MadMonzer
Temporarily embarassed liberal elite
No bio...
User ID: 896
Standard Cambridge Natsci workload per week according to the faculty, and roughly correct in my experience (admittedly only during the 8-week term) Lectures: 12 hours (Sitting in lecture listening and taking notes - the quality of lecturing was high enough that people went to the lectures) Supervisions: 4 hours (2-1 interaction with a tutor) Practicals: Up to 12 hours in lab depending on what options you were doing (biologists have more labs than physical scientists). Possibly 2-4 hours a week writing up lab reports outside the lab, depending on what labs you were doing that week. Self-study and review of lecture notes: 6 hours Preparatory work to discuss at supervisions: 16 hours. Seeking additional academic support: 2-4 hours a week if you needed it.
So 50+ hours academic work a week, and the gunners had at least one and often two demanding extra-curriculars on top. Preclinical medics had it slightly worse.
This is not usual for either UK or US undergraduates.
In my view, 1/20 is more than enough to form the basis for class resentment.
To trigger class resentment, the elderly would need to be a privileged class. There are two institutions that allow this in the modern west: pensions, and mass homeownership. America doesn't really have pensions until the New Deal, and the only non-rich Americans who own their own homes in that period are farmers. The (middle-class and below - class resentment of the rich elderly is obviously real, but is about class and not age) urban elderly were seen as pitiable before these institutions came into their own.
I can't speak for 160-acre family farms in the early 20th century US, but in the (very long) era of subsistence family farms in the west, gramps is generally perceived as a net positive (but is still allowed to starve before the prime-age family members when food gets short). So I don't think there would be widescale resentment of the elderly among the smallholding class either.
In the strong sense of maximal, I agree with you - the maximum human lifespan has been 100-105 since time immemorial. But decreasing mortality at older ages means that any given high percentile (95th, 99th, even 99.9th) has been visibly increasing in my lifetime.
The apparent maximum lifespan has dropped because there are fewer places where you can credibly claim to be 110+ based on dodgy records.
I've gotten the impression that the situation is somewhat better in Europe than in US
I think "manufacturing is in a better state in Continental Europe than in the Anglosphere" has been both conventional wisdom and true since the 1980s, if not earlier.
Beyond freedom etc.
Freedom etc. doesn't get you limited liability for negligence. (A business in a world without companies could get limited liability for ordinary business debts by negotiating it into every commercial contract they signed, but thinking about the practicalities of that tells you why a standard-form deal of limited liability in exchange for transparency is something a government would want to create). "I absolutely cannot under any circumstances lose more on my passive investments than the amount I invested even if my business partner is evil" is a socially valuable deal to have available that you can't contract for at common law.
Lawsuits against non-profit and up-and coming models for breaching the copyrights of the big LLM's.
This is a very, very high risk strategy for the big LLMs given that they have breached the copyrights of absolutely everyone in the process of training their models on a corpus of copyrighted text. "You can't train an AI model on publicly-available but IP'ed data" is not a net win for Anthropic or OpenAI.
I think this is a product of a long-running psy-op to convince people that National Socialism was not a fundamentally left wing movement.
If National Socialism was ever a "fundamentally left-wing movement" then nobody told Hitler's contemporaries. The right found him sympathetic and the non-communist left didn't.
There were a lot of left wing journalists and academics in the immediate post World War II period who suddenly found the need to "memory-hole" which horse they'd been backing prior to the allied victory in Europe.
Only because of the Nazi-Soviet pact. A number of Communists went from being loud and proud anti-fascists to pacifists when Soviet policy changed, and straight back to being anti-fascist after Barbarossa.
It means, to me, that there are two sides: pro migration and anti migration. All other issues are secondary to the real issue, and therefore all parties will align on the topic of greatest importance.
That would you be considering the parties to the left of Le Pen interchangeable. not the parties considering themselves interchangeable (which was your original claim). I agree that, as a single-issue anti-immigration voter, you are correct to do so.
The British aristocracy were over-represented among the dead in WW1 and WW2 (and, as far as I am aware, in most of the 19th century wars). That is, of course, to be expected for a group that justifies its privileges by claiming to be a warrior elite. As far as I am aware, the same was true for the Germans. (The Prussian aristocracy was uncomplicatedly a real warrior elite in WW1. In WW2 the Waffen SS did more dangerous stuff than the Reichswehr, and Nazi elites' sons were more likely to be in it).
That the planter class in the Confederacy widely dodged the draft would be surprising to me, if true. They tended (as do their descendants in the red tribe elite) to see themselves as a warrior elite.
I think "even though the bad guy is known to be bad, I am going to try to distinguish the bad things he did do from the bad things he didn't do" is a fundamentally autistic way of thinking. Once normies know someone is a bad guy, they just put him in the "bad" bucket and believe everything bad about him and disbelieve everything good.
The term "Clinton Derangement Syndrome" wasn't used at the time, but there was a similar phenomenon where conservatives, even otherwise sensible ones, who had (correctly) worked out that he was a bad man started believing every negative rumour about him (and his wife) including the obviously silly ones, and a similar pro-Clinton litany of obnoxious efforts to psychoanalyse them. Something similar happened among small groups of anti-Obama and anti-GW Bush political obsessives, but on a much smaller scale because normies didn't see Obama or GW Bush as bad people.
People as venal, chronically dishonest, sexually incontinent, and reckless as Clinton and Trump normally get jailed or at least driven out of public life in disgrace.
Medicare fraud is different.
I'm not joking here - Republicans see Medicare as a program which helps good people, so a little bit of fraud is inevitable and acceptable. Whereas Medicaid is a program which helps the undeserving poor, so any fraud at all is grounds for throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
This also explains why the government is so bad at anti-fraud efforts. The voters who are outraged by fraud believe (wrongly) and the politicians who pander to them pretend to believe that fraud is mostly a problem caused by politically unsympathetic groups of program beneficiaries claiming more than they are entitled to. People with experience of private sector anti-fraud work start with the assumption that most fraud involves organised, professional fraud operations such as the one Rick Scott ran.
I do not think the Matthew Yglesias wing of the Democrats see Hasan Piker as the future of the party.
Les Republicains, i.e. the remnant of the traditional French centre-right, did not consider everyone to the left of Le Pen interchangeable. They refused to withdraw from three-cornered left-LR-RN second rounds where they were in third place, did not endorse either side in two-way left-RN runoffs, and allowed individual LR politicians to endorse FN candidates in such cases. That is how you behave if you think the left (not just the communist left, but a broad left alliance including communists) is as obnoxious as Le Pen.
Even Macron's liberal Ensemble did not withdraw from three-cornered left-ENS-RN contests where the left candidate was a communist.
I don't think that the communist left, the non-communist left, and the liberals forming a popular front against "fascists" means that they consider themselves interchangeable - it just means that they think Le Pen counts as a fascist. If Le Pen really was a fascist, then forming a popular front against her would be the right thing to do according to all three groups' stated values.
You are entitled to accuse me of motivated reasoning here, but the point I am making is symmetric. I have not claimed that MAGA are bad people because they have right-populist political views, I claimed they were bad people because they repealed the character floor for political leadership, arguably in 2016 and uncomplicatedly in 2024. My continued presence on the Motte should be a signal of good faith - if I believed that right-populists were per se bad people, why would I still be here?
You can't do politics without meeting good people sincerely pursuing political goals you do not share, or good people with different political views to you because they don't understand the issues, or (very occasionally if you are smart enough to be a Motteposter) good people with different political views to you because you don't understand the issues. My social circle contains Brexit supporters in both the first two groups, for example. I have less experience meeting MAGA normies, but I have spent enough time in red states to know that most Republicans, and even most Trump voters, are not evil.
But "Men as dishonest as Donald Trump should not hold high political office" used to be one of the things 90% of citizens agreed on. (So was "Men as uncouth as Donald Trump should not hold high political office" but I care about that a lot less). It isn't obvious why the standard bearer for "Deport the illegals and reshore manufacturing" needs to be a reckless sociopath. Pat Buchanan and Ross Perot weren't. Nigel Farage isn't. (Admittedly Boris Johnson is one.) I know Richard Hanania has a theory for why populism always leads to kakistocracy, but I think it proves too much.
In particular, the highest-fertility subpopulations in the west right now are the Amish and Haredim, neither of whom are able to sustain technological civilisation. The post-2010 social media driven fertility drop has pushed Mormons below replacement level, leaving Modern Orthodox Jews the only ethnic group with both above-replacement fertility and calculus.
It's worth noting that the UK did draft women for war work in WW2 - including heavy manual work that was close to the limit of what women were physically capable of. My grandmother was drafted into the Women's Land Army at 17, and did a farm job that would have been done by a man in peacetime, and that essentially no woman would have done voluntarily.
If the crypto and SPACs were just about ripping off Trump's own supporters, I would agree with your point re. 1. But with all of 1, 3 and 4 the problem is not that Trump is getting paid, it is that some of the people paying Trump are smart enough to know what they are doing, and we can assume that they are getting something in return. But we don't know what is being sold, and in some cases (especially the crypto) we don't even know who it is being sold to.
One example where we do know is that Trump changed his views on the Tiktok ban around the time Tiktok investor Jeff Yass invested in the Truth Social SPAC. That moves the SPAC from scamming his own supporters to accepting bribes from a proxy for a Communist dictatorship.
Nobody thinks the Saudis deal with Jared Kushner is purely commercial. The question is whether this is a tip for his work on something which benefits both Saudi and US interests (presumably the Abraham accords), or whether it is a bribe for some piece of as-yet secret work which benefits Saudi interests and hurts US interests. Even if it is a tip, the dollar amount is so much larger than the customary and reasonable gift given in that kind of situation that it would be improper under conventional business or political ethics. When Eric Trump announces the groundbreaking on Trump Hotel Durkadurkastan, we don't know if it is a purely commercial transaction, a tip, or a bribe. (But we do know that the Durkadurkastanis see this as a distinction without a difference).
In addition, all five of your points involve dollar amounts which were 1-2 orders of magnitude higher under Trump than under previous corrupt presidents. For me, this is absolutely critical, although I agree that the average swing voter is innumerate and doesn't care. I don't think the Saudis paid Jared Kushner a few hundred million dollars* for a small favour, whereas people were willing to pay Hunter Biden a few hundred thousand dollars just to set up some meetings.
* My estimate of the NPV of the management fees on the $2 billion investment over the life of the fund, assuming the standard 2-and-20 fee.
He is already in visible decline. Even if he is alive at age 90 in 2036, he won't be functioning at the level needed to keep the show going, let alone actually wield power.
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.

We would have been bred out as autistic. I'm not even sure that they would have been making a mistake doing it.
More options
Context Copy link