@Tanista's banner p




4 followers   follows 0 users  
joined 2022 September 05 11:38:24 UTC


User ID: 537



4 followers   follows 0 users   joined 2022 September 05 11:38:24 UTC


No bio...


User ID: 537

I think this is just proving Matty Yglesias' point that a lot of these tactics are a product of cargo cult thinking., based on glamorous past wins.

There's a massive difference between a repressive dictatorship with a deep well of discontentment that needs a spark and a faraway democracy where many people don't care, and many only give a shit in terms of how it plays into their existing (narcissistic) culture war.

Imagine roasting yourself because of a basic category error.

One stop shopping for solace in one's current position, moral and political beliefs, community, learning (though the state has basically taken that one in a lot of the world) and all the other good shit mentioned below.

If you are discerning enough or have enough time you can find each of these things on your own and put together a bespoke bundle . But it's a lot of hassle. So some of us buy prebuilt.

Obviously, there is always some cases where it seems to be just dumb; Buying an expensive IP and then ruining it with a bad new cast & creative team. But I think it has become an almost industry-standard because of the former. And in some cases, such as Star Wars, they arguably did put in a lot of work; They got decent parts of the original cast, J.J. Abrams, whatever your opinion of him, is a sucessful movie director and they clearly tried to replicate the structure of the old movies (and too much so, in my opinion).

I think the problems with the Star Wars sequel trilogy can mainly be blamed on Iger rushing it to theaters.

Surely the ancient Canaanites did not find Anat aesthetically revolting.

Another possible reading is that it took divinity for a woman to transcend their stereotypes.

He's "clinging to guns and religion" and stopping progressives from solving the gun crime problem.

And that was Obama trying to be charitable.

You don't want to be on the progressive stack. Being on the stack means being treated like a child, it means that your wins can always be questioned, and it means the worst representatives of your "group" become the loudest and most influential.

"Never be on the stack, unless you can be a rep" sounds like a lucrative if somewhat spiritually impoverishing position.

I find Hanania's writings increasingly incoherent across the board, and I think he is generally searching for an odd niche to try and maintain relevance now that his actual big splash in has waned.

He's become utterly unbearable on X (it's the same joke ad nauseum. Wegeddit, the IDF are the good guys) , but I wrote that off as Twitter basically becoming an engagement farm for him while substantive posts go on Substack. You can actually maintain these positions - Bryan Caplan both accepts HBD and is for immigration - but Hanania specifically comes across as a troll looking for an audience.

Reading his response to comments here... Maybe I'm crazy, but I can't see how he isn't playing dumb (right down to standard tactics like "there's no taboo on talking about this")

It's hard to disagree with the commenter's charge that he's refusing to answer "well, why not open borders but no Muslims?" because it'll either reduce to an "unPC" take from our supposed contrarian or force him to bite the bullet on accepting Muslims, which he also doesn't want to do for obvious reasons.

And so if we listen to a lot of HBD proponents like Murray and ‘accept’ it and dismantle those programs that largely benefit those communities, and abolish / criminalize affirmative action and so on, do we really think that the social problems we see in black communities are going to improve? That issues with eg violence are going to improve? It just seems very unlikely to me.

Problem is that the anti-HBDers are not standing in place: recent anti-policing pushes have made black communities worse off.

It's not simply "keep what works even if you have to lie about it". The other theory has motivated policy that is now not only hurting black people but affecting others, with no sign of stopping.

The latter is a much less attractive status quo.

it was often because they didn’t want to see the country burn.

A black guy gets shot by police at the wrong time and the country may burn anyway.

Progressives won’t be convinced by the “HBD supports meritocracy” argument because meritocracy isn’t axiomatic for them

  1. You don't necessarily have to convince hardcore progressives. All "respectable" antiwoke complaints are basically aimed at liberals who share progressive assumptions about helping people and remedying racial injustices but have relatively positive attitudes towards things like meritocracy (it's just they have no conceptual answer to "meritocracy hasn't worked, so it's clearly also racist")
  2. While we're at it, how many people have soured on meritocracy because they've just take for granted that racism is the cause of group differences that they keep seeing meritocracy recreate?

Nobody said it was irrational for him to do.

If you resent underqualified black women being shoved into positions of responsibility as publicity stunts, you're already voting for Trump.

Or you told yourself it was okay cause the VP doesn't have a lot of power anyway.

(and it's not like a former first lady is a priori less qualified than a reality TV show host, 'qualified' has sort of stopped being a thing in politics anyway)

Different brands. In response to Trump the Democrats have doubled down harder on qualifications and being the adults, allegedly.

And she could certainly energize some groups of voters of the left who are pretty apathetic or hostile towards Biden, and might drive up turnout.

This is assuming these apathetic, fringe types strongly favor of Obama or his wife? There's been a lot of disillusionment with the guy. You could say him not turning out to be a transformative president is the formative experience of many on the "Left". A lot of this is blamed on the GOP and McConnell denying his heavenly mandate but not all of it.

Before he and his wife dove into sellout territory making Meghan Markle-esque bland podcasts or working behind the scenes to ensure a smoother primary win for Biden against Bernie.

Was utterly baffled he went back at all given what Putin was doing out of Russia. He knew what he was dealing with.

Patriotism, I guess.

and a handful of weirdos in the progressive coalition ranting about how white women shouldn’t have babies

That's the far end of the curve. The more important messaging is education/career uber alles or Chelsea Handler-esque "kids are a distraction from all the cool shit you could be doing (if you're a rich white lady)" (see also , for a less absurd example)

Why do you think they just sicced Roc-Nation affiliated Meg Thee Stallion on her?

Who's Jay Z's best buddy? Democratic potentate Obama

Think about it! ( Huh, I see the appeal now. Conspiracy stuff is fun)

This came up in the Bud Light thing too.

I get why liberals would pull the whole "what's it to you? It's just the thin end of the wedge!" . It has clearly been incredibly successful.

I'm always surprised that nonliberals who've seen liberals attempt to infect everything - decolonizing bird watching! also seem to share the same sentiment.

There is a reason people are on a hair trigger.

It doesn't. Until it does. See: Marvel and Star Wars for increasingly bad pandering and weaponization of victimhood against the toxically masculine audience when the old audience complains.

Of course, sports doesn't need writing so it may not lead to any difference in this case.

But I get why people in the culture war are suspicious.

As the French critics of American cinema asked: is it everywhere because it is universal or is it universal because it is everywhere?

As you say, I think a lot of people just go along because they don't care to get into this stuff . But if they had been asked ahead of time if they wanted X Allegedly Anodyne Liberal Pandering what would they have said?

Plenty of Americans describe themselves as "Irish" or "German" or whatever without trying to imply they are less American.

It should go without saying but: She didn't call herself Somali. She gave a speech advocating for Somali interests and called herself Somali.

Fair to say that's a different thing from half-Indian Jay highlighting his heritage at the icebreaker.

Yes, in comparison to established democracies they seem less stable and unlikely to survive as long.

They do. But I'm not inclined to blame that on immigration policy first. Resource-driven monarchies are probably less stable than an old democracy like the UK. But that doesn't mean their level of ethnic tension for their population is well below "simmering on its way to insurrection"

Like most authoritarian governments, they pay the cost to the functioning of the country I mentioned, because they are less responsive to feedback and have to keep things under control in other ways

By "feedback" I assume you mean they're ignoring some economic benefit here, because I doubt the public is calling for more foreign citizenship?

But he was talking about a country that both let in anyone and then disregarded their opinions in favor of democratic rule by the minority of natives.

Yeah, I suppose it would get tense across generations if people are allowed to stay (though in some edge cases I think migrants would be happy to avoid things like conscription). But, if they aren't citizens, the welcoming nation has options if it wants them. Which is why OP is right that it'd probably be vastly more popular. That is the first demographic you have to please after all.

Because democracy isn't just an arbitrary principle, it's a political technology for nonviolent resolution of unrest. People who live in your country but don't vote can still riot, can still strike, and can still join insurgent groups.

Which is why the Gulf States are a hotbed of insurrection?

As Dave Chappelle put it (speaking about white women): "you were in on the heist, you just didn't like your cut".

When a "privileged" person is overthrown in elite spaces, it's rarely by the weak. It's by "the weak": people in the same space or close enough who want power and use the few levers they have to beat their rivals/tormentors.

They are advancing their interests, but that often involves punching up (allegedly) rather than down.

Yeah, The Wire doesn't succeed because groups are overly distinct (though it often shows they are). It arguably succeeded because the writers aren't Nowheres.

They had careers before Hollywood and lived their whole lives in the region. The city feels like an actual place and not Vancouver in Yankee drag. Entire plotlines and direct quotes are ripped directly from their experience (Simon's Homicide is basically The Wire). So they have roots, a position that isn't just ideology. Many of the characters are basically real people or composites of them, so they aren't predictable hacky stereotypes (though a "woke" author would have had Herc and Carver's stories end the same way)

A lot of the writers and showrunners not only often have much weaker credentials than you'd think - and in fact may be selected for their inexperience but they seem to be the same sort of person who uprooted themselves, moved to Hollywood, learned the new emperor's religion and now repeat that as their way of bringing value and climbing the ranks. So, if they're faced with something they're not familiar with, why not just let ideology act as a shortcut? As we see with the recent Barbie news, it becomes even more insufferable when such people get a ton of validation from their audience for this behavior.

So you end up with so much of the media and the personalities in it sounding the same.

Political discord creates art and philosophy that has usually never been seen before, but today we don't see any of that.

Maybe we really are at the end of history?

"Drumpf" has the additional constraint that it's not as good as any of Trump's bangers in terms of playground insult succinctness and is pretty weird for the pro-migrant Democrats to try to make happen.

Trump himself is pretty good at this. His epithets stick

Because Trump is willing to repeat them ad nauseum as a supposedly serious candidate. He has zero shame. Democrats and Haley fail for the same reason: they're in the wrong genre.

They try for gravitas and authority - "when they go low"...- instead of just being funny and hammering the joke in. It's Head of State, not House of Cards.