@TheAntipopulist's banner p

TheAntipopulist

Voltaire's Viceroy

0 followers   follows 1 user  
joined 2022 September 05 02:32:36 UTC 

				
User ID: 373


				
				
				

			

		

	














	


		


			



	

		

			

			

				

					

						

							
						

						

							
							

								
TheAntipopulist


								
								
									
								
								

								

								
								
								

								
							
					
 
				


				
Voltaire's Viceroy

				
				
				

				

					0 followers  

					follows 1 user  

					joined 2022 September 05 02:32:36 UTC
				


				
					

					
No bio...

				

				

				

					

					

					
					
					

					
User ID: 373


					
					
					
				

			




		

	

 











			
			

			
			

			




	


		

			
‎

			

				
				

					Hour
					Day
					Week
					Month
					Year
					
				

			


			
‎

			

	
	

	 Hot Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
	



		

	






	

		
		

		
		
	

	

  







		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of January 9, 2023
			
		

	




	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
Care to post a link to that thesis (or at least summarize it)?


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			
			
			
				

			
		

	







		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of January 2, 2023
			
		

	




	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


it's hard to overcome the sheer weight of charisma and charm that is Joe Biden and his 81,000,000+ votes, the most in history by quite a margin




I'm not entirely sure what you mean by this. Are you insinuating the results are fraudulent since no candidate had received 81M votes before? If that is your assertion, I'd say that's a silly argument since population growth naturally means the vote tally for all sides will naturally increase over time. Combine that with a higher participation rate (which has been on a slow, long-term upswing for the past few decades) and 81M votes is hardly implausible.




"smart" money was wrong in 2016 when his influence was at its peak according to you, so given that you've surely bet the farm at these odds, right?




Again, I'm not sure what you're meaning is here. Political prediction markets can certainly be wrong, but typically not in ways that are obvious enough to bet thousands of dollars and feel safe about it. They went against Trump in 2016 despite him eventually winning, and I think they overlearned their mistake because they flipped to having a Republican bias in 2018 and 2020. If I had to guess, I think they've overlearned again in the opposite direction, as I'd personally say Trump has as much of a shot at the R nomination as Desantis does, but I'm not confident enough to "bet the farm on it" as you say.




"arguable" is doing all the work in this sentence




It's hard to offer definitive prove since we can't rerun the election, but yes, Trump endorsed candidates in the primaries that were more towards the fringe in many states. Those less centrist views almost certainly cost them a few % in the general election, and in close states like GA and PA that was likely enough to tip the race.




something funny about pointing to the parody of "this is surely the end!" and then writing a post which is essentially, "but it's true this time!"




I'm not saying this is the end, I'm saying it's another barometer of Trump's slowly declining influence. Trump certainly still has at least a moderate degree of say in the Republican party, and it's practically guaranteed that he'll at least be competitive in the Republican nomination race, although he's definitely not a shoe-in like he was in the 2020 R nomination.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			
			
			
				

			
		

	







		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of January 2, 2023
			
		

	




	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


Trump was always more the avatar of the MAGA movement than the motivating impulse




While that's true for some people, there's a nontrivial fraction are loyal to Trump no matter what. This could be for various reasons, including the notion that Trump was the only one who wasn't a RINO beholden to the GOP establishment, and that any "alternative" to Trump (e.g. Desantis) could be seen as a return to Republicans as "controlled opposition" so to speak.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			
			
			
				

			
		

	







		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of January 2, 2023
			
		

	




	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
Indeed, fixed.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			
			
			
				

			
		

	







		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of January 2, 2023
			
		

	




	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
Another interesting aspect of the Speaker fight has been an additional datapoint on Trump's slowly eroding influence. Trump has explicitly backed McCarthy, and while Trump's endorsement had once been enough to clear state-level Republican primaries to get his preferred candidates to the general election, it hasn't done much in this fight. Indeed, Boebert and Gaetz have been openly flounting Trump's wishes, with Boebert confirming that Trump had called her and told her to "knock it off", to which she replied in a floor speech that she thought Trump should tell McCarthy that he doesn't have the votes.


Trump has been unique in his ability to survive scandals that would otherwise sink mainstream politicians, with it becoming almost a parody that many political prognosticators constantly said Trump was doomed, only for him to float along like nothing happened after a week or so. But I think this caused many people to overlearn about Trump's resilience into essentially thinking he's invincible. In reality, Trump's clout within the GOP and the nation have been declining slowly but consistently. The high point was obviously the 2016 election, but he suffered a minor-to-moderate defeat in the 2018 midterms before being rejected by the country as a whole in 2020, and now it looks like he's slowly being rejected by the Republicans as well; not just the establishment (which has always kind of hated him) but even the far right is looking for other options. Smart money now thinks Desantis is about twice as likely to win the R nomination in 2024 than Trump after Trump's candidates arguably cost Republicans the Senate chamber.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			
			
			
				

			
		

	







		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of January 2, 2023
			
		

	




	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
The goal of Generalplan Ost was to replace Slavs in the east with Germans, not to just leave the land barren post-cleansing. Certainly there would have to be some cities founded afterwards if the plan were put into action. In any case, the use of Hitler is mostly arbitrary as a stand-in for a generic {bad man} for the purpose of the hypothetical. You could replace him with anyone you think is horrendously vile that was also capable of founding cities.




there's only one political group that would ever conceivably honor its founding, and that is Azov symphatisers.




The question isn't "is it bad to honor Hitler?", it's "do you have to honor vile people just because they founded a city?". You haven't said it explicitly yet, but it seems you have a double standard on this issue where if it's a historical figure you like (e.g. Cathy) then you think people shouldn't ever take down the statue, but if the situation is precisely inverted to a historical figure you don't like (e.g. Hitler) then suddenly the situation isn't so clear-cut.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			
			
			
				

			
		

	







		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of January 2, 2023
			
		

	




	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
What? How is this a response to my hypothetical?


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			
			
			
				

			
		

	







		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of January 2, 2023
			
		

	




	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
Well, I applaud you for being ideologically consistent in your views at least. That's not a terrible lens to have when looking at historical figures, although popular perception of history isn't going to be nearly as nuanced, obviously. Most people interpret "statue" as "noble individual", and I mostly agree. I think the nuanced view can be reserved for the history textbooks for the people who really care.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			
			
			
				

			
		

	







		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of January 2, 2023
			
		

	




	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
Founders of cities are honored with a statue if they're seen as honorable, not just because they happened to found a city.


If Hitler happened to found a city somewhere in occupied Russia during WW2, do you think Hitler is entitled to have a statue of himself in that city forever?


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			
			
			
				

			
		

	







		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of January 2, 2023
			
		

	




	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


completely self-evident






There's no need to back that up.




Saying something is "self-evident" is not an argument. There's a difference between noting who the founder was in something like a history book, and glorifying the founder as a statue. Many cities have uncontroversial statues of their founders if their founders were seen as noble individuals.


If Hitler happened to found a city somewhere in occupied Russia during WW2, do you think Hitler is entitled to have a statue of himself in that city forever?


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			
			
			
				

			
		

	







		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of January 2, 2023
			
		

	




	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
They're "performative" in the sense that little action is likely to be accomplished besides throwing mud at the other side's reputation. Partisans almost always believe investigations against {ingroup} are silly and frivolous, while investigations against {outgroup} are important, serious, and likely to uncover heinous crimes!


Not sure what impact an R House would have on investigations into antitrust stuff, since I was under the impression that fell under the domain of the FTC, which is nominally under the control of the Executive, although I've never really understood who gets to order the regulatory agencies around.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			
			
			
				

			
		

	







		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of January 2, 2023
			
		

	




	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
The main difference between the Democratic issues with the Senate in the previous Congressional cycle is that the Democrats actually needed to try to get legislation passed. The Republicans in the House don't have that burden, as any partisan policies they'd try to enact would just get instantly shot down by the Senate or the President. This makes the Speaker's job a lot easier since all he really has to do is obstruct Biden's agenda, and maybe have enough unity to launch performative investigations like the Dems did with the Jan 6 commission.


I agree that trying to pass meaningful legislation with a majority that's this slim and rowdy would be very difficult if not outright impossible, but McCarthy doesn't have to do that.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			
			
			
				

			
		

	







		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of January 2, 2023
			
		

	




	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
This is such a goofy argument that's pretty clearly a result of motivated reasoning. Does ordering a city be founded at a particular location give a person some unassailable claim to have their statue there for all eternity? If you honestly think it does, you need to do a lot more work to back up that assertion. Statues aren't just some note in a history book. They're meant to glorify a particular historical figure. Given Cathy's association with Russia, and Russia's current actions against Ukraine, it ought to be pretty understandable why the people of Odessa don't want to glorify the leader of a nation that's currently terror bombing them and engaging in war crimes left and right.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			
			
			
				

			
		

	







		

			
			
				The Media Very Rarely Lies[Scott Alexander]
			
		

	




	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
Yeah, the clickbait title is kind of silly, and it would be better if it was something like "The Media Rarely Outright Lies".


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			
			
			
				

			
		

	







		

			
			
				The Media Very Rarely Lies[Scott Alexander]
			
		

	




	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
A pretty good post from Scott. The title is a bit clickbaity and there are some minor quibbles with using the modern print Infowars of today compared to the Alex Jones podcast version of a few years ago, which is what most people imagine when you say "Infowars".


A lot of people are getting distracted by the title and either 1) thinking Scott is disputing the definition of "lie" and asserting that lies by omission are acceptable, or 2) thinking Scott is claiming we should always trust the media. Neither of these are the case. It's clear his goal is to attack the notion that "misinformation" is easily classified as such, when in reality it's closer to "different spin on the same basic facts". This is the same issue "fact checkers" ran into when they were in vogue a few years ago, with how many of their "fact checks" were actually "wokists have different opinions checks".


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			
			
			
				

			
		

	







		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of December 19, 2022
			
		

	




	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
Agreed. Wokist panics about stuff like microagressions, trigger warnings, the euphemism treadmill, etc. have always pretty consistently been ridiculed by most people even on leftists websites for at least a decade, yet the wokist machine has kept ratcheting upwards in other areas all the same.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			
			
			
				

			
		

	







		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of December 12, 2022
			
		

	




	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
Absolutely this. If he was going to start banning journalists, he needed to do it with a lot more leadup that started with banning people who were tracking the locations of people who weren't politically sensitive, then issuing threats that he would ban journalists too if they didn't stop. Or something like that. Something to focus the attention on the types of bounds he's trying to set, rather than letting the headlines freely read "Musk bans journalists who disagree with him" and such.


As someone who's committed to free speech, I don't see much value in banning people for posting personal locations of billionaire's private jets. That's been public info freely available on the internet for a while. Either Musk should go all-out on banning doxxing of all stripes, or he shouldn't draw the line at all.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			
			
			
				

			
		

	







		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of December 12, 2022
			
		

	




	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
The solution to wokists co-opting and subverting the public square of the future is to set down regulations that push both sides to be treated equally. Democracies can have problems with pushing sides towards truth-seeking due to human nature, but using this as an argument to abandon democracy is farcical when dictatorships almost universally have a worse track record on this front.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			
			
			
				

			
		

	







		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of December 12, 2022
			
		

	




	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
Why would you use what happened on Twitter as a knock against democracy? Twitter, like most websites, are almost entirely authoritarian. The wants of the masses are ignored unless it gets to a point where people leave the platform en-masse, and moderation decisions like this are ultimately beholden to whoever is at the top of the corporate food chain. There's no voting, there's no oversight, and the only reason we're seeing the "Twitter files" now is because Musk is releasing them to discredit the previous elites and cast legitimacy on his current endeavors.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			
			
			
				

			
		

	







		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of December 12, 2022
			
		

	




	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
Mass automation won't happen in our lifetimes. Robots will push out humans in some areas and raise the overall standard of living through productivity increases, but the Industrial Revolution proved that even an unprecedentedly massive increase in output will be matched by a corresponding increase in desires. Keynes thought we'd all be working 5-15 hour weeks at most by the 70s yet that was obviously wrong. Something like 98% of people were employed in agriculture in the 1700s which has dropped down to <2% today, yet the median work week is still at 40 hours.


Outside of a potential tech singularity born from a artificial superintelligence, things will proceed how they have throughout history: minor iterative progress most of the time, sudden rapid development in a few particular industries for a few years, then back to minor iterative progress.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			
			
			
				

			
		

	







		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of December 5, 2022
			
		

	




	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
Interesting stuff. There's so little research done on anything related to sex since it's taboo. It's nice to see someone taking a stab at it, even though there are obvious methodological issues such that this survey wouldn't stand up to the standards of a normal academic journal. Still, a very rough estimate adds more to the conversation than no estimate.


The headline results are what anyone should expect. The amount women can charge is based on their attractiveness, so something that negatively correlates with beauty decreases income. Duh.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			
			
			
				

			
		

	







		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of December 5, 2022
			
		

	




	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
Your point about banks "stealing" seems more reasonable in context, as it seems you're casting the "stealing" label broadly which... I don't agree with, but I can see why you're doing from a writing standpoint. It's definitely worth summarizing more conscientiously, as not everyone will go read your entire post.


The point about inflation being bad because it's sneaky in some ways is understandable, but we live in a complicated world, and in the grand scheme of things inflation isn't that hard to understand. I can't speak for everyone, but I at least had a vague idea of what it was many years ago before I had any deep knowledge of economics. Any financial planner will be able to tell you about inflation quite easily if you ask. In a world where the legal system is impenetrable without the help of a lawyer, where medicine is impenetrable without the help of a specialized doctor, and where even taxes can be impenetrable without an accountant (or at least software like Turbotax), the sneakiness of inflation really isn't that bad. And the federal government isn't doing it because it's sneaky, at least for the most part. There are genuine arguments in favor of positive nonzero inflation that I detailed earlier.




The standard Vanguard retiree fund has lost out compared to inflation: https://investor.vanguard.com/investment-products/mutual-funds/profile/vasix#price




Firstly, this isn't a "standard retiree fund" as it's actually quite conservative, with ~80% of the assets being in bonds. Second, your math isn't right because it gives returns in an annualized format. A dollar invested from the start of the fund in 1994 to the present day would be worth about $4.50, whereas a dollar indexed to inflation from 1994 to today would only be worth about $2.00.




But actually it is really difficult to preserve purchasing power, because it requires buying extremely volatile assets




Again, if you just want to preserve your purchasing power while minimizing return/risk, TIPS are the exact opposite of "extremely volatile".


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			
			
			
				

			
		

	







		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of December 5, 2022
			
		

	




	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
The purpose of savings accounts is convenience in not having to store physical currency under your mattress. The selling point of savings accounts has never been returns or inflation protection or as a long-term retirement vehicle. If you want those things instead, then... go for a financial product that gives them.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			
			
			
				

			
		

	







		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of December 5, 2022
			
		

	




	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
This post is silly for several reasons.


At the broadest level, there's a question as to whether the government should target 0 inflation or not. Most mainstream economists agree that a small amount of inflation is good for a variety of reasons (incentive to invest, implicit cheaper cost of borrowing, relief valve for employers in lean times, etc.). I feel that reasonable people could disagree on these points, however, and there are some interesting points to be made for the overall net-benefits calculus of targeting a lower inflation rate. Certainly the recent inflation has been much higher than what anyone wants, which is why the Fed has been jacking up interest rates.


But instead of having that discussion, this post goes off in another direction. Firstly, the target of this article is simply wrong. Main street banks aren't stealing your money because they're not the ones causing inflation. The same loss of purchasing power would occur if you took your money and stuffed it under your mattress. It's the federal government's decision to target a positive nonzero inflation rate that's causing the issue, and that decision is no more of a "theft" of your money than simple taxation is. Some people might think the implicit tax of inflation is sneaky and therefore illegitimate, but there's nothing really secret about it.


The second, larger issue is that this post compares bank savings to gold, real estate, or the S&P 500 index. The problem is that these investments entail a significant amount of risk, so what's really being done here is an analysis of opportunity cost that the post tries to smuggle in as an argument towards the magnitude of supposed "theft". If you specifically want to save with inflation-protection as your main goal, there are investments specifically designed for that purpose. If you don't want to bother with something specialized for long-term savings like that, you can just put your money in a target date fund geared towards your retirement horizon and inflation shouldn't be an issue.


Finally, comparing inflation to the fraud (at least that's how I currently understand what happened) that happened with FTX is just goofy. The effects of inflation are known, and it's not hard to prevent erosion of purchasing power with minimal risk if that's your main goal. On the other hand, taking clients' money under pretenses that they couldn't discover without insider information like what FTX did is quite a different issue, and is something that regulation could indeed help with.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			
			
			
				

			
		

	







		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of December 5, 2022
			
		

	




	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
You could say the same thing about the Watergate scandal. The initial story was small potatoes compared to the actions to suppress it that followed, but in the end it felled a US president.