@FirmWeird's banner p

FirmWeird

Randomly Generated Reddit Username

0 followers   follows 0 users  
joined 2022 September 05 23:38:51 UTC

				

User ID: 757

FirmWeird

Randomly Generated Reddit Username

0 followers   follows 0 users   joined 2022 September 05 23:38:51 UTC

					

No bio...


					

User ID: 757

I've posted about this before but I firmly believe that the answer to this is the lithium/chemical hunger hypothesis. I experienced the same thing when I was in Japan, but I was eating incredibly rich gourmet beef ramen for breakfast and washing it down with a sweet pastry. Still lost vast amounts of weight.

even less sympathetic to the Palestinians

Trump's policy was explicitly kinder to the Palestinians than Biden (and by extension Harris, who said she supported Biden's position and wouldn't change anything) - Trump at least promised and achieved a minute ceasefire for a day or two. Biden and Harris' position was explicitly that they wouldn't do anything at all to stop the Israelis or hold them back.

Because surely that’ll help, somehow.

Yes, it will in fact help. What's the point of voting for the Democrats when there is no functional difference between them and the republicans? Sending a signal that the electorate will not vote for the same old moribund and corrupt geriatrics who have been profiting from business as usual helps to either destroy the party (so it can be replaced) or reform it so that it actually presents a compelling vision for the future. Harris, Schumer, Pelosi - none of these people can inspire the base and every single establishment democrat politician is incapable of creating a compelling vision of the future because their obligations to wealthy donors, lobbyists and interest groups are so strong that they are unable and unwilling to do anything but make existing problems worse.

The only left wing politician in the US right now who is capable of getting people excited is Zohran Mamdani, and the democrats are doing their absolute best to destroy him. Even the "vote blue no matter who" crowd are changing their stripes and doing their best to attack him so the usual sex offenders and genocide-defenders (Cuomo quite literally joined Netanyahu's legal team!) get back into power and keep the gravy train running.

If you actually care about left wing political goals rather than simplistic tribalism the only path forward is to either take a long march through the DNC to realign it with the wills of the left-wing base (which is a path that can most definitely win elections) or completely destroy it and start over, like Mexico did. If you've seen what Morena has done for Mexico, I want that for you in the USA as well - building more hospitals and infrastructure instead of deliberately starving children to death and blowing up Yemeni prayer circles.

I like this post and think that's a very good read of the situation - but I also think you're leaving out some of the things that got the Bernie base so pissed off. There was real malfeasance on the part of the DNC when it came to Bernie, especially in 2016. Wasserman-Schulz and Donna Brazile were forced to resign from the DNC after Wikileaks released the internal emails showing they were actually conspiring to fuck him over (and then Debbie at least immediately joined the Clinton campaign). The Bernie crowd really were taken for a ride by the DNC and the lawsuit they lost had the party make some really unpleasant (but legally excellent) claims to boot. I am honestly not sure if there was enough support for Bernie to get him elected, but there's no denying that the DNC put a finger on the scale in a way that torched their relationship with his supporters.

the one seal that hasn't been broken, is actually prosecuting and jailing the people who are best positioned to thwart his power.

Actually this seal has already been broken - but by the democrats when they prosecuted Trump multiple times. I'm on record (though maybe not on this site) saying that these prosecutions were a terrible idea and would be a horrifying weapon in the hands of a vengeful Trump administration. I'd say the DNC were lucky that he's so incredibly merciful, but I think the truth is that actually sending the entire democratic power structure to prison would make the left stronger once all those criminals and shysters were replaced by new blood.

I’ll assume for the sake of argument that Israel is trying to ethnically cleanse Palestine, that Harris recognized it, and that she also knew supporting them would lose her the election. Why, then, wouldn’t she say it out loud?

She actually did say out loud that she wouldn't do anything to stop them, and high ranking members of Netnyahu's government (Smotrich etc) were open about their plans for ethnic cleansing. If one person says "I think all the jews should be exterminated" there's not really much of a distinction between that and someone else saying "That person talking about exterminating the jews has an opinion that I respect and won't deviate from" - both of them are advocating for a holocaust, there's just a layer of obfuscation to gull credulous and stupid people in front of one of them. She didn't go out of her way to advertise her position on this topic because she knew it was politically toxic with her base, but you'll be hard pressed to find politicians who voluntarily run attack ads against themselves because they want to be honest with the people. I don't think the overton window really matters here because "just exterminate all the Palestinians so we can build luxury hotels" and "Starving those children to death is perfectly fine because they had pre-existing medical conditions" is still inside that window.

But hey, public was dumb enough to vote him in again, so I guess it’s time for us to collectively reap the whirlwind.

I'm sorry but as someone else on the left the fault here is entirely that of the Democrats. Kamala Harris was one of the worst candidates I have ever seen, and it looks like Biden did his best to sabotage her as well. Trump didn't even need to bust out the worst of the attack ads because Kamala was so disrespectful and contemptuous of her own base - to say nothing of the genocide she ran on supporting (which multiple post-election studies have claimed was enough to swing the election itself). She hurt her numbers by refusing to go on Joe Rogan, but she was such a charisma void that refusing to go on was actually the right answer - she would have melted down and been unable to respond to basic questions about her past actions or present beliefs.

The problem with that election was not that the public was dumb. The problem was that the DNC ran a candidate that was WORSE than Trump - they ran a terrible campaign for a terrible candidate and got a terrible result. If you actually look at the results of that election in greater detail there's actually a lot to be hopeful for as a left-winger. When they weren't tied to the Democrats, a lot of leftist policy proposals actually went through. Left wing values are generally extremely popular with most people - but the DNC is a terrible expression of those values and so nakedly corrupt that anybody with a soul would find it extremely hard to vote for them in good faith. Remember how Schumer attacked Trump? By calling him a coward who chickened out of starting another war and murdering more people in the middle east. The public was actually doing the right thing in this case by voting for the less bloodthirsty candidate!

I agree that Trump term 2 has been very poor (probably for different reasons) but let's not try and blame the public for this happening. The blame for this result rests squarely on the Democratic party and if the public deserve any blame it is for not recognising that the ghouls in charge of the Democrats needed to be removed from power years ago.

Even if one accepts your claim that the Palestinians in Palestine are being "genocided", they are neither American citizens nor resident within the US.

The genocide (thank you for accepting the claim) is taking place with US support and using US manufactured weapons. The genocide in Gaza would be impossible for the Israelis to carry out without extensive western support and American taxpayer dollars. I do not think that you have a very good picture of the average left-winger's thought process if you believe "Oh the brown people we're exterminating for more Lebensraum for white settlers aren't American citizens so you can just ignore all those hospitals we're blowing up" would be compelling to many of them.

How many of them would describe it in those terms?

Depends on the context, but this objection is utterly meaningless. If I was selling influence to political donors and lobby groups, I would not describe what I was doing in those terms. If someone eats a pure carnivore diet but describes their diet as vegetarian you're just being stupid if you invite them to your roast vegetable appreciation society meeting.

As far as I can tell, the closest she got to mentioning the death toll

What she actually said was that she wasn't going to distance herself from Biden's policy and that she wouldn't change anything about it - and the Biden policy was that Israel can do whatever they want and the US will support them no matter what. Trump, when he said that what was happening in Gaza had to stop, was actually further to the left than Kamala Harris.

Killing some percentage of the population is not in the liberal Overton window.

Actually, yes it is. Kamala Harris was fully on board with ethnic cleansing of brown people, and so committed to it that she preferred supporting wiping out the Palestinians to actually winning the election. Hell, even AOC voted for more weapons and bombs! Extermination of unwelcome minorities is very squarely and firmly in the overton window right now thanks to what's happening in Gaza.

Tariffs are fairly standard policy when it comes to import-substitution industrial development. If they're so bad, then why does the rest of the world have them? Are they stupid?

Because the rest of the world has a different context than America does, and tariffs in those contexts can work much more effectively. In the US, your manufacturing industrial base was shipped to China several decades ago - and that process took decades. In the meantime, all of the industries required to support that manufacturing base have also moved to China because that's where the manufacturing work is. As a result, even American manufacturing is getting hit by the tariffs because raw material costs are skyrocketing as a result and making American manufacturing LESS competitive. The US is so helplessly dependent upon Chinese manufacturing that the tariffs aren't even being applied to them - Trump has to extend the tariff pause over and over again because if it was seriously implemented the US economy would collapse overnight.

You can't reverse all of that overnight. You can't reverse all of that in the space of a single year. You can't even reverse that over a decade when the same forces and people responsible for profiting from the outsourcing of that industry are still in place... and they are. Outsourcing, offshoring - all of these things happened for a variety of reasons that are still here, and until you actually rework the economy to remove those incentives the tariffs will never work. Even then, could tariffs work to resolve the US' manufacturing issues? Yes, they could - but only as part of a larger plan to revitalise American manufacturing. You'd need lots of investment and government support in order to bring all these industries back, as well as large investments in training to build up the skilled workforce required... and that skilled workforce is also going to have to be compensated with the kind of good wages that will drive up the price of their output and make the made-in-China competitors even more attractive.

None of this has been done. Not only has none of this been done, the same corrupt politicians who were responsible for the problems which drove out manufacturing in the first place are still there (literally the same people in some cases) and actively working to make sure that this manufacturing resurgence does not take place because it would be bad for the interest groups and donors that keep them living the good life.

Maybe it shouldn't be called "mental health", but what would you prefer for such a reasonable ask?

Not who you're talking to, but I believe a good word for this is "stress", which most people recognise as something that can play a part in adverse health outcomes. The possibility that the medical system might just saddle you with a gigantic, life-ruining debt by surprise and with no recourse would make absolutely be a significant source of stress.

let alone subverted the law on behalf of another Jew.

This is the part I was specifically referring to - Tom is the "another Jew" in question. This is what I objected to - it doesn't matter what ethnicity Tom is (based solely on name and physiognomy he really does seem like one of those fake russian jews anyway) - what matters is that he's highly involved in the government of Israel. A zionist, someone manifestly devoted to ensuring the continuity of the state of Israel, intervening on behalf of a high-ranking individual in the state of Israel, is a serious issue and would remain a serious issue even if Tom was ethnically Japanese. Reducing it to a matter of ethnicity as opposed to direct political allegiance makes his argument weaker, which is what I was concerned with.

Not an Israeli government official.

I was talking about the Israeli government official involved in the case - Tom Artiom Alexandrovich (who has such a slavic name I would not be surprised if he was the descendant of one of the ethnic Russians who snuck in rather than an actual jew). The claim I believed I was making (my apologies if I was unclear) was that people who work directly under Netanyahu in the Israeli government are all zionists, not that all jews are zionists.

a different third letter?

I believe it was actually this different, third letter - which was just misinformation that TracingWoodgrains boosted (and upon whom I lay all of the blame). But that first UCLA white supremacy statement also satisfies the requirements for my post, so I'm not particularly upset. The entire university system, his classroom included, is very much a part of the "white supremacy" that the letter seeks to dismantle or co-opt.

In the context of UCLA he is probably justified in not considering himself very political.

He wrote a private article about how Trump is bad and how he had trouble teaching classes after the 2016 election. You don't get to write about how awful and stupid the conservative presidential candidate is (and how his election is so terrible that it causes enough psychic damage to prevent you from working) then talk about how you're not very political.

He had it pulled because UCLA attracted Sauron's gaze.

And he was one of the voices who was shouting out and begging for Sauron's attention. Everyone else was doing it too, and I understand why he simply went along with it. But if he wanted to be apolitical, he could have been - sure, he might have faced some consequences for doing so, but he's now facing the consequences of not doing so.

I found some of the replies in Trace's thread frustrating.

I did too, but I'm now reconsidering it because I think some people were arguing against false claims that were boosted by Trace by mistake.

Ok, now imagine a leftist just said the exact same thing to me

Why imagine? I am a leftist and just said that to you. I'm opposed to the social justice movement because I think it is both bad, ineffective politics and morally wrong (poor white kids should not pay the price for the crimes of robber barons in years past), but I am still a left-winger. To make my perspective clear, I believe that the optimal move would have been for the left to not actually go on the long march through the institutions precisely because of the incredibly predictable blowback that is currently taking place.

That obviously reality is the right struck first and how absurd it is I suggest they could possibly exhibit an underdog bias.

I have seen it happen in my life time. There's no absurd conspiratorial thinking here - this was done in the open and people loudly spoke about it. The Long March Through the Institutions took place and we have the statistical evidence with regards to discrimination against conservatives. The discrimination wasn't just pervasive, it was openly celebrated - there's no point denying it now. You're going to need much more rigorous evidence if you want to make the case that the right wing has been in control of academia for the past 40 years.

Good news, the answer doesn't even matter anyway if you choose the option to have principles!

Ok, my principles are that if you try to politicise academia in order to purloin the social credibility it has for partisan aims you deserve to be punished badly and cast out into the wilderness for the real harm you're doing to legitimately important societal mechanisms. So I actually do get to support the current punishment - though admittedly I do have to switch back when the conservatives start deporting people or getting them fired for voicing mild criticisms of the ethnic cleansing in Gaza.

The attorney general being a Zionist does not mean that "we all know" that she intervened in the case, let alone subverted the law on behalf of another Jew.

I can't help but feel you're being a bit sneaky here. I believe it is a safe assumption that someone working in the upper echelons of the Israeli government and reporting directly to Benjamin Netanyahu is a Zionist, and "let alone subverted the law on behalf of another Zionist" is actually substantially more plausible as something that everyone knows. You've switched between "Zionist" and "Jewish" as if they're the same thing in order to make your opponent's argument seem less credible, which feels against the spirit of the rules here to me.

Of course, with Da Jooos, there's always some genius like Shaun King to get things started.

I always find people making mocking "Da Jooos" comments to be mildly annoying, and ultimately counterproductive when talking about cases like this. Nobody is alleging some kind of bullshit secret conspiracy here - the "conspiracy" is completely out in the open and not even being disputed in the slightest. You have an Israeli partisan for an attorney general, who was complained about massively before they were appointed, letting an Israeli official get away with extremely serious offences. They're openly proud about what they're doing and boast about it (well until they got attention for it and deleted their account) to boot. There's no need to mock people for being credulous antisemites in a case like this unless you want to make sure that absolutely nobody gives a shit about antisemitism in the future. After seeing people use "oh you think DA JOOS" are behind this too when people object to official actions by the Israeli government I just can't take people who participate in that kind of juvenile mockery of legitimate concerns seriously.

Note also that Trump isn’t demanding a loyalty test

He actually is demanding a loyalty test - but for loyalty to Israel rather than the USA.

Dr. Tao is justified in complaining about the stick and I applaud him for it.

Actually, Dr. Tao signed a letter asking for the stick to be deployed against his classroom. He put his signature on a letter talking about how maths classrooms are actually bastions of white supremacy which need to be dismantled. If he was a principled apolitical actor who just wanted to do his research, then he would be justified in complaining about the stick - but even if we take your criticism seriously and make sure the stick is avoidable if you remain apolitical he still needs to get whacked.

I ended up coming back.

Not because my work succeeded, but because I couldn't use the time I normally spent on the motte in a terribly productive way anyway (my employer owning the copyright to my offensive motte posts written on the clock is totally fine, my employer owning the copyright to my serious attempt at fiction is not).

I know and see plenty of leftists online who say similar things in the way you're saying now.

If I started beating my wife to the point that she snaps and starts physically assaulting me while holding a gun, am I able to then accuse her of "underdog bias" and talk about how I'm actually the one being attacked when she strikes back? Are you sure she's not just failing to see the ways her own side holds institutional powers/firearms unfairly?

This isn't really a question, but I'd like to announce that I'm effectively retiring from the Motte. I'm not doing this because I don't like arguing or haven't enjoyed my time here, but simply because I've started working on a personal creative project that's going to be taking up the time that I would have spent reading and responding to posts on here. As I'm still working a day job, I don't think I can maintain my presence here as well as pursuing what is effectively a second career. That said, if it proves to be a big success and I can retire from my day job, I'll likely come back - or alternatively if it turns out to be a massive failure and I become a bitter, jaded recluse I'll also come back.

There were over 10M illegal immigrants under Biden, so that would need ~4k daily deportations for the entire presidency to undo. Seems unlikely/impossible to happen.

I believe a statement like this would technically be illegal in large parts of the world as it would effectively constitute holocaust denial. You probably don't want to go on the record as stating that it is "impossible" for governments to remove millions of people in a few years.

Paraconsistent is right - I was referring to the USS Liberty incident. Ukraine to the best of my knowledge hasn't killed US servicemen, just US journalists and citizens (not that many people care about Gonzalo Lira). That said, I do think it plausible that several of the US "mercenaries" serving in Ukraine would have been killed for reasons of friendly fire or corruption - it's just that there won't be any way to confirm those rumors until the war is over, and legally they aren't actually actively serving.

The 2001 AUMF is actually still in effect and gives the President total authority over who qualifies as a target. If you want to claim that there's something unprecedented about the use of wartime powers in supposed peace you're just flat out wrong - Trump wasn't involved in politics at all when the 2001 AUMF was put in place, and previous governments have used it to justify the warrantless surveillance of the entire American population. There are over two decades of precedents for this kind of behavior! I actually agree with you that this is bad, but you just look uninformed if you think that this is some brand new abuse of power.