anti_dan
1d ago
They proceeded to burn all that good will and more with their conduct afterwards (not helped by Netanyahu being an extraordinarily repellent figure to all but the far right)
This really cant be true IMO. Unless something like 99.9% of people who have allegedly "soured" on Israel post 10/7 are just too stupid to understand what the response was always going to be. You can't have a neighbor that launches hundred + man raiding bands into your territory where 1000+ of your people are killed, 200+ are taken hostage, and thousands of others injured, maimed, raped, not to mention the property damage. The only reasonable response to that is the maximum response.
If a Mexican cartel did that with the support (even tacit) support of the Mexican government and a hostile foriegn nation there would be no more Mexico. Everyone involved would obviously be killed, the government deposed, a gigantic DMZ imposed on their norther border, the country would be divided up into a bunch of territories administered by our local generals at first, later we'd let some local puppet have some semblance of authority. And the country would simply be broken up as well. Baja would be one protectorate, for maximum humiliation we'd call 3 of the new territories we create, "South New Mexico", "South Arizona", and "South Texas". No amount of civilian casualties would set us off of carrying out our goals, and no amount of dissent to our administration would be tolerated, up to and possibly including forcing them all to switch to English as an official language.
And if you asked any American President or Speaker of the House 1865-2000, "well isn't this proposal by some anon anti_dan a little extreme?" They'd first laugh at you, then tell you the US has a rich history of pseudonymous political writers, then tell you I'm a moderate, and a few would say something like, "thats a good idea, do we have to wait for the Mexicans to attack?"
anti_dan
1d ago
The reason that I would speculate there may be some actual treason or sedition cases during this war, in particular, is because of the huge network of Arab/Islamic "Advocacy" organizations in the US, many of which already stand credibly accused of funneling money and materials to Hezbollah and Hamas, which are Iranian proxies. I would not be surprised to learn many of them are sending cash or intel to the IRGC.
anti_dan
2d ago
It is trivial, with the current "very online right" and with the benefit of a (relatively recent) era that didn’t require "diversity", to impose a reactionary reading on the movie trilogy the Lord of the Rings. Having just finished watching the (otherwise pedestrian, at least in relation to the sublime Fellowship of the Ring) Two Towers, the analogies are almost too on the nose. We have a technocratic leader ("a mind of metal and wheels") who leads a rabid horde of third-worlders in a takeover of a 100% white, peaceful, free nation. In the books, the technocratic leader’s "new" cloak is literally rainbow hued. The free nation just wants to be left alone, but is eventually forced into battle. The leaders pine for a simpler, easier time; where valor, honor, and renown were attainable.
I would dispute calling Two Towers pedestrian. It contains, by my estimation and experience, the greatest fantasy battle ever put to film with the Battle of the Hornberg. I can quibble with some of Peter Jacksons deviations from the book telling, but it is still a masterpiece in building tension, demonstrating the overwhelming odds of the army set against the defenders, demonstrating the heroic feats of our heroes, etc.
anti_dan
3d ago
Democrats are becoming increasingly antisemitic at a much faster rate than Republicans (and I don't mean anti-Israel, I try to do my best to avoid conflating the two), so it makes sense for anyone who has that issue as a focus to gravitate in that direction.
anti_dan
4d ago
Purity test as in not doing a massive regime change war in Iran?
Its possible this will be the proper take at some time in the future. But currently it is not in evidence and not close to in evidence. Trumps previous military interventions have all been short and sweet, and mostly successful. The evidence that this one will not be is ???
As a result, I don't think many people actually care about the intervention itself, they are using it to grind some other axe. For some its pretty obvious: Israel. For others also obvious: TDS. For many others: I cannot tell as of yet.
anti_dan
5d ago
Of course, the smart set knows that Cuban was lucky. But we don't even have to leave the NBA to find another one: Steve Ballmer. He was Bill Gates's right hand man, so one can argue that he built part of the value of Microsoft. But when Gates handed the reins over to him, his tenure at the top wasn't exactly stellar. He had a few hits, but the Ballmer era will be known more for the long string of misses, and the end of Microsoft being the undisputed industry leader. If we move to another league but stay with Microsoft we have Paul Allen, who was instrumental in the very early days but quickly took to feuding with Gates and was forced out of the company. He didn't do much after that besides philanthropy and other stereotypical billionaire stuff, and most of his net worth came from stock he was able to hold onto.
I mean, even if Ballmer was a literal idiot, whats wrong with him having money and being a doofus at Clippers games? SOMEONE has to own the Clippers and his personality is entertaining. Its not like he's spending his billions lobbying for the expansion of food stamps or setting up a bunch of those fake "success academies" that just spend ungodly sums doing no better at educating poor kids than a lady in an unheated basement with a chalkboard would.
anti_dan
5d ago
I mostly agree, and don't see all that many billionaires acting like the OP describes. FOr example:
I guess I'm just kinda over us deciding that once you reach a certain net worth, you are some sort of luminous being. You can go to pedo island and it's fine, you can do drugs that normies go to prison for an it's fine, you can fuck up critical national infrastructure and it's fine, you have infinite money when it's time to do what you want but somehow you have no money (or negative money!) when it's time to contribute to the public good.
These sorts are incredibly rare. Instead most just kinda sit in anonymity being rich and living in luxury. The ones that are public figures are often total dorks that are funny and do things like buy sports teams then cheer enthusiastically on the sidelines just like they were a 12 year old. The rare few that are actually toxic to our society and discourse are actually closer to the OP's sentiment themselves. The Bill Gates or Mackenzie Bezos types that agree with the OP that being a billionaire is something that must be atoned for, so they distribute their billions in toxic ways intending to buy social clout with influential non-billionaires. If Bill just bout a mountain chateau in British Colombia and employed a bunch of servants the world would be better off. The problem was he wanted to pretend help Africans and the like, and thats why hes jetsetting with Epstein (prurient interests aside), its because he wanted to meet people to do his fake charities and buy social clout.
anti_dan
5d ago
The Tea Party movement began shortly before Obama was elected, based on opposition to the 2008 bank bailouts. At that point most of the participants were Ron Paul libertarians, although the movement was nominally bipartisan (and probably actually bipartisan - I'm not sure). It got a big boost after Rick Santelli's viral rant (broadcast live on CNBC from the CME floor in Chicago) against the Obama admin's homeowner bailout in February 2009. I was watching from the London trading floor of a European bank which had not (yet) needed a bailout, and the dominant reaction was that the American traders cheering Santelli were hypocrites because they were opposing Obama's homeowner bailout at a time when the only reason most of them were still employed was Bush's bank bailout. This was also the reaction of the pro-establishment left.
Yes, skipped over the initial stuff that was a backlash against Bush and the Democrats doing Swampy uni-party things because it didn't really address the point he was making which urquan phrased as
I still don't understand what the Tea Party was angry about, except that Barack Obama was a Democrat and the Democratic Party had a trifecta.
But I've seen often described less charitably as "mad he was black and president."
And my point was well he was actually doing a lot of bad things.
I'm not sure how or exactly when the Tea Party transitioned from being a somewhat focussed libertarian movement that was only incidentally a partisan Republican or Red Tribe thing to a proto-MAGA movement of generically pissed off Red Tribers that was only incidentally libertarian and could plausibly be accused of "just hating the idea of a black President". But there is an obvious route - as the movement grew the average IQ dropped, and below a certain IQ threshold any vaguely right-coded popular movement will pick up support from confederate flag-wavers, anti-vaxxers, conspiracy-theorists etc. and at that point everyone who isn't a MAGA-type conservative started leaving.
I think this is too uncharitable to the tea partiers and FARRR too charitable to their enemies. A Democrat accusing their political opponents of racism is synonymous with them talking. The media treating these accusations as "plausible" is no different, they are largely DNC stenographers and have been for decades. Maybe there was degradation of the tea party's intellectual movement as it got larger, but mostly IMO it lost any momentum it had when Romney/Ryan lost while acting nerdy and not actually fighting during the campaign. Thats what opened up the opportunity for MAGA/Trump because the only appetite left on the right was for someone who actually fights and didn't care about fake rules made up by liberal media.
anti_dan
7d ago
I guess it comes down to what America is supposed to be getting out of the alliance with Israel. I can see the appeal of having a Westernized client state in the Middle East to hold down the fort, but typically one expects foreign policy optionally to be held almost exclusively by the suzerain.
For decades its mostly served as a distraction and resource sink for the local crazies who want to conquer the world in the name of Muhammad and Allah. Recently its also been a leverage point that gave some people in the region the option of not being crazy in exchange for peace, and that seems to have worked decently for SA and the rest.
The option of getting out of the Israel business means you need some other proxies in the region, and there aren't good options, and there are obviously bad ones, like Iran, who only galaxy brain guys like Ben Rhodes think are a good option.
anti_dan
7d ago
Iran was one of these countries until 2020 or so. Except Trump backed out of the JCPOA for spurious reasons and while Iran continued to abide by its terms after the withdrawal, it led to a growing distrust of the West among Iranians.
I don't think the reasons were spurious because I think the correct and credible reason was that Iran was not, in fact, "one of those countries" and the JCPOA was worth less than the paper it was written on. And Iran was not abiding by even the JCPOA's extremely lax provisions.
anti_dan
7d ago
I still don't understand what the Tea Party was angry about, except that Barack Obama was a Democrat and the Democratic Party had a trifecta.
They were mad about what the Democratic party used that to cram through. Obamacare was a gigantic restructuring of about 1/10th of the economy, a part that basically everyone has to interact with from time to time. It also was a large tax increase for most working Americans. There was also Dodd-Frank which seized additional control over banks, ARRA which was one of the largest spending packages in history at the time, and several follow up large spending bills.
anti_dan
11d ago
"Safeguards" in relation to this have always, in my opinion, been fake. No one knows what they actually would entail if there was an actual paperclip maximizer risk, or a Cyberdyne scenario. Instead, its only "use" so far has been to make AIs intentionally stupid by having them suppress the truth when it is politically inconvenient.
anti_dan
11d ago
I can't quite tell if this comment is serious or not, but, taken on its face its a bunch of "ifs" based on a lot of assumptions that obviously are not in evidence.
anti_dan
16d ago
We would have to take them away to see if that is true. I suspect it is not.
anti_dan
16d ago
You have to make the connection to justify the program. Child malnutrition possibly existing and being a problem does not mean SNAP actually solves the issue. The evidence of drug users selling their cards for cash, obese people (who probably have obese children), and buying junk food is indicative it does not.
anti_dan
17d ago
How often?
Enough that I've noticed it as a trend at our local grocery stores.
I also pass a drive-through food bank on my way from my office to the courthouse. Most of the cars in line are SUVs, most newer than my 2016 Carolla.
13% of Californians receive at least some EBT. Is it really unbelievable that 13% of people actually earned less than the EBT threshold (about $50k for a household of 3)? I could present arguments about income distributions but if you think it's not being reported I don't think you'd find them convincing.
Its plausible that they are earning less than that pre-transfers and discounting other scams/grey/black market income, but I can tell you there aren't 13% of Californians driving old station wagons and 90s minivans. Everyone who is "poor" in big states and cities drives a new car, usually a large one. Their teenagers all have illegal dirt bikes/atvs, wear brand new Jordans and carry expensive handbags. The scam economy is observably gigantic.
anti_dan
17d ago
That is possibly a small portion of it, but its not really realistic for the "spouses" of these folks to be high earners, they are underclass persons as well. Its not like obese black women on food stamps are shacking up with accountants.
anti_dan
17d ago
It's this last point that really sums it all up, the idea that the system is there to be gamed, largely is gamed, that there exists an advantage in trying to game it, and the self-congratulation that comes along with not gaming it. To make a seasonal reference, it's as if we are Christ tempted in the desert. Except anyone with half a brain knows that nobody on food stamps is getting any advantage from the system. For a single individual, the income limit is about $2600/month. Would you want to live on that in exchange for a benefit that maxes out at $300/month? And other dubious benefits, like reduced rent on a small apartment in a questionable area? And noticed I said maximum benefit; if you make anywhere near the limit you are only getting a fraction of that. I don't know how much but even if you're getting the whole thing it doesn't seem like a great deal. "But if I weren't working, I'd get the whole thing, and it might be worth it being poor if I didn't have to go to work." No, it wouldn't. You don't have to work, and unless your hobbies are watching daytime broadcast television or hanging around outside a Co-Go's, I believe you'd find yourself bored with the welfare lifestyle rather quickly.
This is, essentially, incorrect and why your point ends up being silly.
People on food stamps often have brand new 70k+ SUVs. Are they spending their entire income on said SUV and living in it? No. The system is being gamed with hidden income, usually grey market, but often black. And living in a questionable area? Thats where these people grew up! They and their ancestors are why it is questionable! Its fish in water at worst, often they prefer it and actively object to anyone trying to improve the place their ancestors ethnically cleansed by persons of another race.
anti_dan
19d ago
Now I make decent money, but I sure feel like a shmuck when I'm the only one paying for my food in the grocery store line. Not sure what to add to this, I see the proposals to shrink EBT just to the essentials, only for people to be shocked as that would require people to make their food like me! Maybe this is what I get for living in California, but frankly, I think EBT and systems like it are just as prevalent elsewhere. It just strikes me as odd that I'm a professional, in a good industry, and I would question spending $50 for a couple of tiny packets of specialty mushroom superfood, but two methheads get to have it as they wish. Maybe I'm out of touch with the plights of the poor, but idk, doesn't seem half bad, I've car camped in the past before.
I can report from my state and city the situation is similar. With the addition of seeing multiple obvious retail thieves typically proceeding past the self checkout per month.
anti_dan
22d ago
I think they do a decent job of teaching older history. It's just, they start at the back and work forwards, so they run out of time with the postwar 20th century stuff at the very end of the school year. Plus all the obvious culture war angles to it.
I wouldn't think so, based on my schooling. Even 20 years ago my textbooks were laden with pointless anecdotes about some random black woman who knitted some socks for Brits occupying New York in 1777. And other such things.
And it was highly teacher dependent. My Middle School teacher was a stodgy old WASP lady that fought to get out of the union and legitimately loved teaching American history in a mildly pro-American way (and if you are even neutral it comes off as wildly pro-America because the country did so many insanely awesome things for 2 centuries). My APUSH teacher lamented he could only use Howard Zinn as a supplement instead of a primary textbook and was openly disdainful of America's legacy, and taught accordingly.
anti_dan
23d ago
I think a lot of attorneys are actually really bad at settlement, and its a place I think LLM might help them. Some are just absurdly overconfident in their chances of winning a case, and also of their own estimates as to damages.
anti_dan
24d ago
I don't do divorce law enough to know. The problem I've seen is LLMs on legal issues right now just lead you in the wrong direction more often than not. A 20k divorce is really not a thing I even have ever been close to, so I have no idea. The times when I genuinely interacted with lots of poors, was my time as a prosecutor right out of school. If I was poor and being prosecuted, I'd ask for a public defender. Private attorneys are the same thing, but cost money. Your guilty anyways.
Why would I bring up money if I was talking about speech?
More options
Context Copy link