FCfromSSC
Nuclear levels of sour
No bio...
User ID: 675
FCfromSSC
Nuclear levels of sour
1yr ago
Because you're a new user, and the inherited code requires new users with no upvote history to have their posts manually approved. The mods try to approve stuff from the filter as frequently as possible, and hopefully you'll get enough upvotes in short order for the filter to leave you alone.
Before you ask, no, apparently we can't fix this.
Here. [EDIT] - I've changed the link to Gatt's comment, as his archive link apparently doesn't work when I copy it.
Raw URL, since the link system suddenly hates me for some reason: https://www.themotte.org/post/1070/culture-war-roundup-for-the-week/229599?context=8#context
There's this thing in the FromSoft games, where you have these Gods and Heroes who did great things, built mighty works, achieved beauty and glory, only to be worn down by the inevitable march of time and decay, until all that remains is a miserable shade. The internet feels that way now, when I compare what is now to the flower that came before.
We need a way to leave each other alone. I don't want to rule the Popehat dude. I really don't want him to rule me. I just want us to go our separate ways, to each have a chance to deal with the world's problems without having to fight each other every step of the way.
You are currently discussing an example of what strongly appears to be the Left breaking the social contract in a way that makes "reactionary" political violence inevitable. They whipped themselves into a frenzy over Trump, and now someone has actually tried to kill him, and for many on the left there is no actual way to walk it back, nor ability to recognize the realities of their position. All they know how to do is double-down, which makes further incidents inevitable, which in turn makes reciprocity from the Reds inevitable.
The Left actually rioted nation-wide. They actually have used national security assets to persecute their political rivals. They actually have inflicted lawless violence on Reds in particular and on the nation generally. They actually have made two serious attempts at assassinations of Republican leadership. They actually have prosecuted Reds for lawful self-defense. They actually have attempted to jail political opponents. They actually ignore all of the numerous violations they actually commit on a regular basis, and paper it over with fictions about Nazis and the Handmaid's Tale.
There is only so long this pattern can continue before it breaks things none of us will be able to fix. Today was just another step closer to the brink.
FCfromSSC
Nuclear levels of sour
1yr ago
America goes up. Pax Americana can't be maintained while America is busy committing messy suicide. All over the world, people make their moves.
FCfromSSC
Nuclear levels of sour
1yr ago
The immediate aftermath of 9-11 in the US (and this is my memory, so take that fwiw) was one of self-sacrifice and attending the victims, as well as giving accolades to the first responders.
My personal, immediate reaction was "we're going to bomb the shit out of whoever did this."
FCfromSSC
Nuclear levels of sour
1yr ago
Yup, I see it too.
For the uninitiated, "Demo Ranch" is a gun-tuber youtube channel that... well, probably the best description would be low-budget gun-centric DIY Mythbusters. I'd classify them as moderate Red Tribe, certainly on the family-friendly end of the spectrum. No idea what their community looks like, no idea if it's actually their shirt, and no idea why an attempted assassin aiming at Trump would be wearing it.
FCfromSSC
Nuclear levels of sour
1yr ago
down and left of his ear is what appears to be the rim of a catastrophic exit wound. Pretty sure that guy is missing a good portion of the lower-right quadrant of his skull.
FCfromSSC
Nuclear levels of sour
1yr ago
My guess would be the second-to-last shot is the Secret Service sniper shooting the would-be assassin, and the last shot after several seconds delay is them putting a very carefully-aimed second round into him to confirm the kill.
.223 is, essentially, 5.56. There's some variations between the two as .223 specifications were developed by civilians and 5.56 specifications were written by the military, but it's essentially the same round for most practical purposes, and most guns can fire most loadings of the two rounds interchangably.
.22 refers to .22 Long Rifle, an extremely weak round used for hunting rabbits and target shooting. The .22 LR has the same bore diameter as a .223/5.56, but has a significantly shorter and lighter bullet, and fires it at significantly lower velocity; 1000 feet per second, rather than the 3000 feet per second of the later. .22 LR would be an extremely poor choice for an attempted sniper assassination; it's plenty accurate at a hundred yards, but the low velocity means bullet drop, wind drift, and lethal effect are all greatly reduced. A perfectly-centered .22 shot to the head from a hundred yards has a so-so chance of killing the target. Anything less than perfectly centered and it's entirely possible the round would deflect off the skull or fail to penetrate into the brain.
By contrast, a perfectly-centered 5.56 to the head from a hundred yards is a modulo-certain instant kill, and has a decent chance of literally blowing their head apart from the hydraulic force of the impact.
FCfromSSC
Nuclear levels of sour
1yr ago
It's been that way since at least Obama's win in 08. The gun culture knows that a Democrat election win means further restrictions are likely, so they go shopping before the election to end-run the potential bans. It's been this way for more than a decade now, every election, and in particularly bad years the shortages are absolutely absurd.
FCfromSSC
Nuclear levels of sour
1yr ago
Point of pedantry, but the AR platform covers just about every commercially available cartridge, from .17 rimfire to .50 BMG.
It was probably a .223/5.56mm, but the AR platform is extremely popular and absurdly diverse.
FCfromSSC
Nuclear levels of sour
1yr ago
For comparison, a video of what incoming bullets sound like.
FCfromSSC
Nuclear levels of sour
1yr ago
My understanding is that the secret service SOP is to have snipers on-site for public events like this one. I'd assume the snipers got him.
This is really, really, extremely good. One of the best pieces of journalism I've read in... at least the last year, I think. I just got done listening to it, and I'm going to listen to it again. More comments later, because it deserves them. Leave aside any aspect of tribal vailence, it's just a really good story about corruption, and how systems fail to deal with it. It's a worthy successor to MsScribe.
FCfromSSC
Nuclear levels of sour
1yr ago
No, we aren't. As in, this forum does not run on the oppressed/oppressor paradigm, and if you behave like it does, users will report you, and mods will warn and then ban you. This forum is for discussing the culture war, not waging it. Low-effort sniping at people you don't like or disagree with falls squarely under waging the culture war. Don't do it, because we won't tolerate it.
FCfromSSC
Nuclear levels of sour
1yr ago
A Sister Souljah moment is a politician's calculated public repudiation of an extremist person, statement, group, or position that is perceived to have some association with the politician's own party.
FCfromSSC
Nuclear levels of sour
1yr ago
These editorial spins are fact-checker answers for when they can't say that something is false, but they would love to do so.
What you're doing here seems to be the exact process Scott argued for in "Bounded Distrust". You're looking at a system that lies a lot, and you're extracting usable signal from it by comparing the output of that system to the rules that supposedly constrain its falsehoods. As I understand his arguments, this should be a straightforward process to obtain truth-value, which is then generally persuasive. I think this is an interesting example of the "Bounded Distrust" thesis actually being tested.
I think you are entirely correct. I don't expect your argument to be very persuasive to anyone you're responding to, though, because the additional indirection provides too many degrees of epistemic freedom. "The Rules" leave you in a position of inferring the truth, and inference is much easier to dismiss. The Rules were created, it seems to me, with this goal in mind: to provide cover to rationalization. As I've mentioned elsewhere in the context of masked rioters, plausible deniability adds value at every step of the process of rationalization. "Bounded Distrust" is just a formalized defense of rationalization.
FCfromSSC
Nuclear levels of sour
1yr ago
It does clarify the conversation when people are willing to express themselves in a straightforward manner.
FCfromSSC
Nuclear levels of sour
1yr ago
Righties don't want men to be held responsible ever for wanting to get their dicks wet, not even to the degree that we might say "Tut tut" and socially shun him.
I am entirely happy with men being held responsible for wanting to get their dicks wet in pretty much every circumstance. I'm even entirely happy if the social theory used to achieve this end isn't one I believe in, so long as it doesn't impose a bunch of other results I also disagree with. I'd bet ya Hlynka would agree as well. I don't disagree that there's a bunch of people, here and elsewhere, commonly percieved as "righties" who would disagree with us vociferously, but it seems to me that they often disagree vociferously with a lot of my other opinions as well. This is the sort of thing that drives the Hlynka thesis. Obviously the thesis is both fraught and inflammatory, but it's the way these sort of out-of-step moments keep recurring that gives it such endurance.
FCfromSSC
Nuclear levels of sour
1yr ago
We could achieve much the same effect by simply saying that a man has no legal defense against an allegation of rape if he chose to spend time with the woman alone, but I presume that would not please you in the same way.
It would please me fine, but it's notable that attempting to comply with such rules unilaterally has been argued, both by the media, by Blue Tribe social consensus, and even by prominent members of the Motte, to be icky deplorable sexism that should never be tolerated. The reaction to the Pence Rule both in the broader culture and among commenters here was another of the incidents that convinced me that peace between Reds and Blues is impossible.
FCfromSSC
Nuclear levels of sour
1yr ago
there's been considerable concern lately about declining participation in the forum. This is the most political ferment we've seen in a while; why dilute it?
What's your actual objection to the passage you've quoted? Where am I wrong?
More options
Context Copy link