covfefeAnon
1yr ago
It certainly didn't work out for them when they didn't do that.
covfefeAnon
1yr ago
If someone still has an outstanding commercial mortgage on their vineyard in Napa, that is going to increase the price of the wine produced
Fixed costs don't change prices for profit maximizing businesses.
If they could make more profit charging more (or less), they'd charge more (or less).
covfefeAnon
1yr ago
Prediction before reading is that they think affirmative action is no big deal as far as getting low IQ blacks - ("it's about the underfunded schools!") into college but also totally essential to overcome the inherent systemic racism enshrined in powerful institutions such as college admissions committees.
covfefeAnon
1yr ago
Empires require expansion, and there are few good provinces left for the US to incorporate
The reason empires require expansion is because the parasitic imperial class grows (it takes an interest in the system as a whole to slow this growth and everyone in the system is interested only in maintaining his position in the system - hence, no one checks the growth of the parasitic load). The US empire is mainly a system of parasitism on Americans rather than one where foreign conquest yields returns.
Even the foreign clients are much like domestic USG clients - an excuse to take money from Americans, take a cut and give it to the foreign client in exchange for their main service - hostility to USG enemies (Americans).
This makes the historical comparisons difficult - this is rather a unique historical situation.
Of course the one way that USG actually does collect a benefit from running its empire is that the empire uses dollars and USG controls those and can issue them at will - that acts as a silent tax on the entire empire that can't be evaded.
covfefeAnon
1yr ago
NYT only doesn't lie so that when they do it has the maximum chance of being believed when they do - a problem which is not unique to NYT but is shared by everyone who explicitly or implicitly has a utilitarian ethical framework.
covfefeAnon
1yr ago
Are you implying that "get woke go broke" is going to actually work to restrain progressive religious proselytizing in tech?
Here's how it will actually work - prog approve companies that filter their results in prog approved ways will be permitted to use the payments system and ones that don't, won't. VCs won't fund the compute time to build an ungimped model because "you'll just get cut off from the banking system anyway" (if the VC doesn't already share the prog goals, that is).
covfefeAnon
1yr ago
He's very light-skinned but has highly African features. I'd guess closer to quadroon or even mulatto than octoroon.
covfefeAnon
1yr ago
This is normal discourse, you simply "disagree on the object level" but if my interpretation of the object level is correct then the metadiscourse is meaningless. You can wonder why this position or that is being taken by progressives and speculate about the forces of this or that but if you've ruled out the actual explanation all you can do is introduce epicycles into your increasingly ornate model like Scott with his absurd claim in his Toxoplasmosa of Rage essay where "you see, they pick fraudulent cases that fall apart immediately because those are better loyalty test" - that's an epicycle to avoid noticing that they pick fraudulent cases that fall apart immediately because their alleged world-view is a cover story for the destructive changes they want to impose and the cover story itself isn't related to reality but is the outcome of a media / academic / bureaucratic machine that is in the narrative creation business.
I’m going to ignore your claim that low crime is the thing progressives are objecting to, in itself, rather than them just being stupid.
Seeing as how that's the crux of the argument then there's not much productive discussion that's going to happen here. Progressives really object to "Jim Crow" not because "it's an offense that cries to heaven for redress" but because it worked to make a racially mixed society livable - that's the part progressives object to. You can't claim that certain people being second class citizens due to their ancestry / species / race is the greatest crime in the universe is your guiding moral principle because that is what we have now with zero objection from progressives except to point out that blacks aren't venerated enough. The alternatives are Jim Crow or something functionally like it - apartheid, Rhodesia's laws, Singapore / Dubai / Qatar style treatment of guest workers, etc. or race communism then it's a super easy choice to pick the former (unsurprisingly enough progressives hate all of those adaptations - anything that doesn't result in massive crime and a one-sided race war offends progressives). Progressives pick the latter because they like the outcome.
covfefeAnon
1yr ago
More so inside the Soviet Union than in America, though.
More likely to find a Pravda believer on the faculty at Yale than in Moscow.
covfefeAnon
1yr ago
But I think it goes deeper than that - I don't think the right currently has a cohesive ideological framework (at least that I can articulate or grasp) for dealing with society's ills in the same way that Reagan did (cut taxes/regulation, business does great and the lower strata of society will prosper along with everyone else) or that woke people do (patriarchal white supremacist ableist society needs to be checked for the lower strata to prosper).
Do you think that's fairer, or still off the mark?
That's fair from my perspective but it's also necessary due to the asymmetry between the left and right.
The left is the side of "do something [that just so happens to make the problem it's claimed to solve worse and enriches my team and hurts my enemies] then never look at the results of that something but use the failure as evidence that the problem was not enough progressivism".
It can and does work piecemeal (even if you think my above description is "uncharitable") - you can support "more money for better teacher pay" and "more enforcement of diversity quotas in employment" and "more money for addict services" and etc. because each of those is ultimately a parasitic drain on private society - parasites are only in competition if the host is terminal.
On the other hand, the right has to come up a positive vision of what society should be and how it should be ordered - can't have a monarchy and some kind of restored republic so the only thing the right can agree on is that the left has to be stopped from doing more things.
covfefeAnon
1yr ago
More accurately, everyone wants the ends - the society that would exist that way but almost every erosion that progressives put through was individually popular.
"Cut cost disease" is exactly the same as "get rid of public sector feather bedding" AND "get rid of 'reasonable environment protections'" AND "get rid of simple rules to ensure justice in hiring", etc.
Ultimately it's a case that the framework of rules that progressives push for that is somewhat popular simply because it permeates all society is "everything must be approved of by a committee using lots of words to ensure fairness". None of it changes without a cultural change and it takes something pretty extreme to change a culture that way.
covfefeAnon
1yr ago
ACLU was formed as the legal defense fund for CPUSA - they haven't betrayed their principles.
https://www2.law.ucla.edu/volokh/blog/baldwin.pdf
The famous cases like Skokie Illinois was classic "signal boost people that make the other side look bad" (only works when you have total control of the press) combined with "create a reputation for our organization as principled that will allow us to be more effective a boosting left wing causes".
covfefeAnon
1yr ago
Irredeemable human detritus are progressive clients and they serve Regime ends.
They drive sane, productive people with families out of cities allowing the cities to be used as vote banks in statewide and federal elections
They satiate the bloodlust of progressives who at the minimum fantasize about using them against their enemies - "don't drop the soap" (said to a guy going to jail for tweeting)
They're so destructive and incapable of living in the modern world that they require a whole host of jobs to do basic tasks for them - jobs filled by progressive clients
"Helping" people in the culture that they come from is seen as a noble good because of how bad the worst of them are and this justifies the utter insanity of the progressive urban money machine - "we need more money for dem programs"
On an even more abstract level the discomfort caused by contemplating this drives a bunch of charity due to cognitive dissonance - charity motivated by the silent idea of solving the "root causes" - "why do they act like that?!?"
producing a law-and-order backlash like we haven't seen in centuries
Must deal with the root causes for it to work - progressives who created this situation.
covfefeAnon
1yr ago
In this conception, deliberately forming test cases is a sin because you are biasing your training data at the lower levels and distorting the results at the higher levels.
This is a very good description of the problem with these kinds of cases because the case itself is a rhetorical weapon and becomes the exemplar of the dispute in the elite public mind (elite in the sense that no one else really is able to follow court proceedings).
covfefeAnon
1yr ago
The specific rules are not important - who rules and what they are permitted to do is what's important.
"The question is which is to be master, that is all." - USG asserted that it is to be master. Did USG provide better rule? Decades of horrific violence demonstrated that no, it did not. Why do I care about bus seating in comparison to that?
covfefeAnon
1yr ago
On one level, sure this is how they can choose to operate but the caveat is that this clearly means that twitter would be open to the charge that they are operating as a publisher - with all the potential liability that comes with that. On the other hand, the court system in the US in 2022 is run by people with the same outlook as Vajaya Gadde so legal consistence isn't something that can be expected - it all runs on who / whom now.
covfefeAnon
1yr ago
Funny enough
https://twitter.com/annecollier/status/1600889250761027585
This is from today - looks like the progressive entryists don't just all disappear when the technically formal ownership of an organization changes.
covfefeAnon
1yr ago
The difference is that you don't need to look for reasons why the Tsarist government was so bloodthirsty because it wasn't.
When you are looking over Soviet governance you have to answer the question of "why were they so downright genocidal against Russians?". Ethnic animus is one of the answers that is on the table.
covfefeAnon
1yr ago
For Hoteps, it's an even better find: white people are literally less pure humans than Black people. My distant European ancestors literally interbred with a dying outmoded pre-human hominid species, and my Nigerian friend can quite frankly state that his did not, that he's a pure human! Yakub vindicated! The white man's own science has found that the white man isn't a real human, but a hybrid chimera!
Not actually correct though since Africans have between 9 and 19% DNA admixture from a ghost hominid population.
covfefeAnon
1yr ago
(It's actually not at all clear to me that the subset of right-wingers who claim to value sexual propriety orders of magnitude higher than anything else are actually best served by opposing "the Cathedral". All things considered, the woke tribe is pretty puritan in its own ways
Yes, the woke tribe is very Puritan when it comes to any healthy sexual expression - their rules are basically "if it forms families and produces children it is to be condemned and if it makes that less likely, it is to be promoted".
"Less sex" isn't a terminal right-wing value.
covfefeAnon
1yr ago
they do some photos in a normal-looking house with a kid, and someone suggests the kid hold the bear. The people involved either don't associate the bear-bag's outfits with sex (plenty of people have never seen leather fetish outfits in any context other than maybe news footage of a gay pride parade), don't consider it their job to ask about it, or consider the connection so abstract that it doesn't occur to them it might be controversial.
This does not fit at all with who would be doing a high end fashion photo shoot.
He is the son (oh no, should have said "child" to be in tune with our elites) of two elite parents - the top of what our system selects for - both professors at Stanford.
This isn't a generational change overall, it's a generational change in that our elite is awful and is getting worse because it's been excluding people who aren't highly conformist progressives for a long time and has tightened this. Not coincidentally, the amount of genetic detritus elevated to "elite" status has gone up radically.
More options
Context Copy link