Iconochasm
2. Bootstrap the rest of the fucking omnipotence.
No bio...
User ID: 314
Whether it's "weak sauce" was not the point. The point was whether progressives unanimously love Pfizer
Oh, I popped in after that, just to talk about the regulatory capture aspect.
It's not an explicit report option, but we do have a catch-all rule against being "egregiously obnoxious". That post did lean a little hard into the sarcasm, so "antagonistic" might also have fit.
There were a couple culture war flashpoints over racially disparate impact from non-vaxxed bans. For example, in DC they tried to ban unvaxxed kids from going to school, and people were pointing out that this was banning half the black kids in the city. Not really sure how that one shook out.
Has anyone heard any competing theories?
Is there any reason to think the FBI had reasonable doubts?
Not a claim I made.
Did not quite say you did. What I am claiming is that it is a very common understanding of events, and the first comment of yours that I replied to was in that ballpark.
I don't see how that is relevant to the issue
I think we're into 3 or 4 different issues, talking past each other, and I have a feeling that if I go into responses for a bunch of the parts of the next two paragraphs I have problems with, it's going to keep happening.
Agreed. I've claimed some ability at this, but it's based on more than a picture. It's more cues about neuroticism, self-confidence, demeanor.
Fair enough. It appears to me to be the sort of claim that people are happy to share off the record, in person. I was thinking more about public, on the record claims.
I have two, just like you, but about 10 years older.
Congratulations!
I'll admit there is a certain appealing poetry to ending the immigration debate by offering Democrats a compromise that is front-loaded to what MAGA wants, and then ruthlessly stiffing them on the back end.
He is the one arguing for ‘the ends don’t justify the means’ non-consequentialism whereas you seem to be arguing that dropping the murder rate by 99% justifies an awful lot.
I understood his argument as being upset about anything beyond the absolute bare minimum quantity of harm being done in the prevention of a greater evil, via the trite rationalist framework of "bad things are bad, and I'm free to criticize everyone else for being less perfect than my pacifistic ivory tower ideals". Maybe he's not the kind of person who doesn't want to punish criminals because of a shallow "people experiencing bad things is bad!" moral understanding... but that's certainly the impression I was getting, especially with him citing Thing of Things like it's a fucking Gospel.
And you know what? We can have that conversation. But you have to be able to justify the claims of unnecessary cruelty, and have to make at least some effort to weigh the pros and cons, and to account for cultural differences, too. And unfortunately, bro seems to be incapable of even attempting a serious effort at that. It comes off like an Eloi asking why the El Salvadoran's just don't notlet bad things happen. It's the "let them eat cake" of criminal theory.
you seem to be arguing that dropping the murder rate by 99% justifies an awful lot.
Yes. And I can support that stance under any moral framework you like, from consequentialism to virtue ethics. But the secondary part is that there doesn't actually seem to be an "awful lot" to justify. People in this thread keep going off about EL SALVADORAN TORTURE PRISON, but none of the people I've asked have offered any evidence that's it's even particularly bad as far as prisons go. Hell, they haven't offered any evidence at all. And my own brief searching seems to suggest that the prison in question is less brutal than a normal American prison, because the prisoners are kept so locked down that they can't brutalize each other. There was a multi-day meltdown over the presumption that Garcia was being tortured and probably murdered... and he just met with a Senator and seemed pretty comfortable and fine, and didn't seem to have complaints of that nature.
So... maybe some people should grow up and at least try to justify any of the horseshit they're peddling. Alternatively, I'm free to point out that they sound like spoiled children.
Point of order, but the hypothetical was "you have actual skin in the game, and face the risk you're so righteously demanding El Salvadoran citizens endure". After all, if your policy advocacy doesn't result in more El Salvadorans being murdered, then there's no risk to you at all!
I criticized the “Handmaiden’s Tale” chicken little-ing on “my team” for years, because unlike the MAGA cult, I don’t feel any compulsion to twist myself into defending whatever insane bullshit “my team” decides to push any given week.
Well, you didn't do it here under that name. If you can link a single example elsewhere, I'll be thrilled to be wrong.
Nobody is crying about an alien simply being improperly deported, don’t be disingenuous. Administrative errors happen, I get it. The problem is that he was sent indefinitely to a torture-prison without due process, while the the government is arguing at the same time that 1: they want to send citizens to the same place, and 2: if they fuck up, there is literally no remedy.
Sorry, just need to stop to clarify here. The prison you're talking about is the one that turned El Salvador from a murder capitol of the world to safer than Sweden, right?
Do you hate the El Salvadoran people? Do you want them to be tortured and murdered en masse by rapacious warlords and banditos? Victimized and preyed upon in even greater amounts? Or is this just the meme?
If not, then maybe that stark difference ought to be taken into account.
And even then, I still don't buy your take. Let's establish some facts. He was deported to his home country, and his own government imprisoned him, as they do with everyone affiliated with the rapacious warlords who murdered and terrorized a fuckton of their people. He already had multiple days in court before judges, and had a deportation order.
Imagine if the US government had caught the "not to El Savador" clause in time, then had a quick hearing where it was determined that his asylum claim was obviously false, and the grounds for the "not to El Salvador" clause were obviously voided by the changed facts on the ground (e.g. his mother no longer owned the business, and the gang he claimed would harm him no longer exists).
Would you suddenly be OK with him being deported?
If we deported him somewhere else, and that country then deported him back to El Salvador, would you be OK with that?
Because your actual logic looks a lot like "We can't deport this criminal, because his native country will do normal things they do to criminals to him", and that might be literally the most perverse logic I've ever heard. Again, it comes back to endless empathy for offenders, and none at all for the people they hurt. It's so fucked up I'm not even appalled. I hit some overflow error and ended up reluctantly impressed at the evil clown logic.
And again, NONE OF THIS justifies being worried about citizens being deported.
I’d just like you to imagine if Biden or Obama were advocating this sort of thing. The people on this website would be calling for armed rebellion.
Per our prior correspondence, which you ignored, Obama did things many times worse (e.g. assassinating a minor citizen for fun) and I never heard anyone call for armed rebellion over it.
That vibe is sort of the opposite of what I'm looking for. But if any of you folks are ever in the hinterlands betwixt The City of Brotherly Love and America's Playground, feel free to DM on reddit.
That's fair. If we really wanted to answer the question, given the disparity in mayorships for big cities, we might want to do something like find the 50 largest Republican-run cities, and then compare that to the 50 Democrat-run cities with the closest demographics.
I am talking about 5ths.
I've succumbed to Defiance of the Fall, which is not as compelling as DCC, but has the powerful advantages of 8+ completed books and an addictive pace. Earlier this week, the 8th Thousand Li book came out, and I tore through that in a day.
and professing love to a girl far away would be done by letter.
Does McSweeney's accept random submissions? I have an idea for a 19th century style letter to a girl that is just 500 words vividly and unashamedly describing my cock.
They'll also just give them to you to take home if you ask. Or, at least they did when I would ask for my scouts.
Disclaimer: I am generally not a city fan, and probably coming at this from a place of motivated reasoning. Nevertheless.
The gist of the comment was that whenever you hear somebody talking about how they want to live in a city because of museums, or a symphony orchestra, or lots of rock concerts, etc., what they're really saying is "I want to live next to other smart, cultured, cool people like me". And what they hate about the suburbs isn't so much the lack of those cultural touchstones, as much as it is having to live next to people who are perfectly happy with just a house that has a yard and a garage and a grocery store and a few chain restaurants within an easy drive.
There's some sense in this, if you're talking like Boston or SF, but cities have normies too, a fucking ton of them. Plus an enormous number of underclass people who are even less nerdy than normies. If you just want a large enough total number of like-minded people, and you're willing to search out the diamonds in the rough in a massive, alienating metroplex, I guess? I have friends who commute 40-60 minutes out from the local major city for D&D night. Traversing NYC might take just as long, and you'll spend all of it packed in a subway with normies instead of isolated in a nice, normie-proof car. If you can't find a dozen friends in a 500k county, your odds don't seem much better in a 5M city unless you're looking for something super niche; the problem is more likely with you.
and if you're the kind of person who hates suburban normies.
I think this sort of thing is usually projection, and indicates the sort of "I think attending cultural events means I have a personality" hipster whose whining about cities is tiresome.
But the "culture war" aspect is why Florida rejected this particular course.
Did they explicitly say that?
While this specific article is about Pfizer, regulatory capture absolutely is nothing new to progressive discourse.
This is really weak sauce. It's a book review about a novel featuring cartoon capitalism that mostly misses the point of regulatory capture, and whose proposed solution is doubling-down on the exact stuff that enables regulatory capture.
Sorry, this all seems like orange and blue thinking to me. Do you not think people ought to be responsible for their own actions? Do you think the incentives we create matter at all? You mention social engineering, but don't seem to connect that the threat of self-harm is itself social engineering, and that my whole gripe is that its extremely susceptible to bad faith utility-monstering. You don’t give in to ultimatums in a relationship because doing so establishes that ultimatums are an effective weapon. Similarly, you should reject threats of self-harm in social engineering because doing otherwise increases the incentive for self-harm.
The point is that this doesn't matter. Sure, assume it's true. When you use that truth to set a target ("We want more AP students"), you lose ceteris paribis; all else is no longer equal, there's a new incentive structure in place.
Remember, these are social "rule of thumb" "laws" we're talking about here, not natural laws of physics. Maybe this is some weird situation where there was the pedagogical equivalent of the $100 bill lying on the ground, and everyone manages to dodge all of the obvious and unobvious ways the attempts to reach the target could backfire or go wrong.
My contention is just that it's still the kind of situation that Goodhart was warning about.
More options
Context Copy link