TheAntipopulist
Voltaire's Viceroy
No bio...
User ID: 373
TheAntipopulist
Voltaire's Viceroy
2yr ago
The US did it in the 90's so I see no reason why it'd be impossible.
TheAntipopulist
Voltaire's Viceroy
2yr ago
Again, with what troops?
With troops from NATO member states? There's been a steady drumbeat of articles over the past few years of countries doing exactly this. By the way you're framing this you're seeming to imply there's some huge problem here, but you're not really saying what that is. I also don't recall this being a topic that Noah has returned to much. Did he write an article about it? You posted a single tweet he made as your evidence that he has no idea what he's talking about, on a thing that did end up happening and was (I would argue) a good idea. Is there more to this that I'm missing? This just seems extremely thin to me.
Zeihan triggers the same "bullshit artist" alarm to me that you're getting from Noah, although for me it's probably somewhat lesser here. I've only read a few of his takes and I haven't been particularly impressed, as he has the age-old pundit problem of overconfidence. His book is a good example, where it's stated as a prediction rather than a highly unlikely worst-case scenario. Funnily enough, Noah had the same critique as I did.
I also read Nate Silver and Scott Alexander and think they're great overall. They run into issues sometimes, nobody is perfect after all. But they're better than the pack which is the important part. I'm less enthused about Yud, as he's sounded more and more like a detached luddite lunatic.
TheAntipopulist
Voltaire's Viceroy
2yr ago
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
This whole thread started from a pretty flagrant violation of this rule, which seems to be in complete abeyance at this point.
The vast majority of posts on the Motte are between right-wing takes and far-right-wing takes. If there was a generous population of pro-Palestinian people here then maybe your argument would have some legs to stand on. But most people are treating this as a discussing of 2A rights and whether it's justified to shoot violent leftists. The notion that some Holocaust deniers balances that out is just goofy.
TheAntipopulist
Voltaire's Viceroy
2yr ago
Right but... he also had friends there to help him out, who immediately intervened to drag the guy off him.
TheAntipopulist
Voltaire's Viceroy
2yr ago
Typical sort linear thinking, draw the line on the graph, circle the high point, and assert that things couldn't possibly go higher than that!
This is uncharitable, bordering on a strawman of what he said. He didn't claim it with strong certainty, just that there was a good chance that unrest had peaked. Given the retreat of woke (e.g. Harris' campaign platform) this is seeming more and more prescient now. Quoting directly from the article:
Now of course, interest might die down and then surge again even bigger than before, as it did for BLM and QAnon in 2020. But as of right now, all of these movements seem to be less in the public eye.
TheAntipopulist
Voltaire's Viceroy
2yr ago
Test and trace certainly seemed like it could be good early on, before it became clear that COVID was too easily spread and would never be effective. He dropped the push for test and trace after a few months.
Reinforcing east-flank NATO countries is a good idea given Russia's aggression. Previously, NATO had mostly only kept tripwire forces near Russia to avoid "provoking" them. Rescinding that policy to at least some degree was a good choice.
None of these seem like horrible miscalculations by any stretch unless I'm missing other context.
TheAntipopulist
Voltaire's Viceroy
2yr ago
It really doesn't seem like this is true, outside of specific contexts. Roe is dead. AA is gone. DEI is declining. Trump is openly calling for a blood-soaked deportation campaign and nobody really cares (although maybe people realize he's just full of shit at this point). Even leftists like Matt Yglesias are calling for more immigration restrictions. Harris is sprinting away from woke as fast as she can. Ctrl+f for "trans" on her campaign platform brings up only 2 results, both of which deal with "transnational criminal organizations".
TheAntipopulist
Voltaire's Viceroy
2yr ago
We've likely reached the peak of unrest sometime in the last few years. The woke movements are still bubbling, but the first derivative of their energy has turned negative.
TheAntipopulist
Voltaire's Viceroy
2yr ago
I don't really think raising taxes on the poor exclusively is a great idea. While the poor have been doing alright recently, I'd say that's generally a good thing given the US's gini coefficient is generally higher than other OECD countries. Letting most parts of the Trump Tax Cuts expire would be a good start. Also, slashing all refundable tax credits seems unwise, given that the EITC qualifies as one according to my Google searches, and it's one of the best redistribution programs that exist. Economists across the ideological spectrum generally rate it pretty highly.
The credentials issue of jobs generally is certainly an issue, but for reasons of zero sum signaling competition rather than... the fact that people work at a desk.
TheAntipopulist
Voltaire's Viceroy
2yr ago
That's... accounted for? The second article you posted mentioned that neither side really seemed to have a clear physical advantage in stature. If it was a tiny girl that was <100lbs vs an NFL linebacker then a gun might be more understandable, but that wasn't the case here.
TheAntipopulist
Voltaire's Viceroy
2yr ago
Progressives would say the opposite. Any realistic scenario getting the US back to fiscal prudence will involve both.
TheAntipopulist
Voltaire's Viceroy
2yr ago
Because they lack connections to centers of powers.
This strains credulity when juxtaposed with reality. I got a desk job with no connections, as did most of my friends + acquaintances in my graduating class.
credentialism makes it more difficult for people without rich parents to get fake email jobs.
I'm slightly more sympathetic to this argument, but still find it unconvincing. State schools aren't that expensive especially to genuinely poor individuals who can apply for all kinds of scholarships. There's also online options that are very cheap, e.g. I'm finishing up a masters in CS that only cost about $6K total, of which I paid around $1k
TheAntipopulist
Voltaire's Viceroy
2yr ago
you're required to take the beating
Not at all. He could have fought back with his fists to try to get the guy off him. The problem was that he escalated with multiple gunshots instead.
The notion that he can't fight back at all is a goofy strawman.
TheAntipopulist
Voltaire's Viceroy
2yr ago
Lowering taxes at all is bad on its face since the government needs more taxes and less spending. It's worrying that neither side really cares about ballooning debt, since it will almost certainly have a far bigger impact on the lives of regular Americans than something like climate change ever will in our lifetimes.
Poor people have been doing pretty well recently, actually. The Gini coefficient has been flat or declining for the past several decades (in FRED's most recent data for 2021 it was lower than any year since 1992). Also, if you want greater incentives for work, bolster the EITC.
I don't buy the notion that blue collar work is uniquely awful. It might be tough on the body, but it also has a relatively lower barrier to entry, and some people outright prefer it. How does capitalism balance the upsides and downsides? With a little tool called "market wages". If blue collar work is so bad, why don't blue collar workers just sign up to get those supposedly worthless, trivial desk jobs? Your argument feels like the right-wing equivalent of "women are only paid 77 cents for every dollar a man earns".
The only justification I can come up with for the latter is that it is the constitutional right of pro-Palestinian people to attack people supporting Israel.
Basically the government's view is if someone has tackled you and is beating on you, it's not sporting to fight back with a weapon (i.e. deadly force). Think of government as the two guys who hold you while their buddy punches you.
To add insult to injury, the pro-Palestinian man has not been charged.
You certainly don't seem like you're unbiased in describing this situation, which makes it difficult to take your account seriously.
In this article it says they're going to charge the pro-Palestinian guy after it became apparent that he would survive.
In terms of self-defense, there should obviously be some limits to prevent society degenerating into one where people try to bait their enemies into attacking them so they get a free pass at murder. See Cartman shooting Tolkien for a comedic example.
It comes down to proportionality here. On one hand you could say humans are intensely, catastrophically fragile. You could scare/startle a person, which could cause them to slip and fall on a jagged piece of cement that severs their spine and kills them instantly. In the same vein, a kid throwing a rock or wielding a stick could be "deadly" in unlucky circumstances. But under reasonable circumstances I don't think that justifies blasting them with a gun.
In this situation, if anything the fall was the most likely to injure. The pro-Israel guy had friends there so I doubt there was a reasonable expectation of getting strangled or anything like that, so him reaching for his gun was at least somewhat excessive, if not strongly excessive. That said, there should be some allowance for the ambiguity of the situation (shock, adrenaline, etc.)... which is what seems like is going to happen. The state is going to charge him, but not with the maximal punishment like attempted murder or even (according the second article you posted) § 15E, Assault and Battery by Discharging a Firearm which would carry a maximum of a 20 year sentence.
It seems like the state is doing a reasonably good job here, although it would be prudent to wait for more info. Though, of course if there's a bunch of info incriminating the pro-Israel guy then we probably wouldn't hear about it on this site, as the entire thing would just be ignored.
TheAntipopulist
Voltaire's Viceroy
2yr ago
Perhaps they should have gone gray instead.
TheAntipopulist
Voltaire's Viceroy
2yr ago
Most of the posts here don't really seem like they're "testing shady thinking". For that, it would be something like Scott's mistakes page. Most of the posts here instead seem like justifications of taking a few swirls down the toxoplasmic spiral. It seems a lot more "boo outgroup" with just a thin veneer of "here's how I was foolish enough to fall for their lies".
TheAntipopulist
Voltaire's Viceroy
2yr ago
This thread invites people to discuss things they were wrong about, but most people are using it to grind their usual axes.
"I was naive when I was younger. I thought that the outgroup might be reasonable on a certain position, but I underestimated how evil and far-reaching the policy is in practice. I know better now (and presumably am a bit closer to hating the outgroup with every fiber of my being)."
There are a few that dodge that description but the vast majority fall into it.
TheAntipopulist
Voltaire's Viceroy
2yr ago
Facebook was hardly the only company investing in the metaverse. If VR is included as well, which is at least adjacent to concepts of the metaverse if not outright intertwined, then the amount of investment almost certainly rivals what LLMs are getting (though data is sparse and a true apples-to-apples comparison is difficult).
I have more faith in the long-term viability of AI than I do of the metaverse + VR. That said, I find the idea of a near-term AI breakout to be highly improbable and decreasing with every mediocre release. At best, LLMs have years or perhaps even decades of research ahead before we get to human-level intelligence. There's also the possibility that the current generation of LLMs will eventually be seen as a dead end and AI focus will shift elsewhere, like how game playing used to be the forefront capturing headlines in the 90s before tapering off into relative obscurity.
TheAntipopulist
Voltaire's Viceroy
2yr ago
VR can become a lot better, but it will never solve the fundamental technical hurdle that has always held it back: It's supporters bill it like it will eventually usher in Ready Player One, but without physical movement the tech just sucks. All demos have to make critical compromises with how the player or user moves around, and they usually do it by teleportation or by being on-rails since the alternative is a one-way trip to the floor as the user's cochlea decides that remaining upright is no longer an option.
TheAntipopulist
Voltaire's Viceroy
2yr ago
Tech companies ploughed insane amounts of money into stuff like the metaverse as well. Heck, Facebook even changed its name to Meta, yet all we got were some dead malls.
TheAntipopulist
Voltaire's Viceroy
2yr ago
The default failure-state for emerging tech is that a relative lack of improvement is explained away as setting the stage for a future explosion of progress. In a very few instances this has been true, but overwhelmingly it's been false, e.g. crypto, the metaverse, VR, etc. At best, LLMs are currently on the downswing of the Gartner Hype Cycle.
TheAntipopulist
Voltaire's Viceroy
2yr ago
Speak of the devil, it just showed up for me.
TheAntipopulist
Voltaire's Viceroy
2yr ago
How are you playing with it already? I have the premium version of chatGPT and I only see the old 4o models.
It seems to me that you just have a chip on your shoulder about the guy. None of the examples you posted here or on the other post seem wrong beyond a "reasonable people could disagree" level. Certainly not to the extent that an unbiased person would call the person making them a "hack".
I have two priors here: The first is that he uses Twitter as a sounding board for rapid ideas-testing, so I'm more willing to excuse things he says there than I would be if he made the same argument on Substack or a published article. The second is that his interests cover a few different disciplines, primarily geopolitics, economics, and the things that branch out from them, but he has a few specific topics within those fields that he's become more of an expert on. As such, I don't think the notion that he bounces between topics is particularly troubling -- he has a core set of things he covers on rotation, and most topics beyond them are covered through a similar lens. Failing that, he tends to bring data. Sometimes his conclusions are overbroad and the data can be a bit iffy (e.g. he's a big solar booster but I've heard there are issues with LCOE as a measure of their ultimate economic feasibility, yet he frequently cites it in his charts) but overall he does a good job.
For the object-level concerns:
Probably the worst (for him) example you brought is this one... but he's not saying that they'd just make peoples' phones explode through a hack or something, but by their supply chain dominance, a topic he's talked about at length before in other contexts. I still think it's directionally wrong that this would happen, although I don't really hold it against him much since, again, it's Twitter.
You're arguing against a strawman here. He's not saying that Trump was bad for energy or anything like that, just that Biden continued being good.
In the article he linked, there was another chart that had employment numbers to 2024 which showed basically no change in the 2 years. Furthermore, somebody in the replies posted another thread showing there was no huge surge.
As a final point, the fact that you'd put Zeihan in with the likes of Nate Silver and Scott Alexander is wild, and that you'd use him as a foil to Noah is even wilder. I've been going through some of Zeihan's predictions and he's a typical doomer, with all the bad predictions that come along with that. E.g. he made a very strong prediction that China would collapse in 10 years, and I don't think we need to wait another 6 years to see if this comes true. It's way too overconfident. China could certainly experience turmoil, and if we're being generous then there's maybe a 10% chance this spills over catastrophically in the next few years, but he's saying it like it's guaranteed.
He's also claimed Alberta and Saskatchewan would have imminently held independence referendums, and then joined the US.
More options
Context Copy link