Skibboleth
It's never 4D Chess
No bio...
User ID: 1226
Skibboleth
It's never 4D Chess
15hr ago
Where do you live where they have letters in the speed limits?
That's what road grades are.
Skibboleth
It's never 4D Chess
17hr ago
Frankly I don't believe the unemployment rate actually reflects the labor pool in the U.S. A ton of people in the U.S. are not working, or are on disability or some other program that hides their labor.
Prime age (25-54) LFPR is close to an all-time high as well. Overall LFPR is down somewhat from its peak in the early 2000s, but that is overwhelmingly driven by longer education (i.e. far more people going to college) and a generally aging population.
If you constrain the labor supply in one domain while leaving it free in others, it will tend to enable rent-seeking from raise wages for people working in that domain.
Now, this is a universally true statement that would leave all of society dramatically poorer if applied generally and also negatively impacts the workers being excluded. However, if you're narrowly focused on raising the wages of seasonal farm workers without regard for agricultural productivity or the welfare of people who would have done seasonal farm work it makes a degree of sense.
Skibboleth
It's never 4D Chess
1d ago
the underclass who can get paid under the table, who cannot ask for help if they are abused, and who are desperate to accept any wage to avoid going back home
There's a very straightforward way to resolve the humanitarian concern here.
Skibboleth
It's never 4D Chess
1d ago
Yes, obviously. However, I would prefer people to say it out loud.
Skibboleth
It's never 4D Chess
1d ago
Could you clarify what you mean by "a state where they cannot return or be amnestied"?
Skibboleth
It's never 4D Chess
1d ago
TACO?
This is a bit of a let down for Trump Supporters and anyone who wants to take America back from those who were not invited. Especially with Gavin Newsom rubbing it in the public's face. Especially with American Approval of deportation efforts have been increasing.
I get the impression there's a fair amount of tension in the Trump administration between hardcore xenophobes like Miller and traditional conservative economic interests. As I have noted on numerous occasions:
a) Enthusiasm for mass deportations amongst the public tends to taper off when confronted with the implications. The average voter might be willing to wave a magic wand that would make every immigrant go away with no costs or downsides, but they'll balk at the reality of what mass deportation means and looks like.
b) the business gentry that dominates the GOP has no interest in large scale expulsion of immigrant workers. Their businesses rely upon it, not just as a matter of cost but because there's no viable alternative labor pool for a lot of this work.
Any other fair ideas?
Focus exclusively on deporting dangerous criminals. Create a large scale pseudo-amnesty guest worker program where people currently working under the table can become documented and gain temporary legal status. Combine this with mandatory e-verify (with strict punishment for violations) to make it harder to employ illegal immigrants and bring the whole system 'into the light', so to speak. You're not going to expel millions of people overnight, but it will give you more control over the flow and you can ratchet down the number of GW visas over time. In the long run, focus on economic and political development in Latin America to undercut the 'push' factor driving immigration.
Unfortunately for nativist policy ambitions, effective long-term measures are going to require cooperation from Senate Dems, and the Trump administration is not exactly putting on a master class in making friends and influencing people. And, as mentioned, GOP business elites are not terribly interested in serious immigration reform, and especially not in a way that makes them potentially liable.
As others have stated the bad behavior by ill behaving cyclists is just so so bad.
Is it? Or does their comparative novelty make one more sensitive to bad behavior from cyclists? A great many reckless, unsafe driving practices are so pervasive that they're functionally invisible (to the point where people will often act as if you are the asshole for not doing them).
I don't have statistics on the relative frequency of brainless degeneracy amongst drivers vs cyclists, but while we're sharing anecdotes, damn near every time I get in my car I can expect to see multiple of: speeding, tailgating, unsafe lane changes, and unsafe turns. People blowing through lights isn't quite an every day occurrence, but I've nearly been run over multiple times by people deciding to make an aggressive turn on red or who seem to think the far side of the crosswalk is where you're supposed to stop.
Skibboleth
It's never 4D Chess
6d ago
God-willing these lawless men who roam our streets, threatening innocent people will be identified and brought to justice.
Skibboleth
It's never 4D Chess
8d ago
To what end? If you were to say one or the other of them is picking a fight, sure, but what benefit does having a fake falling out serve?
Skibboleth
It's never 4D Chess
11d ago
on weapons that aren't being used in the war
These bombers are being used in the war.
The pro-russian people tend to think more strategically and the pro Ukr in emotional displays.
The pro-Russian people tend to affect ruthlessness, however I'm not prepared to call this strategic thinking since it often seems to boil down to a gloss on "never do anything to upset Russia, since they might decide to nuke everyone in a fit of pique."
The people you claim to be "conservatives" really aren't any more... if the strongest evidence opponents can muster is not actually what the word means
You are the one consistently advancing an idiosyncratic definition of conservatism. If you want to play word games, I can't stop you, but let's not pretend it represents typical use. Republicans call themselves conservatives. They are proudly defending traditional gender roles, social hierarchies, economic arrangements, etc... Now, there is a term for a radical-yet-reactionary populist movement, but it's not 'reformer'.
More importantly, word games don't actually fix the problem. Relabeling Trump's political affiliation does not change anything he does.
Of course, because Conservatives are extremely butthurt because the Reformers got elected, they claim corruption at every turn and expect me to believe it because of some misplaced sense of social propriety
This seems like a spectacular failure to grasp the substance of Trump critiques.
(I don't know that anyone expects you to believe anything, since you're Canadian and thus not terribly relevant to American domestic politics)
Reformers have trouble criticizing Reformers. Conservatives have trouble criticizing Conservatives
No. There is a very distinctive cult of personality around Donald Trump that does not apply to any other politicians, Republican or Democrat. Biden caught enormous amounts of flak from both the center and left wings of his party, and the Democrats more broadly are notorious for squabbling. Republicans are a little less prone to infighting, but it is very normal to see intraparty criticism there as well (especially if you can frame it as the target not being conservative enough). Donald Trump is uniquely protected by the unwavering loyalty and epistemological deficiencies of his core supporters.
Skibboleth
It's never 4D Chess
17d ago
I think this is cope. You want to draw a line from Caesar to Trump, but the comparison doesn't make any sense (for a lot of reasons, not just the corruption angle). Leave aside the question of whether or not Caesar was good in the long run. Caesar, in your telling, leveraged his position to try and enact reforms. By your own comparison (and also reality) Trump is not doing that. Trump is not a guy playing the game better than anyone else while pushing for reform. He's pushing for more power and getting rid of guardrails holding him back from more corruption. Instead, the argument is, essentially, that Trump being overtly terrible is a good thing because it will inspire others to enact reforms so it can't happen again.
The problem is that Trump commands the unfaltering loyalty of a base of supporters who are, to be charitable, absolutely clueless. They categorically reject any suggestion that he's corrupt. None of this "at least he's public about." No, Trump is the most honest and upright politician we've ever had. After all, he's a billionaire already. This base in turn demands public devotion to Trump to be part of the team, and if you're not an idiot that means Olympic-level mental gymnastics to rationalize the extraordinary corruption of the Trump administration.
My intuition is that public crimes are actually less bad than secret ones. I would rather have it all out in the open.
My intuition is that corruption is always an iceberg. For every act of shameless public corruption there are a dozen hidden ones. Worse, because Trump is so blatantly, shamelessly corrupt and uncritical devotion to Trump is the bare minimum to be a Republican, you end up with a situation where one of the parties is essentially pro-corruption and actively resists attempts to fix the systems that allow Trump's abuses. If there was broad consensus that we needed to fix things in the future, the argument might make sense, but there's not and can't be because serious criticism of Trump is inadmissible in conservative politics right now. Thus we get this borderline parody of Murc's Law where Democrats are somehow at fault for Republican corruption.
Skibboleth
It's never 4D Chess
18d ago
But if you drive through the rural parts of the South, it’s already happened, probably 2 generations ago, and these places look like the ruins of a civilization rather than a thriving one. Rusty, dirty, shabby, abandoned buildings everywhere. The people themselves live in poverty for the most part.
The rural South has always looked like that. The economic and social structure of the South has not historically been conducive to prosperity. Arguably, many parts of the South are doing better than ever, thanks to weak labor laws, cheap labor, and permissive planning/environmental laws making it an appealing place to build factories (and houses).
Skibboleth
It's never 4D Chess
24d ago
I have to be honest, I've never been terribly impressed with JFK as a president. He seemed to nail the performance aspect of it, but in every other particular he was mediocre or ineffective, and being a brilliant performer without material competence behind it (it doesn't necessarily have to be yours, personally) is not a virtue for leaders.
More broadly, I am unconvinced by the Adultery Theory of Masculine Competence. I think all it tells us is that many men, given wealth and power, will leverage that to get laid. Which is... not exactly a revelation. Some successful presidents were horndogs, some were not. And vice versa.
Skibboleth
It's never 4D Chess
27d ago
Maybe I'm so over-educated I can't recognize a simple, boring, innocuous truth when it stares me in the face.
The trouble with simple, boring, innocuous truths is that they tend to contradict each other.
--
One of the more blackpilling realizations of 2020 was that a large swathe of my fellow citizens were pro-police brutality. Previously I had operated under the naive assumption that it was simply a problem of extending law enforcement too much benefit of the doubt. However, it rapidly became undeniable that at best they were operating under the Tango and Cash theory of criminal justice, wherein civil liberties are a weapon criminals use against police. Many were quite open about saying to my face that the job of the police was to brutalize the underclass into submission and if they occasionally murdered someone, well, lowlifes don't really deserve rights.
It's true that you're probably going to have to let people make judgment calls that maybe aren't going to adhere to a strict reading of legal rights, but if that's going to be your system you have to be willing to hold those people accountable when they abuse or misuse their judgment. You can't just say "Oops, this job is really hard" when they make a bad call.
Skibboleth
It's never 4D Chess
1mo ago
I will precommit now, that if other countries actively take steps to reduce tariffs and otherwise appease Trump's demands and Trump is too temperamental to accept these offers in good faith and we still have most of these Tarriffs in place at the same levels come May 2nd 2025 (unless real deals are pending come that date), it is a bad thing and we will be in for some rough times. I will criticize/condemn Trump and Co. in no uncertain terms.
In this scenario, if the US imposes tariffs, the target country retaliates, and then after some negotiation they settle on a rate that is higher than the prior status quo but lower than the initial tariff imposition, is that a win or a loss?
The one thing I admit surprise over is that there's been relatively few deals regarding the purchase of U.S. goods OR offers to sell foreign resources.
This really shouldn't be surprising.
Skibboleth
It's never 4D Chess
1mo ago
How does this line up with your personal predictions for how this was going to proceed?
Loosely in line, though I'm not on record so you'll have to take my word for it. My expectation for this entire tariff routine is that after a great deal of can-kicking things will settle into a slightly-to-moderately worse approximation of status quo ante that will be harmful but not catastrophic. Trump will present this as a massive win.
Skibboleth
It's never 4D Chess
1mo ago
having some sort of violent struggle would have, uh, not improved race relations.
There was a violent struggle. Southern white supremacists attempted to suppress the civil rights movement by force until the federal government stepped in and made them stop.
Skibboleth
It's never 4D Chess
1mo ago
"Racism is the paramount evil" wasn't even a major takeaway from WW2. This is just presentism. The South was run by white supremacists until the rest of the country forced them to stop some 20-25 years later (for which there is still lingering resentment). The end of the British Empire wasn't due to an outbreak of anti-racism. Likewise for the French Empire. Etc...
The elevation of racism to foremost sin is largely a phenomenon of 21st century American progressivism.
Skibboleth
It's never 4D Chess
1mo ago
Francis' critics and fans outside the Church both seem to have a wildly exaggerated idea of how progressive he was. He was more tolerant (and I use the word advisedly) on certain social issues and was a vocal proponent of the religious humanitarianism* that is pretty standard for the Catholic Church, but he was still fairly socially conservative. He might have be liberal for the pope, but that isn't saying much.
*which, granted, puts him at odds with the... lifeboat capitalism of the contemporary American conservative movement
Sci-Fi a weird genre to have effectively adopted neo-Luddite tendencies.
And yet SF has always had a notable technophobic element. It's less weird when you consider that a 'cautionary tale' is necessarily going to be SF even if the author thinks everything after the typewriter was a mistake.
I think there's a conceptual muddle (everywhere, not just here) between LARPing (silly, low-grade imitation, connoting unseriousness or outright insincerity) and Cargo Cult behavior (imitating superficial elements of something while not understanding what actual produces the results).
When someone talks about the homeschool prom being a LARP, what I think they're really getting at is that the organizers are trying to copy the structure of an adolescent courtship ritual without having all of the actual machinery that powers it. You try to set up a dance, but it doesn't work because not only do these teenagers not have pre-existing romantic relationships, they don't even know each other.
The reason given for this strategy is that it rarely stays fake forever. Maintaining a performative pretense, saying and doing one thing all while constantly going "this is silly, this is stupid, this is fake, this isn't me, I don't believe any of this" in your head is hard
Many of my peers can cite concrete negative experiences as their reason for leaving the church, but for myself and quite a few others in my cohort, the reason 14 years of private religious education failed to stick was precisely that it was abundantly clear to me past the age of about ten how silly and fake the whole thing was. Being made to participate in the rituals negatively impacted my religious identification compared to if I'd done the truly traditional thing and gone to church for Christmas, Easter, weddings, and funerals.
And the thing is: my teachers were not LARPers. By and large they were true believers trying to share their genuine belief. If they had been faking it, it would have been even more ridiculous, though I do think their authentic belief actively blinded them to the absurdity of doing things like asking a bunch of upper middle class white 15 year olds to share their personal testimony of being born again.
Which is to say: it's not that hard to think something is stupid and fake while going through the motions, and that's when the people insisting are themselves fully committed to the idea. I struggle to imagine what it would have been like if the schools had been run by present day tradcon LARPers whose interest in evangelical Christianity was purely instrumental.
It's why governments have made citizens recite propaganda slogans over and over
Yes, because while many people are persuadable, the most important benefit is isolation. The point of making you participate in these rituals is not to convince you that the underlying ideas are correct (though that may be an added benefit), it's to create the impression that everyone thinks these ideas are correct. Many people are pretty milquetoast and will go along with whatever the prevailing opinion is. The Pledge of Allegiance doesn't make you love America; it encourages you to think everyone around you loves America and you'd best get with the program if you don't want to be ostracized. Likewise with widespread church attendance. It's not about faking it 'til you make it; it's about making your preferred belief system the path of least resistance.
Unless you can actually introduce a general preference cascade towards, e.g., religious fundamentalism or at least get your community to voluntarily segregate from broader society, performative piety isn't going to do much. Substantive indoctrination is going to require something more all encompassing and building parallel institutions requires actually building competitive parallel institutions (which is the real sticking point).
Skibboleth
It's never 4D Chess
1mo ago
I think there's a politically-aligned difference here in what "validate" really means.
In the context of the original post and its respondents, the salient distinction seems to be between old school personal conservatism and more modern social anti-liberalism (I don't really have a punchy term for this phenomenon). The former prescribes manning up. The main problem is boys refusing to step up and take risks. The latter focuses primarily on anti-feminism and identifies girls' attitudes as the primary problem.
Leaving aside the issues with this argument*, then why bring up the humanitarian concern if it's not a serious priority?
This is not a novel problem, nor much evidence that it's actually a problem in itself (as opposed to generating backlash from nativists). The US has a history of absorbing staggeringly large waves of immigration, and we've gone through this song and dance before with the Irish, the Germans, the Italians, the Poles... Somehow none of these
In particular, it's remarkable how anti-Hispanic sentiments echo anti-Irish sentiments: they're lazy and parasitic (but also too willing to work long hours at hard labor for low wages), they're criminals, they're undemocratic, they'll overwhelm us with their numbers and fecundity, they're not assimilating, etc. About the only prominent difference I observe is that there isn't very much overt anti-Catholicism nowadays.
Of course, nowadays, the Irish are at least as American as the English.
Do you not think the tens of millions of immigrants who helped build America (somehow without destroying society) had anything to do with it? Xenophobia in the US is generally correlated with the least free and least prosperous parts of the country.
*it's pretty questionable that reducing the labor supply is generally welfare enhancing.
More options
Context Copy link