@Gillitrut's banner p

Gillitrut

Reading from the golden book under bright red stars

1 follower   follows 0 users  
joined 2022 September 06 14:49:23 UTC 

				
User ID: 863


				
				
				

			

		

	














	


		


			



	

		

			

			

				

					

						

							
						

						

							
							

								
Gillitrut


								

								

								
								
								

								
							
					
 
				


				
Reading from the golden book under bright red stars

				
				
				

				

					1 follower  

					follows 0 users  

					joined 2022 September 06 14:49:23 UTC
				


				
					

					
No bio...

				

				

				

				

				

					

					

					
					
					

					
User ID: 863


					
					
					
				

			


					

						
					



		

	

 











			
			

			
			

			




	


		

			
‎

			

				
				

					Hour
					Day
					Week
					Month
					Year
					
				

			


			
‎

			

	
	

	 Hot Bump Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
	



		

	






	

		
		

		
		
	

	

  







		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of January 19, 2026
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
China is the obvious one but, like, the EU is itself about the size of the US. A GDP almost as high and 50% more people. Sure, no individual country in Europe is a match for the US but collectively may be a different story.


The OP doesn't quote the section but there's a part in Carney's speech where he talks about middle powers like Canada making alliances on limited issues based on interest alignment. They'll work with China on issues where they're aligned with China. The EU on issues where they're aligned with the EU. The overarching point is that the era of "whatever the US says, goes" is over. Unless we intend to enforce that at the end of a gun.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of January 19, 2026
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
I do not think either we or our allies have conceived of our relationship as vassalage and attempts at converting our relationship to vassalage will be harmful to those relationships.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of January 19, 2026
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
It is not normal politics. It is bad for America's long term ability to negotiate agreements if other countries come to believe that every President is going to tear up every agreement of their predecessor. Why make any deal that will last longer than the current administration? The reason other presidents have honored agreements previous presidents made, even when they disagreed with them, is because there is value in being a country that honors it's agreements.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of January 19, 2026
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
I mean, some of them presumably do their jobs. If I go to a WMATA operated stop a bus or train will come. With an operator who is a WMATA employee.


Based on reading your two links I don't think this characterizes the situation accurately? According to the second link:


1. Not updating measurements when the new measurement was within 1/8 of an inch was standard practice going all the way back to the 1970's.




Yet the panel found Metro had never rooted out a practice begun as official policy when the system opened in the 1970s that had inspectors only update measurements on monthly switch inspection forms if the new measurements were at least 1/8 inch different. If not, the same numbers were simply carried over from month to month and year to year.






“It’s understood by everyone that that’s how we do things. Otherwise, we would have gotten accused of falsification prior to this,” Bell told the arbitration panel. “It was understood that each inspector’s eyes are different, and 1/8 of an inch is negligible.”




2. The issue that ultimately lead to the train derailment was flagged by inspectors and had been for years.




In Metro management’s initial response to the derailment, they noted 12-14 buttery ties that had allowed tracks to slip too far apart — right where the inspection reports had reported 15 defective ties month after month, year after year.






Bell’s termination letter acknowledged the problem had been reported over and over.






“The records reflect there was a recorded defect on the Defect Database that was at the ‘Point of Derailment’ and another entry that was allowed to remain on the database since 2012,” the letter said.




3. They did change their training and practices after the derailment to improve them.




After the summer 2016 derailment, Metro changed inspection procedures to no longer provide the previous measurements pre-typed in on switch inspection forms, and retrained track inspectors to record the actual measurements they took.




				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of January 19, 2026
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
Comparing this to UBI seems weird to me. My understanding is the point of UBI is that it's approximately unconditional. You get the money whatever your income or whether you have a job. By contrast, according to your budget link, the WMATA provided something like 268 million trips for its budget. Maybe you think the $19 or so per trip that works out to is not a good use of money, but it seems pretty far from the "nothing" the government gets in return for UBI! Maybe a better comparison would be some kind of guaranteed job program? No idea what the economic efficiency of programs like that work out to.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of January 19, 2026
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
The only way out is through, as they say. I think Carney and co. are likely correct as a factual matter. As the United States becomes a less reliable partner countries are going to look at diversifying away from their dependence on it. Whether that is part of a process of becoming more self sufficient, making friends with other great powers, or coalitions of "middle powers" countries are going to aim to reduce their reliance on America as a friend and ally. A couple paragraphs from Carney's speech you didn't quote but that I think highlight this:




As a result, many countries are drawing the same conclusions. They must develop greater strategic autonomy: in energy, food, critical minerals, in finance, and supply chains. This impulse is understandable. A country that cannot feed itself, fuel itself, or defend itself has few options. When the rules no longer protect you, you must protect yourself. But let us be clear-eyed about where this leads. A world of fortresses will be poorer, more fragile, and less sustainable.
And there is another truth: if great powers abandon even the pretence of rules and values for the unhindered pursuit of their power and interests, the gains from ‘transactionalism’ become harder to replicate. Hegemons cannot continually monetize their relationships. Allies will diversify to hedge against uncertainty. Buy insurance. Increase options. This rebuilds sovereignty— sovereignty which was once grounded in rules—but which will be increasingly anchored in the ability to withstand pressure.
This classic risk management comes at a price. But that cost of strategic autonomy, of sovereignty, can also be shared. Collective investments in resilience are cheaper than everyone building their own fortress. Shared standards reduce fragmentation. Complementarities are positive sum.




I, personally, think America's close integration with our allies operated to our benefit. Both economically and in terms of our ability to order the world more to our liking. A more isolationist America is going to be poorer and facing a more hostile world. Even in the event Democrats take back control of Congress and the presidency over the next several elections I expect the damage done by Trump would be generations in undoing. Other countries are not going to forget it takes one demented madman winning an election to blow up any agreements we might have.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of January 19, 2026
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
It refers to the Southeastern Conference of the National Collegiate Athletic Association. Basically, a group of colleges in the United States that regularly play certain sports against each other.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of January 19, 2026
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
There's a reason dating is often analogized to a market. The relevant question is how many people do the desirable things, have the desirable traits, not how many theoretically could. Even if every women, in principle, could become highly desirable in this sense if only a few actually do those who do are going to have a lot of power to choose a highly desirable partner. The point is that if you want to date a woman who is 80th percentile (or whatever) for desirability then you yourself probably need to be 80th percentile for desirability.




20-something: every woman will be a 20-something for ten years of her life.




This is true but, according to the US 2020 Census, only about ~13% of women are currently in their 20's. Making "woman in her 20's" rarer than both your examples of "man over 6ft tall" and "man who makes six figures." The shape of the US population pyramid also suggests this fraction is going to shrink over time. Age is also transitive, as you note, while the latter two are much closer to permanent.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of January 12, 2026
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


To clarify, I said "since the Cold War", not since WWII.




Mistake on my part, I still think it is not true.




Also, you say "any passing knowledge of America's founders, it's elder statesman, our civic religion more broadly and the virtues embodied therein puts lie to the notion Donald Trump could possible be some avatar of it." but what specific knowledge would that be?




What kinds of virtues did the founders of America hold in high regard? Civility. Integrity. Humility. Temperance. How does Trump embody any of these? What is it about Trump, his actions or mannerisms, that people should find aspirational?


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of January 12, 2026
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
As a leftist myself I do think the American left has often been too quick to cede ground on patriotism to the right. My impression is that a lot of this is due to a kind of cultural weaponization of the idea to marshal support for the Iraq war in the wake of 9/11. Fortunately there are writers on the left, both old and new, who recognize that patriotism and leftism or liberalism are compatible notions.


History aside, the notion that Donald Trump is some uniquely American president post World War 2 is an idea I find insane. Maybe that can be sustained if your image of what it means to be an American comes from slop like Team America World Police. Or if you have fully bought into the post 9/11 propaganda. But any passing knowledge of America's founders, it's elder statesman, our civic religion more broadly and the virtues embodied therein puts lie to the notion Donald Trump could possible be some avatar of it.


If we're quoting American statesman about what it means to be an American I rather prefer Learned Hand's The Spirit of Liberty




We have gathered here to affirm a faith, a faith in a common purpose, a common conviction, a common devotion. Some of us have chosen America as the land of our adoption; the rest have come from those who did the same. For this reason we have some right to consider ourselves a picked group, a group of those who had the courage to break from the past and brave the dangers and the loneliness of a strange land. What was the object that nerved us, or those who went before us, to this choice? We sought liberty; freedoms from oppression, freedom from want, freedom to be ourselves. This we then sought; this we now believe that we are by way of winning. What do we mean when we say that first of all we seek liberty? I often wonder whether we do not rest our hopes too much upon constitutions, upon laws and upon courts. These are false hopes; believe me, these are false hopes. Liberty lies in the hearts of men and women; when it dies there, no constitution, no law, no court can even do much to help it. While it lies there it needs no constitution, no law, no court to save it. And what is this liberty which must lie in the hearts of men and women? It is not the ruthless, the unbridled will; it is not freedom to do as one likes. That is the denial of liberty, and leads straight to its overthrow. A society in which men recognize no check upon their freedom soon becomes a society where freedom is the possession of only a savage few; as we have learned to our sorrow.






What then is the spirit of liberty? I cannot define it; I can only tell you my own faith. The spirit of liberty is the spirit which is not too sure that it is right; the spirit of liberty is the spirit which seeks to understand the mind of other men and women; the spirit of liberty is the spirit which weighs their interests alongside its own without bias; the spirit of liberty remembers that not even a sparrow falls to earth unheeded; the spirit of liberty is the spirit of Him who, near two thousand years ago, taught mankind that lesson it has never learned but never quite forgotten; that there may be a kingdom where the least shall be heard and considered side by side with the greatest. And now in that spirit, that spirit of an America which has never been, and which may never be; nay, which never will be except as the conscience and courage of Americans create it; yet in the spirit of that America which lies hidden in some form in the aspirations of us all; in the spirit of that America for which our young men are at this moment fighting and dying; in that spirit of liberty and of America I ask you to rise and with me pledge our faith in the glorious destiny of our beloved country.




				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of January 12, 2026
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
I appreciate the links. I think they convince me the author is a Never-Trump style Republican.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of January 12, 2026
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
Can you link me to his other writings? Because this is a quote from the article you linked:




Now, I am, by temperament, a hardcore partisan. I often respect principled adversaries on the other side, but moderates tend to strike me as slippery customers who can’t commit. I instinctively disdain them, especially those on my own “team.” I spent years daydreaming about Susan Collins being run out of my party, ideally on a rail, no matter how tactically stupid it would have been.




He goes on to say the Senate is meant to counter that temperament but this hardly looks like the writing of someone who does not prefer Republicans!




He is trying to make less polarized candidates, not candidates of a specific brand. Surely 30 Republican-leaning centrist and 20 Democrat-leaning centrist Senators would be better than what we have now?




I am not at all sure of that. I see little evidence that "moderates" in the Senate have done much to stand up to what I perceive to be Trump's abuses of power. Why would I want them to be more powerful, given that perception?


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of January 12, 2026
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
I can't help but notice his proposal would, under current state legislature distribution, enshrine his preferred political party's dominance in the Senate. Even more than it already is! There are currently 30 states whose upper chambers (or only chamber, in Nebraska's case) are majority Republican. This has been true for the last ~decade if you go back through the data from the National Conference of State Legislatures. "I just happen to come up with a scheme where my preferred party has a 3/5 majority in perpetuity, but that's not why I chose it I swear!"


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of January 5, 2026
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
I guess I don't find these kinds of arguments about the structure of an argument very compelling these days. If I think that some government actions are illegitimate and resisting them via force is justified am I thereby required, as a matter of logic or consistency, to accept that any individual's subjective assessment of any government action and the appropriate resistance is correct? Sure, if there are liberals and conservatives out there talking about how, actually, both government actions were equally illegitimate but then they have contradictory reactions then charge them with hypocrisy. I think this describes relatively few people though. Rather, people disagree about the facts with respect to which actions were illegitimate and thus what resistance was justified.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of January 5, 2026
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
Dude literally switched his phone from the right hand to the left, just before the lunch comment, so it would be easier to draw and shoot.


				

				

						

							

								
    
									
									
									
									
  • 
										 
									
    • 
	
  • 
		
			
		
		-15
		
			
		

    • 


							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of January 5, 2026
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
Objectively speaking nothing happened to Fields, even after he killed people, while Good was shot three times. So the threat is definitely different but not in the way you intended, I think.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of January 5, 2026
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
My guess is Mr. A's justifications for meeting in the bathroom are post-hoc but I don't think it's in, like, a malicious way. Stefan probably suggested meeting in the bathroom. Maybe Mr. A thought it was weird in a general way but he didn't interrogate him about why he wanted to meet there. Any explanation is Mr. A trying to come up with what he could have been thinking when he actually didn't think much of it. But he doesn't feel, for whatever reason, like he can just tell the investigators that he didn't think anything of it, so he has to concoct come post-hoc explanation and there are, frankly, not many good ones!


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of January 5, 2026
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
I don't know. Maybe I am too credulous but Mr. A's account seems fine to me. Was he naive about why someone might want to meet at the toilets? Sure, but even he admits that! As best I can tell he expressed a consistent preference against having sex in public, or proceeding to sex without getting to know Dr. Stefan better. Even before the incident occurred. I guess I'm not sure about other people but I would consider "the toilets at my work place" to be "public", at least in terms of having sex. As the tribunal mentions it's also not clear to me what Mr. A has to gain by reporting this as sexual harassment if he didn't think it was. Like, what's the downside to him if he never says anything about it to anyone? Mr. A's disturbed demeanor after the fact was also noted by, like, half a dozen colleagues who testified. I guess this was all a Machiavellian show he put on to get the guy who catfished him in trouble?


I am happy to believe Mr. A was willing or intended to proceed to a sexual relationship with Dr. Stefan at some point in the future but I am skeptical he went to this particular meeting with the intention of having sex.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of January 5, 2026
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
I think there is a wide gap between "lethal force" and "trivially easy."


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of January 5, 2026
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
I am not sure that I agree, in all cases.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of January 5, 2026
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
I guess this is an angle I also didn't think about that is relevant. If you are attempting to stop someone fleeing with an officer's body there is almost always an alternative. Like, the first truck they arrived in could have just parked in front of the victim's vehicle? A different vehicle goes around it moments before!


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of January 5, 2026
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
I guess to my mind the underlying crime is obviously relevant to what means are justified in arresting or stopping the suspecting. You've got a murderer with a hostage? By all means, high speed chase. Use deadly force. You think someone has an illegal quantity of drugs? Probably no high speed chase or deadly force. This latter is outside the context of self-defense of course. If guy with drugs pulls a gun on you, feel free to escalate appropriately. The point is that there needs to be a proportional relationship between the means and the crime.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of January 5, 2026
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
The point is that not all escalations to enforce all laws are justified. I think it bad when police officers manufacture justifications to escalate.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of January 5, 2026
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
That does not justify any escalation to enforce any law. Policy officer's can't shoot a jaywalker to stop them from jaywalking.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of January 5, 2026
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
I had to have a bit of a think about this. Cops standing in front of vehicles as a means to prevent escape then escalating to deadly force has also felt a little off to me but I was not totally clear on why. I think what icks me about it is that, as a tactic, it manufactures a justification to escalate to deadly force to prevent an escape where one would not otherwise be present.


Consider a few cases.


Imagine if the individual in the video was not in a car but rather on foot or on a bicycle. As agents approach to effect an arrest they flee. Would the police have had a legal justification to shoot them to prevent them from fleeing? My impression is no, they would not.


Imagine the individual is in a car, but they effect their escape while police are still several feet away, to the sides or rear of the vehicle. Would the police have had a legal justification to shoot them to prevent them from fleeing? My impression again is no, they would not.


But once you place an office in the direction of the vehicle's escape that escape becomes assault with a deadly weapon, which does permit escalation to lethal force.


It's obvious why officers like it as a tactic. Most people are probably not willing to make contact with a person with their vehicle to flee a crime, so it effectively prevents the obvious way someone might escape. If they are wrong about that individual's willingness it lets them escalate to shooting.


I continue to have mixed feelings about it. I don't like it as a means of manufacturing an excuse to use deadly force where you wouldn't normally be able to but it is not clear to me what reform of it as a tactic would look like.




As to this particular case I think it is unlikely the office gets convicted of a crime. I don't recall particular cases but I'm reasonably confident I've seen cases where officers used deadly force when under less threat and get acquitted. The high profile nature of the case may alter that, though.


ETA:


Someone in the comments on one of the videos posted this slowed down version and now I am less sure. It looks to me like the agent in front of the vehicle (who did the shooting) might be clear of the front of the vehicle before they open fire. High potential to be another McGlockton where what happened in a second or two of time is determinative.


ETA 2:


Slowing down Angle 3 to 1/4 speed and watching from seconds 2-4 it seems clearer to me the agent was out of danger before they opened fire.


ETA 3:


I guess I'm closer to 100% probability that this guy doesn't get convicted. Not because I think it's a good shoot but because someone pointed out that, as a federal officer, state likely can't prosecute and very unlikely the federal government prosecutes. Pending a change in administration I think it's very unlikely there are legal consequences for this guy.