BurdensomeCount
Misinformation superspreader
The neighborhood of Hampstead is just at present exercised with a series of events which seem to run on lines parallel to those of what was known to the writers of headlines and "The Kensington Horror," or "The Stabbing Woman," or "The Woman in Black." During the past two or three days several cases have occurred of young children straying from home or neglecting to return from their playing on the Heath. In all these cases the children were too young to give any properly intelligible account of themselves, but the consensus of their excuses is that they had been with a "bloofer lady." It has always been late in the evening when they have been missed, and on two occasions the children have not been found until early in the following morning. It is generally supposed in the neighborhood that, as the first child missed gave as his reason for being away that a "bloofer lady" had asked him to come for a walk, the others had picked up the phrase and used it as occasion served. This is the more natural as the favorite game of the little ones at present is luring each other away by wiles. A correspondent writes us that to see some of the tiny tots pretending to be the"bloofer lady" is supremely funny. Some of our caricaturists might, he says, take a lesson in the irony of grotesque by comparing the reality and the picture. It is only in accordance with general principles of human nature that the "bloofer lady" should be the popular role at these al fresco performances.
User ID: 628
You say America has institutional depth and continuity, and that the Founders drew on English Common Law and the whole Western tradition and I agree. I never said otherwise and I'd have been stupid to. The US Constitution is a remarkable document (worth reading even as a non-American), the Federalist Papers are some of the best political thinking ever committed to paper, and the early Republic was built by men who were as educated and sophisticated as anyone in Europe, there's no argument to that.
But I think you're collapsing a distinction that matters: there's a difference between having institutions and having the deep cultural substrate that makes those institutions self repairing. England didn't develop parliamentary norms because someone wrote a brilliant constitution. It developed them over centuries of messy, bloody, often accidental practice until they became so embedded in the culture that violating them felt viscerally wrong to enough people to make it politically suicidal. That's what I mean by institutional depth: not the documents, not the structures, but the thickness of the cultural root system underneath them.
And you've actually conceded the key point yourself when you say they're being hollowed out right now. My reply is simply: how fast and how easily? Because that speed is itself diagnostic. If American institutional culture had the depth it lacks, what's happening right now would be much harder to do. I agree that European institutions are under strain too, especially from the hard right and parties like AfD and Reform here in the UK but they're harder, the damage is slower and meeting more resistance at every level. See how Europe managed to co opt Meloni in Italy into a standard right wing European party from the far right. Orban's getting kicked out very soon as well just to give you another data point. Europe is able to deflect and absorb the attacks to its institutions in a way the US hasn't shown any signs of doing.
Instead what we're seeing over there is that a single administration with a sufficiently bloody minded approach can hollow out norms that were supposedly two and a half centuries deep in what, a year and a half? The US has a proper full constitution and an extremely strong supreme court which could block all this with ease but it has folded like a marzipan deckchair. That's not what deep roots look like. That's what a brilliant structure built on shallow cultural soil looks like when someone finally decides to test the foundations. It sinks at the first real challenge. Compare to the UK where we don't even have a written constitution and parliament is technically sovereign and a majority can do anything they want, including reinstating slavery if they so wish and yet our institutions mean that even a government with strong support from its MPs can't do whatever it wants (as Boris Johnson found out with Brexit).
To put it differently: the Constitution told Americans what their institutions should be. What it couldn't do, because no document can, is make Americans feel that violating those norms is unthinkable rather than merely illegal. The "we don't do that" instinct, the one that in a deeply rooted institutional culture makes norm-violation politically radioactive even when it's technically possible, that's the thing I'm saying is thinner in America than Americans believe. And I don't think that's a controversial observation at this point. You yourself seem to agree the hollowing is happening. We're just disagreeing about what it reveals.
So to your final challenge "you haven't described anything America doesn't have, just political decisions you don't like" I would say that I've described exactly the thing America is currently demonstrating it doesn't have enough of. The decisions I don't like are the evidence, not the argument.
And briefly, since I've already made this case and don't want to repeat myself: this is precisely why the leverage question matters. You don't extend unconditional trust to a partner whose institutional immune system is failing this visibly. You negotiate. That's not sneering, it's prudence.
Replying to both you and @Shakes:
I'm not saying America has no achievements (obviously it does, and listing them like Shakes did doesn't refute the point). Nobody denies America has produced extraordinary things, half the things I use on a daily basis were made by them, and that's probably an underestimate (though I'd add that a lot and an increasing proportion of this is from immigrants who became Americans or their near term descendants, rather than "founding stock"). The telephone, jazz, the moon landing etc. etc. are yes, all real, all impressive. But a catalogue of inventions and monuments is not what civilisation means in the sense I'm using it, and people should get that from my post.
What I mean and what Clemenceau meant (however priggish you may call him) is something closer to what you might call institutional depth and cultural continuity: the slow accumulation of norms, restraints, and social trust that make a society self regulating rather than dependent on raw dynamism (which is something that Americans seem to prize above all else, even when it's the wrong tool for the job, hammer and nail come to mind). Europe didn't get that from being clever. It got it from centuries of catastrophe and making mistakes and importantly learning from them. The point isn't that Europeans are better people (I wouldn't even agree, even though I'd probably choose to spend an evening with a randomly chosen European over a randomly chosen American, never mind that they might not even speak English). The point is that the European political tradition, through sheer painful experience, developed a certain instinct for restraint, compromise, and institutional preservation that the American tradition never prioritised in the same way and is likely to very soon come back and bite it in the ass. America's founding myth is about breaking free of those constraints, not building them. That's not an insult, it's a description.
And the "civilised Americans exist, the problem is't All Americans but Enough Americans" line was doing work you both skipped past. I'm not painting 330 million people with one brush. I'm saying the political culture, the median and especially the current leadership of the country, trends in a direction that makes America an unreliable partner and that Europeans should act accordingly rather than sentimentally. Think Mark Carney, but with more spice.
Which brings me to the part of my post that was actually the point, and which neither of you addressed: the strategic argument. Forget whether Clemenceau was rude. Forget whether I'm being snobbish, I won't try and justify that further as I know it won't work (and no, Spengler didn't put me up to this). The question on the table is simple: should Europe give America unconditional support in its Iran campaign, or should it use its leverage: basing rights, logistics, diplomatic cover, to extract concessions on Ukraine and tariffs? The "American" would say "use the leverage", the European might say "we're all gentlemen here", except that that's no longer true, so might as well give them a taste of their own medicine.
The argument that America "pays for European defence" cuts both ways. If European bases are so essential to American force projection that Spain's wobble caused a crisis within days (which it's still not allowing to my knowledge despite what the Americans are saying), then those bases have price, and Europe is a fool not to name it.
The claim that America could walk away tomorrow and it would be Europe's problem, not the Americans well right there you're making my argument for me. If that's how America sees the relationship, then Europe has no obligation of loyalty either, and should negotiate accordingly. You can't simultaneously say "we do this for you" and "we don't need you." Pick one. The cakeism is very "American".
I risk sounding like a broken record here but that old Clemenceau quote is relevant again: "America Is the Only Country That Went from Barbarism to Decadence Without Civilization In Between".
When you look at things through this lens everything explains itself perfectly. The Americans as a nation have never been properly civilised, their national myth includes things like the Frontier man and the taming of the wilderness, but in one of those rather all too common twists of irony I'd say the wild has transformed Americans far more than they have ever transformed it.
Once you realize that America as a country has never had civilisation in the sense a European, a Chinese, or even dare I say, a Persian, would understand it, (I mean as a country, many many Americans are perfectly civilised people, the problem is not All Americans, the problem is Enough Americans) everything starts falling into place and making sense.
The way to deal with such a country is to treat it like it is: rather than trying to support the US or help them in their war against Iran out of some misguided gentlemanly obligation, Europe now has an excellent opportunity to twist the knife and extract huge concessions from the US on Ukraine and tariffs in return for them being allowed to use European bases to run their war. And make your demands and the concessions you get public as red meat for your domestic base. It's no different to what the Americans would have done to you had the shoe been on the other foot.
Trump has managed to replace Ayatollah Khamenei with Ayatollah Khamenei, except that this one is thirty years younger and just had his parents, wife, sister and son killed in an American/Israeli attack. The mind boggles...
Tactics without strategy is the noise before defeat.
- Sun Tzu.
Turn up as a male follower. They exist (and are getting more popular), usually taken by experienced men who want a new challenge (it also helps you understand the leader steps better if you know what your follower has to endure when you do a certain figure).
Depends on the dance, leading a jive is easier than being a follower, the follower steps are much more complex depending on the choreo.
Leading properly (instead of just doing the leader steps/choreo) is a skill as well, but it takes like 4-5 years to learn how to do correctly, you're not going to learn it by going to 1hr weekly social dance classes.
Getting corrupted by the westoid mindset is just as bad in the long run because it's contagious. She might not have been a leech and may have had a background which could fund her behaviour, in which case more power to her, she's not the sort of person who I'd want in my life but that's fine, different people are different. What's not fine are the people who are like this and fund it off the taxpayer's teat and then lecture us for our values. Neighbour, have you looked at your values???
You've already guessed the punchline. I commiserated with her over the failure of her date plans and she looked at me like I'd dribbled on her shirt. "Obviously I'm going. He's hot," she huffed, and flounced away.
And then people accuse me of hating "natives" when I express the (justified, I submit) contempt I have for these people. And my tax money is going on funding this shit. People complain about their tax money going on migrants with different values here in the UK, never mind that these migrants make up a small portion of society and there are lots of "natives" that don't even pay much tax in the first place, so the per "native" price they are paying is relatively small. On the other hand the tax there aren't that many people like me, I pay a shit ton of tax and there are a shit ton of these "natives" who make bad decisions that society (read: taxpayers like me) end up subsidizing and we're supposed to just sit and take it. I'd wager I'm personally paying 6 figures in GBP each year directly subsidizing the likes of these people. Few things make me seethe as much as seeing the government's yearly breakdown on where the money I spend paying tax ends up going.
I have at least 1.5 orders of magnitude (closer to 2 actually) more justification to be pissed off at the "natives" than the average "native" has to be pissed off at a poor migrant care worker. And yet...
I also do dancing (competitive though, not social), our classes are 3-4 women per man, and have stayed this way or if anything the most recent new cohort is even more female dominated. I highly recommend dancesport to any men who are interested, at intermediate+ levels almost all couples end up 1 man + 1 woman so as a man you don't need to be as amazing to make it up there. I wouldn't recommend using this as a way to meet partners though in the short term, that's gonna get noticed and you'll be ostracized very quickly (and for good reason, we do this because we want to get good at dancing, not because we're horny, it's actually a surprisingly sexless sport, despite what the rumba may appear like to you). Longer term once you're actually good and in a stable dance partnership plenty of couples end up marrying each other, but this is a very different thing than hitting on women after 4 weeks of slow waltz.
I'm really liking Hal Incandenza so far, sort of reminds me of Quentin from The Sound and The Fury.
Started on Infinite Jest. 50 pages in and already enjoying it a lot.
Yeah, the whole ground invasion thing seems like it's going to be a meatgrinder for whatever forces get sent in, you'd need excellent air defense cover against drones to protect your own soldiers on enemy land, otherwise we're getting drone videos posted to /r/CombatFootage with Americans getting blown up instead of Russians, which at the very least will garner some interesting reactions...
Destroying a single radar isn't "getting wrecked". The whole system is a lot more than just the radar and even then "getting wrecked" carries the connotation that the missiles and drones are able to penetrate the system with regularity and hit their intended targets rather than merely destroy some of its infrastructure.
THAAD getting wrecked by Iran's missile and drone arsenal is also pretty alarming.
This is news to me. Further details?
Normally with airports you want to hit things like the command and control towers etc., but for Dubai airport there might be an exception where hitting the first class lounge leads to more long term damage...
It'll be interesting to see what the long lasting impacts are on the gulf states from this war. Missiles are landing in Tel Aviv and they've had years to build proper defenses against precisely this threat, if Iran throws its toys out of the pram there's a decent chance the whole "rich man's playground" trope for these countries permanently ends. Of course they'll still be rich given all their oil, but it would still be a different paradigm for how these countries are seen by the rest of the world.
(Kuwait for one has been declining for the last 20 years in a row, it would be interesting to see if this is the crisis that finally finishes them off and they get swallowed up by the peloton of the rest of the arab states that don't have serious oil money.)
Combined with the war in Iran, which now will likely last until September according to the Pentagon
Anyone else reminded of the Special Military Operation?
So we go from a world of the rich flaunting their wealth, to a world of the rich hiding it by putting scapegoats in nominal charge of it.
Ah, but then they are living for the rest of their life with a sword of Damocles over their head, because if it ever comes out what they did and what their true wealth is they'll be on the ballot for execution for next year, and I can't imagine the rest of the population will be feeling particularly merciful about them...
The best solution I've heard to this issue is that people are allowed to earn as much money as possible without interference (which avoids distorting incentives) but then at the end of each year there is a referendum on each of the top 10 richest people in the country and if they don't gain majority support in that referendum they get publicly executed. This way there's no distortion in incentives for the vast vast majority of people who are never going to end up being the 10 richest people in the country and for those where this is a real risk (top 500 or so richest people) it incentives them to stay on good terms with the rest of the population and not act with total impunity.
That, or the other solution is of course to bring back the Athenian Liturgy.
Yum, free cookie.
You don't need a notion of "counting" to be able to define the natural numbers. Upward Lowenheim-Skolem means that there are models of Peano arithmetic of every infinite cardinality, so the "rules" that give rise to the naturals also give rise to structures where you have "natural" numbers which are infinite and can never be arrived at by starting from 0 and taking the successor finitely many times. They're called the hypernaturals and are a fascinating object of study, completely divorced from the ordinary "counting" way people think about numbers, and yet they satisfy all the standard rules of arithmetic.
Is Indonesia as wealthy per-capita as the UK?
No it's not, however this is a difference that in a perfect and efficient world should get arbitraged away, it's an imperfection that we should be working to get rid of, not for "fairness" reasons but for "efficiency" reasons.
Is the wealth of Indonesia roughly equivalent in terms of concentration within the population?
Similarly this is something which should over time get arbitraged away as groups and populations mix, however I admit the "failure" here is less important to correct than the first one in terms of deadweight loss.
I meant in the sense that I'm neither a lower class Indonesian or a lower class white British man so I don't have a direct dog in the race. No reason why Amelia in the UK who has a job making and serving mediocre coffee should get paid any more than Mehmet making and serving mediocre coffee in Ankara.
The 80% need to realize the boot on their necks imposed by the 19% (or 19.99%, although I suspect in reality it's just the 19.9%) is a good thing. Get rid of it to the point where the lower classes take charge and you'll find yourself in a very bad economic recession and once you get out of it it'll become very apparent that the position of countries like the UK on the new totem pole is one where Indonesia et. al. are now going to bully you instead of the other way around. That, I suspect, will be what truly ends up breaking the lower class western mind, and I look forward to seeing the day; of course, as a neutral third party there's no reason for a lower class Indonesian to be getting paid any less than a lower class Brit, the emergence of a more just world order will lead to squeals from westerners just like the squeals of the upper class westerners back in the 18th-19th centuries when their privileges were taken away.
- Prev
- Next

Yeah, Starmer has turned out to be a bit of a dud here, so he's probably out after the May elections and there will be a new Labour PM and a new Labour government and life will continue in much the same way (or perhaps even better) for the 90% of Labour MPs who aren't very closely tied to Starmer. The Labour MPs themselves will be the ones to get rid of him and there's very little Starmer can do to hit back against them; can you imagine the republicans in the US House or Senate voting to get rid of Trump?
More options
Context Copy link