Tacherus
10mo ago
For the first problem, various interest and political groups usually put out voting guides. You could delegate the decision to a group whose priorities you generally agree with (assuming there is one) and use their voting guide.
If forming any of those opinions seems so odious that you’re willing to claim you don’t care, why put up a fight? Concede you couldn’t be bothered to form an opinion in advance so complaining afterwards is unearned.
Is aimlessly complaining about whatever while making no effort to help or improve things or even understand what’s happening so important to you?
These problems and sub problems were invented by you, they aren’t requirements by any stretch of the imagination.
Tacherus
10mo ago
That makes it sound a bit like you’re not simply not voting, you’re not really “participating” at all.
I’m also grappling with whether or not to vote at all, so I’m asking myself as I’m asking you—are you actually doing anything other than complaining? And complaining in the most ineffective way to the least degree possible?
To the second question you asked, an attempt at a steelman would be to imagine you’re in a room with a bunch of people and dinner plans come up and you say nothing. The choice is narrowed to two restaurants and you say nothing. A vote is taken and you think it’s pointless so you leave during the vote and come back.
It seems to me even if you’re the only one who wants Mediterranean and there’s no hope of swaying enough to your side, you still come off badly if you can’t even be bothered to say that.
Like I said though….grappling with it myself. Not sure what I’ll do.
Tacherus
10mo ago
I’m not sure if you think my answers qualify, but I think at least part of what you’re observing is due to the nature of the question.
“I thought X and now I don’t” would seem to warrant a bit of a follow up as to why you did and why now you don’t.
Most things people think, especially early on, are from being told, not experience. Told by whom? Well….
Tacherus
10mo ago
I’m not saying it’s not rational, just that I’d mainly encountered descriptions of getting a wage or salary as exploitative because of profits etc. etc.
The idea that you’re getting something (stability) in exchange for lower upside had never occurred to me.
I don’t think it’s a bad trade at all. My main point is it was an unquestioned assumption I’d held and it led to me rethinking a lot of things.
Tacherus
10mo ago
The ones who surprised me were 20s with maybe a girlfriend or boyfriend.
I wasn’t surprised the older ones didn’t want to take risks per se…but it did reinforce that calling wage labor inherently exploitative was ignoring many non-tangible benefits that people opt for.
Tacherus
10mo ago
Something else I was wrong about. The Christians insisted back in the Great Atheism Wars that atheism/science was just another religion replacing Christianity.
I thought that was absurd, and atheism is certainly not a religion for me, but I concede I am in a small minority. I think one of the better explanations for The Madness is people scrambling to fill their religion-shaped holes. I genuinely don’t think I have one because of my upbringing, but many friends and family who claimed to turn away from religion are clearly just new members of the nascent Woke/Science religion.
It’s made what I thought was intolerable about the Christians seem tame in hindsight. I’m not sure where it leads though.
Tacherus
10mo ago
I was wrong about what people are like and what they want.
At my first corporate job after grad school I was unchallenged, frustrated with the slow pace, and eager to make more aggressive plays.
I left for an AI startup after a couple years and it totally changed the trajectory of my career and my life.
What blew my mind was trying to recruit people and seeing how risk averse they were. I left 6 years ago and most of them still work at a 200-year old company.
I completely reworked my model of what people get out of “wage slavery” and realized that many, many people will trade 20%+ of their earning potential for stability and security.
My dreams of democratic workplaces with profit sharing and so on fell apart because I realized, as much as the left might insist otherwise, that’s not actually what most people want.
Tacherus
10mo ago
Thanks for the links. I’d assumed he was just saying as many bad things as possible in a sentence.
Tacherus
10mo ago
You’re spot on with the drifting of parties. I was just reading
The other day—the gist is that Trump and Kamala are both talking about tariffs, but they’re “different.”
We don’t know what Kamala’s proposals are but obviously we don’t need to know to conclude they’re better /s.
But Charles Lutvak, a spokesperson for the Harris-Walz campaign, said in a statement that Ms. Harris would “employ targeted and strategic tariffs to support American workers, strengthen our economy, and hold our adversaries accountable.”
Tacherus
10mo ago
Thank you for the link, it is an excellent pointer to further reading about "what happened to the Marxists."
Tacherus
10mo ago
Well that consumed my entire evening but jujutsu seems pretty cool. I did the tutorials and am excited to try it at work tomorrow!
When you say “under wraps” you make it sound like this is established but not widely known. What leads you to call it a fact? I’m open to her being crazy but can’t seem to get any deeper than “I want to create an opportunity economy.”
Do you have a link handy to this Salier description? It sounds interesting.
Tacherus
10mo ago
I did not, and I accept that nearly none of the “he’s the end of civilization” rhetoric was right. In 2016 I was all in on Bernie. I honestly don’t recall if I was alarmed about Trump. I think I wasn’t, more just very put off and pretty committed at that point to lefty policies.
But This Time Might Be Different.
I only started paying attention in 2012 or so, so I’ve had two occurrences now of seeing the anti-Christ turn out to not be that bad.
As I said, I struggle with it. Maybe I’m deluding myself but absent the election stuff I probably wouldn’t care at all about this election. As it stands I feel some unease about Trump.
I can’t see myself voting for him this time largely because 2016-2020 was so anti-climactic. There’s a real chance I will just make a protest vote.
Tacherus
10mo ago
I suppose it will depend on the next candidate’s relationship to Trump and his relationship to the party. If someone who disavows Trump can get to the general maybe it won’t work. Otherwise it seems an easy enough attack.
Tacherus
10mo ago
How can he not? The dynamic seems less driven by re-evaluation and calming down and more due to needing to paint the current opponent as the end of the world. Whoever the 2028 republican candidate is will need to be portrayed as the worst yet, which necessitates “Trump wasn’t actually so bad.” It’s inevitable I think.
Tacherus
10mo ago
A couple things stand out to me, in no particular order.
Friends of mine saying that Kamala’s lack of policy proposals is good, actually, because whatever she said would just get attacked. I guess the idea is nothing she could possibly say or do is worse than Trump so gotta get her in by any means necessary, including vibes.
I watched Kamala’s speech at the DNC and it honestly reminded me of 2012 republicans. Lots of talk about how great the country is and framing things in terms of freedoms.
I remember distinctly in 2016 some mixed wires with BLM and so on as to whether things looks bad for black Americans. I remember getting that vibe from the Dems but then Trump also said that and suddenly Hillary starts going on about how tone deaf that is and using the word “vibrant” a lot.
I’m not sure if it’s just about who is incumbent now, but I suspect it’s part of a larger shift towards Democrats wielding a cultural majority, or at least acting like it.
Out of favor, Democrats were the party of misfits, the marginalized, and dare I say it, the weird.
Tacherus
10mo ago
I think about that a lot, for what it’s worth. Asking Pence not to certify the election seems like a bright line though.
If not for the 2020 election shenanigans I’d probably agree that he’s just like the prior republican candidates and we’ll see him as tame in ten years compared to the New Threat.
Tacherus
10mo ago
Read a little further:
In one study it was found that he used patient data without written permission, used fictitious data and that two reports were submitted to conferences which included knowingly unreliable data.
Regret
The professor agrees with the committee’s conclusions and expressed his regret for his actions. Poldermans feels that as experienced researcher he should have been more accurate but states that his actions were unintentional.
Tacherus
10mo ago
I basically never get past 1/3 of non-fiction books, but I often feel slightly guilty about it. It seems arrogant to say the last 2/3 is filler or stuff I can work out myself but…
Tacherus
10mo ago
Based on this and other high profile cases it seems we could have a high standard for proving fraud.
On the other hand in these cases of fraud maybe we wouldn’t have confessions if there were more serious consequences.
The thing I think certainly I have been catching up on the last eight years is how important culture is for plugging in the gaps of laws. It’s like this type of fraud should be a career-ending scandal, not necessarily illegal. The law is too blunt an instrument I think.
Tacherus
10mo ago
Thanks for the article. It exhibits a pattern I’ve noticed of wanting to signal sophistication and subtlety by injecting confusion and the resolving it.
Here we have an article about a guy who has acknowledged using fake data.
Why does the article waste time discussing accidentally incorrectly performed research?
It’s so the author can navigate the murky waters created by introducing a fairly unrelated topic, then sieving out the original point which anyone could have made in two paragraphs.
Between this, the Alzheimer’s stuff, and many others it seems pretty dire for the trust the scientists crowd.
Tacherus
10mo ago
I’m not sure how to resolve the disagreement. Publicly disavowing something seems categorically different from drawing a line in the sand and saying “join me or I block you” or whatever. Drawing the line is what creates sides out of people with different opinions.
I don’t like when the left “swings too hard in the opposite direction” and over corrects and I don’t like that approach here. I think it’s short sighted and self-defeating.
Surely you agree though that bringing it up only after the decision is made is worse than before or both though right?
More options
Context Copy link