@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

I'm blocking Zeke since he mostly just posted ad hominems instead of actual arguments when responding to me. I can't see his comment. What does this have to do with Ukraine?

  • -18

Oh don't get me wrong, they should be allowed to from a default libertarian point of view. If dumb people want to make dumb decisions, they should be allowed to within reasonable bounds as long as they're not harming anyone else.

The problem is, as I said in my post, the political ramifications. People love to blame the platform that allows stupid people to make stupid decisions rather than the stupid people themselves, and this jeopardizes the good thing (political bets).

The fact that prediction markets got tethered to sports betting is terribly unfortunate. It's like if Kalshi took its crypto elements as an opportunity to "diversify" into crystal meth. There's a lot of value in being able to see the odds of elections or political events at-a-glance. I hope the entire ship doesn't go down as a consequence of stupid people doing stupid things, and then society blaming the platform while holding the stupid people as helpless victims.

You're right. I'm used to PVP shooters using lobby balancing like TF2. In the days of ubiquitous skill-based matchmaking the penalty for being bad is far lower. A septuagenarian won't make it very high on the ranks, but most games can provide a steady stream of drunks, stoners, and Gamer Girls for them to feel good enough to keep playing.

Thank you for the link. That's a pretty juicy one. That sneering, spiteful attitude. Claiming America started the war. Getting pushback in the comments and responding that other people offsite had unrealistic expectations without linking anything. Even seeing "majestic capeshit arc" in context is worth a chuckle.

Media is hard since humans are self-interested monkeys that want to lie and exaggerate to dunk on their outgroup all the time. From that baseline, the mainstream media is quite good, as long as you ignore its coverage on identity-related issues.

There are certainly valid criticisms of the media, but what's telling is MAGA's utter failure to offer up a credible alternative after an entire decade. There's no law that prevents them from doing this, it would just require consistent work on par with what the NYT produces, and enough impartiality not to be written off as blatant right wing propaganda. This would benefit not only the Right, but the Republic as a whole for having a credible alternative. Instead... we get stuff like Nick Shirley -- a kernel of a real problem reported in regards to Somali fraud, but wrapped up in layers of partisan nonsense.

I'm staunchly pro-Western and have been following Ukraine relatively closely for its entire duration. I recall the hype for the summer 2023 offensive, but I don't recall much widespread hype for summer 2024, and I really don't recall anything for summer 2025 nor upcoming 2026.

A conspiracy theorist could respond with the following:

You’re assuming "they" had the option set you think they had. Killing him before the NYC arrest might have been harder rather than easier: he had private security, controlled environments, and (depending on the timeline you pick) he wasn’t yet in a federal facility with the same leverage points.

You’re assuming the goal is "least suspicious" -- but it might be "most explainable". A heart attack in Paris is less controllable since it invites autopsy uncertainty in a foreign jurisdiction, questions about private doctors, and paper trails. On the other hand, "suicide in jail" comes with a template of negligent guards, broken cameras, and bureaucratic errors. It's not "less suspicious", but it is "more deniable". Suspicion can be tolerated if it can't be proven.

You're treating the FBI as a monolith, whereas it's actually factional. Not everyone in law enforcement is on the same team. "They" might not control the early stages. The "heads up" might come late, after the arrest is already imminent.

etc.

You can definitely still play shooters or most other reaction-based games when you get older, you just shouldn't be doing PVP or extremely hard difficulties if you want to have a good time.

The big issue is the Fascist-Feminist synthesis means both the Left and the Right actually agree on this issue, but for wildly different reasons:

  • Older women viscerally hate it when older men date younger women, which has led to the Left broadly being hostile towards age gap relationships.
  • The Right has two elements: First, there was a lot of (wildly incorrect) hysteria that Leftists were going to try to make pedophilia legal as the next step on the slippery slope after gays and trans were done. Second, there's long been a bunch of conspiracies about pedophiles controlling the government in QAnon or Pizzagate form, so there's been a ridiculous trend to try and link practically anything towards sinister cabals of pedophiles.

As such, there's almost no political appetite for decreasing the age of consent.

As for what it ought to be, 15 does indeed seem like a more reasonable age than 18. It wasn't even that uncommon all that long ago, heck a lot of countries in Europe have their ages at 14. In terms of mentality, a lot of it depends on the individual's IQ. A 130 IQ kid could be emancipated at 13 and would probably make better decisions than the average adult, and there's an argument to be made that an 85 IQ person should always be treated as a child to some extent. But polite society has an allergy to explicit references to IQ so we just randomly draw a line at 16-18 and call it good enough I guess.

I wish you'd include a link to the old Ukraine discussions, as it would be nice to go through and downgrade my opinion of certain forum posters' forecasting ability relative to the confidence they projected in Ukraine's impending doom.

This forum has a lot of pro-Russian (or anti-Western is probably a better term for them) posters who are smart enough not to go full "just 2 more weeks!!!" but who still fall for a lot of the pro-Russian propaganda overall. I vaguely recall a post involving a new Russian missile that would be a wunderwaffe.

As always, Ukraine could experience upsets at any time, but the likelihood of that at any given point is relatively low compared to just muddling along as usual.

  1. You're exaggerating a bit with your first and second claims.
  2. Past presidents, especially Trump, have pushed the envelope in their own ways. Bush Jr. did it, Obama did it, Trump did it, and Biden did it. In terms of who did it the most, that award would almost certainly belong to Trump.

Never-Trumpers never had much purchase beyond the Republican party as a coherent faction. As for Democrats, the centrist wing was a decent portion of the reason why the leftist fringe has lost so much power over the past few years.

Obama and Pelosi have a combined net worth that is substantially less than Trump has made from his scamcoin alone.

Biden sat pretty far outside the post-watergate norm for domestic policy pressures

Biden wasn't far outside the norm compared to recent presidents.

Cultural republicans have rights, and if we have to choose us or you to be oppressed, guess what we pick.

False dichotomy. Wokeism was a cancerous political movement, but the reaction from the Right should have been to defeat it conventionally, not to devolve into Trump Cultism nor to treat it as a blank check to engage in nearly unlimited political hypocrisy (e.g. Trump's open corruption).

MAGA does not buy into the idea of the state as ultimate sovereign/final arbiter of authority.

Much of MAGA buys into the idea that Trump ought to be the ultimate sovereign/final arbiter of authority. There's a short distance from the type of cultism the rank-and-file MAGA voter shows, and the idea that Trump should be some sort of dictator, if only to stop those evil leftists!

The video makes it rather ambiguous as to whether the people in the video think we're already in a dictatorship, or if we're just sliding towards one. I'd say it mostly endorses the latter narrative while you're mostly attacking the former. I'm not saying you're attacking a strawman per se, but you're not addressing their stronger argument much either.

Yes, we could very well be on the slide towards a dictatorship. The biggest protection against a dictatorship would be the people broadly penalizing authoritarian behavior. The US had that 2 decades ago, but it doesn't have that much on the Republican side in the age of the Trump Cult. There's some people on the Right like Yarvin that explicitly want a dictatorship in some form. I don't think they have much pull, and that a dictatorship would not come from their actions. Rather, it would come from the Republican rank-and-file being more-or-less fine with a right wing takeover.

A Republican leader could say "the Dems are blocking immigration enforcement -- the only way to really fix immigration is with extraordinary power", and I highly doubt most Republicans would stand in the way. If they're not really complaining about the unprecedented corruption of Trump 47 which brings them no tangible rewards, why would they complain about this? The only 2 things standing in the way are 1) if law enforcement and the military would comply, and 2) if Republican leaders themselves actually want that sort of thing. The police and military could probably be slow-boiled into accepting something like this. On #2, I don't think Trump wants to become a dictator (and he's pretty old anyways), though someone like Vance might. Although Vance will probably have a very hard time keeping the Trump coalition together to the same extent that Trump did, so that will lessen the cultism aspect.

I don't think the US will transition to a dictatorship over the next 10 years, but it's like only a 70% chance that won't happen instead of a 99% chance 2 decades ago. The protections against it happening are becoming worryingly thin.

Looping back into current events, it seems like there's little incentive for the administration not to bend the truth. The enemy was already deploying their rapid response arguments with zero regard for the truth

It feels like you're just carrying water for the Trump admin's foolishness. "The outgroup is going to behave bad, so we need to behave just as bad!"

Or the admin could, you know, just not do inflammatory things when stuff like this happens? Do the politician-speak of "this was a terrible tragedy", imply it was an "accident" from split-second judgement, then leave the sectarian shitposting to people like Catturd who were going to do it anyways. Biden mostly did this with a few exceptions that I can think of.

Then again, the even smarter thing would be for them to call off this whole punitive ICE expedition. Minnesota has a problem with Somali fraud, and the US as a whole has a problem with illegal immigrants, but this expedition is not an effective way to address either. It exists mostly to goose up R's on social media, and because Trump personally dislikes people like Walz and Ilhan Omar. In terms of actual effects, its end effect will be to incinerate the anti-immigration political capital built up from Biden's open borders years with remarkable efficiency.

LLMs should be compared with customer service agents... if an agent was unhelpful would you stay on the line or just hang up and call a new one? I hang up until I get someone helpful... LLM sessions should be used similarly.

Does this really work for human customer service agents? I would have presumed that they're following a pre-planned script for most issues.

I’m confused if you’re criticizing the isolationist faction or the interventionist faction here as you’re mixing the two together in your last sentence. And you’re providing examples of criticism while claiming there’s an extremely narrow window of criticism, which doesn’t make sense. In any case, we live in a two party system, so each party comprises strange bedfellows, like those who want American Imperialism and those who want strict interventionism, or those who want it in some cases but not every case.

I'm not sure what you're confused about here. I'm saying isolationists hypocritically turn into interventionists after Trump intervenes. And then the right-wing criticism Trump has faced has been very muted, even from ostensible isolationists. Gabbard was highly isolationist before Trump, but now publicly praises interventions. Tucker is also isolationist, but instead of criticizing Trump he pulls his punches and nonsensically blames gay marriage instead, since he knows his audience will hate him if he comes out against Trump too much.

The problem with this view is that foreign policy actions are highly contingent. The architects of the Iraq invasion in 2003 genuinely thought it would be a 6 month operation tops, that they would just go in and out, and it would be mostly over in a few news cycles. Then things started going a little bit badly afterwards so 6 months turned into 12 months, then one thing led to another and they ended up with a quagmire.

I'd say Trump deserves some credit for not going completely crazy out of the gate, but he's certainly rolling the dice. It's not difficult to see something bad happening in Venezuela that brings bad headlines, Trump recoiling at said headlines when they show up on Fox and Friends, and hawks coming to him to say "Sir, things are bad but if we just do a little bit more everything will be better. Pinky promise".

If I got a warning for what was basically "you can't criticize the MAGA circlejerk", then yes I would complain especially if I could find inverse examples that are functionally equivalent, but just pointing in the other direction. And that wouldn't be hard. "Leftists seem to think" posts are not uncommon on this forum.

I think Trump could have been "genuine" when it came to his original foreign policy views, but that doesn't mean much since he's a waffle who frequently changes based on whoever was the last person to have spoken with him, or from whatever news headlines he watches on Fox. He got a lot of good right-wing press from this recent Venezuela adventure, which seems to have really whetted his appetite for more military actions

It will be interesting to see if we get a right wing occupy movement

Not gonna happen. MAGA is fully in the tank for the personality cult around Trump and I don't see that changing in the immediate future, and in 1-2 years Trump will be a lame duck anyways so it won't really matter.

Who exactly do you believe has been humiliated here?

Gabbard, for being so blatantly hypocritical. Also, MAGA partisans to some degree, although flip-flopping for them is so common whenever Trump does something they previously said they wouldn't support that it's not really news any more.

"isolationism" in the eyes of Trump's supporters

I would say most of them don't have consistent definitions. Some like Michael Tracey are consistent, but most are just vibing and will switch their positions to say they love whatever Trump does after the fact.

have been more or less disastrous than the Biden Administration

Biden was the only President that I would say had a genuinely good foreign policy. Getting us out of that stupid Afghan war is something every President since Bush should have done, including Trump, but none of them did it. His actions on Ukraine and uniting NATO were also exemplary, although I have quibbles with the scale of aid to Ukraine. He was right on all the major issues.

His immigration policy on the other hand... yeesh!

My opinion is that most immigrants, legal and illegal, to the US are people who view it as an economic resource

This is how immigrants have always viewed the USA, including Ellis Islanders that came in the 1800s. Do you think the Irish fleeing the potato famine primarily came to the US because they wanted its culture? Obviously not, which is why they cloistered up in corrupt groups like Tammany Hall.

The thing that made the USA unique was that it was pretty good at assimilating these people over 3ish generations. It made them care about America's civic institutions, and got people to slowly realize that the main reason why the US had so much $$$ was because of its culture, and so people should care about that culture.

Over the years I have often heard cosmopolitan liberals express a sentiment to the effect "the United States has no culture"

I've spent most of my life surrounded by cosmopolitan liberals and I've literally never heard an IRL person say this. The only time I've heard it was 4chan shitposting on /pol/ as clear bait.