FCfromSSC
Nuclear levels of sour
No bio...
User ID: 675
I don't think this is surprising. A lot of Ukraine's ability to resist was predicated on US assistance, which has become increasingly rare due to resistance from House Republican leadership.
Maybe don't promise things you can't deliver? I never supported Ukraine, I have no interest in supporting Ukraine, and I'm not interested in voting for people who support Ukraine. If more people thought like me, it's entirely possible that this war would not have happened. Given that this war has happened, I'm not going to change my mind because "you broke it, you bought it". I didn't buy shit, and I think anyone who's still on-board with writing blank checks to the American foreign policy apparatus is too stupid to be allowed to vote. If the last twenty-four years of disasters wasn't enough to drive the lesson home, they're simply incapable of learning.
This is so bizarre to me. Ukrainian women are... people? They are not the property of Ukrainian men.
This would be a better argument if those Ukrainian men weren't faced with forced conscription into indefinite service in a meatgrinder war of attrition. They are also people, no? But naturally, when it's the men, it's honor and duty, and when it's the women, it's human rights and individualism. Women have, after all, always been the greatest victims of war.
I do not think "maintaining the territorial integrity of Ukraine" is an "abstract geopolitical goal of NATO."
Then I submit that you are not very good at assessing what is and is not an abstract geopolitical goal of NATO.
FCfromSSC
Nuclear levels of sour
3d ago
First time?
Everyone in the Culture War has this experience sooner or later. It sucks, but eventually the realization settles that this is how it is and it's not going to change, so you make your peace with it and move on with life.
For me, it helped to realize that most people who talk about politics and culture aren't actually engaging in analysis, but rather an informal group-bonding game built around call-and-response meme-trading. This doesn't make them stupid or irrational, any more than posting dogespeak memes means they don't understand proper grammar. They aren't trading John-Oliver-tier (or steven crowder tier) talking points because they're interested in pursuing objective truth, they're doing it because it generates a feeling of togetherness. Sure, it's alienating to you, because the pings they're generating are pings your brain rejects, but that's not really their fault. People are different, is all.
Your thesis was tested in the Sexual Revolution, and it seems to me that it's more or less bankrupt at this point. The tide isn't going the other way because Lewis Enthusiasts spammed Lewis quotes. It's going the other way because the results of the Sexual Revolution are so obviously, inescapably, unendurably wretched. You can argue either "Simping Is King Shit" or "It's your turn to swipe left" as much as you like; the percentage of people who not only aren't buying it but who are viscerally appalled by the evident results continues to rise organically and exponentially over time.
Shame is an innate and necessary part of the human mind. It's a warning alarm, and it exists to warn you of the existence of a serious problem. Turning off the alarm doesn't make the problem stop existing.
Free will is essentially a legal fiction. It is incredibly useful, but it isn’t actually true.
Every human has a lifetime of direct experience of something that appears in every observable and testable way to be free will. Complex predictions can be accurately made on the assumption of free will's existence.
Neither statement is true of Determinism, which, if it exists, can neither be observed nor tested in any way. Entire generations of scientists claimed otherwise, and their claims were dramatically falsified over the course of the last century. Belief in Determinism is axiomatic, not evidence-based.
To the extent that "true" is a meaningful term, free will is true. It is true in all the ways that gravity is true, and rejecting it involves exactly the same sorts of commitments and actions that rejecting gravity involves: namely, discarding huge portions of one's moment-to-moment experience as fundamentally unreliable, without any compensatory increase in predictive power.
FCfromSSC
Nuclear levels of sour
18d ago
Straw purchases are a routine way by which criminals, including Black criminals, obtain firearms. The authorities routinely decline to prosecute the overwhelming majority of straw purchases, which are in fact committed by family and intimate partners of the criminals. I think the facts are against you here.
FCfromSSC
Nuclear levels of sour
26d ago
"There's nothing worse than being forgotten by someone you could never forget."
FCfromSSC
Nuclear levels of sour
13d ago
You left out the part where once the obvious disaster becomes visible, we clearly recognize that shit is fucked up, but we need to keep sinking resources into the problem because otherwise The Bad Guys Win. Sure, all our efforts up to this point have been squandered when they weren't actively counterproductive, but you don't want to lose, do you? That's quitter talk!
...I appreciate that this, and the post it's replying to, sounds uncharitable, but at some point on the intersection of human failure, incompetence, and hubris, the charity simply runs out. I watched corpses flap in the slipstream of evacuating US aircraft when Afghanistan collapsed, after TWENTY FUCKING YEARS of this bullshit. We've got the documents now that lay out how there never was a plan, how no one involved who mattered in any way was even attempting to win in any meaningful sense, at any point, ever. At some point, you need some basic level of confidence that the people you're talking to are capable of basic pattern recognition.
FCfromSSC
Nuclear levels of sour
24d ago
Your version might be correct; I don't know, and I'm generally suspicious of all narratives about presidential responsability for economic outcomes.
What I do know is that when Trump was elected, I declined to invest my money in the stock market because I believed mainstream predictions that his election was clearly going to tank the economy, and then distinctly recall watching in some frustration as the stock market boomed and continued to boom.
FCfromSSC
Nuclear levels of sour
15d ago
"Christendom". "I am a Roman Citizen."
FCfromSSC
Nuclear levels of sour
6d ago
And just like with feeling shame about a choir, the seeds of the sexual revolution lie in the fact that if you shame too much it becomes just as much of a problem as shaming too little. We historically shamed too hard and too deep and as with all oppression, a revolution will form. ...Shame too many people (whether for sexual immorality or for racism or sexism or whatever), then there is a tipping point.
It doesn't seem to me that the shaming norms immediately prior to the Sexual Revolution were particularly strict, from a historical perspective. Nor does this comport with my understanding of how revolutions generally work; they generally don't happen when conditions decline past some critical threshold, but rather when things are getting better, but people think they should be getting better faster. Is that not your understanding? In any case, it's hard to believe that 1950s America leaned harder on shame than, say, Puritan America. Why didn't Puritan America result in a Sexual Revolution, under your model?
The previous norms of sexual shaming were crushed, because they were not moderated, because so many people ended up being shamed that they were in fact able to overthrow the shame mongers.
Historically speaking, I do not see the Sexual Revolution being driven by people who had been shamed reaching a critical mass. Rather, what I observe is people who were not being shamed buying into the idea that the shame-enforcement system they were already on the right side of could be dismantled without cost or consequence, that the fences against sexual misconduct were pointless and that tearing them down would have no downsides and only benefits, because We Had Progressed. Without a broad-based commitment to the big lie of Progress and all the "little" lies that supported it, the sexual revolution would not have happened. Without Enlightenment champions like Marx and Freud selling unmoored Utopianism to an Enlightenment society desperately eager to believe them, the sexual revolution doesn't happen.
Likewise, I think this is why the Sexual Revolution and the rest of the works of the Enlightenment are not going to last much longer. The lie only works when it hasn't been tested or when the results of the test can be concealed. We've been running the test for decades now, and the systems that work to hide the results are breaking down. Once our society completes its current trajectory, the ideological precursors that created and maintained the Sexual Revolution will no longer be capable of sustaining any degree of credibility.
But what you feel shame about is culturally formed. Kids don't feel about being naked or touching themselves until they are trained to do so. Catholics don't feel shame about the things they feel shame about until they are trained into it.
Is it culturally formed, or is it culturally deformed? We agree that people can be made to feel shame about things that should not be considered shameful. The question remains whether there is a coherent cluster of behavior that is naturally shameful to humans, which can be altered through significant effort, or if it's all just a random walk. I think it's the former.
I'm sure kids aren't born being ashamed of nakedness or of touching their genitals. On the other hand, they aren't ashamed of casual cruelty either; they have to learn that other people exist and to empathize with them, but that doesn't mean that empathy itself is a cultural construction that we can take or leave as we will. I think modesty is similar: you aren't born knowing it, but you learn about it soon enough unless others expend a great deal of effort trying to hide it from you, and even then sooner or later it'll be back.
The Sexual Revolution pitch was that we could remove shame from sex completely, that everyone could have all the sex and everything would be fine. That pitch has been gradually walked back as the resulting disasters become increasingly undeniable. The relatively slow pace of that walk-back has been, in my view, only achievable through large-scale deceit and the intentional obfuscation of the horrors the Revolution's architects unleashed and refused to recognize.
FCfromSSC
Nuclear levels of sour
7d ago
here ya go. He just gave the cliffs notes for the shooting that started the Kenosha riot which Kyle Rittenhouse more or less ended.
FCfromSSC
Nuclear levels of sour
24d ago
You really shouldn't try to time the stock market, especially if you're persuadable by political trends.
In this case, it was acting on the advice of a super-famous economist.
...I don't really believe in economists any more.
FCfromSSC
Nuclear levels of sour
26d ago
Neutral police are better than vendettas and lynch mobs.
Vendettas and lynch mobs are better than anarcho-tyranny.
FCfromSSC
Nuclear levels of sour
26d ago
Low effort shitposting is not the sort of engagement we're looking for here. Neither is false reporting. Lots of red flags in the mod history, including a note about a previous attempt to false-report, and no QCs. Last action was a Tempban.
@jkf is correct: this is not rDrama, and we ask that you not post here as you would there. Please apply more effort to your interactions when you return.
Tempbanning for three days.
drawing a distinction between "intoxicated but conscious and aware" and "unconscious" is not splitting hairs. The two states are distinct, which is presumably why you have chosen to frame the discussion as being about the latter.
If your argument is that intoxication invalidates consent even if the intoxicated person is conscious and apparently aware, say that. If your argument is that intoxication does not invalidate consent unless the person's awareness is compromised, say that. Be clear about the nature of your disagreement, rather than simply emoting. At the moment, it's not clear there even is a disagreement here, as opposed to a misunderstanding on your part.
Calling people who support Ukraine aid "too stupid to vote" is just "boo outgroup", and if the valence was flipped it would probably be considered banworthy.
I would like to argue that "supporting Ukraine" and "writing blank checks to the American foreign policy apparatus" are not equivalent. For an example, the people who argue that we are and should be supplying just enough material to Ukraine to prolong the conflict indefinitely, as this will maximize the death and destruction inflicted upon Russia, with the maximization of death and destruction inflicted upon the Ukrainians being a price they're willing to pay, are not writing a blank check, but rather making a straightforward, coherent cost-benefit analysis. My objection to this latter group is not that they're stupid, but rather that they're straightforwardly, appallingly evil.
There's also the people who aim for total victory through unrestrained escalation with a rival nuclear power, and think we should roll American tanks and aircraft into direct combat with Russia. These people are not stupid like the first group, and not evil like the second group, but rather crazy. I object to these people the least, as their craziness seems likely to be self-punishing in a way the stupidity and evil of the first two groups lack.
Presumably, there's in theory a group that can argue coherently the reasons why our current engagement is going to secure our Sacred Values where the previous several did not, while threading the needle between pointlessly-destructive large-scale attrition as an end unto itself or the threat of a disastrous escalation spiral. I haven't actually seen these people, but I'm ready believe they exist. I think such people would be wrong, given the available evidence, but am open to their arguments should anyone wish to present them.
I disagree that this is "boo outgroup". We are talking about a set of geopolitical actors that have burned down four countries, are currently directly involved in burning down a fifth, and bear considerable responsibility for millions of deaths. At some point, some degree of moral responsibility for all that destruction, death and misery must intrude. Maybe I'm wrong in my assessments, but I don't think so, and at some point people must make their bets and take their chances. This is mine: this shit will not end well, and ten to twenty years from now it will be generally accepted that Mistakes Were Made. I am going to hammer the point because I am confident I am correct. If I'm wrong, I want to learn from it. If I'm right, I don't want the people I'm arguing against to be able to forget it. I think many of the people who discuss this issue are being unbelievably, unacceptably casual about the lives of millions of other humans. I hate them for it, and I find that this hatred cannot be suppressed or masked to any great degree.
If that earns me a ban, so be it, and I'll attempt to modify my behavior in the future.
FCfromSSC
Nuclear levels of sour
18d ago
Versus your standard that every court action involving a person of interest to the Americans is inherently corrupt?
Say rather, inherently suspect. Appeals to process require faith in the process being appealed to. The feds observably warp process to satisfy their interests, so naked appeals to process in cases where their interests are in play should not be given the benefit of the doubt.
FCfromSSC
Nuclear levels of sour
11d ago
Biden has been enlisting the Kennedy family to disavow one of their own and prop up himself as the ultimate and only possible candidate for Democrats recently, to the point where Bobby Jr.’s own brother has rejected him and has said on record that he will to the best of his ability attempt to persuade his sibling to drop out of the race.
...Why is this news?
Family ties aren't all that strong anywhere, and they certainly aren't that strong in any political dynasty anywhere on either side of the aisle. RFK Jr. is a pretty fringe dude, he has a roughly zero percent chance of actually winning the presidency, and a much higher percent chance of acting as a spoiler against the Democrats.
There is no concievable world where his own family don't prefer Biden to him.
Also, how does "black irish" apply to either biden or the kennedy family?
FCfromSSC
Nuclear levels of sour
25d ago
The bailey is something more like literal bantustans which are kept in a state of immiserated oppression and subjugation, with little chance of escape even for the hardworking and conscientious, because "they deserve it" and because you despise them.
On the understanding that I am vehemently opposed to the end-state you describe here, it's worth asking how much worse that end-state is than the status quo. "immiserated oppression and subjugation" seems like a reasonably applicable description for the current black underclass environment, and we are probably losing a fair fraction of the hardworking, and probably not a few of the conscientious too.
The current situation is very, very bad.
They're not engaging in analysis, right.
They aren't, though. That's an observable fact to me, and I'm okay if you disagree with that, but I'd be interested in seeing what arguments you'd present to support that disagreement.
Neither John Oliver nor Jon Stewart nor Steven Crowder nor Sean Hannity are optimizing for truth. All four of these people are entertainers, and their schtick is to offer a just-so story where their tribe is obviously correct and the other tribe is some combination of stupid or evil. All of them build their argumentation around isolated demands for rigor, cherry picking, motte-and-bailey, and the rest of the dark arts. The talking points they generate are frequently absurd, and require complete ignorance of the facts of the matter to maintain any significant persuasive value. They sell low-information politics to (politically) low-information people for whom politics is essentially a spectator sport, similar to football or baseball. The version of "politics" they present has only the most minimal connection to the realities of how our system apportions and exercises power.
It is not pretension to point out that every four years, both major presidential candidates give a speech on how they're going to fix the education system, and every four years both speeches are remarkably identical both between the candidates, and between all previous candidates in living memory. Meanwhile, the educational system has been obviously broken and getting worse throughout living memory, has been repeatedly "reformed" every few years, and not only have those reforms failed, some of them have failed two or even three times, the failures being recorded, forgotten, and then recapitulated in a system without memory, accountability, or even direction. That is not a result that serious, thoughtful, dedicated people will produce. And many, perhaps even most political matters observably operate in this fashion. If the economy improves, the incumbent's supporters will say he did it, and his detractors will say it was the last guy. If the economy declines, his supporters will say it was the last guy and his detractors will say he did it, and they will do this regardless of what they previously said and regardless of the evidence. Ditto for most other areas of domestic and foreign policy. We were "winning" the war in Afghanistan for twenty years across three separate administrations, until we abruptly lost it upon the arrival of the fourth, in an event that was absolutely predictable fifteen years in advance. Pick your favorite issue of policy, and I'd wager a similar situation is what you'll see when you dig in. The captain's wheel of Democracy does not appear to be linked to the rudder of concrete policy; spin it left, spin it right, take your hands completely off, it doesn't actually matter much.
I guess if your idea of analysis is pseudo-scientific half-readings of social science papers (which isn't a real field unless the paper supports your conclusion btw)
My personal standard is admission against interest, actually. If the findings make the researchers extremely unhappy and unpopular with their peers and co-tribals, but they can't find a way around the data, the data's probably worth considering.
... inability to separate personal bias from the external world, and a strong superiority complex then it should be painfully obvious why no one wants to engage with you IRL.
I had a lot more trouble engaging with people back when I took them all seriously. Now when I get hit with a low-information call-and-response, I just give them a milktoast-moderate version of their preferred ping and it's all good. If they actually are trying to engage in analysis but lack the background, I give them a step past wherever they are, and then shrug and say "but who knows, really" to offer a non-threatening exit, that tends to work pretty well. If they're a serious person with a serious interest, it's not hard to tell and then we can have a serious conversation, but that's relatively rare.
I do not concede that everyone who considers themselves "serious about politics" is actually serious about politics. I do not require that people agree with me about politics to consider them serious. I do require that they have a decent grasp on political history, and a grasp on the relevant facts over the last several decades for the issues they claim to care about. If they "care" enough about a subject to want to talk about it, but don't care enough to actually read up on the relevant information beyond the talking points their preferred partisan pre-packaged for them, and if they are more interested in those talking points than in making actual predictions based on the available evidence, it seems to me that their actions speak for themselves. If they "care" about politics the way an NFL fan "cares" about their team, I see no reason why "caring" more than them would lead to better outcomes. And indeed, my experience is that it does not.
FCfromSSC
Nuclear levels of sour
9d ago
He's one of my favorite posters of all time, but he ran out of charity and couldn't bring himself to put in the effort necessary to participate here. Neither he nor anyone else paying attention was surprised by the permaban.
FCfromSSC
Nuclear levels of sour
13d ago
It’s making a slightly larger fraction of GDP go towards geopolitical goals. I think we’re still getting a decent return on investment.
What is that return, exactly? I will grant you that in terms of direct costs to America, this scenario allows us to purchase dead Russians and destroyed Russian value at an astonishingly cheap price. Why are dead Russians and destroyed Russian value something you want? What is the end-result you believe we are investing in?
Is it regime change? And then what? Do you think a Russian liberal democracy is a likely outcome if only Putin would go away? If so, I think you should explain why this particular democracy-export project is going to end different than the last several. And if not liberal democracy, then what? A different strong-man? A friendlier strongman? When has that worked before? If you were fine with a strongman, why not just accept Putin?
Is it a failed Russian state? And then what? Who gets the nukes? Who gets the arms? Who cleans up the mess? How confident are you that such a mess can be cleaned up?
Is it a Russian state that remains barely functional, but with minimal capacity for power projection? Why would this be a more desirable end-state than a functional Russia that we left alone to dominate Ukraine? Is it the better outcome for Ukraine? Why is gutting a large country preferable to allowing a small country to be stunted?
What is the actual logic? What is the long-term benefit to treating Russia as an enemy, rather than simply leaving them alone?
But how much of the culpability falls on us rather than on the conscriptors, let alone the invaders?
This war was the predicted outcome of our explicit foreign policy choices. The standard rejoinder is that this assessment assumes that only America has agency, but that appears to me to be a thought-terminating cliche. "Provocation" is a coherent concept within international politics, and it doesn't magically lose its coherence when it becomes inconvenient for supporters of American foreign policy. It was predictable, and was in fact predicted, that meddling on Russia's borders would lead to this war in particular. That meddling had no upside that I've ever been able to see. What was the point, and why was it worth it when this was the predictable outcome?
I would take your “Mistakes were Made” bet, because I don’t expect this to escalate in the ways you’re thinking.
My expectation is that Ukraine loses at some point in the next couple years, leaving Russia with a pyrrhic victory, a poorer and less-stable country, and cemented as an explicit enemy of the US for the next few decades at least. Why is this a desirable outcome? What value was secured by doing things this way?
FCfromSSC
Nuclear levels of sour
5d ago
and the state would struggle to dispute a claim by a gay couple that they fastidiously avoided that particular act
Are you familiar with the gun-law term "constructive possession"?
The "struggle" involved in proving a crime exists because the authorities in question want it to be a struggle. if they decide they don't feel like struggling any more, they can simply remove the struggle and go straight to enforcement.
I would take the other side of that bet. What makes it different than Oblivion's potato faces is that they already had good art, and replaced it with bad art. The difference is not subtle, so a lot of people knew in advance that the new art was bad, which would obviously undermine any plausible benefits to the change. Nor is there any serious technical challenge to hide behind; these are low-fi models and textures implementing what is probably the single best-understood and simplest-to-implement 3d art style there is. There's a DEI entity being paid by the company to propose CW changes to the game, and this matches quite well to a DEI change. Having been involved in the sausage-making for DEI-mandated changes to video game art in the past, that's what this looks like to me.
I'm sure that's roughly accurate to how they sold it to management. From experience, my guess would be that the artists got their marching-orders from management, decided it wasn't worth fighting, and did exactly what they were told with full knowledge that they were making trash, given that the alternative would involve a direct threat to their employment for a ~zero-percent chance of achieving anything. Your boss paid money for the bad advice because it's the bad advice he wanted. Having paid for the bad advice, he's not interested in you telling him that it's bad. Shut up and push the buttons, art monkey.
More options
Context Copy link