@netstack's banner p

netstack

The horse embodies the wings a person feels inside.

10 followers   follows 3 users  
joined 2022 September 05 17:27:40 UTC

				

User ID: 647

netstack

The horse embodies the wings a person feels inside.

10 followers   follows 3 users   joined 2022 September 05 17:27:40 UTC

					

No bio...


					

User ID: 647

Dang. Doing your part to keep the English language alive and kicking.

Okay, there’s no way that’s a real word.

I’m not sure it did. See section 3. If those stats are right, the murder rate peaked four years before Bukele got the presidency, and three more years before he started imprisoning everyone.

Also, I don’t get the impression his campaign was actually focused on one weird trick. Running a general law & order message isn’t that weird.

By the same token, there’s no one weird trick to Sweden’s policy. It’s not like someone ran on a single issue of opening the gates. Liberal policy plus world events equaled a ton of migrants. Integrate over a decade or two to get the current totals. Or is there some tipping point I missed?

That’s a terrible criterion.

It works if there are spots you want occupied but they’re hard to find or reach. When travel involved a wagon train that described a lot of land. Today, it’s roughly none. The arable land is owned and farmed. The adequate pasture is owned and ranched. The mineral deposits are owned and mined.

Neoliberals would hate this criterion because it doesn’t get them cheap labor. Social conservatives because you’re actively encouraging foreign enclaves. Ethnonationalists because you’re benefiting a foreigner and not a native. Bleeding-heart liberals because you’ll generate lots of corpses. Libertarians…they might be up for it, actually, but I’m not sure they actually exist in the wild.

Airdropping migrants into the outback, Fortnite style, buys you nothing.

orientals

What are you talking about? I can’t think of any interpretation of this word that remotely describes “liberals.” Is it just for negative associations?

This is stupid.

It’s pretty dumb on the object level; I highly doubt that Orebro has a workable plan. Actually, I suspect they don’t even have a realistic model of their problem, but then, I don’t know the Swedish stats either.

It’s pointless on the political level, where repeating one party plank over and over again does not generally bring said plank about. The road to hell is paved with agitators certain their one weird trick would bring about the revolution clean energy a balanced budget ethnonationalism. Surely this time the people are crying out for someone to say the quiet part out loud!

And it’s embarrassing on a meta level, where boards like this will take any opportunity to root for a Great White Hope.

My own state of Texas has a recurring cast of separatists. In the 90s, it kind of centered around Civil War revanchism. More recently, they tried it in protest of the 2020 election. Running a fringe political movement is a way to feel important and connected. Maybe raise some funds while you’re at it. I’d be willing to bet Orebro is in this category: a vanity project picking some edgy positions to get attention. Whether or not it represents genuine believers, it is not a serious attempt to enact any policy.

With no particular knowledge, I’d guess the same thing that’s been happening for the last couple centuries. It had a whole subplot in the Spanish Civil War. It was a recurring theme in the Napoleonic wars, too. I can only assume it comes and goes with the capability of the Spanish state…

I don't know what this means, but it's provocative.

Given your long history of provocative one-liners, one day ban.

We ask that top-level submissions have more substance than this. No, copying the text of the article doesn’t count.

Do you have an opinion on the piece? A reason you think we’d find it interesting? Maybe a broader trend it’s supposed to represent?

You’ve lost me.

Liberalism says to go ahead and pursue your treasure, but don’t stomp on certain rights. If you want blood you’re supposed to invoke the greater social contract. It’s materialist without devolving into the Hobbesian state of nature.

Liberalism also allows replacing “treasure” with “virtues.” That’s your own business. Other people are not supposed to stomp on you for it. Again, competition without war.

I don’t see how this scheme constitutes a war on virtues. Not masculinity, not Christianity.

Okay, that’s a pretty silly excuse.

Paranoid conspiracy theories have got to be the worst form of recruitment for a research program.

Parts of the U.S. Government like the alien narrative as a cheap way to signal that you’re totally a radical free-thinker. You know, one who cares about what the people want. The current administration has selected really hard for a certain willingness to burn credibility for attention.

Professional scientists, who are not usually elected based on economic and social vibes, have different incentives.

If other governments are joining in on the fun, I haven’t really seen it.

Okay, we’ve been looking at the same quote. I agree that there was no ambiguity about him doing an extrapolation. I think the article was clear that Pearson took the most extreme assumption whenever possible. Not including any of those assumptions means that his original statement was pretty untrustworthy.

Unless I’m misreading this, the substack author had to reconstruct a method, since Pearson never explained his numbers publicly.

He was quoted in the report, which again didn’t lay out its calculation.

Oh, it totally is. But one that’s less personal.

Well, good on you, I guess. The Lowe report (and Lord Pearson’s initial bluster) come out looking miserably untrustworthy.

I can’t say I expected much from a substack titled “heretical insights,” but I was pleasantly surprised.

As an aside: I don’t think the specific numbers matter. The Catholic scandals took off because they involved positions of trust. The numbers were smaller but closer to home. A failure of utilitarianism, to be sure.

It’s resisted valiantly because it represents a vicious motte and bailey, where “related psychological differences” covers whatever one can get away with. Difference in preferences becomes difference in ability, which becomes difference in moral value, which becomes difference in rights. I am not exaggerating. The innate differences of men and women have been used to excuse systematic denial of women’s rights. Same for white vs. black.

you just have to have a position that isn’t on the side of racists.

This, but unironically. The merest suggestion of group differences attracts a cloud of more or less the worst (Internet) partisans you can imagine. Just ask Scott.

A lot of the originals were pretty sad excuses for comedy. There’s something to be said for slapping a fresh coat of irony on them. Maybe the next step is a Hollywood movie by a 20yo amateur.

On the other hand, I kept reading it as “ethnically modified,” which I suppose might have achieved the authors’ goals.

Also, I’m curious where the effective altruism crept in. You have a link to that one?

Okay, but what if the terms actually are materialist?

What you're seeing as war goals are more or less incidental, because liberalism does not particularly care about virtue. It will sometimes go to bat for a short list of inalienable rights. Outside of that, it is a materialist ideology, and competition is not war.

It quite directly did. Factories started to close the gap between men, women and children when it came to economic value.

That relative loss was completely outweighed by the explosion in total economic value that came from labor-saving machines. It still moved enormous numbers of people out of the house and into the factory. It still put any society which relied on unassisted manual labor at a massive disadvantage.

Is that not what we’ve been doing?

C.S. Lewis was wrong, then.

Technology has devalued a man’s labor. Handcrafting loses out to machine tooling. Conscript armies lose out to professionals with air support. Local farmers lose out to plantations in the third world.

There was and is no war. Liberalism’s love affair with the profit motive made it quicker to incorporate these changes in value. Our more authoritarian competitors either got with the program or, again, lost out.

Lots of things are occasionally negative-sum. I am not inclined to get rid of all of them.

But then, I might just be defensive about my own line of work.

DRL, a roguelike themed after Doom. Mechanics are pleasantly simple. No metaprogression outside of recording recipes. Perfect not-quite-mindless time killer with a number of secrets to find.

I think your model of these “coalitions” is wrong.

Single-issue voters join a coalition to buy support for their issue. In exchange, they’ve got to provide their support to other issues when those ones are relevant.

Yes, debating what qualifies as “relevant” makes up a substantial portion of internal politics. No, feminism does not automatically dominate every such debate within left-leaning organizations. Your outgroup is not homogenous.

Kimmel’s history on this particular show hasn’t been relevant. If it were, I’m sure people would come out of the woodwork to share unflattering clips and say how they always knew he was a boor, or whatever. Up until that point, they’re supposed to evaluate stuff on the more relevant issues, like “does he joke about the right people?” and “do people recognize the name?”

A digression: are you familiar with Texas AG Ken Paxton? Wife divorced him for repeated cheating. Just won the GOP primary for U.S. Senate against a 24-year incumbent.

Do you find it hard to see how evangelicals, a significant part of the Texas Republican coalition, could forgive him?

In a vacuum, I expect evangelicals would rather have had Paxton-but-faithful over Paxton-the-dirty-cheater. But they assessed his marriage status wasn’t the relevant bit, so they deferred to the name recognition and the Trump endorsement. This is business as usual in the awkward, messy process of forming a coalition.