MadMonzer
Temporarily embarrassed liberal elite
No bio...
User ID: 896
MadMonzer
Temporarily embarrassed liberal elite
4d ago
The bad guy in WWI was Woodrow Wilson.
You are projecting post-1945 American hegemony back into the past.
We can argue about whether or not Woodrow Wilson was bad, but he definitely wasn't "the" bad guy because he wasn't a first-tier player. The European Great Powers went to war with each other without taking American policy into account, because they thought the most likely scenario was a short war of maneuver and there was nothing the US could do to affect the results of one. Even had they expected a long war, they would have (correctly) assumed US neutrality absent an exceptionally stupid provocation by the Central Powers.
The first meaningful opportunity for the US to meddle in WW1 (apart from selling materiel to the Allies on normal commercial terms) is when Bethmann Hollweg asks Woodrow Wilson to convene an international peace conference on the basis of status quo ante in December 1916. By this point the bloodiest battles of WW1 (Verdun and the Somme) had already been fought. And Wilson doesn't take the bait at this point - he correctly realises that neither side wanted a status quo ante peace in 1916. (Bethmann Hollweg was trying to maneuver out of situation where German domestic politics would force the adoption of unrestricted submarine warfare, which he opposed on the mostly-correct basis that if it worked it would bring the US in).
The first time the US actually meddles in WW1 is the publication of the Fourteen Points, which happens after the February Revolution in Russia, at which point the messy collapse of Tsarist Russia is already priced and can be added to the "harms of WW1 definitely not Wilson's fault" pile.
MadMonzer
Temporarily embarrassed liberal elite
3d ago
While I agree that the inter-war Polish leadership played their bad hand badly, I don't see what the likely good outcome for Poland or the Poles is if you assume that Hitler's grand strategy was to pursue Grossreich and Lebensraum - which is what Hitler had said his grand strategy was when speaking to sympathetic audiences ever since he wrote Mein Kampf. Grossreich, even in its benign form of reversing Versailles, implies the annexation by Germany of the parts of western Poland with large ethnic-German minorities and the reduction of the ethnic Polish population of that territory to second-class citizenship. And the available Lebensraum was either in Poland or beyond it. If Poland allies with Hitler, the eventual double-cross is even more overdetermined than Barbarossa was.
Quite apart from Hitler's designs on Poland itself, any timeline where Hitler eventually attacks the Soviet Union involves Poland being ravaged by the German army on the way out and the Soviet army on the way back. This includes the scenario where Poland allies with the Soviet Union - the fact that Barbarossa happened in our timeline is strong evidence that Hitler would have invaded Soviet-allied Poland, particularly as Poland doesn't benefit from the Anglo-French guarantee in this scenario and the Spanish Civil War is a precedent that no Western country is likely to kick up a fuss if Hitler attacks Communists. Realistically, without western help Nazi Germany curbstomps the Soviets, but even if you rate the Red Army as better ex ante than it turns out ex post the best outcome is that the Soviets successfully defend Poland and Poland ends up de facto occupied by Soviets. The only reason Finland gets Soviet client-state status on as generous terms as they do is that they demonstrated the ability to give the Soviets a bloody nose, something the Poles don't have.
So to get a good outcome, you need Hitler to stop. And you pretty much need him to stop voluntarily - the way things played out in our timeline is strong evidence that the process of making him stop probably involves armies crossing Poland in a way which is catastrophic for the civilian population. The military scenario where Britain and France take the initiative in the phony war period and quickly defeat Germany isn't plausible militarily, and even if it was there was nothing Poland could do to make it more likely. Once you accept that, Polish policy looks sane (though incompetent).
In any case, if you don't count Holocausted Jews then Poland's death toll is in the normal range for eastern Europe. One of the dirty secrets of Polish history is that the pre-war Polish government would not have counted Holocausted Jews when evaluating their own performance.
MadMonzer
Temporarily embarrassed liberal elite
3d ago
I don't think that WW1 is a good analogy for anything going on in modern international relations. The fundamental fact about the international situation immediately before and (to a lesser extent) during WW1, which was well-understood by contemporaries, is the existence of multiple (between five and nine depending on how you count) Great Powers each of which was capable (both in terms of military power and institutional decision-making capacity) of acting independently in pursuit of its own interests, including forming and breaking alliances based on mutual interest. The only constraint on the of a Great Power is the possible opposition of other Great Powers.
@georgioz provides a long list of Great Power conflicts in the period between 1815 (the last great International Peace Conference where the then-existing Great Powers redrew the map of Europe and agreed ground rules among themselves) and 1914 - and critically not all of them are Allies vs Central Powers. You can argue about who much the UK/France/Russia vs Germany/Austria line-up results from choices made by statesmen vs. unavoidable strategic logic vs. shared values/culture, but we can see Italy and the Ottoman Empire choosing sides based on a (possibly wrong, but genuinely attempted) calculation of strategic advantage, as well as a (somewhat dysfunctional) decision-making process where the UK decides whether or not to honour the alliance with France and the guarantee to Belgium and join the war based on a calculation of its perceived advantage.
There is a reason why board games simulating pre-1914 real-world conflict tend to be multiplayer, but board games simulating post-1914 politics tend to be two player.
After Pearl Harbour, we see two models of the world, neither of which feature Great Powers. The "US hegemony" paradigm sees all states as either US clients or as rogue states. US diplomacy is more like managing troublesome vassals in Crusader Kings than, well, Diplomacy. The "United Nations vs Axis of Evil" paradigm sees the goodies as a grand alliance held together by shared values (NOT mutual interest) and where goodie countries nominally commit to not acting unilaterally in pursuit of their own selfish interests. The Axis of Evil tends to be treated as a single unified "them" even when it isn't. (Incidentally, this model provides an easy explanation of what went wrong with W's foreign policy - W thought that he was facing an Axis of Evil when in fact Iran, Iraq and al-Quaeda were different rogue states which happened to be annoying him at the same time).
Who are the plausible Great Powers nowadays? The US is still something more than one Great Power among others. China counts. Russia looks like a Great Power, but their ineptitude in Ukraine strongly suggests that they are a fake and gay Great Power. The UK and France probably still have the military power to be Great Powers (the Falklands war was the last time this was put to the test), but American hegemony is sufficiently real that (since Suez) the British and French elites think that they can't act without American permission, and accordingly neither country has the institutional capacity. (One of the reasons why British national-greatness conservatives supported Brexit was because they thought that this loss of capacity was caused by EU membership, but in fact the UK only joined the EU after we had realised that we had already lost Great Power status). India might be a latent Great Power but doesn't act like one. Germany and Japan have intentionally eschewed Great Power status. Latin America and sub-Saharan Africa are strategically irrelevant - the B and S in BRICS are there by diplomatic courtesy. The only other candidate as I see it is Turkey.
Nobody thinks Diplomacy is being played in Ukraine. The Biden administration think they are trying to talk sense into a nuclear toddler. The Europeans are passively choosing whether to contribute the the American strategy or not - it turns out that the British and French can't even give the Ukrainians missiles without American permission. The Russians think they are playing Twilight Struggle like the old times, but they are actually playing Panzer General, badly.
MadMonzer
Temporarily embarrassed liberal elite
3d ago
I think the critical point is that imperialism doesn't pay if you have to pay your own troops first-world wages. Kipling in Arithmetic on the Frontier is already suggesting that the British Empire on the Pakistan/Afghanistan border was money-losing for this reason in 1886. The situation gets worse, to the point where (even with the oil) the cost to the US taxpayer of being in Iraq was of the same order of magnitude as the total GDP of Iraq.
Profitable small-scale imperialism (called "warlordism") is still going on in the parts of sub-Saharan Africa where child soldiers cost a dollar a day.
MadMonzer
Temporarily embarrassed liberal elite
3d ago
When Israel was imagined in the late 19th century, the Arabs were a docile people under the absolute rule of Christian Europeans.
Mostly under the Ottoman Empire. The Arab countries become British and French "mandates" after the Ottoman Empire is defeated in World War One. British General Allenby was the last Christian to enter Jerusalem as a conqueror in 1917. The British press promptly referred to him as the "last crusader".
MadMonzer
Temporarily embarrassed liberal elite
3d ago
More importantly, it was legal under New York law, which is where he slept with her. Interestingly, if he had slept with her on Epstein Island, she would have been jailbait, because the age of consent in the US Virgin Islands is 18.
To me one of the oddest things about Epstein is his habit of transporting 17 year olds from jurisdictions where they were legal to the USVI where they were jailbait in order to statutory rape them (or have his mates do so). It demonstrates complete and utter scofflawism.
MadMonzer
Temporarily embarrassed liberal elite
3d ago
man of wealth and taste
It's spelt "felon". Or "pedophile" in the tabloids (or even "paedophile" in the British tabloids). Although I agree that His Royal Highness the Duke of York wouldn't dream of going to Jersey to chase B&T jailbait - he did his kiddie-fiddling in Manhattan.
The Republicans looking for corroboration are treating the search space as "any dark-skinned immigrant, anywhere in Ohio, eating any kind of unusual meat". The meme went viral after an ADOS black woman was convicted of eating a cat in Canton, and we have seen African immigrants eating roadkill in Dayton cited as proof that the meme is "directionally correct". So the denominator is a lot larger than 20,000.
That said, if this police report is real, then it is the real thing and we have (noting that the date of the police report predates the meme) the source of the original game of telephone that led to the first "a friend of a friend thinks Haitians are eating cats" Facebook post. Note that most of the cat was not, in fact, eaten - even if the mystery meat is cat meat, stealing a cat and leaving chopped-up bits in the owner's back garden is what gangsters do to intimidate people, not something Mrs Lovett types do. It would be closely related to the "Sicilian immigrants are eating our horses" meme as featured in The Godfather.
50% that the police report is real (noting that the local PD said no such report existed), Conditional on the police report being real:
- 20% that it turns out the cat is still alive and has been reunited with its owner
- 40% that the cat was indeed murdered
- 15% that the cat was indeed murdered by the Haitian neighbour the owner suspects.
- 10% that the rest of the cat was eaten by a human.
- 30% that there was no cat and the person who filed the police report is crazy
I also note that ex ante the search space for this kind of thing was "any immigrant, legal or illegal, anywhere in America, eats a housepet or does something similarly outrageous" Given the complete inability of Republicans to come up with anything good after a frantic search for "dark-skinned immigrant eats housepet" across right-wing social media, this looks like a single incident blown up into a national story by a combination of media crime blotter logic and conservative propaganda. If it really was the case that "they're eating our pets" was a thing, we would have found more than one questionable case by now. If it turns out that the police report is real, the cat is real, and the cat did indeed disappear under suspicious circumstances then the Republicans will have lucked out on this one. Turning a single incident into a nationwide viral meme is good politics and good tabloid journalism, even if it is bad epistemics.
BTW does anyone know the baseline rate of cat butchery in America?
MadMonzer
Temporarily embarrassed liberal elite
2d ago
Does China have enough nukes that you need to be worried about "Taiwan goes nuclear" in country Australia? (Wikipedia claims they have 438 usable nukes, but it looks like they only have the ICBMs to hit a low 2-figure number of targets outside the region) The only scenario where I see Australia getting more than one bomb for Sydney and one for Melbourne (and the area downwind of those cities where the fallout is likely to land is water) is if Russia and the US go full MAD.
Prep for the chaos following a US-China nuclear war in which Sydney and Melbourne are glassed is generic SHTF prep, not nuclear prep. Obviously all bets are off if you are using "country Australia" as a euphemism for commuterland.
MadMonzer
Temporarily embarrassed liberal elite
2d ago
From a British perspective, things that were not widely available in 2009 but now are include:
- Smartphones
- Keyhole surgery
- Cars with powerful driver-assist features like parking assist and adaptive cruise control
- Induction hobs
- Affordable next-day delivery of online shopping
- Ocado and similar grocery-delivery services
Interestingly, "Uber" is not on the list because London had a healthy ecosystem of minicab apps before Uber came in and crushed them all by pricing below cost.
Also, we had mass unemployment in 2009 (remember Subprime!) and now don't.
MadMonzer
Temporarily embarrassed liberal elite
2d ago
Cash. All the proposals from the Israeli right for ending the Israel-Palestine conflict by population transfer assume that the US chips in c. $100 billion or more to bribe other Arab countries to accept Palestinian refugees. Israeli GDP is about half a trillion, so it is right at the limit of what Israel could afford if ending the conflict by population transfer was broadly popular in Israel, which it isn't.
MadMonzer
Temporarily embarrassed liberal elite
2d ago
And per @Quantumfreakonomics, the WSJ has found the cat (which, let us remember, is the only actual cat implicated in the whole sorry saga) alive and well. I will happily concede ln(5) calibration points for finding this outcome less likely than I should have done, and I suggest that the people who uncritically signal-boosted this shit do some soul-searching as well. This soul-searching should ideally be of the literal variety, because unrepentant Sowers of Discord end up quite remarkably close to the Fire and the eyewitness account of how they are treated is not pretty.
MadMonzer
Temporarily embarrassed liberal elite
2d ago
In one of the early scenes, the Corleone Family tries to intimidate a film director into giving Jonny Fontane a part by killing his prize horse and leaving the head in his bed. What happened to the rest of the horse is not specified in the book or film, but horsemeat is a completely normal part of traditional working-class Sicilian cuisine. (The taboo against eating horse is an anglosphere thing - almost every other European cuisine uses it, although in may countries including France it is mildly stigmatised as only for poors.)
The big difference between the US and Europe is that the US has a native high-crime subgroup which is large enough (unlike European gypsies) to materially skew the crime statistics. A group of immigrants can commit more crime that white Americans and still commit less crime than heritage-Americans as a whole, who are 15-20% black. And in fact this appears to be true of by far the largest group of immigrants (i.e. Mexicans) - if you don't trust the MSM or academia then the most recent analysis on this point from an unquestionably right-wing source is Ron Unz.
There may be specific high-crime subgroups of immigrants who are worse than ADOS blacks, and Haitians in Springfield may even be one of them (although nobody in Springfield is saying this). But the only cat to have been eaten was eaten by a mentally ill ADOS black woman.
In the America that actually exists, poor Mexican immigrants make cities like LA safer by displacing poor blacks, and their US citizen children elect Democrats to local office who don't feel white guilt about black crime.
MadMonzer
Temporarily embarrassed liberal elite
1d ago
It interesting that although we all understand the intended meaning of this expression (and it is true when given the meaning that people expect), it is not an accurate description of how lawyers and used car salesmen lie.
Creating a false belief using a carefully-curated set of technically-true statements is no more effective in an adversarial environment like a courtroom or a negotiation than creating the same false belief using false statements. The normal technique of a lawyer representing a rich-but-obviously-guilty client is to flood the zone with shit. This works best in criminal trials, where if the jury can't understand the case they are supposed to acquit based on reasonable doubt, but it also works in civil trials if the other side can't keep up. Lying by omission is explicitly prohibited in litigation (this is why discovery exists) and in some but not all negotiations.
Used car salesmen working for commercial dealerships, on the other hand, are trying to outnegotiate unsophisticated parties, which is exactly where "lying like a lawyer" is helpful. Making a technically-false statement creates legal risk and isn't necessary if you are good at your job. The people who tell blatant lies when selling used cars are private sellers, who are effectively gone once the cheque clears. Real estate agents are in the same boat - they will tell blatant lies, but they would much rather mislead you in legally safer ways.
So who does lie like Donald Trump? In my experience, the main groups are cheating spouses, toddlers caught with their hands in the cookie jar, and actual conmen. Trump, of course, belongs to at least two of these groups.
Who does "lie like a lawyer?" Well the main group is politicians not called Donald Trump. Politically biased journalists do, as do tendentious academics. Basically, exactly the people who form the "establishment" Trumpism is against. In each case it is because it is a lot easier to work a sympathetic ref if you got caught making a true-but-misleading statement than if you told an outright lie. But working the refs in that way doesn't work on normies, and doesn't work on neutral or unsympathetic refs.
Unfortunately this means that the saying reduces to "Trump lies like Trump, the liberal elite lie like liberal elites." This is tautological, but to someone who has been paying attention it is even truthier than the original. It also avoids calumnising innocent lawyers and used car salesmen by associating them with politicians and journalists.
MadMonzer
Temporarily embarrassed liberal elite
1d ago
Who could have imagined 20 years ago that the Teamsters would be a Republican stronghold
The Teamsters have never been a reliable left-wing force - per Wikipedia they endorsed Nixon, Reagan and Bush Sr.
For a shift that large in internal polling within a union that isn't consistent with nationwide trends (which show a very small shift in favour of Dems after the obviously senile candidate is switched out), I would assume that there is a Teamsters-specific issue that the rest of us are not aware of - probably related to how trucking is regulated. Some of it will be youth sex polarisation, but not much given the average age of the Teamsters membership.
MadMonzer
Temporarily embarrassed liberal elite
1d ago
Is this sulphate aerosol geoengineering, or are you thinking about something else?
MadMonzer
Temporarily embarrassed liberal elite
1d ago
Phylloxera is another example. There is still no way of controlling it even with 21st century technology - if it wasn't for the good fortune that vitis vinifera grows well when grafted onto the rootstock of American vine species with natural resistance (but which produce undrinkable wine) we would have lost >95% of our ability to grow wine.
As a (technical) Irishman and an oenophile, I am genuinely conflicted about whether potato blight or phylloxera is the worst thing to come out of America. But both make high-fructose corn syrup and The Phantom Menace look like nothingburgers.
MadMonzer
Temporarily embarrassed liberal elite
1d ago
The teamsters have most of their membership in warehouses IIRC. I think a lot of it is just working class voters favoring Trump even when they’re making good money.
But "working class voters" in general haven't shifted to Trump by 35 points since April - they have supported him ever since 2016.
MadMonzer
Temporarily embarrassed liberal elite
16hr ago
It seems to me that a question we ought asking is "is Trump really lying?". Not in the sense of whether a given statement is false? so much as in the sense of is he really deceiving any one or otherwise behaving dishonestly?
"They're eating the dogs" is a statement intended to induce the false belief in listeners that immigrants are stealing and eating pet dogs. Even if the rumours Trump based the claim on had been true, they were about cats, not dogs.
The fact that Trump doesn't care about the factual truth or falsity of the words that come out of his mouth to the point where he says "dogs" when he could easily have said "cats" and been making a defensible claim about facts that were in dispute at the time is a perfect piece of smoking gun evidence as to what is actually going on. In the Harry Frankfurt sense, Trump is rarely lying but he is constantly bullshitting.
I'm at work at the moment but effortpost to follow.
MadMonzer
Temporarily embarrassed liberal elite
15hr ago
Laws are specific. Laws about lying in the US have to be particularly specific, because the First Amendment protects some, but not all, lies.
There are laws which broadly criminalise lying to federally regulated banks. There are laws that broadly criminalise lying about publically-traded securities. These laws don't apply to private lenders or shares in closely-held companies, where the only lies which are criminal are ones which constitute common-law fraud. (Obviously lying about your startup can reach the level of common-law fruad, as Elizabeth Holmes learned the hard way).
MadMonzer
Temporarily embarrassed liberal elite
14hr ago
In this case it's "'they're eating the dogs' is a statement intended to induce the false belief in listeners" that is a false statement intended to induce the false belief in listeners, and this is precisely why people have had it with "lying like a lawyer" types.
You take a sentence I posted out of context (I go on to point out that bullshit is a better framework for this type of statement than lies), and respond with a bunch of barely-parseable word salad that looks like (and is, when finally parsed) an allegation of dishonesty, and you accuse me of lying like a lawyer?
Trump said that immigrants in Ohio were eating dogs and cats. As a result of him saying this, some of his target audience of low-information swing voters now believe that immigrants in Ohio are eating dogs and cats, and are therefore more likely to cast an anti-immigration vote at the election in November. Generating this change in belief was a major purpose of making the statement. Given background that motteposters know and the debate audience probably didn't, the fact that Trump said "dogs" and not "cats" may reveal interesting information about his thought processes that I hope to elaborate on in a later effortpost.
I am making the conjunction of the above claims, with the intention that they be taken seriously and literally. If you disagree with me about the facts, the spirit of this board is that you should identify the claim you disagree with rather than spewing insinuations.
I think the "Cultural Marxism" discourse on the Motte tends to go down rabbit holes due to arguments about the meaning of words. The core facts are:
- The thing that right-wingers are talking about when they say "Cultural Marxism" is real, is broadly on the left, and is bad viewed from both a liberal and a conservative perspective.
- The thing changes what it calls itself frequently in order to avoid being named by its political opponents. (See Freddie de Boer).
- At some point in the past, some but not all of the people doing the thing called it "Cultural Marxism", but they stopped when right-wingers started using the term.
- Some, but not all, of the people doing the thing consider themselves Marxists. Almost all the people doing the thing agree that it rejects certain tenets of orthodox Marxism, they just disagree on whether they reject enough to make them a continuation of Marxism, or to make them something else.
- The orthodox Marxists that still exist (including Freddie) are very clear that they do not consider the thing to be Marxism. Mostly, they hate it as much as we do.
- All the people doing the thing are influenced directly or indirectly by Marx, but that isn't saying much because everyone (including his opponents) is influenced by Marx. In most cases this line of influence passes through Gramsci.
The argument about whether or not "Cultural Marxism" is really Marxism is analogous to the argument about whether Mormons are really Christians, and is equally unproductive. From the perspective of outsiders using the word to attack something we dislike, the more interesting question is whether thinking of "Cultural Marxism" as a form of Marxism helps or hinders our efforts to defend against it. *
From a liberal perspective, "Cultural Marxism" and orthodox Marxism are bad for sufficiently different reasons that lumping them together makes you dumber. In terms of epistemics, orthodox Marxism claims to know things which aren't true, whereas "Cultural Marxism" wrongly accuses its opponents of knowing nothing. In terms of political impacts, orthodox Marxism rejects individual action because it might lead to economic inequality, whereas "Cultural Marxism" tries to prevent effective collective action by saying it is impossible until we have all completed therapy for our internal systems of oppression. I oppose using the term "Cultural Marxism" because orthodox Marxists, most "Cultural Marxists", and intelligent liberals all agree that "Cultural Marxism" is not a subset of Marxism, so the word is misleading.
From a cultural conservative perspective, both "Cultural Marxism" and orthodox Marxism are godless, anti-cultural, and anti-us, and lumping them together is harmless. I think this is a bad case of outgroup homogeneity bias, but I understand where the cultural conservatives are coming from.
FWIW, I call the thing "Wokism"
* In the Mormon analogy, it is logical for anti-Christians to think that Mormonism is Christianity regardless of the theological arguments because they oppose it for the same reasons.
MadMonzer
Temporarily embarrassed liberal elite
9hr ago
It's like going into a restaurant and complaining "this food tastes like sewage", then getting told that you're a liar because the food doesn't taste like sewage, it tastes like feces, so tasting like sewage is a literally false belief.
This isn't a perfect analogy, because feces is a major constituent of sewage, and indeed is a large part of what makes sewage noxious. I don't know how one would taste the difference between sewage and feces, whereas is an obvious meaningful difference between cats and dogs - try throwing sticks for a cat to fetch. What you mean is that there is no difference in the political impact, if true, of immigrants eating cats and immigrants eating dogs. You are obviously correct about this, possible quibbles about traditional Korean or Vietnamese cuisine notwithstanding. If the immigrants were, in fact, eating cats, then you could call "they're eating the dogs" directionally correct, but that appears to be a Motte-specific usage and truthy is what most very online people would call it.
But in an environment where people care about the factual truth and falsity of statements and not just the political impact, a cat is not a dog. If you report a cat theft to the police and it turns out that the missing animal was actually a dog, you are going to get in trouble for, yes, lying. Trump could have misspoken, but saying "dog" when you mean "cat" isn't a particularly common mistake. If Trump meant to say "dog" when the social media posts he was signal-boosting said "cat" because he didn't care about the difference this says something about his communication style - namely that he is 100% concerned about the political impact of statements and 0% concerned about their factual content. If the ratio was 90-10 like it is for most politicians, he would have said "cat" because, as you point out, "they're eating the cats" is no less politically impactful than "they're eating the dogs".
There is a saying which people use to acknowledge that they are mainly concerned about the political impact of statements vs their factual content: "it has the added advantage of being true". Based on Trump's beliefs at the time, he had the opportunity to make a politically advantageous claim that had the added advantage of being true, and didn't take it. Given the discussion on this thread, there is a non-zero number of people for whom this is a positive signal - Trump is implicitly saying "I am not like those smarty-pants intellectuals who care about the factual accuracy of sufficiently truthy political claims."
"it's really cats, not dogs, so Trump is a liar"
I explicitly didn't call Trump a "liar". We all agree that what is going on is more complex than that. The whole point of this thread is to discuss how a man whose statements frequently evaluate as "false" when parsed using standard English grammar has a reputation as a straight talker among his supporters. I am proposing that "bullshit" is a better framework for understanding it than "liar".
Most employees of non-profits are employed by large service-providing non-profits with the largest single group being universities and university hospital systems. I don't think that academics and healthcare workers are "quite stupid indeed". The annoying wowzer subset of nonprofits is a lot less than 10% of employees.
More options
Context Copy link