Nwallins
Finally updated my bookmark
No bio...
User ID: 265
Nwallins
Finally updated my bookmark
4mo ago
For me, the alt-right was the Tea Party, opposing bank bailouts and obstructing big government from a libertarian perspective. This was not the old Moral Majority focused on respectability but instead bomb throwers fed up with the status quo. This well predates the rise of Trump and emergence of Richard Spencer.
The term was an amorphous label that could be placed on a wide dispersion of groups that harbor major mutual disagreements.
Nwallins
Finally updated my bookmark
1yr ago
If staying up to date on both sides actually mattered for me, I would. While /r/credibledefense certainly has a majority western perspective and bias, there are plenty of pro russian viewpoints which, if expressed soberly and analytically, get upvoted. Mostly, I am interested in where the front lines are, what do the Ukrainian defensive strategies look like, what is the OSINT consensus on Russian buildup and activity. I have zero interest in consuming Russian propaganda, even though it would balance my information diet. I do like hearing analytical Russian perspectives when they don’t set off propaganda red flags.
Nwallins
Finally updated my bookmark
6mo ago
Homeboy, throw in the towel
Your shit got fucked by Sidney Powell
Apologies to The Beastie Boys
Nwallins
Finally updated my bookmark
3mo ago
Part of the advantage of liberals as a tribe, is this false sentiment of neutrality, of moderation, of centrism, when they are creatures of the left in reality.
I'm probably first and foremost a classical liberal, extremely libertarian, with sympathies to anarchocapitalism. I oppose nearly all progressives in some form, though they're not necessarily wrong about everything. Mainly to the extent they want to intrude upon or eradicate classical liberalism.
As a young teenager, I had a vague notion of progress, from barbaric wars to slavery to racism to the color blind attitude I embraced wholly in the 1990s. Clinton was cool, Bush and Reagan were evil empire.
But I had a libertarian history teacher who was great with insights and making conceptual connections, and read some Ayn Rand and Milton Friedman before college. Then Rothbard, Hayek, Mises. Then 9/11 happened and I moved rightward in a couple dimensions.
Am I the exception that proves the rule? Or a creature of the left?
All this to say, it's an interesting idea, but I don't buy the conclusion. I think liberalism is a concept prior to left/right, and while the left/right spectrum is useful, it fails to illuminate the nature of liberalism.
Nwallins
Finally updated my bookmark
1yr ago
You’re not wrong, but neither is it wrong to answer the question literally. Where it goes wrong, in my eyes, is when it turns into pedantry, dismissal, or antagonism.
Nwallins
Finally updated my bookmark
3mo ago
"anarchist" who sees long dead penny ante dictator as divine being? Why not, point of real free speech is the opportunity to hear all voices!
This seems extremely petty. There is an underlying principle of free speech, here, and the desire to encounter the speech of another is in no way an endorsement or worship of the other. Come on, really?!
Nwallins
Finally updated my bookmark
4mo ago
The theme is: the hegemon failing to impose its will in particular direction
Could the lack of inclination possibly be covering for a lack of competence?
Nwallins
Finally updated my bookmark
1yr ago
An example I was fond of, about 15 years ago, which I have rarely ventured to trot out in the last decade: taxi cabs. They drive like assholes, in a rush, making last minute ill advised lane changes and turns with minimal signaling.
You’re a soccer mom driving a minivan full of kids down a 50 mph boulevard, from the suburbs going to the grocery store. You see a yellow car at a cross road, inching forward, obviously desperate to turn in front of you. Do you treat it like a taxi cab and take extra caution? Of course you don’t, bigot! You shouldn’t cross the street at 3am to avoid a thuggish man either!
Nwallins
Finally updated my bookmark
1yr ago
That's not a relevant distinction. It would still fall under the definition I am giving of it just being warfare. The term 'cancel culture' is obfuscatory and redundant. It's just cultural warfare.
I guess we'll have to leave this one here. Agree to disagree.
I still don't understand why you would say that it's risible for 'ordinary people' to engage in warfare when all warfare is enacted by ordinary people.
The most charitable I can be here is that this seems facile. Yes, I agree, all organizations are composed of individuals. But those responsible for the greatest losses of human life and dignity in warfare were very much not "ordinary people". Mostly, I mean ordinary people who are not instrumental to a large and powerful organization. I don't imagine this conversation bearing much more fruit, either. Cheers.
Nwallins
Finally updated my bookmark
1yr ago
My understanding is that the US was heavily interested in and involved with Ukraine leading up to 2014. And certainly afterwards. I am not an expert, but I believe I can come up with hundreds more links if prompted. Do you wish to restate your understanding of the US foreign policy interest in Ukraine before the current invasion?
Nwallins
Finally updated my bookmark
1yr ago
Sorry, I missed your links. Let me review. I was responding to your text, trying to follow the argument, but I was premature in responding.
Nwallins
Finally updated my bookmark
10mo ago
I suspect Vladimir Putin is dead. I think the man in charge of the country is a double. World leaders are known to have body doubles, often multiples. For clarity, I'm going to introduce "Vlad", a person who resembles Putin and was recruited into performing as a double, likely after some cosmetic surgeries to tighten up the image. Putin has reportedly had some nasty health problems over the last 3 years or so, and I have seen multiple articles suspecting a double acting in certain capacities, with side by sides of Putin and "Vlad". I found this reporting credibly speculative, and I felt that I could reliably and consistently distinguish "Vlad" from Putin, particularly over time.
There is a problem of course: if "Vlad" exists, how can we be sure any particular Putin photo is actually of Putin?
Here is some evidence I've found, and I did not look very hard. I was reading https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12231813/Prepare-deeply-dangerous-unpredictable-Russia-Putin-replaced-says-security-expert.html and happened to notice "Vlad", and scrolled down further to find what appeared to be an older photo of Putin.
Note, I am not saying that these are great examples. If someone looked much harder, they could make a stronger case. "Vlad" to me looks softer and smoother, without the hardness or sharpness that I've come to associate with Putin's gaze.
My best guess at a narrative, if Vladimir Putin is in fact dead at this moment:
Putin probably has a double even before he gets sick. This may or may not be the current "Vlad". I think Putin realizes he has a likely terminal disease before the Ukraine invasion. As he gets sicker, the need for the double increases, both in terms of scheduling around illness and heightened scrutiny. Perhaps there is additional recruitment or cosmetic procedures. Putin invades Ukraine. Perhaps within a year of the invasion, he becomes incapacitated, and the double takes over, likely with the assistance of high level FSB.
Nwallins
Finally updated my bookmark
8mo ago
Arnold Kling on Michael Huemer on Thought Crime
Michael Huemer has a meditation on the phenomenon of thought crimes. A thought crime emerges when one group of people decides that if a person is suspected of believing X, then that person should be punished.
It kind of goes without saying, but inherent in the notion of "thought crime" are both crime and punishment. If it doesn't deserve punishment, then it's not a crime.
the status of ‘thought crime’ does not in general attach to beliefs that are so conclusively refuted that anyone who investigates carefully will reject them. Indeed, it is precisely the opposite. It is precisely because epistemic reasons do not suffice to convince everyone of your belief that you attempt to convince them through moral exhortation. When the plea “Believe P because the evidence demonstrates it!” fails, then we resort to “Believe P because it is immoral to doubt it!” Indeed, you might reasonably take someone’s resort to moral exhortation as pretty strong evidence that they have a weak case, and they know it.
Calling something a thought-crime is a dominance move. It is coercive. You only have to coerce someone if you cannot convince the person voluntarily. If X is demonstrably false, then you should be able to convince someone voluntarily not to believe X. It is only if X is plausibly true, or ambiguous, that you have to resort to coercion.
This makes the accusation of thought-crime highly suspect. The more that you try to force me to believe that the virus could not have come from a lab, the more suspicious I become.
Amen, brother. But is this just preaching to the choir? Consider: A whole lot of NPCs and talking heads sure ate up The Narrative. Propaganda is effective, to an extent, but beyond that extent it is deeply corrosive, particularly to any intellectual class, who become disillusioned and cynical. Thought crime is next.
Religions in general, and Christianity in particular, are all about thought crime. You have to take the salvation of Jesus into your heart or something, and if you don't, have fun with eternal damnation. I can accept Aquinas, Chesterton, C.S. Lewis. These are men who appealed to reason, writing to convince and persuade.
I imagine only atheists see the appeal of comparing woke (progressive, successor) ideology to a religion of sorts, likely filling some kind of primitive need for tribal loyalty, purity tests, and expensive signals (rabid adherence to nonsense). I'd love to hear Antonin Scalia's take though. Or L. Ron Hubbard's. Perhaps what we are seeing with successor ideology is not an individual need for such, but instead just the character of mass movements, the nature of power, its patterns of growth and movement and perpetuation. Are propaganda and thought crime inevitable?
Let's take it back to 1984. Orwell demonstrates the existential horror of a regime that can successfully deploy thought crime. Didn't he make it blindingly obvious for everyone? I'm pretty sure we were all nodding our heads in 8th grade English class about the evils of totalitarianism, only a few years after the USSR fell. I suspect this issue is particularly salient for me, as a libertarian.
Anyways, I'm not mad, just disappointed.
Nwallins
Finally updated my bookmark
4mo ago
Related h/t @ymeskhout
This guy is talking about "leftism" as a shibboleth for what I would call radical progressive. People who call themselves "leftists" and hate "libs". Literally abolish the police, end capitalism, Portland / Seattle Black Bloc.
In the above essay, the author is a former leftist examining the pathology that leads to minimizing Hamas atrocities. The latent desire in American leftism to Fuck Shit Up needs a dastardly target to excuse its behavior.
Nwallins
Finally updated my bookmark
8mo ago
In the US, at any rate, hate speech is not illegal.
But it sure is punished. The test is not illegality but punishment.
And "hate crimes" are crimes in which the victim is chosen because of his group membership (real or perceived). No hatred or other ideas need be shown.
I am rather certain I can find examples in the US in which someone was charged with a hate crime, possibly convicted, where it is simply not possible to know why the victim was chosen. By your standard, any typical rape of a woman is now a hate crime, as the female victim was chosen because of her membership in the group of women. I believe the intent and wording of hate crime statutes go beyond your standard and presume to read the mind of the perpetrator, mostly as inference from actual acts (speech or otherwise) committed.
So if Yang is a wolf and Corinna is a wolf, who is the lamb?
The strawman of trans ideology, that which is pushed by activists, and worse, activist-practitioners. I might not disagree with the steelman of trans ideology, but the lamb is the reality of gender-affirming care at this moment in the US, as I understand it.
Let's taboo "thought crime". It's just meant to be a convenient label / handle, but with extra salience from Orwell's 1984.
A thought crime emerges when one group of people decides that if a person is suspected of believing X, then that person should be punished.
I'm talking about society's seemingly reflexive need to punish wrongthink. This is corrosive because it's very difficult for society or its agents to determine exactly what an individual thinks. Furthermore, only acts (and not thoughts) have relevant consequences. We generally think it's ok to wish harm on one's neighbor for a brief moment.
Simple examples of thought crime include hate crimes, hate speech, accusations of being a racist rather than doing a racism.
Nwallins
Finally updated my bookmark
1yr ago
I agree, there is something ghoulish about the media salivation over this, as well as anticipated protests and riots. That said, we’ve known for a long time that if it bleeds, it leads.
Nwallins
Finally updated my bookmark
8mo ago
What are your sources on this? You write authoritatively and with seeming knowledge of Japanese discussions, commander psychologies and thought processes. Is this an original work of yours, basically synthesized from all the relevant facts that bounce around your head, or ?
I don't mean to sound doubtful or critical. Just curious. I love the overall approach and depth; it's been a great series. It just feels like it lacks citations. But it's already way beyond an "effortpost", so bravo!
While I'm willing to concede for the sake of argument that "statutory hate crime" is carefully defined to avoid constitutional issues, I am talking about "hate crime" in the colloquial sense, as gets reported on in the news etc as demonstrated by my several links.
Briefly:
- Swastika: agreed, it can be a small piece of evidence but is insufficient on its own
- Typical rape: agreed, the statutes appear to require evidence (nearly impossible to obtain in most cases) that the victim was selected as a representative of the larger group. Typical rape wouldn't meet this.
- Jussie: I think shouting "nigger" or "faggot" during the underlying crime is insufficient. I think we're going to need Mississippi Burning style evidence.
- ADL: Prior agreement that they are not the arbiter of "statutory hate crime", but they very well represent colloquial "hate crime"
- Oberlin: Like the ADL, they are using "hate crime" in the colloquial sense, not necessarily the statutory sense. It's hard to imagine they are recommending students make a legal determination of a hate crime.
- Baltimore: It's amazing they were charged at all. I agree the case did not meet the statutory burden, obviously so, yet it's strange that the article was so credulous.
I think these illustrate that the colloquial sense of "hate crime" dominates the "statutory hate crime" in human discourse. I also believe that without the constitutional protections in the US, hate crime statutes in Europe adhere more to the colloquial sense. Note further that the FBI (not necessarily a statutory authority) was quoted in one of the linked pieces:
A hate crime is a traditional offense like murder, arson, or vandalism with an added element of bias.
T H O U G H T C R I M E
Disclaimer: this is a serious test for shady thinking. My apologies. Consider this a strawman, and please try to confront a steelman.
Note: see disclaimer above. This is shady thinking in note format.
EDIT: This is mostly in response to https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/why-is-the-academic-job-market-so particularly thinking about Scott analyzing how the academic job market actually works. I bet Scott's analysis is super annoying to many of those in the market, and likewise super satisfying to others. My thesis is that the others are rationalists and the many are not.
idea
rationalists explain foreign things from "first principles"
they liken themselves to newton and hooke, exploring new frontiers
for better or worse
to the experts in the field, they are cringe and dilettante, sneer worthy
the problem
within every field, there are certain "touchy areas"
everyone understands the truth but pretends not to
a bigger problem
rationalists home in on touchy areas
rationalists can't "understand the truth but pretend not to"
rationalists "say the quiet part out loud"
the solution
demonize the rationalists
sneer at the rationalists
how cringe, what baby
More options
Context Copy link