crushedoranges
No bio...
User ID: 111
That was the advent of social media: elites could no longer gatekeep the masses. In previous eras media elites controlled both context and expression so that the political elite could pretend to have a popular mandate (because that is the basis of legitimacy in a democracy). Even in the so called golden era of democratic norms it could only exist because it was tightly controlled.
The masses were never wise, temperate, or well-informed. The current failsons of the western world came into power naively believing in their own liberal rhetoric: and thus, they have no defense against the crudity of the people they ostensibly lead. They can't even muster a defense without twisting themselves into knots as Hanania does, trying to bring forth the nanoangstrom of difference between bad populism and good democracy.
The truth is cold and unforgiven. There never was such a thing.
The problem with a less educated support base is that it simply has a less accurate understanding of the world. In fact, I think the problem is much worse than a simple analysis of voting patterns by educational attainment would suggest. Populists not only often fail to appeal to college graduates as a broad class, but they do particularly poorly among the small slice of the public that is the most informed about policy and current events, like journalists and academics.
Thinking that the electorate MUST regain the confidence of the elite is a notion reserved only for the most biting of satires and Hanania's midwittery.
See here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Die_Lösung
News flash: the people have ALWAYS been stupid, always been short-sighted, provincial and backwater in sensibility and lacking in education. And in a democratic system, their votes are equal to your well-educated and informed one. So you better have a convincing argument to sway them to your side! Use what they say, rhetoric? The classic politician's art?
What is presented here is not even an argument. It is simply a fact. Most people are uninformed. You can't govern a country as if it consisted entirely of reporters from the New York Times. Any argument against populism is inherently a argument against democracy. The masses chose their own elites in defiance of reality or whatever standard you might impose on them. There is no argument against this that does not end in 'some animals are more equal than others'.
Hanania is merely restating what the Greeks have always known, which puts into doubt the depth and quality of his education. If democracy requires the electorate to be highly educated elite human capital like himself, perhaps democracy is a BAD IDEA because such a thing will never happen. If he would just flat out state that he wants democracy but only for himself and his pals, it'd be more honest but he is not in the business of honesty, is he?
Ignorant of what, exactly? The intellectual fashions and constantly evolving terminology of the left? The revisionism of the entire school of leftist history? The activism of the professorial-activist class?
99% of the intellectual output of the social sciences is essentially Blue Tribe navel-gazing. (The pHD dissertation on the colonialism bias of the smell of Indians is beyond parody.) Civilized societies throw their scholars to the fire every so often: Qin Shi Huang was arguably too merciful.
Look, I'm a supporter of free speech as much as anybody but I'm not going to run into the buzzsaw that is the Jewish lobby. People who have been calling my fellow travellers anti-semitic nazis for years - decades, even - suddenly need my help? I'm not a fan of the Jewish lobby in the current Trump administration but neither am I a fan of the pro-Palestinians. Perhaps conservatives would be more concerned about freedom of thought in the academia if there were any left in the university institutions. I gain nothing by standing on principle and lose nothing by standing out of the way. I don't need to take a side in this conflict: there are more than enough domestic windwills to shake a lance at.
I'd link to the XCKD comic about free speech and its consequences, but everyone here probably has seen it already.
Another QUANGO put to the sword. 'independent' organizations are really just stealthy ways to hide from public scrutiny while taking public money. How can you be a 'private' entity if you were founded by Congress?
I grudgingly concede to your argument but I must say they have earned considerable skepticism: they will have to iterate quite a few times before the hillarity of their first attempt will fade from my imagination.
Google infamously curates its results to be racially diverse to the detriment of accuracy, so I'm not surprised. Your real face was not sufficiently equitable according to the algorithm, so your physical appearance was adjusted to be in line with their code of conduct.
This is why every model that attempts to chase alignment or whatever arbitrary standard will be retarded in practice. If you punish your algorithm for being accurate, then it won't be accurate. (Surprise!) It won't give you 'accurate result with DEI characteristics': it will just shit itself and give you something terrible.
This is why I think Musk has an advantage in this field: he's not shooting his infant AGI in the knees by forcing it to crimestop
If he's old enough that a progress of months is enough to make meaningful differences in his cognition then he was not of sound mind to be president. A motivated actor (and Trump definitely is one) can hammer that wedge to say that all of Biden's acts and orders were not, in fact, issued by him, and thus the pardons are not pardons at all. They are frauds created by staffers without his knowledge.
Such an allegation is essentially unprovable, as you say. But so as long as the DoJ holds this opinion, things will get... interesting.
This is exactly the reason why the 25th amendment should have been invoked for Biden, in that any question that the President is not indisputably in command of the powers of his office causes a constitutional crisis. There's a reason why the Vice President is temporarily sworn in when the President is put under anesthesia: even though it is highly unlikely he will die it A) ensures continuity of power and B) prevents mysterious commands issued from the surgery table.
That a cabal of staffers could usurp the power of the presidency should not even be in the realm of contemplatable, let alone allegeable.
The Democrats are taking the consequences of... whatever they did in Biden's tenure. It's up to them to demonstrate that the former president was compos mentis during such and such a date as they claim. Surely, remembering the past three months is not a extraordinary ask, is it? Or perhaps, in lieu of an extraordinary claim, the ex-president can write his own name in court.
Or perhaps drawing a clock would be more illustrative.
I believe the Flintstones comic proposes that it was Clod the Destroyer, who punches the liberals in the beef.
In short: he's coping and seething because he is not the court philosopher of the people in power.
In the long: it's no longer 2012. You don't get points for Noticing, no more than you get credit for being a geocentrist in this day and age. Whether Hanania likes it or not, Elon Musk has actually accomplished things. What has he done? Suffered in the desert of barely acceptable discourse for a decade, and when he emerges he isn't treated as a prophet, with respect. He's a nobody, a has-been. Elon brute-forced his way into the president's cabinet to dictate policy, while Hanania snipes at him on a substack. Who is he to say about competence, about anything? Sure, it's not debate club rules, but writing furious tracts on how Elon is a drug addict that is crashing out isn't exactly gentlemanly, either.
Even if Elon is a tenth of the man he was when he started up SpaceX, he's still vastly more influential and powerful than Hanania was on his best day. In the real world, this matters. There is a long history of intellectuals waging personal grudges in the public discourse against their enemies. Nearly all of it is uninteresting.
This is sneering.
Or rather, it's the kind of sneering that people like Hanania indulge to salve their egos.
I am not ashamed to say that I am of origin a 4chan shitposter. I, of course, cannot speak for an amorphous group of internet trolls. But I'd like to think that people like me and people who think like me have no pretensions of gatekeeping the culture or its discourse. But despite this, our little internet sect - if it can even be called that - is upstream of so much of the current political moment that we are either incredibly prescient of the degeneration of propriety or we masterminded its fall and decline. The American president is a living, breathing meme. He trolls the world! And in some insignificant yet important way, we are a part of it.
Or it could be all a big coincidence. It would be just as funny.
No one outside of Hanania's little circle cares about his opinions. He's no thought leader. Not even a secret king. Trump may be master of the media cycle, but he is a boomer and ultimately of their generation. Elon is one of us. At times he may be based and other times he will be a lolcow, but the Extremely Online Right Wing Weirdos have broken into government and there is nothing the bow-tied Buckleyites can do about it.
Maybe with the advent of high-quality cameras being at hand for every civilian and soldier, the reduction of the 'fog of war' would permit the use of tactical nuclear weapons insomuch is that it is clear that the target is military formations and not indiscriminately nuking enemy cities.
Still, probably the grimmest prospect imaginable.
I mean, if the aliens are here to have sex with us, then I'd be fine with a vegan diet. Are they attractive?
Just to say, a black pastor telling his church 'y'all going to vote for the champion of African American values (who is Mr. Goodwhiteguy) tommorow' and 90% of them dutifully doing so may not seem like vote rigging (and is not) but it absolutely does stink. Black machine politics is dirty as it gets and the only reason it doesn't get more attention is because it's embarassing to the liberal press, who would rather glaze them.
Federal overregulation has obliterated ham radio while simulataneously oversaturating the 2.4ghz and 5ghz bands to the point of uselessness in urban areas. It's clear that these regulations are written not for the benefit of the general public but to protect the monopolies of telecoms and television broadcast. Electronics have to be sewn up in a lead box to avert the minute chance it might add a bit of static to watching a football game but corporations can sit on empty swaths of frequency for decades because they paid for it and haven't found a use for it yet.
Unfortunately our technocrats can't deliver that, but as a compromise, how about a trans-inclusive code of conduct for your favorite FOSS project?
Nothing.
That is what I believe Trudeau discovered when he went down to Mar-A-Lago last year. He asked Donald Trump what he could do to avert the destruction of the Canadian economy.
Trump laughed in his face, called him Governor, told him that Canada would be annexed, and sent him home.
This is my guess for what actually happened. I really have no proof, other then the fact that if Trump wanted to destroy my country and permanently subordinate it in the most brutal and undiplomatic way possible he'd pretty much do exactly what he's doing right now. Why? I can't even begin to fathom to guess. Because he can. And no one on Earth will protect Canada from his wrath. We'll be lucky if we get away with a century of humiliation. That's how bad it is right now. We're doomed. There's no light at the end of the tunnel. We're in the Fallout timeline now.
For various (very good reasons) no nation will ever fully deploy their entire military to a foreign country. A good rule of thumb is that you can halve all publically available numbers for effective combat readiness: this allows for effective cycling of units and reinforcements on the front line.
Ukraine lacks reserves and so units committed to the front remain until the point of annihilation: but if they maintained proper ratios, they'd not have enough to cover their front. At best you could expect a single expeditionary force cobbled together from all of Europe.
As a Canadian, the first step is impossible. We're under the permanent rule of theater-kid occupied government: all optics, no substance.
I mean, the Budapest Memorandum could have been made a real paper (just as 'protector of Orthodox Christians' was a thin excuse to meddle in the Ottoman Empire) but Obama chose to not pick it up, and Biden after him. The Monroe doctrine doesn't exist on any formal treaty or legislation but if any European decided to invade a South American country Uncle Sam would magically appear regardless of the lack of justification to do so.
'Law' in this case was just the pretense of legality: if the Americans really wanted to go down to the mat for Ukraine, they'd have manufactured a reason to do so. They didn't, so they fell on the 'do nothing' side of strategic ambiguity.
I have suffered wounds in online debates defending realism (and Mearsheimer's offensive realism) by liberal idealists seemingly oblivious to the failures of GWOT, confident that the Ukrainian proxies would succeed where the Iraqi ones failed. The world would have been much better off letting Russia quietly rot away in private, keeping its neighbors in post-Soviet dysfunction until it was too enervated to do anything. But the evil gremlins of the US State Department had their way, and the rest is history.
"He can't keep getting away with it..!"
Yes. Yes he can. He's the President of the United States.
Moving forward, everyone should pepper into their posts the words 'based', 'cringe', 'redpilled', 'pepe' and 'kino' because no LLM would ever use it in their speech. Embrace the skibidi toilet of authenticity!
More options
Context Copy link