Tanista
4mo ago
Let's grant that it was radicalizing. I'm not sold that a certain sort of anti-woke radicalism matters.
It takes a long time to get people to some Rufo stage. A lot of the critics of Anita Sarkeesian were still fundamentally in agreement with progressives. It was just "mostly the same values, can you just leave our shit alone?". Around this time atheism was having a moment online and the GOP were the loser squares who talked about the body shutting down legitimate rape. Working with them to break wokies was unthinkable and the sheer unconstrained nature of woke demands and their who/whom mentality wasn't fully accepted. Some people are still in denial (until it impacts them)
A lot of people didn't care, and a lot of people were embarrassed by attempted strike backs against the heart of the problem or to rally people against that a la "they came for gamers, gamers".
Tanista
6mo ago
"Men" and "white people" are not cabals. They are not coordinated, possibly clandestine (relatively) small groups with a shared goal. They're just...populations.
When progressives talk about, for example, "white flight" they do not generally frame it as behavior driven by some small set of elites. It's driven by a mix of inherited inequities and certain biases and attitudes towards black people across the white population as a whole. That is what they blame.
Otherwise the career of someone like Robin DiAngelo makes no sense and is in fact, an act of sadism. They target normal people for retraining on the grounds that normal people - who know nothing about any coordinated racist plan - and their biases matter.
Tanista
7mo ago
I don't think the two situations are the same. Men are allowed to become policemen already because they provide obvious benefits if you aren't Leto Atreides.
The presumption is against men being in the women's toilet at all, presumably because there's no benefit that outweighs potential issues.
So the question is why an exception for this sort of man? I really don't care whether it's sexualized or not. I think we should maintain the original taboo
Yes, it's possible. Some socialists are absolutely against strengthening ethnonationalist impulses. FdB wrote an insipid piece on it not too long ago.
You can say, as a matter of principle, that no ethnostate should exist.
The problem is that it practically seems to end up as "Israel in particular should dissolve itself first". People find that suspicious.
Tanista
9mo ago
I'm not sure exactly why people on right in the USA are till on the "thin blue line" team. Perhaps its because the median cop is more conservative. Perhaps its being more comfortable with authority and generally being more conscientious - leading to less altercations
You clearly know why the right says it's for police.
"Thin blue line" is not a content free slogan, it doesn't just mean "pro-cop". It says something about the right's view of society that explains why they're pro-cop. The right has told you why and you clearly heard them.
Is the right so insincere that their given explanation doesn't suffice and we need to speculate ?
Tanista
11mo ago
But it is not clear that this should impact his ability to compete in a sport he's actually very good at if he's maintained good behavior since.
It has no impact on him competing - he can go compete at his local community gym - it impacts him representing his country on the largest stage possible.
The US claims to have an interest in non-proliferation and international order. If Iran gets one, Saudi Arabia gets one. Israel already has one.
So now, instead of one independent-minded nuclear power, you have three in a region of the world a huge amount of oil and trade passes through. Lots of chances for drama. (Also, harder for the US to threaten a nuclear nation)
Maybe nothing happens. But it'd just be better to not deal with this.
Roman civilization was able to grow and succeed prior to Christianity
It expanded, for sure. Usually though, when I see people argue Christianity is pro-growth they mean in modern terms: Christianity (allegedly), through mechanisms like banning child marriage and insisting on monogamy created societies stable enough to function as market economies that advanced to an unprecedented level.
I feel pretty confident in saying you'll never get a majority of people to "believe" in Christianity in this ridiculous and performative way
Yeah, I've never been able to get past Paul's question of the value the things he subjected himself to to spread the the faith if Jesus be not risen.
A faith isn't just words. It's motivation. Peterson seems to be the sort of person capable of the effortful control of maintaining his Christian code regardless of whether we find some early source tomorrow that vitiates Jesus' divinity.
How scalable is this? How many people got the short end of the stick when it comes to conscientiousness who would be kept in check by strong social norms and a bone-deep fear of roasting in hell but not any of more loosey-goosey stuff? "Do this or burn in hell" can be understood by anyone. Once you start quoting Chesterton your audience shrinks.
But maybe it's because my background is in Islam. I've found it incredibly difficult to fulfill even a few of the pillars without faith motivating me. I'm not praying 5 times a day or fasting in perhaps the worst and most annoying way I can think of if I don't think it's for something. The omnipresence of Arabic certainly doesn't help. It sounds nice but a lot of the time you have to bring your own context to things.
I suppose it's much easier for Protestants. (On the other hand, maybe this doesn't bode well for cultural Christians when it comes time to sacrifice. Maybe they're just putting it off)
Tanista
11mo ago
Yeah. There's no point in overthinking this. Democrats (and plenty of Republicans) feel bullied by Trump, who has said awful things (DEI Candidate, Willie Brown, not really black) just this cycle. Absurd to say that his attacks don't hurt reputations.
They feel delivered by Biden leaving and are engaging in some exuberant bullying themselves. Which is just one part of literally throwing everything at the wall and seeing what sticks.
Lots of parents deputize the one kid they think is reliable. The wisdom can be debated but it doesn't really contradict the playground cop thesis. The US also bribes countries like Egypt on the other end which fits as well.
As for letting them squabble... this'd work if a)everyone didn't already agree that the use of nukes is a taboo to be maintained and b) there was no chance of it spreading to the exact sort of groups that got Iran into this mess and c) one of these nations didn't continually insist it was in a religious war with the rest. That gives people reason to deny you a nuke.
Yes you need to sit down and budget, but you also need to understand the difference between a good purchase and a bad one, understand that rent and other bills come before entertainment in the budget, and understand how to get more bang for your buck.
CICO without cheating (which is why we always emphasize actual tracking) makes this clear. Or clear enough for weight loss.
Knowing the calories you get out of a Snickers bar, given your daily caloric needs and the satiation you get from it, lets you know how bad a decision it is. Once you set a ceiling you can easily see which foods are inefficient.
And, if you choose to indulge, you'll have to fast or exercise later (which you'll probably enjoy even less, proving the point) or compensate with some satiating, low-calorie foods.
People who come up with a fixed budget and can't decide between Netflix or rent have a problem but it isn't ignorance.
Its generally accepted that they don't have a theory to operate under other than "say whatever I need to in order to get re-elected."
Politicians are driven by survival. But they can also be idealogues. I don't think it's that simple
Trump is the one whose statements get treated as critical emergencies
Maybe because Trump is a path-breaking president? I mean, wasn't that the appeal? He doesn't follow the rules or do the things people usually do. The reaction should differ.
Would most other politicians start off arguing about the size of the crowds at the inauguration? Especially so directly? Like, you can leak some stuff to friendly journalists . Trump just had his press secretary fighting people over it.
Even if normal politicians didn't give a hoot about things like the markets or the stability of the rules-based liberal international order they either pretend or talk about it a certain way. If we're cynical, they believe election depends on it (presumably because the media will tear them apart and the public will assume that someone so uninhibited and lackadaisical in speech would also be so in deed), so they squeeze their statements through a filter of committees and precedent to not scare the hoes.
Trump deliberately broke with that and added his own particular brand of unhinged behavior. That will be notable and alarming and you can't always tell when a notorious bullshitter is bullshitting or if he's really going to double down and whether he'll actually follow through or be worn down. Take tariffs or trade: the same statement in 2016 and 2025 have different chances of being implemented, but a person who thinks it's an awful idea has reason to be alarmed. How do you cover this guy without that element?
Hell, even this year, his policy bounced between tariffing countries and then pulling back. At least a few reasonable people may have believed he wasn't actually going to fight it to the max and was negotiating against for some new USMCA thing.
Your credibility for going after Trump relies on you also going after other politicians, including those on your team, with comparable enthusiasm.
The media has cut down plenty of figures for dubious reasons. Sometimes it even harms Democrats (why is Al Franken not in politics anymore? It was a silly situation).
I'll remind people that media credibility was heading to the toilet BEFORE Trump arrived on the scene. It dropped below half in 2005.
There's a long-term problem there. But Trump is also a problem of his own.
The media blew a lot of powder on essentially partisan issues, because the mainstream media has a partisan lean. Immigration restrictionism wasn't a threat to the Republic.
Keeping politics within a certain window was conflated with defending the right to have politics as such, a European fascination that everyone would be better off without.
That was an unforced error. Lying about things like "very fine people" was an unforced error.
But Trump legitimately said and said weird, unhinged things for reasons that people still find hard to divine (I don't think we ever settled on a consensus about his master plan for Canada) and it can't all be put on the media. Maybe Trump is just dysfunctional?
Even if literally all you watched was blue-coded, scripted media where they used the same camera tricks used to make people like RDJ and Tom Cruise look taller, you can't avoid noticing the difference in stature/physical expectations for people who are cast to look like the top physical specimens for their sex.
Tanista
4mo ago
If we can manage to elect somebody who's not a total moron (so yeah, probably boned) I think it can be OK -- the current sabre rattling (pocket-knife rattling?) is exclusively to play to domestic morons for a sugar rush in the polls.
Canada has no culture...except when Americans say it. Nationalism is finally a thing again and it must get its due.
Tanista
4mo ago
Definitely think Vance set them on a collision course with the respect comment. That's a red rag to someone like Trump and Zelensky was apparently in no mood either.
Where does the ADL stand with Elon? They seem to jump on everything, usually
It could be a vibe shift or just them backing an antiwoke ally.
This is a particularly bad war. Neither side is able to win. Israel can't defeat all its enemies because whenever enemy deaths get too high, Israel loses the support of Europe and the US.
This situation will only get worse due to demographics. Makes it hard to see postponing the war as a good thing.
Tanista
9mo ago
Maybe should have updated after the success of recent assassinations of his underlings?
Tanista
11mo ago
There's been a marked shift to the right for young men in the past couple of years, while women have gone in the other direction. It can't all just be the industrial revolution.
Tanista
11mo ago
A 12 year old could trivially just leave home on the first bus to the city 100 years ago to find work
I come from a very patriarchal culture, arguably not truly feminist (though it's made its impact on the educated). No one would put their 12 year old daughter on a bus alone to go find work.
Shithousery is about satisficing more than anything. A draw is a win for the inferior team. The goal is to eke out enough turnout. If people have to hold their noses or take a shower later so be it.
I firmly believe that Americans are narcissists and it's to their credit here; they'll mostly vote on domestic matters that truly impact them. I doubt Ukraine will in any way be a major stumbling block, no matter what the really Left says. Israel might, if only because of some very motivated voters in Michigan. The progressive Left has been somewhat contained on this.
Without Biden's age the media will default to hating on Trump again, reminding the base What's At Stake.
Not much she can do about inflation at this point. The border is also going to be bad, especially since she was briefly appointed to help manage it. It remains to be seen how bad (how many people even recall that?).
I imagine she'll continue Biden's desperate pandering: capping rent increases, deporting some migrants while allowing others to stay, talking about SCOTUS reform and more giveaways to their base that took college loans.
Just throw enough at the base that people project enough hope unto your candidacy that you hopefully squeak out a win. And, if you don't, stop sinking the rest of the ticket. That's really what's essential here. The Democrats may have to just take a Harris loss so long as she runs ahead of Biden and lets people who want to vote for a Democrat elsewhere do so. Newsom and co. can pick up the pieces later, so long as they haven't been ground into a fine powder by the mobility scooter of a candidate 2/3rds of their party thinks literally cannot run.
Tanista
11mo ago
Hillary was their Hannibal. They're still chasing the dragon from that magical night in 2016.
Having trouble deciphering what your second point has to do with the first, mind saying more?
I'm saying Vivek has been saying for months it won't be Biden. I thought Vance sent out a catty letter denying Kamala a VP debate because she was going to be the Presidential candidate, but it was apparently actually from the Trump campaign
Their own public posture has been that Biden wouldn't be the nominee. They can't claim surprise.
It has some bearing on whether they meaningfully exist. It's a normative claim: trans adults do not exist in the same way that what we've termed "cis" adults exist, so their judgments about puberty should not be treated the same.
If a news article talked about the "AAPI" ethnicity, do you also feel like there's no context in which one can question whether that ethnicity is meaningful?
I certainly don't think of "AAPI" the same way I think of African-Americans.
More options
Context Copy link