@MadMonzer's banner p

MadMonzer

Temporarily embarassed liberal elite

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

				

User ID: 896

MadMonzer

Temporarily embarassed liberal elite

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

					

No bio...


					

User ID: 896

and he would have likely won because the case is pretty solid.

I do not think he would have won to the tune of $1.776 billion. He hasn't alleged specific financial losses due to his tax returns being leaked, and you can't get that much money out of a jury based on pure embarrassment.

I had convinced myself that Trump 1 hadn't been that bad

Trump 1 really wasn't that bad. A core message of Trump's 2024 primary campaign was that Trump 1 not being that bad was a mistake that only Trump 2 could fix.

FWIW, I read Trump as a wolf after his response to the 2020 election results.

millions

Single digit millions. The highest serious estimate I have seen is that the whole "Biden crime family" operation netted $10-20 million. Two orders of magnitude less than the Trump family's buckraking. Also an order of magnitude less than Clinton family buckraking or the various financial scandals of the Hastert-DeLay paedoCongress, so I don't think you can claim that the Bidens were unusually corrupt by the standards of pre-Trump American politics.

Yeschad.jpg. Trump is, at the level of personal character, one of the worst people to hold high public office - anywhere in the democratic world - in my lifetime. (I'm not considering his political views here - would you rather buy a used car from Donald Trump or Nigel Farage, or let your daughter work in their office?). The MAGA GOP who nominated him are bad people who should feel bad. The Democrats who failed to beat him are culpably incompetent and should also feel bad. Within the Democratic Party, I would say that the fixers who fixed the 2016 primary for Clinton and the people who concealed Biden's cognitive decline during the 2024 primary rise to the level of bad people.

It is common to see arguments that "woke is over"; rarely do people making such arguments explain their understanding of exactly how "woke" "ended". The only remotely plausible answer I can see is that Trump was re-elected.

1990's PC ended because leftist activism shifted from social issues (and Palestine) to economic and environmental issues (and Palestine). After the Battle of Seattle in 1999, all the cool kids were trying to stop the WTO, and actually devoting your life to campaigning against domestic racism, sexism etc. was cringe. The same happens in reverse after the failure of Occupy around 2011. I am less aware of trends in lefty youth activism than I was when I was an active student Lib Dem, but with hindsight it seems plausible that there was another flippening driven by the failure of summer-of-Floyd BLM activism and the 2020 Democratic primary - the cool kids attacking the Biden administration from the left were doing so over economics or climate, not over insufficient wokeness.

So "woke is over", if it is, in the sense that the activist energy on the left has shifted elsewhere, which also means that people like Matthew Yglesias who were never entirely comfortable with wokeness are more able to express less-woke views while remaining lefties in good standing.

Not in the UK, because it doesn't cover the additional cost of fuelling a minivan (at £1.30 or more a litre) compared to a small family car.

Not in the US, because the problem with minivans is stigma and not cost, in a country where what you drive is the main way you express your identity and social status in public.

You just need to lower the upper age limit for mandatory child seats.

This is what you say when you’ve failed to model someone’s views correctly.

I think it is more what you say when you are trying to oversimplify the views of a group of people.

  • There are clearly large numbers of Republicans who think "I trust Trump. Trump has a plan. He explains in Art of the Deal why he doesn't discuss his plans. So I don't need to know what the plan is, but I assume it will work out." If you think that, it is rational to vote for Trump-endorsed candidates in Republican primaries even when he endorses crooks and paedos. There are a few of them on the Motte, but I see more of this group in my X feed because Musk has chosen to signal-boost them.
  • There are Republican voters with coherent right-populist political views who voted for Trump in both the primary and the general because he said, credibly, that he would deport unwanted immigrants, bring back well-paid male-coded jobs, end wars-for-Israel etc. They need to do some thinking about whether Trump is delivering on their agenda or not, but at the same time have a good reason for rating "loyal to party leadership and commited to caucus unity" above "agrees with my political views" in a Congressional primary given the ways the Congressional GOP has tended to let its supporters down. Modulo electability, the way to maximise deportations over the next two years is to vote for Congressional candidates who will be reliably pro-Trump. And the Motteposters in this group all say that immigration is the most important issue for them.
  • There are establishment Republicans who always hated Trump, some of whom held their nose and voted for him in the general. To the extent that these people are still registered Republicans, they will vote against Trump-endorsed candidates in Republican primaries. There were not enough of them to swing a primary in 2016, and there are fewer of them now than there were then.
  • There are non-partisan populists (think Tulsi Gabbard or RFK Jr and people who think like them) who think that America's ruling elite is a conspiracy against the American people and were drawn to Trump because it looked like he hated and was hated back by said elite. Trump is losing these people (mostly due to Epstein and the war) but most of them were never reliable Republican primary voters in the first place. If they are Republican primary voters, they will vote for someone like Massie or MTG over a Trump-endorsed candidate.

I agree with @magicalkittycat that if you try to merge these psychographics into a single "typical GOP primary voter", you get a Trump loyalist. But doing so is not necessarily a good idea.

The gradual long-term decline in fertility from the Baby Boom until things stabilised around 2000, which was manageable in the west and only civilisation-threatening in first-world Asia, was mostly couples who would previously have 3-4 stopping at 2. It appears to be multi-causal, with child seat laws being a surprisingly large contributor (because they mean that if you want 3 kids in the burbs you need 3 child seats, and therefore a minivan). The post-2010 collapse in fertility is mostly due to less coupling, with increasingly conventional wisdom that smartphones and social media are at fault.

He wasn't responsible for pulling the trigger, but yes - as Commander in Chief Obama was ultimately responsible for both security at the Navy Yard and the security clearance system that allowed Alexis to keep a clearance despite his criminal and psychiatric records. This is the whole point of having a unitary executive - The Buck Stops Here, as the sign on Truman's Oval Office desk says.

That the US generally allows autolitigation is well-established law - if as owner-manager of your own company you injure yourself on the job due to your own negligence, you can sue the company for having a negligent boss. (And you might want to if the company has third-party liability insurance that will pay the damages). But there is a reason places like Lowering the Bar and Above the Law will post the casefile and publicly mock you for it.

It is also part of a consistent pattern of behaviour on the part of Trump. His 2024 campaign was almost as much against his own first administration as against the Biden administration. Both Trump and his supporters in the country think he wasn't really in charge in the 2016-20 period and shouldn't be blamed for what happened.

That Trump incorporated a meme into the settlement is not newsworthy. I am, however, offended by the innumerate journalists who round down to $1.7 billion.

It is the way how parties are financed in current day-and-age everywhere including in Europe.

This type of collusive litigation is not a thing in Europe - in general the UK has less government-by-litigation than the US, and civil law countries have a lot less. In most of Continental Europe, there is direct on-budget government funding of political parties tied to the numbers of votes they receive or the number of seats they win. Everywhere, there is direct on-budget government funding of left-wing GONGOs.

It used to be conventional wisdom that a child growing up on a farm and doing a usual share of the work had repaid their parents by the time they turned 15.

There was a famous noughties fake website offering exactly that service. Large parts of the MSM were taken in and wrote outraged articles about how awful it was.

I guess, at least one reads that no one's having sex anymore.

My understanding is that this is driven by fewer people being coupled up, not by couples having less sex.

Both settlements mentioned in that article were between adverse parties. The innovation in this case is that Trump is funding a slush fund settlement by suing himself.

I agree with @JTarrou that the fundamental tactic is a very old left-wing one. Trump's version is more brazen in its corruption in two ways:

  • The policy change requested is a direct cash payment to Trump's allies with no pretence of a service provided in exchange, as opposed to the expansion of a government programme which hires his allies at above-market salaries.
  • When lefty NGOs sue Democratic state and local governments, they go to a lot of effort to create the impression that the settlement is negotiated between adverse parties. Trump just admits that he is suing himself.

I think this is a reasonable comment. My mis-spent youth as a student politician gave me a front-row seat for the flippening around 2000 (I think the 1999 "Battle of Seattle" WTO protests was the turning point) when over the space of about two years being an activist on PC issues suddenly became cringe and all the cool kids were protesting about green or economic issues. You can definitely make the case that the people pushing 1990's PC were never beaten, they just got bored. If that is true, it follows that when there was another flippening in the early 2010's (I see the failure of Occupy as the turning point) and social justice activism became cool again they were just able to pick up from where they left off.

In the current year, there is a Ukrainian nation. If Putin succeeds in his political goal, there will not be. That is the meaning of the word "genocide". That you think there shouldn't be a Ukrainian nation is irrelevant, given that there clearly is - people don't fight this well for non-existent nations.

This is not my experience of my (recently gentrified, ethnically mixed) neighbourhood of London. Cheap chain restaurants absolutely have kids' menus with puzzles and colouring sheets on the back. Parks have more playgrounds than they used to. (I am aware that London is exceptional among top-tier cities in terms of the number and quality of our modern playgrounds). And the solidarity among parents that people with prestigious platforms talk about in the past tense still exists on the ground. When my autistic sons sperg out in public, I get sympathetic responses rather than judgemental ones.

I don't think the theory of a civilization scale parasite is necessary. There is a simpler explanation: the vast majority of people simply don't see falling fertility rates as a problem.

It isn't sufficient either, if the parasite is anything to do with the culture wars. Fertility in first-world Asia crashes long before the western culture wars reach them. The parasite has to be something that existed in 1970s Japan.

Is there any belief by any serious thinker that this is a war of genocide?

Yes. Numerous Russians, including Vladimir Putin and Aleksandr Dugin, have said that one of the goals of the war is the elimination of Ukrainian nationhood as an idea and making the Ukrainians understand that they are actually "little Russians". Dugin at least is a serious thinker, and this qualifies as genocide under the standard definition.

even as they make their way to a BLM march in a > 99% white country.

BLM in Continental Europe was a single-digit number of people per country until it became an excuse for ignoring COVID lockdowns in summer 2020. After lockdowns were relaxed, it went back to being a single-digit number of people per country. BLM in the UK was less pathetic, but not by much. BLM in Australia was an Aboriginal-rights movement that was only nominally connected to BLM in the US.

Grassroots movements adapt themselves to local conditions - on both sides of the political fence. The culture war in Western Europe has Muslim immigrants as the n*****s, not black people.

Because one of the themes from Jupiter is used as the tune for the British patriotic hymn I Vow to Thee, my Country, it makes me feel patriotic for Britain and not Jupiter. But Holst didn't intend that use and his daughter (who was also a composer) said that the well-known secondary use ruined the original meaning of Jupiter.

We didn't lose them. 2010s wokeness won against considerable opposition, including opposition from other forms of leftism. (2016 Bernie was the less-woke candidate). The question is "Why did 2010s wokeness overcome the antibodies when 1990s PC couldn't?"

There are a few obvious stories (and I have no idea what the relevant contributions are):

  • It really was academia. 1990s PC lost in most places, but they won in certain parts of the academy, and used their academic platform to indoctrinate a future generation of elites.
  • The Sailer/Hannania theory - long-term culture change caused by the normalisation of anti-discrimination compliance activity in universities and workplaces. People in leadership roles in the 1990s had grown up in a world where anti-discrimination law was new and felt like an outside imposition. Power leadership roles in the 2010s had grown up in a world where of course it was illegal to mistreat members of protected groups.
  • The people who should hold the line on far-left idiocy (namely the establishment centre-left) can't because Hilary Clinton goes full wokestupid in the course of attacking Bernie from the left on cultural issues in 2016.
  • Social media made everyone dumber and more susceptible to bad ideas. It also enabled a new type of pile-on, where a random small business can find itself on the receiving end of several thousand requests to fire an employee. Jon Ronson published So You've Been Publicly Shamed in 2015 and about half the shamings he is talking about are social media pileons on randos whose unwoke behaviour went viral.

Both "60's nostalgia" and "80's nostalgia" involve a lot of nostalgia for works released in years beginning 197. Both the Rolling Stones and disco peaked in the calendar 1970's, for example.

This phenomenon is best illustrated by the music video for "Buddy Holly" by Weezer, directed by Spike Jonze, which uses trick photography to make it look like the band is performing in an episode of Happy Days. That is, it's a video from the 1990s which is a nostalgic throwback to a sitcom from the 1970s, which sitcom was itself a nostalgic throwback to the 1950s in which it is set.

I always thought the canonical example was Grease, in which everything except the cars was a giveaway that the film was made in the 1970s and not the 1950s in which it was set.