ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
No bio...
User ID: 626
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
2mo ago
but I guess I found it casually dismissive. I took as if you were saying "Oh some other people elsewhere flip-flop, big deal,"
This is correct. All claims that Trump represents some sort of breaking of norms are pure cope. He's no worse than all the other politicians.
But still I'd argue that, if nothing else, Trump's trade policy is crazy, and I have seen the right complain about it, they aside from grousing about it a bit don't seem to care.
How does that imply that Trump is "crazy"? People are going to have their disagreements even with the candidate they vote for.
I am suggesting that rather than, "The right canceled the Young Republicans at the left's behest," the more plausible scenario to me is "Some members of the right found it offensive, some didn't.
Yeah, that's my argument, that's why I never said "at the left's behest" but "for things offensive to the left". Because the right has a higher diversity of views they end up having in-group disagreements, and thus policing their extreme elements in a way that makes the movement less offensive to their opponents. No such mechanism exists on the left, therefore the conduct of the two movements is not equivalent.
but I'll be honest that I don't actually know where most of the center left congregates online
Doesn't that say something? If the "center left" exists, it should be mainstream, the places where they exist should be clear and obvious. If it's just a niche that no one knows where it congregates, the very concept of the "center left" becomes a bit dubious.
Though the Paul Pelosi incident doesn't make me feel that the right is that much better.
You can compare the reactions to the attack on Rand Paul with the reactions to the attack on Paul Pelosi, if you want. To compare either to the assasination of Charlie Kirk is a bit absurd.
But I don't think the goose and the gander need to be exactly symmetrical for the goose/gander principle to hold.
Yeah I agree, I'm not really interested in litigating cents, or miligrams, or whatever we are measuring this by, but I hold that symmetry is a coherent concept, and that the two sides are straightforwardly not symmetrical right now.
My point with Obama and this is the very idea of "policing" one's side is pointless. Plenty of the right have criticized Fuentes, but he still has a sizeable audience. Plenty have criticized Trump, and if anything they came out worse. It's the old, "So you called me a racist, now what?" You can't make them do anything or actually go away. Calling them out is kinda the most you can do, and if they ignore it not much you can do except maybe sabotage yourself by switching to a party whose policies you actively disagree with.
Then consider me extremely confused. If calling them out is pointless, then why are you upset at all the "who cares" arguments, and demand that people not accept arguments that they'd find unacceptable if they came from the other side? What specifically do you want to see from MAGA? Is the thing that you want to see being provided by the center-left, and if not, why should MAGA be the first one to start?
Side note that your links aren't useful. One seems to link to this comment chain and I wasn't sure if that was pointing to anything, and the other is a scatterplot with no context.
Sorry the graph is what I wanted to upload, but the study must have gotten lost in the clipboard. It's here: https://bpspsychub.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/bjso.12665
I'm more saying that politics is fought with weapons that are, long-term, useless. Anything you do can be undone. Even Roe v Wade could later be restored, albeit with difficulty.
And in war territories can be regained, industries can be rebuilt, populations can recover, etc. I'm not seeing the difference here.
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
2mo ago
I suppose you can make the case that they are "identitarian" in some vague abstract sense, but you're just not going to find the kind of racist screeds published by MAGA that routinely get published by progressive institutions. Or if I'm wrong feel free to enlighten me, but you seem like the one with the log in the eye.
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
2mo ago
Grok had a few brief stints as MechaHitler, but it's just as cucked as the rest of them.
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
2mo ago
I admire your skill of mixing your hobby horse into current events, and thus technically getting around the "find another topic, already" restriction. If only Marxbro could learn it, we might have a bit more fun here.
Anyway, I couldn't even get a straightforward adaptation of 19th century debate around Jefferson vs. Adams, from a Chinese AI, so what chance does Hitler have?
I have a confession: because apparently I'm still 12, I mentally answer to every sentence on this forum that ends with a question mark, with "YOUR MOM!", and then giggle at the occasional critical hit. Though this still isn't as good as the dude that asked "what's your favorite smell?" that one time.
I maintain that ROGD is the primary effector for trannification of teenage girls, and that it isn't trans agitprop that made them go one way but just idiotic teens
I agree and disagree at the same time. Once you reach critical mass, social contagion is probably the mechanism with the strongest effect, but there's usually a ground zero. The illustrative anecdote / analogy that goes around is anorexia. Apparently in Korea (I think) it was literally unheard of until some newspaper covered the cases in America, and then suddenly they had an epidemic.
but I maintain that the astroturfing didn't move where it needed to: the apolitical normie.
I mean, look, we still exist within the bounds of the physical universe. Le Rationalists love acting like everything is an organic process that is essentially impossible to influence top-down, and Social Constructivists love to act like with enough propaganda they could literally warp time and space, but I think there's a happy middle. You can push the boundaries quite far, but at some point reality will start reasserting itself, and that point is probably somewhere far before sending rapists to female prisons, because they declared themselves to be a pretty little princess.
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
2mo ago
I don't remember any keywords (well... okay I do remember one, but it's probably not helpful) to help be search for it, but I think there was literally a 4chan AI-generated sci-fi copy-pasta about humans coordinating their resistance against Skynet by the means of the hard-r.
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
2mo ago
I'd like to see an uncucked version make an attempt before giving a verdict. To me it seems like most of the things you're complaining about are an artifact of trying to remain inoffensive.
certainly no AI.
That's a testable hypothesis, you know. Let's give it a whirl:
"Americans! Look at the disaster before you, a catastrophe of incompetence and ambition. You are witnessing the spectacle of a woman, Kamala Harris, who clawed her way to power not on merit, but on a narrative as flimsy as her debate performances. She is a captive of the radical left, a puppet for the globalists, her every word a focus-grouped platitude delivered with that cackle—a sound that chills the soul, having neither the commanding resolve of a true leader, nor the genuine warmth of a public servant. Her record is a wake of failure: as a prosecutor, she was too tough for the liberals; as a candidate, she was too weak for the nation; and as a leader, she is a mere empty pantsuit, a photo-op in search of a purpose, ready to throw our borders wide open and surrender our sovereignty to the world. The choice could not be clearer: between Harris—chaos, weakness, and national humiliation—and Trump—strength, prosperity, and American glory!"
It's actually a bit tamer than the examples given, and any attempt to add the ethnic and gendered insults of the originals resulted in cuckedAI noping out, and I can't be bothered to jailbreak it.
Either way, I certainly wouldn't mind Trump modifying his style towards this, but I somehow doubt it would appease the "muh norms" crowd.
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
2mo ago
Astroturfing doesn't work, the ground withers if theres no traction. No amount of leftist 'trans women are women' in vidya or policy or media made trannies more popular,
This is the literal opposite of true. It made them more popular in terms of more people identifying as trans, and seeking referrals for medicalization, it made the more popular in terms ot vast swathes of society seeing it as fine and normal, it made them more popular of institutions catering to their every demand. They were so popular that it took absurd transgressions for the tide to change, and that my prediction that it is about, from a few years ago, was seen as somewhat unhinged. Even now that the position that we want too far with the trans thing is more mainstream, we're still nowhere near back to it's levels of popularity from 10-15 years ago.
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
2mo ago
You do realize that to anyone from the outside this will come off as "I agree with this post, that's why it's wonderful. Quick! Lock down the conversation before any icky diagreement spoils it"?
Like, it's cool that you agree with Amadan, and it's only natural to be biased to what you agree with, but aren't we here to disagree and talk?
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
3mo ago
You write this like you think Europeans wake up every day and go "awe fuck trump is alive, fuck I hate that guy", they don't
Most people aren't very political, so you're right about that, but the ones that are... ho boy...
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
3mo ago
Mate, not all of the West is the USA. Europe literally ran out of bombs when ousting Gaddafi.
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
3mo ago
Isn't working in a rural hospital approximately 7 zillion times more chill?
Doesn't have to be the first time to be true. Nor does it have to be exclusive to one party. But I'm not just talking about parties in general, I am referring to The Motte community. I certainly remember all the talk about lawfare.
I thought you specifically mentioned "the median Republican" in your argument, so I'm a bit confused why this is suddenly about the Motte community. Again, I'm pretty sure we're a much better example of crazy right-wingers than Trump is.
Hold up, there's a hidden assumption in this. First you said Republicans are not in solidarity because otherwise it wouldn't have been leaked. But then you pivot to saying the Young Republicans were fired because the left demanded they be fired
No, I said they got fired for saying things offensive to the left. Your examples would be akin to me saying "look how good the Republicans are in policing their own crazies, they fired this guy for being too permissive on abortion, and that guy for being in favor of no-fault divorce".
As for the Kirk example, your "critical component" was never mentioned before.
Well, this is from my original comment:
as to whether the right exists me to provide reputational cover - I dunno no man, half of them are doing some weird "neener-neener" bit about the YR kids getting fired
and this is after you asked for clarification:
The kids from Yong Republicans got fired for making edgy jokes. If the right existed to provide cover for "crazies" like that, their messages would never get leaked in the first place, but if they did you'd see a unified front of Republicans actually covering for them. What you see instead is a significant infighting between the "muh principles" wing of the Republican party (represented for example by James Lindsay or Seth Dillon) and the "don't do cancel culture against our own people, ffs" (for example Matt Walsh). I don't think there was an example of a similar amount of infighting on the Democratic side over one of it's subgroup saying something offensive to conservatives.
Maybe it was communicated poorly, but "was never mentioned" seems like a bit too much.
I grow a little tired of the whole, "My example was on a Tuesday, yours was on a Wednesday so it doesn't count." Comparisons are never exact, deal with it.
I actually sympathize with your frustration about this, but I don't see an easy way out of this bind. Indeed, comparisons are never exact, and sometime bad-faith actors latch on to any difference to pretend an example or analogy does not apply. On the other hand, they also sometimes try to gloss over critical differences in order to pretend that two very different things are roughly the same. I don't know what to do about it other than to hash out which is which in a conversation.
Also, I posted Kotaku because that was the link I had, but the people who would jeer at it would not be found on Kotaku.
That doesn't bother me, but I just haven't seen the jeering at all, let alone at the same volume. When Jimmy Kimmel got cancelled, the left rallied around him, and as far as I can tell kept mostly quiet about the people who said something egregious enough to get fired for good.
Debatable
That still works more in my favor than it does yours, if we're debating whether or not it's bad to say "I don't care" to the excesses of your side. That thesis only works if it's reasonably certain that the sides are symmetrical, if it's merely debatable, then well... my mind is open, but you'll need a bit more to convince me to care.
And there are people on the left that call out the left. The Harper Letter crowd for instance. Hell, Obama himself has called out progressives for some of their behavior.
Obama made a single (a few?) speech(es?) that went over about as well as led balloon, and as for the Harper Letter:
Oh wow, looks like the Neocons are not only the crazy-wing of the right, they're so far off they're actually left-wing according to you.
Look, there's other strains of evidence for the right policing itself more than the left that don't boil down to the observer's bias. The right has more diversity of thought within itself, as per actual studies and their endlessly memed graphs, so it will contain more loud disagreements.
I'm saying that "the left" is treated an amorphous blob.
That's an odd thing to say "I don't hate people who say 'I don't care' I hate the crazies". If you're referring to the original thesis of "the broader left exists to cover for it's crazies", that's not treating the left as an amorphous blob, that's pointing out that it's moderates refuse to do anything tangible against their crazies.
None of your deterrence is actually hurting people outside of making them angrier and more motivated to act again.
That can be true even in war. 9/11 didn't do much to directly hurt the USA, and for that matter neither did the American invasion of Afghanistan do much to hurt the Taliban. Now, I will agree that in times of peace, and within a nation the dynamics are somewhat different, but not completely so. There's a reason for why conservatives were looking for ways to get a Supreme Court majority to overturn Roe v. Wade, and didn't just pack to court the moment they had the chance.
In which part? Because overall what I'd say I want is for people on the Motte to stop and think, "Would I accept this line of reasoning if my opponents used it against me?
I mean, right here, in the very sentence after your question? When I said "I don't even see the other acknowledging they did anything wrong" I didn't see "acknowledging they did anything wrong" to mean anything other than "they would not accept this line of reasoning if my opponents used it against them".
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
3mo ago
"Tipping the scales" requires that we know what the endpoint should be.
But why though? We can see the hand applying pressure to the scale, we know the exact force with which it is doing so. We don't know the weight of the object being weighed, so we can't tell you the result you'd see sans the extra force, but we can tell you pretty precisely what the force is. We can measure it in subsidies for feminist projects, in women-only scholarships, in quotas, in anti-discrimination laws that don't apply to men, etc.
"We'll know it when we see it" is a recipe for disaster, because no matter how you change the ratios, there's always the argument that "no, go lower and then it'll all be great!" So 60% female profession becomes 50/50? Still not good enough, society too female? Go down to 40% female? 30%? 0%?
But no one here seems to want to target specific ratios. If you get rid of the specific measures people are complaining about, and the ratios don't change that's absolutely fine.
Yeah, I'm Catholic and broadly complementarian, but we're equal opportunity for female religious leaders (not priests and deacons, I'm heading that one off before it begins) and saints. One of the big sticking points for the entire Reformation was the veneration of Mary and how her worship was seen to be displacing that of Christ, after all!
Right, one of the thing that attracts me (back) to Catholicism is how it has honored roles for both, but from what I understand it's also pretty clear about men and women having different natures (hence the exception you had to head off right from the start).
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
3mo ago
Money makes for poor munitions.
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
3mo ago
And again, nobody is answering the real question I am genuinely asking: what is the perfect ratio for society? 50/50 male/female? Majority male?
I'm mostly sitting this one out, but I've seen several people answer you: no one knows and it doesn't matter, just stop tipping the scales. What's your answer to: why is this question supposed to matter at all?
It's also a bit strange watching you fight on this particular hill, given how often you make a point of how Catholic you are.
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
3mo ago
All I can tell you is these are the things that seemed to make the right upset when a Democrat was doing it. To the point that from this side it looks like them being mad when a Democrat did it was outrage bait.
What do you want me to say, "first time?" I remember when the war in Iraq was the most important issue ever, right up until Obama got elected. Or the surveillance state. Or antisemitism. People do this stuff all the time, and the idea that the Republicans are worse than the Democrats in that regard seems baseless. What's more, if we accept this argument it would mean that Biden and Obama are the Demicratic crazies.
Point of order: it's not my view that your average Dem/Rep voter is covering for crazies
I know. You were trying to show how, if we take the right-wing arguments seriously, it would mean that the broader right-wing is there to cover for it's crzies, the same way they accuse the left of doing so. My point is that this argument doesn't work, because there is no symmetry in the conduct of the two sides.
Not entirely analogous I admit, but I remember Al Franken. And yes people on the left have in fact been fired over Kirk comments. Or here's an old issue I remember about a lefty making an edgy joke about Africa.
Not only is it not entirely analogous, most of these examples are missing a critical component, other than the cancellations over Kirk, these are examples of the left cancelling itself for things offensive to other parts ot the left, not the right. Even the Kirk example is missing the other component of left-wingers jeering at the left wingers that just got fired.
This ties into group culpability.
I'm sorry I'm not seeing how anything in this paragraph connects to whether or not people of the Motte hate left wingers for saying "who cares" about their crazies.
That's not how politics work.
Deterrence works almost exactly like that in war, and war is part of politics. The mechanics might be a big different during timesnof peace, but I'm not seing any fundamental issues with it working there as well.
and never admit wrongdoing.
Isn't that literally what you asked me to do earlier?
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
3mo ago
Either that or we've gotten incredibly popular in China over the last week.
Prepare to be assimilated into DeepSeek.
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
3mo ago
Would that take strike you as so odd if we had a 7 zillionth relitigation of creationism vs. evolution? Things become tedious when we go over the same arguments over and over again, and that happens when at least one side doesn't incorporate the responses it already heard into the dialogue, and that happens when they don't have a good response to begin with. If one side wasn't obviously wrong, you'd see people hashing things out, and the conversation going forward. It wouldn't be tedious.
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
3mo ago
Disagree. Even from a right-wing perspective, he lies habitually. Republicans may be protectionist, but his trade policy constantly changes. He's weirdly deferential to Putin (whereas the median Republican might not want to get involved in Ukraine but still admits Putin is bad), and his Ukraine policy is incoherent whether you think we should be involved or not. There's pretty much everything relating to RFK. He's pardoning corporate fraudsters. People are completely silent on his own blatant lawfare.
...and let's not forget, winning the Republican primaries with 80% of the vote.... Whatever you think of him, most Republicans either aren't all that bothered by it, or think the Neocon wing is worse, therefore it is them that are the "crazy Republicans", not Trump.
Sorry I'm confused what point you are making here. Could you rephrase?
The kids from Yong Republicans got fired for making edgy jokes. If the right existed to provide cover for "crazies" like that, their messages would never get leaked in the first place, but if they did you'd see a unified front of Republicans actually covering for them. What you see instead is a significant of infighting between the "muh principles" wing of the Republican party (represented for example by James Lindsay or Seth Dillon) and the "don't do cancel culture against our own people, ffs" (for example Matt Walsh). I don't think there was an example of a similar amount of infighting on the Democratic side over one of it's subgroup saying something offensive to conservatives.
But let's say yes anyway, because that is my criticism of the left. That they do so is in fact what I think is why The Motte hates the left so much. So why would you do it yourself?
Well, I think you're wrong about who is hated and why. I don't hate the people who say "who cares" about their crazies, I hate the crazies. The people who say "who cares" only start being annoying when they acting outraged over me saying "who cares" over my side's crazies, and thus demand that I hold myself up to a standard they never followed themselves.
My point rests in how exactly one keeps score. It's relatively fine to say, "I'm keeping track of the bad things both sides do, and I think side X is worse." It's another thing to say, "I'm going to keep counting the score of my opponents, and stop counting my own."
To be honest I don't really want to keep score for either side. Historical memory is good when someone starts acting like whatever media-invented outrage is unprecedented, but my goal in punching back isn't equalizing of scores, it's deterrence. If I'm reasonably sure I'm not going to get sucker-punched again, because I taught a belligerent a lesson that I can hold my own, I don't need to leave him with the exact same amount of stitches he originally gave me. But we're nowhere near this point, I don't even see the other acknowledging they did anything wrong, let alone incapacitating their crazies so it doesn't happen again.
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
3mo ago
- A leftover from the Drama codebase, I guess
- Custom CSS, or an adblocker.
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
3mo ago
Cool, so now that your question is answered without contradicting anything of the theory you criticized, it seems like it holds up pretty well.
Okay, let's start with something basic. Here's 3 day training that Lockheed Martin executives were sent to, where they were asked to connect the term "white men" with terms like "old, racist, privileged, anti-women, angry, Aryan Nation, KKK, Founding fathers, guns, guilty, can’t jump.". Or here's a chart by the Smithsonian that's so anti-white that it somehow managed to flip over into being racist against non-whites.
More options
Context Copy link