Rosencrantz2
19hr ago
Of course it's his fault. Do you often see him modelling robust discussion from a variety of perspectives?
Rosencrantz2
19hr ago
If China bombed Pearl Harbor, and in response the US bombed the merchant ships of every nation in the Pacific regardless of where they were going or who they were selling to, you would say, "The US is not our friends here. The US is our enemy now." And act accordingly. You wouldn't blame China for the US's actions, especially if they had a half-decent reason to bomb Pearl Harbor (say we were in a fight over Taiwan or take-your-pick.)
Are you imagining a situation where the US government lashes out at every boat completely irrationally? Or a world where it is predictable for them to do so because it helps ensure their survival? If it's the latter, I would indeed blame China for not foreseeing the consequences of their actions and planning and revising accordingly.
I wouldn't be happy with the US either, but Washington doing what I'd predict they'd do wouldn't update my view of Washington.
Rosencrantz2
21hr ago
Sending a small number of troops to Greenland was exactly the right number of troops. It means there was a chance the US would have to kill someone to take the country, which they would presumably prefer not to do. An unwelcome scenario for Denmark would have been US soldiers landing and taking the country without a single casualty and presenting the new situation as a fait accompli. Tripwire forces were a cost-effective way to increase the cost of invasion and thus deter it, or – in the low-likelihood scenario where Trump decided to invade anyway – Europe would at least have received a clear sign that Trump was willing to turn military talk into lethal action against allied soldiers, making a united European response in that (unlikely) event easier to engineer.
Rosencrantz2
1d ago
Am I being paranoid in thinking this quote smells strongly of AI?
Rosencrantz2
1d ago
Catch 22, Slaughterhouse 5 and White Noise are genuinely entertaining and powerful books imo. I admit to giving up on Gravity's Rainbow and Infinite Jest, but I loved The Crying of Lot 49 and quite liked Brief Interviews with Hideous Men, so I am confident both David Foster Wallace and Thomas Pynchon are capable of great things.
In summary, from my experience, postmodernism doesn't have shit to do with it. It's just that Gravity's Rainbow and Infinite Jest are stupidly long.
Rosencrantz2
1d ago
There is still widespread admiration for America across Europe. Almost everyone admires aspects of US culture/politics but not others – you could find different fault lines of debate around freedom, race, globalism, middle eastern wars etc depending on who you're talking to, even if there was a lot of disagreement on where America is superior and where it's not.
But Trump has been a great unifier because the majority of people, even those who might be naturally allied to some of his views and who in the past have said things like 'We need a Trump of our own', have come to the conclusion he is mad. The fact he was voted for a second time served as confirmation that there is something going on in many American minds that we find hard to understand, and to the extent we can't understand it we can't trust it either.
Rosencrantz2
3d ago
As a sufferer myself, I think the serial tds claimers are pretty much on point. We Trump-deranged really are responding to Trump on a gut level -- every indicator flashes, 'do not trust', 'total bullshitter', 'malevolent', 'cannot be reasoned with'.
The only difference between us and tds detractors is that they think this reaction is pathological and not based on anything substantial, whereas we think it's soundly justified by a wide range of facts and life experiences. They want to know 'is there anything he could do to please you?', and the answer is no, not without becoming someone else. They want us to look past his style to what he does, and we want to say, 'no, I refuse, the style itself is corrosive and cannot be looked past'. They want to say 'why can't you acknowledge any of the good things he does?' and we want to say 'his approach to politics is oppositional, if he can't acknowledge good things in my tribe, why is it now incumbent on me to drop the game he won't drop, and acknowledge good things in him?' Etc. Etc.
We really do have a fundamental objection to him that makes it hard to discuss individual issues while pretending he is just a normal politician. The tds allegers are onto something and they are not wrong that we find it hard to see past our antipathy.
Rosencrantz2
7d ago
I wish I could find better reporting -- evidence of it being 'official' is reporting that similar Lego videos from this creator have been shown on Iranian state TV:
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/lego-gta-social-media-war-iran-us-b2935537.html
And a recent article alleging this latest video is official: https://the-express.com/news/world-news/203115/donald-trump-iran-ai-video-reddit-203115
Hopefully more credible info will come out about whether this is a random UK YouTuber that Iran picked up, or if they commissioned it, or what ...
Not especially mine related but a new anti-Trump pro-Khameini AI-assisted dis track has been released, allegedly sanctioned by the Iranian government (I'd like to see confirmation it's official, mind you).
https://youtube.com/shorts/7C_G756zLpw
It's not well crafted on any level really but it's catchy and made me laugh, I can't deny, despite the gravity (or really because of the gravity) of the global situation.
It also feels like beating Trump at his own game.
It's incredibly childish and hammers Trump on being a loser, instead of failing to live up to some democratic or presidential ideal that was never one of his selling points in the first place. I don't suppose a high-minded democratic opponent could or should get far with this approach but for an authoritarian opponent that wants to wrestle pigs, this seems like the way to go.
In its irreverence, it also subverts a lot of the austere extremism that I associate with the Iranian regime.
America should be invulnerable to these kinds of playground tactics from a pernicious regime, but it isn't, having surrendered too much moral high ground.
Rosencrantz2
9d ago
I think Iran's response is massively scattershot, but Azerbaijan is the only country in that list without US bases and/or troops.
Rosencrantz2
9d ago
If politicians were willing to argue openly that death of older or vulnerable people can be a good thing because it helps with demographic issues, and they got democratic support, then so be it – that's coherent. That wasn't at all the case though. Most arguing against lockdowns were also arguing that they didn't work and were a conspiracy done for other reasons than public health.
Rosencrantz2
13d ago
Greenland is fairly important to Denmark and Danish politics, isn't? It was the topic of an entire season of Borgen in which Greenland-related issues nearly bring down the government. And in terms of population fraction it would be closer to the US selling off Mississipi than the smaller and more recently acquired American Samoa.
I'm not sure I buy this cool, businesslike approach that Americans would allegedly have to the selling of territory, especially if to a larger country, when we already know that isn't Trump's attitude to the buying of territory; he was hot and bothered and mooted military force when denied a negotiation. Your position seems to be "Yes but he never would have had to use aggression if they just did the rational thing and agreed to a negotiation, so really it's their own fault." Doesn't sound like how allies talk to me.
Rosencrantz2
13d ago
Are you genuinely trying to think from Denmark's point of view, and imagining that if it were you speaking in the Folketing, you would say, "What harm can it do to enter negotiations?" Would you say to the Greenlanders, "We're thinking of selling you out of self-interest and fear of American aggression, but don't worry, we'll definitely put your interests first, even though you won't be our citizens any more afterwards?". Would you say to your Danish voters, "We know you hate the idea of selling off our territory, but let's see what price they'll pay and then talk about it afterwards." Would you say to other European nations, "We know you hate the idea of selling off bits of our continent and the precedent that sets, but we're just talking, don't be so agitated."
Or would you just make a red line and keep your territory, dignity and support intact?
Talk us through how you imagine a rational Danish leader handling this.
Rosencrantz2
15d ago
The most direct counterpart to this that springs to mind is another UK documentary that came in the midst of a similar moral panic (and also leaves the audience to make up their own mind): '1000 Men and Me, The Bonnie Blue story' by Victoria Silver. This had similar profile to the manosphere one in the UK but would not have benefitted from the Netflix effect globally.
Rosencrantz2
15d ago
Just seems like your standard scare piece, like they moved on from climate change, declining bee populations, or unhealthy fast food meals, and now its the big, scary red pill men who are corrupting the youth and we should be having a satanic panic about it RIGHT NOW.
I mean that might be its role for some and the reason it's been made, but it's Louis Theroux, he is just meeting influencers and asking them questions and then leaving long silences for them to hang themselves, just as he has done for many other interview subjects. There's not really any editorialising. You can say it's selectively edited to make them look bad but if you watch it, it's hard to say it does anything than show conversations with them play out in real time and leave it to the viewer to make their own judgements (which will surely be negative, because the interview subjects are objectively absolute bell-ends).
And I make this point semi-often... they always fail to offer up a competing vision of true 'healthy' masculinity that men should aspire to instead. Or to point out a non-toxic male role model that actually engenders the values they suggest men ought to seek to represent.
I think that's a hole in the culture generally, but this particular documentary is hard to watch without seeing a clear contrast between Louis Theroux himself and the influencers. He is weedy, softly spoken and awkward, but much more comfortable in his psoriasis-striken skin than they are in their suntanned muscle suits. He actually comes across as much more masculine and secure than they do. Albeit adorkable fearless modern day Socrates may not be an ideal your average teenage boy is going to gravitate towards (although I actually did as a teen).
Yes. Social algorithms are inherently polarising and the same forces are at work in the opposite direction for many women, in such a way that knowing what the "other side" is looking at makes people dislike each other even more and even (worse) become genuinely more unlikeable. Ban algorithms! (I don't know if I think this but probably could be persuaded.)
Rosencrantz2
15d ago
But are we allowed to question what message women's questionable dating choices (made of their free will with no external pressure) send to young boys and girls?
Young men are not “corrupted” into noticing these patterns. They notice them first (through lived failure) and then find the subculture that names the pattern instead of shaming them for noticing.
Well, I don't doubt there's some truth in this but if we're in the noticing game it seems crucial to also notice something else: there is a strong psychological motivation to generalise from some women's questionable dating choices. It lets men who are feeling difficult feelings blame them on women. Then they get served algorithmically with more "opportunities to notice" the questionable dating choices, and become more invested in an explanation that excuses what they may see as their own failure. And conversely, they are highly motivated not to notice women's "good" dating choices.
To be sure this is a form of torture for the men who are sucked into it, and you have to feel for them, but it is going to be hard to be clear eyed about these things if you miss out that massive piece of the puzzle.
Rosencrantz2
16d ago
Quite obviously Trump is a total asshole though so he is hardly going to respond in the way that you or I would prefer. It's not unreasonable to criticise him on these grounds, but to criticise him for lying, bullying, being an asshole, believing in conspiracy theory, not being long-term, etc etc is simply going to be water off a duck's back to his supporters because those traits are his entire thing.`
The only way to get through is to show that he is weak.
Either he knowingly put someone "weak on security" in charge of counterterrorism efforts, or he's a lying bullshitter who just makes shit up about you if you ever upset him.
Isn't this what Trump and Trump supporters actually want you to think though – that Trump is a lying bullshitter who will dunk on you if you upset him, regardless of the truth/falsity/merits of the case? That way he can build a coalition that maintains loyalty and enables him to use his bully pulpit to ram things through in a way others could not, because they are afraid to oppose him. That is how his whole operation works. If he didn't lie and bullshit, it would be possible for his opponents to use reason and evidence to combat his insults, which would defang them significantly. They have to be regarded as insult theatre, not grounded in reality, to act as effective in/out-group markers.
I would have thought that MAGA supporters would at least tacitly accept this characterisation, though I confess they sometimes surprise me.
Rosencrantz2
17d ago
This is a bit confusing. If sex is labour, isn't rape more akin to forcing someone to labour against their will, which is likely to involve committing a serious crime, not just an instance of robbery?
Rosencrantz2
20d ago
It's a list written to sound specific but it's incredibly open ended. "Permanently denying Iran nuclear weapons" sounds like it must entail either regime change or a permabombing campaign that goes on forever. If they do a lot of damage to Iran's military structures but entrench its regime and cement its determination to get nuclear weapons, what's permanent about that?
Rosencrantz2
21d ago
Does focusing one's campaigning on one's own government, instead of others, really count as an isolated demand for rigour?
Rosencrantz2
27d ago
I agree that the books are surely making fun of progressives, though Murderbot also finds the crew members to be cute, and wants to protect their foolish existences. The overall worldview of the books reads to me as sympathetic towards progressives, while also recognising that the capitalists, while unpleasant, better understand the brute realities of the world.
This paradox is what makes the story interesting.
Rosencrantz2
28d ago
Unfortunately not, just my own sense that dynamic rising entrepreneurs are bringing more innovation and open mindedness and that old ones are more focused on preservation, and that often the main impulses they are left with once their excitement and love have died down are grudges, which for most of us are thankless, but which they are able to indulge on a continuing basis. You may say I am going with a folk morality view of the wealthy here but I think there is at least a core of truth about the phases of billionaire founders' lives that is inevitable, in a Greek theatre sort of way, given the positions they find themselves in. I also think it is healthier to eat the rich in the knowledge they are similar to us, than to do it because they are fundamentally different (even if they are different along certain dimensions).
The Iranian regime is in a life or death situation (its upper echelons being already dead) and it is doing something that has given it the upper hand and that it hopes could give it negotiating power or put pressure on the US. I have no idea if this is the best strategy and certainly not saying it's a morally good one, but it seems to make sense as something that many groups of politicians threatened with imminent death might do. Nor does it prove they are a doomsday cult. (They are, but this doesn't prove it.) I also don't agree that it makes (one of) the US's original stated goals of regime change more pressing. Or maybe it does make it more pressing in absolute terms, but in relative terms it creates an even more pressing need: to solve the energy crisis. It thereby creates restrictions on what the US can do to end the regime. Again, seems rational.
More options
Context Copy link