Lauren's mother was very similar and that, perhaps, her father (who I don't hear about) was out of the picture early.
Don't delude yourself into ubermensching. The other eight people in the group aren't going to thank you for your deft navigation of the conversation. They'll feel relieved in the moment and then forget all about it the second the conservation breaks up and the group members go about their day. If you're in a work situation and have to maintain some rapport and not be the weird guy who eats alone in the corner, I'd recommend turning into the "drive-by joke" guy. You see the conversation monopolizers doing their thing and the seal-clappers enduring it. Don't fully join the conversation. Instead, choose a moment to drop in - interrupting is fine - with a little humor. I don't know, something like, "I see Congress is in session. Very good." You'll figure it out. Then, you're still demonstrating that fellow-feeling my original comment touched on but without committing to this zero-win-probability endeavor.
100ProofTollBooth
Dumber than a man, but faster than a dog.
8hr ago
Parent comment. Didn't disagree with what you wrote.
Good contribution to the discussion, but the neighbor with a chainsaw story from the article is difficult.
1. He wasn't just wandering around with a chainsaw. The intent to cut branches was clear based on the shooter's wife's own testimony.
2. He had his eight year old son with him.
3. There seems to have been some level of pre-existing dispute over the property line.
The death is avoided easily by telling the guy "get off my lawn or I'm calling the cops." The article states that chainsaw man then walked toward the elderly shooter (who, by the way, retrieved his firearm before going outside to confront chainsaw man).
I don't know, we can quibble over facts and I'm not even saying that the elderly shooter should have lost his self-defense case. This just seems like an infinitely avoidable lethal interaction.
Edit: comment down thread did some digging. I now find this case to be cut and dry.
100ProofTollBooth
Dumber than a man, but faster than a dog.
15hr ago
Turning to some good news:
It’s easier than ever to kill someone in America and get away with it.
This is a WSJ article about the rise in justified homicides in the US in recent years. Much of it is about "Stand Your Ground Laws." I'd be interested to hear the thoughts of the more lawyer-brained Mottizens on those kind of laws and their proliferation over the past decade or so.
On the culture war angle, this article is maybe the starkest example of "erosion of trust in society" that I've come across. A few of the anecdotes are pretty hair raising. They're cherry picked, I know, but the idea that a kid loses his father over an argument about a a fence and a property line made me sad. The "road range" incident they cover in detail seems like it was unfortunate but when one guy levels a gun at another, there's only one reasonable reaction.
Violence must be tightly controlled for a society to function. This is something that's bone deep in humans. We've developed methods of conflict resolution that fall short of violence for our entire existence as a species. Even within the context of violence, there are various ways of controlling it. Duels and so forth. Even informal ones; basic Bro code dictates that when one guy falls down in a fight, the other one backs off.
But this article hints at the idea that people are zooming past any of that to full lethality. It's impossible to compile the stats to determine if that's actually the case or not, but the larger point remains; in a society with plunging basic trust, you're going to see levels of interpersonal violence spike. How should state laws governing violence respond to this? Stand Your Ground is something I generally still support, but my mind could be changed if simple Bad Neigbor fights end up with more orphans.
100ProofTollBooth
Dumber than a man, but faster than a dog.
15hr ago
There is a mouse in the house!
I've got a mouse prowling about my kitchen. I've purchased the no kill box trap thing. I plan on releasing the little guy about a block way in a small park. Knowing the cruel reality of the universe, he's probably dead by sundown at the hands jaws of an opportunistic black snake. I suppose I could look the other way and let him live in a climate controlled home and live off the fat scraps of my garbage. A little kindness towards a tiny creature in this cruel world.
Nah, but fuck that, rodents are pests and gross.
Question: Besides doing the usual check ups to try to determine how he got in, is there any strategy for preventing mouse infiltration permanently? I've seen some pellets and other scent oriented products that claim to repel mice. Do they work?
100ProofTollBooth
Dumber than a man, but faster than a dog.
15hr ago
Great take.
It's the ability to reason your way to judgment, or wisdom, not knowledge.
AI development is either going to be the Super Bowl for philosophers or their final leap into obscurity. Maybe both?
100ProofTollBooth
Dumber than a man, but faster than a dog.
15hr ago
I'll try a charitable steel man of the other side. Note, first, that I totally get what you're saying and 100% agree.
But, we also have to remember that the Motte is a community of Turbo Autists who like weird shit and want to talk about things. That's fucking fucked up, man.
But, anyways. The steelman that I can think of is something like the following; Small talk, which is most of conversation, isn't about the transmission of information at all. We already know this. But it is also not about the direct fellow feeling and a sense of connection. It is about the indirect conveyance that both parties "get" the other party and so can establish rapport, comfort, then trust and only after all of this will both parties maybe mutually agree to get into "deeper" conversations.
It's signalling all the way down, sure, but, recognizing this, it let's you be a better conversationalist.
Let's use an example. At one of my regular bars there's a woman, Lauren (not her real name). Lauren will give you a blow by blow of her day every time she sees you. She went to the store, gee prices are high!, in the parking lot, on the way out, a guy was driving aggressively and nearly slammed right into me! God, idiots in cars, right?!. I'll stop recounting the details here as I am sure this is already giving many people PTSD flashbacks to inescapable hour long conversations like this.
I don't care about Lauren's day. But I do care about Lauren. Through multiple interactions, I've come to find that Lauren is what I would call a basically good person (BGP). She hasn't ever thought deeply about a values system, metaphysics, or a general philosophy of life. But she takes care of her aging mother and is nice to people in that normie kind of way. Lauren's never going to be a close friend, but I wish her well.
So I make small talk with her. It's easy because I'm not really trying. When Lauren says, "Idiots in cars, right?!" I don't have to think of a Motte level reply. I say, "They seem to be everywhere" or "Imagine if everyone had to take driving tests once a year!" or, simply, "Oh, I know what you mean." (interestingly, a lot of the comments in this thread began with some version of that last one. Hmm).
And these little comments make Lauren "feel heard" as the kids say. Really, it means that Lauren feels like I care about her to some extent. Because I do. And I demonstrate that by following her flow of the conversation. If I didn't care about Lauren, I'd do something like adjust my fedora and state, "Akshually, the rate of accidents has been declining at 3.5% for two years now and ..." Which would demonstrate that I'm valuing pedantic "accuracy" above the early stages of casual, reciprocal comfort in a social setting. Or, I'd start replying with monosyllables and would reduce eye contact, and would shift my body position away from her, which would indicate I don't care about her at all.
But it's so hard to listen to! The inanity of it! Yes, I agree. So don't listen. Stop putting yourself through that. It's amazing how much people cue one another for reaction points. Big hang gestures and facial gestures, emphatic rises in volume, pregnant pauses and so forth. A lot of it is non-verbal, you just have to kind of watch their expression. And then there are, of course, the literal verbal cues; "Know what I am saying?", "Right?!" (appended anywhere), "Can you believe it?", "And I was like whhaaatt" and all of the unlimited rest of them. These are the weird conversational detritus that people accumulate over the years. They're space fillers, to be sure, but they're prompts; "This is the part, now, where I want you to emote with me so I can gauge if you "get" me." It is quite literally the same as waiting for the big green arrow to show up and click on it to acknowledge that the green arrow has shown up.
A quick side note: In one of my capital-N noticings, I've seen that one of the hallmarks of urban African-American language patterns is the near constant injection of "Know what I mean?" or, more colloquially, "Know what I'm saying" at the end of sentences. To me, this reflects a profound sense of interpersonal insecurity that can only be remedied by constantly checking in with the other person to re-confirm their general empathy.
Returning to the main topic, the failure mode of small talk isn't that it's uninteresting and boring. That's a feature, not a big. It's low effort for a reason, so that people can spend more time evaluating one another and signalling their reciprocal positive intent. When we get into those warm, sticky "deep conversations" (that definitely aren't mental masturbation) they flow so easily because we're actually 100% into them because it's safe to do so. We've already checked all of the comfort and safety boxes with the interlocutor so we don't have to spend that cognitive overload evaluating them. The structure of some of the best conversations I've had have been nothing more than these exact kind of dueling monologues you described. They just happened to occur with people I really trusted on topics that we shared a common interest in because we had discovered the shared interest via small talk.
So, all of this Steel manning is to say that I don't think what you saw is necessarily indicative of the Collapse Of Western Culture. I think it's people in a technology laden world doing their best to do what they've always done in conversation; fellow feeling, establish rapport, building relationships. That it is grating on you (and, frankly, most of us on the Motte) is to make a category error; you're looking for a conversation when, in fact, you're in the middle of a verbal game of Emote-With-Me.
100ProofTollBooth
Dumber than a man, but faster than a dog.
16hr ago
But was crypto at much risk of being regulated out of existence?
As a crypto purist, comments like this make me shake my head.
One of the core tenets of crypto is that it can't be regulated out of existence. To stop the transfer of bitcoin between parties, you'd have to shutdown the internet. And I don't mean firewalls or clever ways to knock down VPNs. I mean ripping up the sea cables and shooting down the satellites.
Permissionlessness is a feature, not a bug.
The threat that regulation poses is that it will dissuade people from using crypto which would then, perhaps, reduce the size of the network. Ultimately, if no one is using BitCoin for anything, it has no value (that's not a universally agreed upon point, but whatever). More to the point, however, I think that rubicon was passed once Bitcoin hit about $1000. Call it $10,000 to be safe. Millions of people are seriously using BitCoin and other crypto assets for real reasons all over the world and they won't stop.
100ProofTollBooth
Dumber than a man, but faster than a dog.
16hr ago
The final two paragraphs of your comment are close enough to some thoughts I've had swimming in my head for some time now. The real step-function in AI development will be something like a structured reasoning engine. Not a fact-checker. Just a 'thing' that can take the axioms and raw input data of an argument or even just a description and then build an auditable framework for how those inputs lead to a conclusion or output.
Using your Yankees example, this structured reasoning engine would read it, check that all of the basic quantitative numbers are valid, but then "reason" against a corpus of other baseball data to build out something like: Yankees hit lots of home runs in august --> home run hitting is good and important --> records are also important in baseball --> oh, we should highlight this home run record setting august for the yankees!.
You can see the flaw in that flow easily. The jump between "home runs and records are important" followed by the desperate need to "develop" a record which results in shoe-horning of significance to collective number of team home runs in a specific month. A prompt engineer could go back through the sequence and write in something like "annual home runs by single players are generally viewed as significant. Team level home runs are less important" or whatever opinion they have.
The "reasoning" engines that exist now aren't reasoning. They're just recursive loops of LLMs thinking about themselves. We've successfully created digital native neuroticism.
It's an interesting problem and balancing act. The power of LLMs is that their structure isn't exactly deterministic. Yet, we would love a way to create a kind of "synthetic determinism" via an auditable and repeatable structure. If we go to far in that direction, however, we're just getting back to traditional programming paradigms (functional, object oriented, whatever) and we lose all of the flexibility and non-deterministic benefits of LLMs. Look at some of the leaked system prompts. They're these 40,000 word markdown files with repetitive declarative sentences designed to make sure the LLM stays in its lane.
100ProofTollBooth
Dumber than a man, but faster than a dog.
16hr ago
This is conspiracy level thinking. When you say Trump doesn't have "power over" the MIC, what do you mean?
Budgets, which pretty much everything is down stream of, are firmly the responsibility of congress.
Military operations, short of a declaration of war, are 100% an executive branch function with WIDE latitude. Remember, the President is the commander in Chief.
But I feel like what you're trying to hint at is a shady world of lobbyists and backroom deals and executives at Lockheed etc. If this is what you mean a) say it and b) provide some evidence. Because the very, very sad truth of the matter is that most of the companies within the "military industrial complex" are welfare-parasite companies that are reflections of growth (or decline) in Congressional Budgets. The most recent CEO of Raytheon was literally trained as an accountant. These people aren't out there moving and shaking, they're inside (indoor kids) who can stomach the tedium of working budgetary processes and Pentagon PPBE processes over decades. In terms of FMS (Foreign Military Sales), that process is mostly about convincing the State Department that you aren't exporting anything particularly advantageous (the US doesn't let the really good stuff go overseas), and doing all of the paperwork that says your sales team wasn't trying to bribe the foreign government*.
On the Ukraine specific issue, it's hilarious to think that the big players in the MIC really care about arms deals there. Ukraine is dead fucking broke. The US assistance to them, although not insignificant, is not the prize pie for MIC. They're after the multi-decade long domestic deals. The F-35 program, over its entire lifetime, will bring in revenue for Lockheed in excess of $1 trillion. The ground based updates to the Nuclear Triad will get Northrop half a trillion. According to the State Department from this March total US assistance to Ukraine has been about $70bn all in from the start of the war. But wait! that's mostly direct transfers of equipment - i.e. things that the US already purchased (in budgets!) years prior. It's not like that was a $70bn check to Ukraine or even $70bn of new military purchases.
That number is less than $5bn (same link). That's the Foreign Military Financing (FMF) number. That is the "help Ukraine pay for stuff" budget. $5bn isn't anything to sneeze at but you have to think - like the MIC does - in terms of ROI and opportunity cost. Do I, Lockheed / Northrop / Raytheon / General Dynamics et al., really care want to do all of the extra and politically fraught work of supplying to Ukraine for a share of $5bn when I can just make more patriot missiles for the Army at home and collect $2.7 bn dollars.
There are several good reasons to not support supporting Ukraine. There's a bunch of threads here on that topic. I'm not arguing that. I'm arguing this idea that the MIC "loves war" because it means sales go up and that, furthermore, they're so gifted as to be able to manipulate a whole host of world leaders.
That's not the case. The MIC's wet dream are a bunch of hyper expensive programs, run mostly domestically, that go nowhere. Government IT, for instance, is, annually, on the order of $100 bn. Government IT is also were money goes to commit suicide because it's all horrific mismanagement of dated computer systems that provide no value to the taxpayer but are mandated by Congressional budgets. See where we end back up at? Budgets. American, Congressionally approved budgets. That's where the MIC spends most of its energy. Budgets. And it isn't sexy hollywood lobbying. There are no steak dinners, cigars, and cognac with Senators who give you a wink and a nod so long as you donate to their campaign. No, it's a lot of repetitive zoom calls and in person meetings with the Budgeteers at the Pentagon and staff on Capitol Hill and then hoping that the paperwork shuffle ends up with a single number next to your Program Element Number going up.
On FMS bribery, I should do an effort post but it would be too specific to not be doxx bait. The long and short of it is that every American arms company knows that for close to all foreign governments, bribery is required for a deal to go through. For the Europeans its a lot of soft bribery - fancy dinners, sales meetings at resorts, whatever. All of this can actually get written off totally legally. For those countries with less of a Western sensibility, however, bags of cash, coke, and hookers are often part of the deal. With the State Department going over everything with a fine toothed comb, however, no American firm is going to take a chance. What exists, then, is an actual shadowy network of lawyers and "consultants" based out of places like Switzerland, Barbados, and the like who provide "advisory" services to the American firms, for a fee, and then act as a liaison to the foreign government.
You might think "oh, so it's just pass through bribery!" But, no. There's actually a tremendous amount of risk here. The American firm can't simply say to a foreign government "Hey, here's a bunch of money to help us get the contract. But, it's going to come from Shady-Uncle-Hans over here." That's transparent. The American firms have to have real not just plausible deniability of knowledge of any illegal activities. So, they hire these "consultants" and the consultants go, of their own accord, to the foreign government parties and do whatever they think needs to be done. Then, they send a bill for their service fee to the American firms.
In effect, the American firms are pushing money into a black box and hoping that the magic bribery fairies are on their side. This is often not the case. Anecdotes are crazy - literally comic book levels of fraud. There's a lot of middle manning and skimming off the top. Over promising and then disappearing late in deals etc. Ultimately, the American firms who do FMS hate these people and see them only as a necessary overhead expense. They prefer to work directly with a non "bribe me" government to work out actually good security deals.
But, again, what the MIC firms really want is domestic program dollars. The largest arms deal in history was with the Saudis at $142 bn. That's big money, for sure. But there's no guarantee that it all gets paid out, that there aren't weird changes to the contract, or that it could grow to, I don't know, $1 trillion. In the domestic market, the government always pays (unless you really fuck up), if the contract does change it will do so slowly and, most of the time, it's an opportunity for the contract to charge more and, finally, if it's a big enough program in enough congressional districts it can literally turn into $1 trillion over the course of several decades.
100ProofTollBooth
Dumber than a man, but faster than a dog.
5d ago
"Since you keep identifying "me" as "you" would it be fair to say I'm not 5'9""
100ProofTollBooth
Dumber than a man, but faster than a dog.
5d ago
This comment is better than my original post by leap and bounds. Thank you.
I'll do my best to offer a similarly effortful response.
On David French
You asked;
What makes you think that's a fair or charitable description of his position? If you asked French himself, do you think that's the position he would advocate for?
I do think that, if asked, French would say that liberalism from about JFK to George H.W. Bush was "working." He'd crow about this or that policy and perhaps bemoan the decline of mainstream church attendance more than your average political commentator, but the conclusion would be a general approval that "the liberalism of my youth" worked in terms of resolving political arguments and was based on "shared values." He would point to Trump / MAGA, wokeism, an the progressive left of today as obvious evidence that we're so much worse off and that we need to go back to suit-and-tie, groovy Ivy League liberalism.
As others have pointed out, going back is impossible, so French's remedy is nonsensical. I'd take it a step further. French's appreciation of the liberalism of yesteryer is itself not only misguided but fails to appreciate the system that led us to our current state of affairs. To me, it's like saying "Man, I know I'm an alcoholic. I wish I could just go back to my late 20s and early 30s when I was drinking every day and nothing was wrong!" Rewinding the tape doesn't mean we get to change how the movie unfolds.
On The Rage Against 20th Century Liberalism
I agree with your critiques of Ahmari and Drehrer. In a previous post I even presaged some of the same things you said about Drehrer. I cited Ahmari 1) because I was having a little fun with the original post (always try to!) and 2) The (broadly inclusive) New Right is not yet at the point of offering real solutions, but has done a good job of pointing at the problem. The most comprehensive works on it are what Deneen has written and the criminally underreported The Age of Entitlement by Christopher Caldwell. The latter does the most comprehensive breakdown of how and why the Baby Boomers are not only greedy etc. but have an incoherent political worldview which gives you things like a real estate hustler from Queens being the champion of the West Virginia coal miner, and trans twelve year olds as the rallying cry of retired Berkeley-grad grandmas. Ahmari's hyperbolic critiques of French - flawed as they are - are still a principled expression of frustration. I'm not electing him to be the intellectual core of the New Right, but I'll take him over the weird post-post-post-irony nonsense of Nick Fuentes and your average "Republican Group Chat" Z-llenial. 6 7? 6 7? Am I doing this Right?
On a Solution
There's not yet an emerging consensus for "wat do?" on the new right. Right now, this is largely due to the fact that Trump and MAGA take all the air out of the room and the various sub-factions (Deneenists, Frenchists, Ahmarists, etc.) are trying to figure out how to square-peg-that-round-hole to ride MAGA coattails after the departure of Trump or, in the case of French, decamp entirely to a kind of conservo-liberalist island. I think we can, however, point to some major elements that will, in some way, be foundational parts of whatever a post-Trump right looks like.
-
Techno-industrialist revival. Vance (noted Thiel acolyte) being VP solidified this for me. If, however, you spend the time to go through the list of folks who ended up in the Trump Admin after 2024 (and I mean folks way, way down the latter. Not secretary level, but like "deputy under other whatever for x") you'll see lots of folks with obvious connections back to the Silicon Valley right - Palantir and Anduril types being significantly represented. Also, a LOT of GWOT veterans (specifically special operations) who then picked up MBAs a Stanford / Harvard. These people are in the places they need to be to truly redirect the industrial policy based of America to something that is a) responsive to a kinetic event with China and b) poised to produce a much higher volume of physical goods instead of software, IP, and financialized products. Now, will they be successful? Totally different question, totally different post.
-
Pro-natalism. Strong pro-natalism. Again, made obvious with the Vance pick, but also supported all over the place by even totally secular or atheist folks who can do the simple math of demographics are realize there aren't enough Americans. With immigration being what it is because of what it was under, mostly, Biden, no one on the right is going to be making the argument that we can solve the demographic shift by importing people.
-
Strong traditional gender identities. Hanania, I believe, had a recent article on observations about hanging out with liberal vs conservative women in DC. One of the major takeaways was that conservative women dress ... women-ly. Skirts, heels, tight tops with low necklines, makeup, jewelry. Liberal women wear flats, oversized blazers, those weird big-box pants, little to zero makeup, subdued hairstyles. On the other side of the coin, half of the MAGA appeal (at least) is that men can and do men stuff. There's a vaguely military aesthetic, but mostly it's about male coded activities; lifting, combat sports, general bro'ing out. This is part of the reason, I think, Trump picked up more male latino and black votes in 2024. The key here, however, is that the New Right - beyond the heavily religious new right of TradCaths etc. - isn't going to ask women to completely go back to being SAHMs. Without a strong religious fealty, women today, even extremely and truthfully conservative ones, cannot commit the social suicide of actually "only" being a Mom. Even if it isn't traditional careerism, they'll want to be out of the house a lot. Here is not the place to comment on why that is or if its good. All I'm saying, in this context, is that The New Right will be totally fine with women doing whatever they want, so long as they do it as very obviously women.
** On Getting There **
So let's say I'm right and the three points above are the only "reliable" proto-planks of a New Right platform post Trump. How do we actually get there?
That's the danger. There's no real consensus. It's all being held together by the force of personality that is Donald Trump. Once he is off the stage (and, no, he cannot be some sort of shadow president following a potential Vance win in 2028), there's going to be some kind of War of The Roses. I put money on the Thiel people just because they run real deep, have lots of money, and aren't reflexively anti-intellectual and, frankly, bizarre, the way the OG Steve Bannon and current Stephen Miller wings are. The Trump children will have a lot of influence and I think it's key to remember that Barron Trump was and is, allegedly, the social media guru within the White House.
The other option, of course, is that the Democrats win in 2028. This would require them to not fuck up an election. Color be doubtful. If a compromise Dem candidate wins -- let's just say Mayor Pete, even though that is impossible - the David French's of the world will rejoice. But nothing will happen and nothing will get done. You'll have some sort of MAGA redux in 2032. The democrats need to violently eject the progressive part of their party to remain relevant - but they won't do that. I truly am utterly perplexed by this.
** My Very Online Solution **
I'll spare you a full blueprint, because I don't have one, but the crux of it, specifically, gets down to repealing the Civil Rights Act. Look at it's legislative history and you'll see how horrifically it's morphed over time to become a orwellian "general fairness" law that is close to nonsense and so can be weaponized at will. Of course, if any Senator apposes appealing it, they're walking directly into the woodchipper of "the racisms!"
Without a CRA, identity politics and the politics of resentment become electoral losers because you can no longer make the case to specific voting demographics that you'll be able to help them specifically. You wouldn't be able to. Politicians would have to, instead, make the case that their policies have the best chance of being broadly beneficial. I think you might even see a general decline in gerrymandering.
And this is where I run out of steam. I hope this response to your excellent comment was at least a C-.
100ProofTollBooth
Dumber than a man, but faster than a dog.
6d ago
(BTW, if you mean the former Harvard-associated women's college, it's Radcliffe. Ratcliffe is the CIA director and doesn't give degrees, at least not degrees you're allowed to talk about)
Thanks. Fixed.
LOL, this period didn't exist.
Exactly! But there is a weird BoomerCon rose-colored-glasses rembrance of the 1980s nonetheless.
Directly related to one of the top line comments from last week is an opinion piece by David French - non-paywalled link.
Half of it is snark. The title and lede are designed to get the pearls clutched. A paragraph later, French gives up the sarcasm and goes on at length about how "akshually, Men can be real meanies!"
The complete dodge of any real intellectual engagement with the original Helen Andrews piece is, sadly, totally on brand for what passes as journalistic "editorials" these days. Sohrab Amari previously called out French for being a conserva-cuck. His conclusions remain unchallenged.
And that's the culture war angle I'm actually interested in. The latest battles in the Gender War were pretty well covered in the thread from last week (linked above). Any new insights are welcome on that front, however, my focus is on what I see as an intra-male conflict between boomer conservatives and the Young Right. Now that I think about it, this also links to the "Nasty Republican Group Chat" thread. I am too lazy, now, to link to it.
David French, and many boomer conservatives like him, despised Trump all the way back in 2016 and haven't changed their tune one bit. They do hold some bedrock right/conservative views; taxes shouldn't be so high, gun rights (to an extent), free speech even if it makes people feel icky, pro defense in a broad yet milquetoast sort of way. I suppose they are, at their most "extreme", still committed neo-cons of the Bush 2 era.
And they're all still living in The Matrix. They all believe that we can go back to that perfect little period when ole Ronny was in the White House and everyone was getting rich and you could come home to a steak dinner with the little lady - who, of course, had a degree from Radcliffe and was totally smart and independent but just so happened to truly want to be a stay at home mom. The insane conceit of the BoomerCons is that their worldview rests on a stone foundation of traditionalism establish, through blood, but the Greatest Generation. Where the BoomerCon looks at women in the military without too much worry - well, maybe not in the infantry - the Greatest Generation Grandpa laughs, saying, "I can't imagine a broad landing in Normandy". Where the BoomerCon rolls his eyes at political correctness yet makes sure to use the appropriate terminology ("Dude, Chinaman is not the appropriate nomenclature"), the Greatest Generation Grandpa, that one Thanksgiving, "couldn't believe the number of Spaniards at the grocery store!". Where the BoomerCon pinched his nose during the 2008 bank bailouts - "It's a systemic issue, we have to act!", the Greatest Generation Grandpa laughs "Oh, The Bank lost all your money?! Yeah, I remember the 30s!"
The Young Right is a kind of double-bounced mirror image if the Greatest Generation in terms of their hard-bitten suspicion of the world. Coming of age in the late 2000s, they saw a financial collapse in the middle of an expeditionary war of questionable strategic import. The young men, especially, then had their place in society not changed but neutered starting in about 2013 (the first "cultural appropriation" fracas at Yale). On a larger scale, any economically aware young person sees how the Boomers have systematically rigged the system against them; social security, Medicare/aid, and the home mortgage ponzi scheme. It's intergenerational theft plain and simple.
But the David French's of the world want to, you know, guys, c'mon, pump the breaks. Turn down the temperature. Feminization of American is totally fine...actually, let me tell you about the summer of 1969, oh man, I was at this Grateful Dead show and....
But there is no going back to that. The damage is done and now it's a rebuilding effort in the middle of a hot (culture) war.
100ProofTollBooth
Dumber than a man, but faster than a dog.
9d ago
On Sunday evening, I watched Southern Comfort.
Which is a film about how @hydroacetylene spends his weekends.
No, seriously - Louisiana Nat'l Guard in the 1980s. This film is, essentially, an attempt to re-make Deliverance with, I guess, a more military patina. It doesn't do a great job and mostly survives on a sloppy thriller plot and some competent to good performances by a very young Powers Boothe and Keith Carradine.
It isn't a great film, but it is an okay-to-good film that wants to be great.
So, my low stakes question for Sunday is: What are other films that are good, not great, but really want to be great?
100ProofTollBooth
Dumber than a man, but faster than a dog.
13d ago
I feel like you're being intentionally sarcastic, snarky, and passive-aggressive. If I am wrong, please forgive me.
If I'm right, you're a coward. Fuck you.
100ProofTollBooth
Dumber than a man, but faster than a dog.
13d ago
This is a good point. Valuation voodoo can actually lead to meaningful damage when a bubble pops because it isn't an actual representation of cash flow.
100ProofTollBooth
Dumber than a man, but faster than a dog.
13d ago
"That's a no from me, dawg" as the great bard of our time, Randy Jackson, would say.
You actually did the article author a big favor with your down select of sections. Buried in a lot of emotionality are some interesting economic and geopolitical points for debate.
But so much of the article is full of these kind of things:
Disrupt the disruptors. Boycott companies that don't demonstrate integrity. The future isn't lost yet, we can still create the world we deserve.
How can a company "demonstrate integrity?" This is the same wishy-washy style assertion as "be an ally" or "speak truth to power." It's just so sophomoric.
If I have to pick just one cognitive and logical failing from the article, it directly falls into the fundamental attribution error trap multiple times:
These people think AI is the last thing humans will invent
and
The people in power aren't willing to risk that outcome, and they've been bewitched by the idea of being the only ones to have superintelligence, so they're willing to go all-in to win big and fast.
and
Remember that these people place incredible value on being the first to superintelligence
and
The dynamic in the valley is that the people at the top know the game already, and they intend to exploit it to its fullest
Then you also have these kind of whoppers:
I wouldn't be surprised if Larry Ellison already has a contract signed in blood for this stashed away somewhere to whip out once he knows he can get away with implementing it.
and, in the "conclusion."
We can fight back though, we already have the weapon of our liberation: the power of the purse. You're not powerless. Boycott campaigns forced Disney to walk back Jimmy Kimmel's suspension, that was our power in action. If you care about a just world, don't do business with unethical companies. Demand that the titans of tech change, and if they don't, stop feeding them your dollars.
Then, there's the truly tinfoil hat level of conspiracy thinking:
They've been gutting the IRS and talking about reforming the tax code for a long time, but the plan I see them positioning for is sinister. By raising the nominal tax rate at the same time that they reform the tax code, they can engineer in quasi-legal loopholes that the wealthy can take advantage of by design, probably involving digital coins. They get good talking points ("time to tighten our collective belts for the good of the nation," etc) while letting their friends dodge most real responsibility.
Team Trump (which is really being controlled by the Silicon Valley oligarchs) is going to revamp the IRS in order to support a crypto investment scheme? They're going to pull this off under the radar yet in plain sight. And the tens of thousands of bureaucrats at the IRS, FTC, SEC etc. that would need to be "in" on this scheme are just going to be unaware of it happening? Or they are in on it? And what about when the Big Banks get wind of this? I though they controlled Congress. No, wait, that's Silicon Valley. Or Big Oil. No, I meant Big Pharma.
While above the median level of "orange man bad / big tech bad", it isn't much above that level. I don't know what this authors politics are and, unlike him, I will not presume to know his personal cognitive state or full internal belief and value structure.
On a content only level, I look at this as another flavor of AI doomerism. This isn't paperclip machine doomerism, this is economic theory doomerism. "We've put so much money into AI that it has to work out!" But money doesn't just disappear if a business fails. If the business burnt through all their money, it's probably bad for that businesses' particular investors, but it also means that money went somewhere - other vendors, other businesses. The market moves the money the best it can. Of course I'll admit that this isn't necessarily a great outcome. It's not as if bubbles and over investment are good things in the long run --- right?. Regardless, while growth may flatline (which is bad) the money is still moving. Why 2008 was so frightening was because it looked like money might actually stop moving. A system level credit crunch means that even really good and obvious investments or simple spending can't happen because of a lack of liquidity.
But back to the main economic point; are we so "all in" on AI that if it "fails to deliver" we're 100% giga-fucked? Sure, if we keep all of these definitions slippery and uncertain, why not. On the "failure to deliver" point, I don't see any real rubric or threshold from the author beyond "you better hope and pray that AI delivers a magical transformation." Okay, so we need the ROI on AI to be approximately one Abracadabra. Got it. If we don't get to this magical level of returns, what, exactly, happens? All the BigAI firms go insolvent overnight. Locked out employees, broken keycards. And the new datacenters and chip fabs just immediately fall into a state of disrepair and end up looking like the steel mills outside of Youngstown, Ohio? Again, I'll be charitable here and say that if the BigAi bubble bursts hard, it probably is recession time for a while. But the money doesn't evaporate and all of the human capital doesn't commit suicide. There is a VERY direct line to be drawn from the dot com bubble of late 90s to early 2000s all the way to the rocketship of silicon valley beginning in .... 2009? Or earlier? Google IPO'ed in 2004 IIRC.
Doomerism isn't better than irrational exuberance just because it is the inverse. This is the cowardice of cynicism and pessimism more generally. "I hope I'm wrong but I'm probably not (unsaid: because I'm just so dang smart!)" isn't the flex people think it is. You're prognosticating a negative outcome probably as means to do some preemptive emotional self-satisfaction. I'm not against hearing about downsides to AI. In fact, I've posted about them myself at least two times. All I'm looking for is a cogent enough argument on the hows of Things Falling Apart.
100ProofTollBooth
Dumber than a man, but faster than a dog.
20d ago
This is a better take on the Palisades fire than my take.
And my general point still stands.
100ProofTollBooth
Dumber than a man, but faster than a dog.
20d ago
I appreciate you.
100ProofTollBooth
Dumber than a man, but faster than a dog.
20d ago
(also @sarker and @JarJarJedi)
Here's a post from Catholic Answers that is already more fleshed out than what I could scribble into a comment: LINK
@Hoffmeister25, specifically:
I think there are benefits to trying to check my own animal instincts by weighing them against the example of Christ-like charity and temperance
We'll probably just hard disagree here, but there is no "weigh against." It isn't okay to be just the right amount of selfish. In the Imitation of Christ, we continually make hard attempts towards sanctification. We can make progress but will always fall short of his perfect example. That's the inevitability of sin. The good news (Good News?) is that through grace we can be forgiven our inevitable sins. But they remain sins nonetheless. I get worried when I see things like your phrasing "weighing against" -- because this can easily become an obstinate habit towards sin paired with a self-forgiveness.
100ProofTollBooth
Dumber than a man, but faster than a dog.
20d ago
What actual bad effects would that have on my life?
Probably very little to none, as you've stated before.
The cost would be eternal damnation in the afterlife. Pascal will take your bet, and I'll offer him some default swaps on the side.
Choosing to get baptized into a transcendental faith, especially (a nominally) Christian one, after or because of creating a list of temporal pros and cons is wildly contrary to the faith itself. The whole point is to "hate the world" and constantly seek to prepare for the afterlife.
I don't know enough about Mormon theology to offer any specific guidance or raise any ideas for you here. Personally, I consider it to be basically a multilevel marketing cult.
100ProofTollBooth
Dumber than a man, but faster than a dog.
20d ago
Totally agree with this. And young men taking risks is, frankly, how society moves forwards with new discovery.
Right now, however, young men are being told to take zero risk, to artificially castrate themselves, and to enjoy doing it.
Thanks for the effortful reply.
Not only the walking up, but he also has a Hollywood level of "badass walking away badass-edly" after the shooting.
Disagree, but in the direction, I think, you would agree with. Big dude comes over and the first thing he does is hard two hand shove. That's straight up an initiation of a fight with no pretense. If I'm on my ass after that and I have a pistol on me, I'm reaching, pulling, and firing.
If the big guy comes over, starts talking shit, and there's a kind of mutual combat tussle that ends up with the shooter on the ground then, I would agree, it's more of a grey area.
Completely agree. I'm as pro-gun as they come and believe in the adage of an armed populace is a polite populace.
Thank you for validating my travel paranoia. I had to visit San Francisco, of all places, for work earlier in the year. I spent the entire plane ride obsessing over this idea that I was going to have to punch out a fentanyl zombie trying to rob me, only to have a blue hair they-them'er sentence me to thirty years of critical re-education for not displaying enough learned-experience-empathy.
More options
Context Copy link