@MadMonzer's banner p

MadMonzer

Temporarily embarassed liberal elite

4 followers   follows 0 users  
joined 2022 September 06 23:45:01 UTC

				

User ID: 896

MadMonzer

Temporarily embarassed liberal elite

4 followers   follows 0 users   joined 2022 September 06 23:45:01 UTC

					

No bio...


					

User ID: 896

YA SF recommendations wanted!

The Mini-STEMlord of this thread is 10 this week and we are still trying to get him to read books. Based on the films and TV he likes, his preferred genre of fiction is SF, with a mild preference for harder SF. He has asked for the books of Dune and The Martian after watching the movies, but found them too difficult.

Apart from going old school and introducing him to the Heinlein juveniles, I have no idea what SF is out there for younger readers. Mini-STEMlord has a reading age of at least 14 and can handle science concepts at an A-level to first year undergraduate level. (In terms of maths, he has mastered algebra but hasn't started trig or calculus. He was able to follow a 1st-year undergraduate biochem course on MIT OpenCourseware when he was healthy and rested but not when he was tired or had a cold). But he has no reading stamina - with one exception the longest thing he has read is a Wikipedia article. I don't know if that means anthologies of short stories would be better than novels.

Any advice appreciated.

And that is before you consider the faction of the Republican party that thinks private-sector companies in strategic sectors should be required to give large equity stakes to the government as a condition of being allowed to operate.

Between MAGA communists and DSA communists, I think the percentage of Americans who favour the state seizing the means of production is at least 20%. I would guess the equivalent figure is >30% in most western European countries, and >50% in France where both the Gaullist right and the mainstream left have particularly strong communist traditions.

there are two sides to this conflict

There are two sides to the conflict between Good and Evil. One of them is Good, and the other is Evil. Similarly, there are two sides to the conflict between someone trying to go about their business and someone trying to kill them for no good reason, although there is no guarantee that the innocent victim in this case is actually Good.

The fact that Trump frequently acts as if he wants to align the US with Russia and against its traditional allies is part of the problem, yes.

I think one of the biggest reasons the neocons made policy mistakes is that they assumed that because the various unpleasant Arab/Muslim factions hate Israel more than they hate each other, they must hate us more than they hate each other.

In fact the secular Arab left (in so far as it still exists post-USSR and post-Saddam), the Sunni Jihadis and the Shia Iranian Mullahs all hate each other more than they hate us, and Israel is the only thing that comes close to uniting them.

Or to put it another way, I agree with JD Vance, Matthew Yglesias and the median American voter that the proper America First policy on the Israel-Palestine conflict is "not my circus, not my monkeys".

In the UK, where British government policy mostly has been "not my circus, not my monkeys" in my lifetime, anyone who makes Israel-Palestine central to their politics has either dual loyalties (if they are ethnically Jewish or Arab) or no brain (if not) and should be bozo-binned on that basis. I have some sympathy for the situation the current government is in given the specific problems Labour is having on their left flank, but the current round of moral grandstanding over West Bank settlements, while justified as a matter of morality, is not in the national interest.

One of the key insights of MMT is that a country that borrows in its own currency (like the US or the UK, but not individual countries in the Eurozone) can't suffer an Argentina-style bankruptcy because they can always print enough money to pay their bills. MMTers who also understand Econ 201 know that what this means in practice is that the endgame of excessive deficit spending is Zimbabwe and not Argentina, and have some modest but sensible ideas about how this changes the optimal monetary and fiscal policy. In particular, smart MMTers think that deficits matter even less than Krugmanites do as long as there is significant unemployment such that deficit spending isn't competing with the private-sector economy for real resources. MMTers who think MMT is a substitute for understanding mainstream economics think that it means that deficits don't matter ever and that printed money can buy all the real resources you could want from Sugarcandy Mountain.

You could probably function as a carpenter without knowing trigonometry, but you need it to pass the exam for journeyman status.

The Nagorno-Karabakh conflict (including the Azeri invasion, conquest, and ethnic cleansing of the "Republic of Artsakh" in 2023) was fought within the internationally recognised territory of Azerbijan. They may have committed genocide (I don't give a shit, because the victims were Russian stooges and I have friends in Salisbury) but they didn't commit aggression under international law.

Up till 1945, yes. We (by which I mean the UK, USA and USSR) unestablished it in pretty spectacular style in Normandy, Kursk, Hiroshima etc.

Based on the official government numbers at ForeignAssistance.gov, about half (more under Trump I, less under Biden) of the total US aid spend (excluding extraordinary support to Ukraine since the start of the Russian invasion) was either aid to Israel or aid to Egypt and Jordan which is basically Danegeld paid on behalf of Israel. I don't know how this changes as a result of Trump's cuts to USAID, but I suspect the proportion is even higher now.

Except wartime Ukraine, Israel is by far the largest single recipient of US aid, despite its small population and first-world standard of living.

So "stop funding Israel" and "end foreign aid" are kind of the same cause, just spun to appeal to different audiences.

There is a large Palestinian diaspora, and mostly they are even more inclined to performatively hate Israel than the Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza are.

Dated. Past tense.

"Through friends" (which doesn't just mean dating your friends, it also means dating friends-of-friends you met at house parties, using friends as matchmakers etc.) was the plurality answer to "how did you meet your partner" from about 1950 to about 2010. In the current year, more than 60% of couples met online.

"People of colour" is woke-stupid rather than TDS. The two ailments* are frequently co-morbid, but conceptually different. The Bulwark crowd have TDS but are not woke-stupid. The leadership of corporate America went woke-stupid around 2020 (but are now recovering) but not TDS.

* Modulo the argument that Trump is as bad as he claims to be and TDS not an ailment, rather trusting your lying eyes over all the people acting like "this is fine" dogs.

I'm pretty sure that if an Israeli Arab marries a non-Israeli from the United States, they can live with their spouse in Israel, same thing with an Israeli Jew. I'm pretty sure there is an exception if the proposed marriage partner is a non-Israeli from Gaza or J & S, but at the same time, I'm pretty sure that this exception applies to both Jews and Arabs alike. Do you disagree?

Jim Crow laws were facially neutral too. It didn't stop them being racist.

The same is true of the national quotas in the 1924 Immigration Act in the US, or the "patriality" rules in the Commonwealth Immigrants Acts in the UK, if you think it is possible for an immigration law to be racist in the morally relevant sense.

It is very easy for a competent politician to write facially neutral laws targetting a specific ethnic group, particularly if they are okay with modest collateral damage (as the Jim Crow South definitely was - I'm less sure about the other examples).

You can make a reasonable case that this is already de facto the law in most of the US (and the UK, and presumably most of western Europe) because of the way police and courts enforce facially gender-netural laws. If cops and judges who deal with domestic violence are exclusively trained in the feminist Duluth Model then the law as enforced will reflect that.

Which is arguably a bad thing, but empirically isn't causing falling marriage rates.

It's complete bullshit. For one, it's not even happening now, when mate choice is a thing, but more importantly, mate choice being "a thing" is completely novel; historically, marriages were decided by the families of the prospective spouses, not the spouses themselves, and this is true across cultures and time, as far as we're able to find in the record.

Not in cisHajnal cultures. Westerners were choosing their own spouses by about 1000AD for the peasant class and 1400AD for the middle class.

Anyway, we could compare to other times in history where there was a growing population and consider sexual norms then. Population growth was very high in colonial era North America (higher than the 1960s) but sexual norms were very restrictive back then. The Gaza strip had fairly high population growth more recently but it's not exactly a paradise of free love. There are many counterexamples.

Everything I have read about colonial era North America implies that the shotgun marriage rate was noticeably higher than the old country, with the New England Puritans the worst culprits. Which is exactly what you would expect if there was a sexual loosening but no official toleration.

The basic logic of a religious-right coalition built around Likud is going to survive Netanyahu as long as the religious Zionist parties are willing to work with the Haredim.

Although I agree with you that if Netanyahu was eaten by a landshark tomorrow, we would see the rapid formation of an all-Zionist "unity" coalition (i.e. no Arabs, left or Haredi) with his successor as Likud leader becoming PM (possibly with an agreement to rotate with Eisenkot), and most Jewish Israelis would breathe a sigh of relief. There are 80 MKs to work with and you need 61, so I suspect the incoming PM is looking to cut rather than recruit partners.

The problem with this argument is that we aren't seeing the now-scarce Zoomettes getting what they want.

The problem with the dating market in 2026 is that it does not clear, not that it is clearing at a price that young men don't like. Both sexes think it sucks, and there are people of both sexes who want to match with MMV peers and are unable to. Most people of both sexes still want marriage, but marriage rates are low and falling. This is a disaster, not a shift in power in the battle of the sexes.

The normie view on what is wrong seems fairly clear - that the main socially acceptable way of meeting strangers as potential dates (subscription-funded dating apps) does not work.

The same is true in banks - including the high-end back office roles like quant risk modellers or regulatory specialists. In-house legal and the good Finance roles are whiter - probably because they mostly recruit women who mummy-tracked out of BigLaw and Big 4 accountancy firms respectively.

Haredi parties got 13 seats out of 120, down from 18 four years ago. Israeli media suggests that this is about Shas (the Sephardic Haredi party, but also the only party specifically dedicated to protecting Sephardi and Mizrahi interests) losing non-Haredi Sephardim to Likud as the war in Gaza makes the Haredi draft-dodging issue more salient. Religious Zionist parties also got 13 (down 1, possibly because a joint list broke up) - the vast majority of religious Zionist in Israel are Modern Orthodox in their faith, and the vast majority of Modern Orthodox Jews are religious Zionist in their politics. In addition, a lot of religious Zionists voted for Likud, and some for Together - a right-liberal joint list combining Naftali Bennet's otherwise right-liberal religious Zionist party and Yair Lapid's secular right-liberal party.

In terms of long-term trends, MO Jews also have high birth rates (though not quite as high as Haredim) and are also benefitting from religious-Zionism motivated immigration of (mostly MO) diaspora Jews. The MO/RZ bloc is therefore growing about as fast as the Haredi bloc. The question is whether the MO/RZ bloc remains allied with the Haredim against secular Jews (which is what Netanyahu has built his career on), or whether they ally with the secular right to strengthen Israel by eliminating Haredi parasitism (which is what Bennet wants). If the Netanyahu coalition holds together, then I expect the most economically productive secular Ashkenazim to feel increasingly unwelcome until they start moving to America, while the Haredim eat Israel from the inside.

Musk may not be anti-semitic personally, but I wouldn't want to have to convince a sceptical Jew given the way he signal-boosts anti-semitic memes on X.

Nor are communists, but riling up the base by nutpicking the worst communists is a standard part of doing right-wing politics, and it works.

Multiple official US government social media accounts are under the control of Groyper staffers, and that situation will only get worse as long as MAGA remains in power and twenty-something MAGA supporters become more Groyperish by cohort replacement.