MadMonzer
Epstein Files must have done something really awful for so many libs to want him released.
No bio...
User ID: 896
I'm mostly thinking about the various trucker and farmer protests involving deliberately blocking roads in the UK and France. These are usually nominally about fuel tax, but are clearly right-coded. They get the kid gloves, because tax policy is the type of issue where the left considers occasional roadblocks to be free speech. The Canadian trucker convoy got the jackboot because the left doesn't consider COVID-19 to be an issue where free speech applies.
The largest right-populist-coded protest movement in Europe in recent years is the gilets jaunes in France, which didn't touch the hot buttons around race and immigration and got the kid gloves.
Suppose a bunch of NYC car drivers decided to have an organized "block the bike lane" protest throughout Manhattan. Do you really think that the Left would defend this as valid free speech?
When right-wing protestors blocked streets to protest fuel taxes, speed limit enforcement etc. in various European countries, they got the same kid-glove treatment that left-wing protestors do.
The NYPD are notoriously reluctant to enforce laws protecting cyclists from drivers, including laws against parking in bike lanes - I can't comment on how a hypothetical protest situation would change that.
Which is why the ICE death rate is critical to the argument - it shows that ICE are not detaining violent criminals in large numbers, unlike local police.
ICE are mostly detaining two groups of people who don't fight back:
- Otherwise law-abiding illegal immigrants (They sometimes accidentally arrest a criminal immigrant, but the whole point of Trump's immigration enforcement agenda is to stop prioritising criminals in order to increase the pressure on non-criminals to self-deport)
- Peaceful protestors (and I don't mean "mostly peaceful" here - so far anti-ICE protests have caused zero non-protestor deaths and have not set any cities on fire).
That said, I agree with you that ICE are violence professionals and should be more dangerous than the average male American - this comparison was a standard suggested by @coffee_enjoyer, and I was doing the napkin math he suggested. What ICE are doing is not friendly and neither its supporters nor opponents have any delusions about this, but given who is being targetted the number of "combat" deaths is negligible - I suspect @coffee_enjoyer may be overestimating the normal level of violence in nonblack America, which is even more negligible. I think some of the confusion is deliberate, in that large parts of MAGA Twitter want to see ICE go full brownshirt against Blue cities, and Trump admin poasters are trying to provide social media kayfabe to meet this demand (and also to scare immigrants into self-deporting, and possibly to encourage brownshirt-wannabees to work for ICE), but ICE are not in fact, as of early 2026, doing that.
I think leftists actually believe that the ability to engage in annoying protest, particularly including blocking streets, is a form of free speech. It is a rare case where the tactic is tribally-coded, not just the target.
Right-wing protesters whose message the left considers within the bounds of free speech (like pro-foxhunting protestors in the UK, or pro-motorist protestors almost everywhere) get the same kid glove treatment from the leftist establishment viz-a-viz enforcement of public order laws that leftist protestors get. Anti-immigrant, anti-COVID-restrictions, and explicitly racist protests get the jackboot, but then those messages got the banhammer when expressed peacefully on social media.
Reform UK do marginally better among the 50-65 age group (mostly Gen X) than among the 65+ group (mostly Boomers), but the key point is that they do almost twice as well with the over 50's as they do with the under 50's.
Given the size of the Conservative vote among over 65's, I suspect the total right-populist vote (Reform voters + low information right-populist voters foolishly voting Conservative because they don't realise that Johnson's right-populism was fake) is strictly increasing with age.
My impression was that right populists in Australia also skew old.
The only Anglosphere country where right-populism is a youthful movement is Canada, and UK media coverage implies that is because right-populism in Canada is YIMBY in a way that it isn't in the US or UK.
The thing is that the US has crazy, overflowing amounts of soft power, it's just divided up between sides of a political scene pumping out content to to own the opposite side.
And 80+% of it is on the Blue side, so Reds who think that Blue America is fake America see real America as consistently losing soft power battles. Foreign tourists visiting America come for the Blue cities, Disney World, and the scenery (which is in Red states, but doesn't express Red political values). Foreign media consumers consume Hollywood, prestige TV, (Blue) pop music, (mostly Blue-allied Black) rap/hip-hop, and the subset of country produced by Reds with atypical political views like Taylor Swift and Dolly Parton. Foreigners who learn American history see the White South as villains, losers, or both. Pro-American foreigners (ipse dixit) see the greatest achievements of American capitalism as Manhattan, Silicon Valley and Hollywood, not Walmart or Cargill. And we generally respect the output of elite American universities much more than the Reds do, partly because the worst DEI BS that your universities put out is optimised for local consumption whereas foreigners are more likely to see the excellent work they are doing in less-politicised areas like physics.
If I try to think of important sources of Red soft power, I would come up with:
- The infrastructure of American-funded Protestant missionary work in the third world. There are a lot of locally-middle-class evangelicals in English-speaking Africa and, increasingly, South America, whose religion comes from Red America. Immigrants from this group (like Kemi Badenoch) are an important right-wing force in UK politics.
- Country music. Big, but as I said above, the stuff that penetrates internationally has limited overlap with the stuff that effectively expresses Red values.
- The NFL. Smaller than Americans think because of the dominance of actual football (the game you play with the feet) in the rest of the world, and more "not explicitly Blue" than "red-coded".
- Big-ass truck abundance, and blue-collar-coded wealth more generally. Near the bottom of the list because it isn't what foreigners see due to the dominance of Blue media - American wealth is depicted using the skyscrapers of Manhattan, not the large houses and cars of the suburbs. But it is clearly attractive to foreigners from countries with high urban crime. (If you have access to low-crime cities, most people find $100,000 in urban debauchery more fun than a $100,000 pickup).
People in cities are still viciously tribal, though. Tons of them can't get through a casual conversation without mentioning how much they hate Trump, ICE, tech bros, cops, billionaires, conservatives, white people (while being white), rich people, straightness (while being straight), or men, and give you weird looks if you don't join in. And that's if you can even get them to talk to you.
Blue Tribers hating on Trump, tech bros, cops, billionaires, rich people, straightness and men are all hating on other blue tribers. (It's the local cops they object to, not random cops in small-town Iowa, and Trump is a renegade Blue Triber). "White people" is a corner case - white people performative hating on white people is mostly a weapon in intra-Blue status games, but can also be an expression of hatred for the Reds. But that is a quibble - more fundamentally, I think you are extrapolating from very online minorities. I have spent a lot of time professionally around PMC Blue Tribe Americans, and for most of them the only time they performatively hate on right-wing outgroups is for an hour a year as part of mandatory workplace diversity training. My more limited experience travelling in Red America is consistent - the minority of politically engaged Reds engage in performative hatred on the Blue target du jour (at the time it was Hilary Clinton) but the grill-pilled majority try not to talk about politics with otherwise-friendly strangers.
If stoking tribal hatred was popular with normies, American politics would not look the way it does. Poasters chasing clout online maximise tribal hatred, but both parties try to turn it down during general election campaigns (Trump with far more success than Harris, which is part of why he won) because it is a vote-loser.
Has anyone done the napkin math on ow safe it is to be apprehended by ICE? I think it’s 30k ICE agents and only 1-2 people shot with questions of justification this year. It’s likely that on a per-hourly basis you are safer being around an ICE agent than you are around the most criminally-prone young male demographic, or walking around certain cities at night. I wonder what a top-tier AI would calculate on this. If ICE agents in the line of work are safer than the average person, then I’m not sure why anyone would be worked up about this event for a rational reason, but if there’s a non-rational reason then…
The US white homicide rate is about 4/100k per year (the overall rate has been around 6 since the end of the 1990's crime wave, with the fluctuations dominated by the black homicide rate), so at first glance 30k ICE agents committing 1-2 homicides a year makes them about as dangerous as the average white American. But of course the homicide rate includes domestics, bar fights etc, and I don't think anyone is tracking the number of ICE agents who kill their wives, and nor does it affect the napkin math, for which the relevant number isn't total homicides - it is killings of strangers. Per the FBI about one in five homicides is a stranger killing (heavy missing data bias, and no racial crosstabs, so take with a pinch of salt) which would make ICE agents significantly more likely to kill a stranger than the average white American (c 0.8 stranger killings/100k) or even the average white male American (c.1.6/100k), and probably slightly more likely than the average male American regardless of race (c.2.4/100k).
Also the corollary is the napkin math on how safe it is to be ICE. If there are 30k ICE agents and about 700k LEOs nationwide (unsophisticated AI guess), then you expect to see a few percent of cop deaths being ICE deaths. In fact (per the National LEO Memorial Fund) we have 152 LEO deaths in 2023 and 148 in 2024 (the pandemic years are distorted by the large number of deaths due to occupational COVID-19 exposure). ICE report 1 death each in 2023 and 2024, but neither are duty deaths - they are both cancers allegedly caused by exposure to toxic waste in the 9-11 cleanup. They report zero deaths in 2025.
An alternative data source is the FBI which only counts felonious and accidental deaths (i.e. it excludes diseases, even if exposure happened on duty). This shows just over 100 deaths per year, with slightly over half being felonious. By these criteria, there have been just 2-3 ICE deaths in the last decade. (James Holdman shot himself "accidentally" in 2021, Brian Beliso had a heart attack while chasing a suspect on foot in 2016 (not sure if this counts as "accident" or "disease"), and Scott McGuire was in a taxi which was hit by a drunk driver in 2016. Zero felonious deaths in ten years, when we should be expecting 1-2 a year if the risk is proportional to other LEOs.
In other words, contrary to the "ICE need to be treated as speshul snowflakes because of the massive campaign of left-wing political violence they are facing" rhetoric of the administration, ICE are an order of magnitude safer than beat cops. The reason is obvious - they are spending a lot less time dealing with dangerous criminals than beat cops do. This implies that beat cops will also engage in a lot more justified shootings than ICE (and the vast majority of shootings by LEOs are uncomplicatedly justified), so trying to compare the lethality of ICE to other law enforcement agencies isn't going to be particularly helpful.
Of course none of this is going to matter to the optics. People (of both tribes - modulo the degree to which the victims are outgroup) care far more about organised violence (including both state violence and non-state political violence) than disorganised criminal violence, and far more about violent deaths of both types than other avoidable deaths like car crashes or industrial accidents. This appears to be true at all times and places, at least within the WEIRD world.
Poilievre losing to Carney is a profoundly non-central example of TDS. Canada's strategic situation actually changed because of a change in US policy.
If you treat the invasion threats as the social media rantings of a madman, the US (a) elected a madman President and (b) announced and executed on a tariff policy which Trump justified to his domestic supporters as a punitive measure to force Canada to address a non-problem (fentanyl flowing south across the US-Canadian border).
The tariffs were not really about fentanyl, and both Canadian elites and Canadian voters know this. If you think "Trump wants to annex Canada" is TDS then they are obviously not about that. So the best non-TDS read is that the US has, for domestic policy reasons, decided to pursue a new economic policy that was profoundly harmful to Canada (and is explicitly repudiating his own trade deal to do so). Canadian policy should change in response to this.
It is also worth noting that if Trump's threats to annex Canada were broadly understood in the US as the rantings of a madman, they would have been ignored (or even covered up) by his supporters and signal-boosted by his opponents. What actually happened is that MAGA Twitter went off on an orgy of reciting the (mostly made-up) crimes of Canada against the US that justified the invasion, boasting about how easy the invasion would be militarily and how cool it was that Canada and Canadians didn't get a say, and discussing plans for the government of post-annexation Canada. To remain in good standing with the Trump White House and the broader MAGA movement, MAGA-aligned elites had to pretend to take the ranting against Canada seriously. I don't think Trump is planning to invade Canada, but he is very careful not to send the kinds of reassurance you would expect if a joke between two friendly countries was getting out of hand.
Agreed that Venezuela is by far the most important thing going on right now. Iran is potentially more important, but based on the (very limited) available information the way to bet is nothing happens (in this case that the regime successfully cracks down).
I think "The President of the United States launches a criminal investigation against the Fed Chair" is a bigger deal than "10% random" implies, although I don't know if there is much to say about it.
I'm not defending the woman's behaviour, which I described as aggravated stupidity. I am attacking the ICE agents for poor police work culminating in a legal but avoidable shooting.
Allowing your fight-or-flight instincts to override common sense, causing you to do something dangerously stupid to evade cops, is not acceptable behaviour, but it is reasonably predictable behaviour. Good policing isn't just about insisting on co-operation, it is also about making it psychologically easy for an untrained normie to co-operate without panicking. That is part of why normal beat police have, going back to the time of Robert Peel, eschewed the paramilitary aesthetic.
Even if you know they are all cops, a cop in tacticool gear is scarier than a cop in a regular cop uniform. (And a cop in riot gear is even scarier). If you are trying to intimidate a hardened violent criminal into surrendering without a fight, this is a good thing. In the more common scenario where you are trying to encourage petty criminals, peaceful protesters, and randos in the wrong place at the wrong time to co-operate without making loud noises or sudden movements that could be mistaken for a threat, it is a bad thing.
Good point. The Deep State might have rolled Trump into doing military operations he didn't want to do, but it definitely hasn't rolled him into poasting about military operations that aren't happening.
The poasting about invading Canada, Greenland, and Panama is a character-revealing choice by Trump, as is the poasting about hypothetical kinetic operations against Blue Tribers within the US. And what it reveals is that Trump's objection to Bush-era American imperialism isn't that he opposes imperialism, its that he thinks Bush wasn't evil enough to make it work. And going into Venezuela in order to keep the regime in place, complete with the entire apparatus of domestic repression and regional narcoterrorism, but steal a relatively small amount of oil, is strong evidence that he is serious about this.
The way I see it is that nobody was trying to murder anyone, but two people committed aggravated stupidity in the presence of the enemy (and I'm not desperately impressed by the ICE agent by the car door either - scaring someone into fight-or-flight mode when your partner is standing in front of their car comes close to blue falconry by aggravated stupidity).
WTF was he doing standing in front of the car? Cops are trained not to do this for a reason. I don't like hostile mindreading, but the most plausible explanations are either complete failure to think or a Rachel Corrie-esque belief that standing in front of the car would hold it in place while his partner made the arrest.
WTF was she doing? Other than "A woman being aggressively approached by men dressed like hostile soldiers went into fight-or-flight mode and did something senseless" I can't make sense of it.
Aggravated stupidity in the presence of the enemy shouldn't be a capital crime (except where the enemy is a foreign enemy in an actual war) but per natural law it often is. The fool from ICE got lucky. Good didn't.
If this was regular cops, the other question would be why make so much effort to effect a marginal obstruction arrest. Unless Good had done something worse than making an illegal U-turn in an area ICE were operating in, it isn't likely that obstruction charges would stick if they did arrest her. This would have been, had it worked, a contempt of cop arrest. I'm not the kind of pro-disorder leftist who thinks that contempt of cop arrests should never be made, but they are a tool for removing assholes* from the situation. If someone who is an asshole but isn't actively criming wants to be somewhere else, that is a win-win outcome.
* This is a semi-technical term used by cops
While Romanians (non-gypsy) are debatably white
This is nonsense. Non-gypsy Romanians are physiologically as white as Poles or Hungarians, and the only reason why they are not as politically white is because the kind of person who cares about whiteness-as-political-identity is usually dumb enough not to understand the difference between Roma and Romanians.
If the US was not at war in the relevant legal sense, the law against murder. They were killings in peacetime with malice aforethought.
If the US was at war in the relevant legal sense, then the double tap violated various provisions of the Geneva Conventions relating to violence against shipwrecked sailors.
The Trump administration's defence of the boat killings is basically that drug dealers are hostis humani generis. This issue is a political loser for Trump's opponents because the median voter basically agrees with him on this point, but nothing in US or international law treats cocaine differently from any other kind of contraband.
Guilty as charged.
Because US intelligence was paying them to provide info on Maduro's daily habits, they realised what was going on, and wanted to double-dip on the rewards?
Because they were on Delcey Rodriguez's staff and knew about the deal she did with the Trump admin in Qatar?
I find I frequently get into bed with the same woman more than once. Do you, Sir?
I think it is pretty common for academic jargon to be watered down as it reaches the masses, losing whatever small meaning it might have once had.
I think the issue isn't specific to academic jargon - it is more to do with negative terminology. Negative terminology is mostly used in phatic communication bashing the shared outgroup, and pointing out that Bad Person A may be Bad Word B but he is not in fact Bad Word C is a buzzkill.
Consider "Enshittification", which is definitely not academic jargon. Cory Doctorow only coined the term three years ago, and he used it to describe a specific process where the experience of a non-paying user of a platform like Facebook gets worse over time as the platform owner shifts from attracting users to monetization. The term is already debased to the point where it can be used to describe any case where a product or service gets worse over time, and the Wikipedia article says it is a synonym for "Crapification", which originally referred to the entirely different process where a product or service (most famously, US domestic airlines) gets worse because price competition is more vigorous than quality competition.
This is incorrect. It would be more accurate to say that it is not only incoherent but economically irresponsible to apply an entirely different regime to ‘prediction market bets’ than we do to sportsbooks or any other form of betting.
Insider sports betting isn't illegal, but essentially every sports governing body has rules against the sort of people who might count as insiders betting on their own sport. Sometimes violating these rules involves committing broad-spectrum crimes like mail fraud or wire fraud and there is a criminal investigation into insider sports betting.
Did they ever find out who bought the airline puts before 9-11?
(FWIW, my view remains that the puts were bought by well-connected non-terrorist Saudis with a back channel to Bin Laden, the Bush admin knew this by early 2002, and it was covered up in the 9-11 commission report).
50 worthless internet points at evens that "left-wing extremists" in Berlin is a euphemism for Islamists.
Also frequent fainting. My blood pressure was something like 105/60 before I gained weight during the pandemic, and I fainted about once a month.
Though more significantly, if you are just comparing two single point-in-time readings, the difference between 114/66 and 119/71 is within the range of normal day-to-day variation, and many people have slightly higher blood pressure in the doctor's office than they do elsewhere because of stress response.
While I agree that EY is a better philosopher than the vast majority of people currently teaching in university philosophy departments, a rock with "Touch grass daily, call your mother weekly" written on it would be even better.
Analytic Philosophy as a discipline is the discipline of thinking deeply about things we don't understand well enough to have an actual discipline to think about in an informed way. "Natural philosophy" has been replaced by physics. "Philosophy of mind" should have been replaced by psychology and neuroscience. "Moral philosophy" would have been replaced by sociology and social anthropology if those disciplines functioned properly. Continental Philosophy is what bullshit looks like if you try to make it look like it was translated from French badly. Both are by definition unlikely to produce actionable insights.
- Prev
- Next

I don't think the pro-establishment left has been particularly soft on Iran - although I agree at the margin the pro-establishment right has been more hawkish recently (see for example the Obama era nuclear deal).
I agree here - I think "pro-establishment = hawkish, anti-establishment = dovish" is a better model than "left = dovish, right = hawkish". Trump personally is an exception because he is close to both Israel and Saudi Arabia in a way which the anti-establishment right would disapprove of in anyone else.
There is also a model where the US factional politics of Iran is just the US factional politics of Israel. The pro-establishment left and right are pro-Israel and thus anti-Iran, the anti-establishment left is anti-Israel and thus pro-Iran, and the anti-establishment right is divided on Iran in ways which primarily reflect their attitudes to Israel and Jews.
More options
Context Copy link