VoxelVexillologist
Multidimensional Radical Centrist
No bio...
User ID: 64
VoxelVexillologist
Multidimensional Radical Centrist
9mo ago
I can't speak to the state of actual relief efforts, but there does seem to be a bit of an effort to manufacture this as a mirror image to Bush's Katrina response, which dragged on Republicans for a long time: see Kanye's infamous "George Bush doesn't care about Black people" line.
Which is funny to me because in hindsight it's less clear that it was purely the Bush administration's doing. Much can be said about the (blue!) city and state leadership not taking the imminent storm seriously even as the National Weather Service issued extremely dire warnings, but Mike Brown's leadership of FEMA wasn't exactly a "heckuva job" either.
At least that's how I see it under the "politics is unprincipled conflict" lens. I suspect there are real challenges to providing useful aid with so many roads inaccessible (as there were in 2005), and I doubt anyone is actually slow-walking aid, even if they are trying to play political football ("FEMA is running out of funds" "that's because you spent it all on migrants"). Personally, I don't know much more to do than pray, although I'm open to suggestions.
VoxelVexillologist
Multidimensional Radical Centrist
10d ago
I will at least observe that Red states have been, even in this era, pushing back on the prevalence of online porn. Pornhub, notably, has blocked a number of states that have passed relevant legislation to require age verification. It's Very Possible Nowadays to circumvent such things or find sites that don't care about (American) jurisdiction quite so much, but it is happening.
Notably, though, the argument is less "this content is sinful", and more "this content is demonstrably poisoning the relations and sexual health of our children".
VoxelVexillologist
Multidimensional Radical Centrist
6mo ago
On one hand, allowing countries to subvert foreign elections seems obviously bad [1]. On the other, throwing out election results based on foreign social media posts seems liable to create a valid threat of a denial of service for elections absent something like The Great Firewall (which is itself a potential threat to open society).
I see why both sides would presumably be frustrated by this, but I don't have a real Platonic ideal of an alternative to suggest. Governance, at least good/fair/democratic governance, is hard.
- For some value of bad that is pretty nebulous. For all the allegations in the US in 2016, the actual posts entered into evidence in followup investigations were IMO almost embarrassingly bad and not really shown to be effective.
VoxelVexillologist
Multidimensional Radical Centrist
1yr ago
I watched Idiocracy (2006) recently and had a similar experience. Sure, it takes hard swipes at Bush-era conservatives, but the fundamental premise is about how intelligence is heritable (this is, in fact, just assumed without discussion) and how educated populations aren't having kids.
Also Team America World Police hit differently in a 2023 in which opinion seems to have swung back towards "actually, some intervention might, hypothetically, be for good" with wars of violent conquest ongoing in Europe and potentially elsewhere.
VoxelVexillologist
Multidimensional Radical Centrist
4mo ago
that DOGE or whoever basically just ctrl+f'd "diverse", "underrepresented", and "minority" and axed all matches.
This feels particularly pernicious because, at least to me, it seems the vibe under the previous administration (and possibly it's predecessors) strongly encouraged sneaking in these terms for effectively opposite reasons to prevent summary rejection by federal funding agencies. There are probably a bunch of projects that, in saner times, would be mostly apolitical, but are going to get sacrificed in this tribal tug-of-war. I guess the folks sneaking diversity statements into particle accelerator funding proposals aren't completely blameless, but I do feel a bit bad for those just going along with the zeitgeist.
VoxelVexillologist
Multidimensional Radical Centrist
4mo ago
Overdose deaths are suicides.
Philosophy question: to what extent do we as people owe each other to stop suicide attempts? Discuss.
On one hand, we've put up nets and installed phones and nationwide hotlines and circulated narcan. On the other, some Western states have legalized euthanasia for increasingly minor medical issues. To me, the former feels reasonable (although I find OPs argument about narcan to be at least darkly intriguing), and the latter feels like it starts reasonably but quickly slides down the slippery slope. I know some moral codes (Catholicism, for one) are blanket-opposed to aiding suicide.
I'm interested to hear other opinions on where the line should be.
VoxelVexillologist
Multidimensional Radical Centrist
2mo ago
I don't think our philosophy of science has a good way to handle non-repeatable results. If you look at something like the Oh-My-God particle detected exactly once in 1991, I'm not sure how I'd distinguish from a miracle. Sure, a scientific instrument saw it, but those aren't immune to weird things, like the faster-than-light observed neutrinos a decade ago. As a one-off observation, it's a bit more believable than, say, a coherent message, but if we instead observed the alien equivalent of the Arecibo message (sent exactly once in 1974), we'd be talking about something that would look, to me at least, rather miraculous.
VoxelVexillologist
Multidimensional Radical Centrist
11mo ago
The Shia were supported by Saudi Arabia, the Sunnis by Iran. In any case, despite great odds against them, the Shia group (known as the Houthis) were able to hold out. Today, they control the capital and most populous regions of Yemen.
I'm not the most familar with the story here, but I'm pretty sure the Houthis are the Iranian proxies. The Saudis were fighting a war with the Houthis until the Biden administration removed their designation as terrorists and loudly brokered a ceasefire. While I'm not going to question that terrible humanitarian things were going on, this seems like another example of poor statecraft by Biden (or his advisors) coming home to roost. The choice to weaken sanctions on Iran sure has made everyone involved play nicely.
I really don't like violence. It's always a terrible option, but it does feel like for all our advanced weapons (see "Prosperity Guardian"), we -- or at least our current leadership -- are unwilling or unable to actually bring them to bear to serve The Greater Good (or at least Pax Americana, which I'd argue is a pretty great good) against various powers that largely sell themselves as fetishistic death cults, because someone might get hurt. I don't like people getting hurt. I really don't. But to allow the enemies of Peace-Loving Western Civilization to dictate the terms of conflicts because of it might produce some tearjerking journalism seems like it's demonstrably causing worse outcomes for everyone.
It seems to me with a growing frequency that a willingness to wield The Big Stick and strike back hard, rather than dribbling out anti-materiel strikes peacemeal might sometimes be a better strategy. If you want to put "Death To America" on your flag and take pot shots at US-flagged warships, nobody should be surprised when we return the favor. In spades. If you want to invade foreign nations, why should we trickle in aid while the body counts stack up? At some point, it saves lives to swing the stick around more heavily: say, mass forces at the border, issue an ultimatum to withdraw, or we send you Back to God. If you want to take American (or Western, more broadly) citizens hostage, you should be prepared for a reckoning from a civilization that cares about its own -- because that's what I'd want my leaders to do for me in that situation.
But that doesn't seem to be the times we live in: our mealy-mouthed leadership, and to be honest, a decent fraction of the electorate, seem more interested in de-escalation and appeasement even at the cost of actual peaceful outcomes. It doesn't feel like it's working: it feels like we're spending lots of effort tracking local focus groups opining on faraway violence and choosing the action that polls best, and pat ourselves on the back while conflicts simmer and boil over.
I'm not here to endorse any particular candidate or platform, merely voicing frustration. I don't want an aggressive foreign policy, but I'm also tired of what feels like peaceful overtures being taken advantage of.
VoxelVexillologist
Multidimensional Radical Centrist
2yr ago
One of the tragic parts of the Kursk incident is that Russia declined several Western offers of aid (from the US and parts of Europe) until such time as it's own efforts had completely failed several days later. In particular putting national pride above the lives of it's sailors seems like quite a tragedy for the families of those lost.
But perhaps that also speaks to attitudes toward the current situation that I have trouble understanding from a Western perspective.
I don't know that I want to stan RFK here, but the status quo isn't inherently better: public health generally has a lot of egg on its face, not just from the pandemic. Attempts at COVID vaccine mandates seem pretty ham-handed in hindsight given their lack of long-term immunity. The FDA approved, over the advice of its own scientists, a very expensive drug for Alzheimer's that wasn't even found to be effective. Literally the current assistant secretary of HHS was found to have put political pressure on WPATH to remove age limits from gender medicine in its guidelines at a time when many Western countries have reviewed the literature and are questioning the practice for youth.
I get where you're coming from, but I find myself questioning whether putting RFK in charge will actually make things worse. At least he'll get push-back against crazy policies.
VoxelVexillologist
Multidimensional Radical Centrist
8mo ago
Nearly 70% of Republicans think 2020 was stolen
IIRC a pretty similar number of Democrats said the same thing about the 2016 election, at least as of a few years ago. See that entire looking spectre of Russian Collusion and the probably-wrong dossier. And I expect a similar fraction of whichever side loses this year to think similarly, even though I think it's pretty stupid generally.
VoxelVexillologist
Multidimensional Radical Centrist
5mo ago
This reminds me of the Roman republicans who naively assumed assassinating the king-adjacent Julius Caesar would re-establish the Republic. Oh how wrong they were.
VoxelVexillologist
Multidimensional Radical Centrist
8mo ago
The rift between the plebs and the patricians
In some ways it feels to me like the previous system was a weird biumvirate between the patricians of the Blue Team, and the patricians of the Red Team. The plebs cheer on their favorite color of chariot racing team, and have their own division, but everyone knows that despite their, well, uncouth plebian political aims (mass deportation, tariffs, reparations, abolishing law enforcement, depending on the tribe) that the patricians, at least, all agree are beyond the pale, but to which they will give lip service to solidify their grasp on their team voters.
To some extent, and without trying to definitively draw out the exact sequence of events, we've found ourselves at a point where Trump represents that the Red Team patricians have completely lost control of the chariot teams, and the patricians generally are realizing that they've lost control of the team. For a bit in 2020, it seemed like this might happen to both teams (maybe aping the other team thinking they had a winning strategy? Maybe just general pleb unrest in all corners?), but the blue patricians are now pretty solidly back in control and want to shout about the dangers of the other team.
From where I stand as a contrarian probably assumed to side with the patricians, I see the point, but I wonder about the entire apparatus that seems, from this angle, purpose built to dangle red meat in front of the masses offering a modicum of control, but, like, not real control. It plays to the sentiments and economic battles of the elites without really much regard for giving the plebs what they're shouting for, and that seems almost exploitive. On the other hand, someone needs to prevent a democratic spiral into voting for exclusively bread and circuses (maybe with AGI).
So I'm not sure what to make of it. Maybe there is space for a cooler heads "maybe we should think pragmatically and build a better system that actually cares about the needs of non-elites, rather than paying lip service, while also keeping the budget in check", but that doesn't seem to currently be on offer.
VoxelVexillologist
Multidimensional Radical Centrist
1yr ago
So I've found myself at a bit of an impasse in life, and I'm hoping the wisdom of The Motte can provide some guidance because this touches several topics that are frequently brought up around here.
I've been pretty happily married a bit over a decade. My wife and I are both in our mid 30s. We have a child who was a bit of a surprise (hormonal birth control is not one hundred percent effective, even when taken as directed) who was born a couple years after we got married. We're both gainfully employed and make good money.
I really enjoy being a dad, and really would like to have another. But as they say, it takes two to tango, and my wife is very uninterested. In part, this may be because the birth of the one was somewhat traumatic (involving an unplanned cesarean and some other complications), and we've been told that any others would be higher risk. She also dealt with a lot more trauma, as the kids would say, growing up. But also it would mean a few years of pretty heavy restrictions on our usual activities, and our families aren't as spry as they were a decade ago in terms of helping out.
This year, she's decided to go off (a different form of) hormonal birth control, which I think is reasonable, and has effectively demanded that either I get a vasectomy or she gets a tubal ligation. Of the two, the vasectomy is a much more minor (and more reversible, although not hugely so) procedure, and I have one scheduled sooner than I would like.
But I'm having second thoughts. I really enjoy doing things with my son, and the siren call that maybe I could get a second chance at it all (even the diapers!) is hard to ignore. Maybe this is a bit of an early mid-life crisis. It doesn't help that my (older) siblings haven't had any of their own and that prospect doesn't seem imminently likely. But I also really love my wife and son, and think he deserves a two-parent household: divorce, especially in a otherwise-good case like this, isn't the mark of a good dad, nor does it even guarantee "success" given the state of the dating world in 2024.
So I've been feeling pretty melancholy recently, between unsuccessfully trying to change minds, or wondering how I'll feel about it afterwards. Will I be able to get over the sadness of what might have been? Open to advice or words of wisdom.
VoxelVexillologist
Multidimensional Radical Centrist
2yr ago
So, suppose the Biden Justice Department prosecutes. And the case is tried in DC, where the chances of getting a jury of 12 Democratic partisans is "better than average". And so they convict him on all counts.
I've long thought that this sort of action would see state-level retributive lawfare from right-leaning partisans. Could Arizona bring state murder (or conspiracy) charges against Holder and/or Obama for their actions to supply firearms (and later, conspiracy after the fact to cover it up) in the murder of Brian Terry? Or the drone strikes on US citizens Anwar al-Awlaki and his underage children (assuming their last domestic state of residence have sufficient jurisdiction)?
I'm not a lawyer, but I'm not aware of any requirement that state courts observe a federal notion of executive privilege. The optics of removing the case to federal court to close it would also be pretty unsightly: arguing that the President can effectively engage in murder regardless of state laws sounds unpopular on the left, and indirectly hearkens back to the Trump claim that he could "shoot somebody and wouldn't lose voters."
On the other hand, maybe I overestimate the concern of the median voter for esoteric legal shenanigans. Also, the right is fairly divided on the idea of Trump at the moment and might well be willing to throw him under the bus rather than seek retribution.
VoxelVexillologist
Multidimensional Radical Centrist
1yr ago
to ban free speech at universities
You know, the folks that take umbrage with this (outside of a few truly principled libertarian types) were probably completely fine with the speech banning here, they just disagree on the targets. Free speech absolutism on campus sailed probably a century or so ago. The Obama Administration helpfully defined "sexual harassment" banned for the purposes of Title IX to include "unwelcome conduct of a sexual nature" including "verbal conduct". Democrats were completely on board with these rulings at the time, and similar ones about racial slurs. But now that Republicans are passing rules that students can't cheer "gas the Jews" (or, admittedly, several more modest phrases that still advocate for ethnic cleansing) and remain in good standing, that is clearly a bridge too far.
I'm not sure anyone is really being principled here, which as someone with centrist-to-principled-libertarian views is rather frustrating.
VoxelVexillologist
Multidimensional Radical Centrist
2yr ago
I have been wanting to do an effort post on the Culture War clashes of yesteryear that have since fizzled for various reasons. This is a couple of good examples, to which I might add turn-of-the-century hysteria over carpal tunnel disabling knowledge workers at keyboards and file sharing vs. the RIAA and MPAA.
I'm curious if anyone has any other battles-gone-cold they can remember.
VoxelVexillologist
Multidimensional Radical Centrist
2yr ago
I always assume that anyone unironically quoting Schenck agrees with its conclusion that distributing anti-draft pamphlets is akin to shouting fire in a crowded theater. Which seems like a downright fascist perspective, but what do I know?
VoxelVexillologist
Multidimensional Radical Centrist
1mo ago
People pushed luggage around on wheeled carts for decades before figuring out we should just put wheels on the damn suitcases.
Is this true, though? Wheels are only effective if they're large relative to the bumps on the surface you're using them on. Modern wheeled luggage (2 inch wheels) is only effective on smooth, swept concrete surfaces. And those are a quite modern invention (maybe we can blame the ADA here?), at least in quantity as far as I can tell. Having once lugged a wheeled suitcase a mile on cobbled European roads, a cart would have worked better. I wouldn't even try on an unpaved road.
VoxelVexillologist
Multidimensional Radical Centrist
7mo ago
Which raises concerns about how "critical" it is in the first place.
"Critical" in English has a few surprisingly different meanings. After all this time, I've realized that "critical theory" is "critical" in the sense of "inclined to criticize severely and unfavorably", while I might have naively assumed it meant "of, relating to, or being a turning point or specifically important juncture" (both quotes from Merriam-Webster).
IMO we should find a new name for "critical thinking" that less strongly suggests it should be about tearing things down.
VoxelVexillologist
Multidimensional Radical Centrist
11mo ago
and the percentage of books written in the last 10 years (much less the last 20) is absurdly high.
I almost certainly can't find it now, but I remember stumbling upon a list of movies or albums like this that was published decades back, probably in an old magazine, and realizing that it had a similar bias that had aged terribly: half of the then-contemporary ones didn't seem to have been mentioned again, but had heard of all the classics.
At least it's not a new bias, I suppose.
VoxelVexillologist
Multidimensional Radical Centrist
1yr ago
It definitely annoys me that "access to the financial system writ large" has become so utterly critical to doing anything useful that it immediately has a totalizing effect on what anybody can do, anywhere in the world, even on the internet.
You're not wrong: despite general libertarian sympathies, I do think there is a role for utility-type regulation in a number of new critical roles that didn't exist a few decades ago. Credit cards and cashless payments are certainly one.
I'd toss out email and online identity infrastructure as another that doesn't get much press: I've come to realize that my dependence on my Gmail account (which I've had since it was an invite-only beta) would be almost impossible to replace. Maybe with a lot of work I could replace it with one provided through Microsoft, but that wouldn't really fix the problem. Practically hosting your own email is basically impossible, from what I can tell, due to spam blocking mechanisms. Given Google's propensity to sunset things (or really, the level of risk of corporate spontaneous failure), I think it'd be a pretty serious crisis if their email and identity servers went down for a day. Or worse, permanently.
I'd point to the common carrier rules for other utilities as a reasonable example of what could be done. I think expanding those to include things like credit card payments and email would be possible. However, those have their own concerns with fraud and such that might prevent applying the existing rules as-is.
VoxelVexillologist
Multidimensional Radical Centrist
2yr ago
If you don't want advertising on your TV, don't watch OTA TV, limit your viewing to paid streaming services that don't show ads.
I know plenty of folks that use the classic technique of changing the channel when commercials come on OTA/cable TV and radio. I suspect the same is true for skipping over ads within YouTube videos and podcasts (which seems like a serious fraction of runtime for even the NPR podcasts these days). Is this technique unethical? What about automating it?
VoxelVexillologist
Multidimensional Radical Centrist
1mo ago
I recognize this is a bit pithy, but "If only there were a genre of fiction regarding how humans interact with technology to consider the moral and ethical implications of current-year AI as applied to human civilization, specifically how it impacts creators and consumers in these sorts of cases." Sci-Fi a weird genre to have effectively adopted neo-Luddite tendencies.
I think there are probably some interesting ideas to explore. "The dialog for the ship's computer was generated entirely by ChatGPT, which is why it uses 'delve' and em-dashes (verbally!) and won't shut up. At some point the characters end up on a different, older vessel whose computer is hellishly inspired by Clippy: 'It looks like you're trying to land this thing!' at only peripherally appropriate times." Show how these tools are helpful -- or not helpful -- to the broader human condition. Does viable alignment even exist? Have a congenitally blind person talk to an AI about what color means to two different things with vastly different exposure to the concept.
As I've heard it told, the founding story of independent Singapore involved the parliament of Malaysia voting unanimously (absent members from Singapore) in 1965 to expel Singapore from its state involuntarily. This seems related to the fact that the island was, unlike the mainland, a majority ethnic Chinese. The difference in outcomes of governance in otherwise-adjacent states is, um, certainly notable.
More options
Context Copy link