faceh
2mo ago
Agreed.
Which also changes the dynamics of what a war looks like. How can an inferior power ever hope to gain enough edge to deter an opponent from attacking when said opponent can just attack unilaterally with impunity to bring down any attempt at a functional deterrence.
The Taliban showed that its possible to outlast an opponent who seeks to occupy your lands. But if we don't care about occupying but are happy to just kneecap them if they try to build a nuke, or a missile stockpile, or bioweapons, there ain't much they can do but sponsor low level terrorism against our civilians.
It would, I'd argue, make it so that you HAVE to make friends with the biggest kid on your block and hope there's enough deterrent effect there. Which is looking like the only kids big enough to matter are the U.S. and China.
women no longer need men for physical or economic security [when careers and the state will provide]
I'm really liking the discussion here but I'm going to call this point out.
Its true on the face of it. Society is set up so no woman need be entirely reliant on any particular man.
But its really just because they can outsource the duties normally handled by a spouse to other specialized MEN in their community, as needed. Men can be hired on a gig basis.
If she's physically threatened, she calls the police. Who are mostly male.
If there's a natural disaster, fire, earthquake, tornado, hurricane, flood, avalanche, etc. etc., the first responders/rescuers are largely male. DITTO for the guys rebuilding infrastructure in the aftermath, and who will be shipping emergency supplies in.
If she needs something at her abode fixed, her car repaired, heavy furniture moved... SAME THING. It'll be a man doing it.
And for economic security, well, the various programs that allow women to have shelters, welfare, food stamps, and other support, even if they're a unmarried, drug addicted, unemployed mother... are largely paid for on the back of taxes extracted from other men.
Its male labor all the way down. No, not every male, or maybe not even a majority, but the only reason women can even afford to express open spite towards male behavior is because men have built the prerequisite conditions for them to do so safely.
Its been shunted into the background somewhat, but oh boy do women still ABSOLUTELY NEED MEN to enjoy any standard of living and and ongoing safety from most physical dangers.
Men created and maintain the internet, too, and various apps, and that's now the preferred vector for women to complain about how useless and ugly men are. This is a supreme, SUPREME irony. Google "Chopped Man Epidemic" for a vantablackpill. Women who couldn't manage to set up a basic LAN are tearing into the exact type of men who make it possible for them to publish this stuff to the masses in the first place.
The current delusion (I will call it what it is) shared by many women that because they can work a job and provide for their own independent living means they don't need men at all is the symptom and somewhat the cause of the current gender discourse. And trying to point this out is very much taboo in polite society.
In short, I'm actually pondering whether we should organize any and all single men with decent-paying jobs into a unified income tax strike. Just refuse to pay taxes and see how society reacts to this simple act of peaceful rebellion. If men aren't needed, if women are capable of getting along without them, then things should putter along okay anyway.
faceh
2mo ago
Its a terrible shame that wearable exo-suit tech is so far behind the curve compared to quadcopters.
What are your best predictions for how future warfare will develop?
Cheap missile spam backed by cheap drone spam that may be followed with armor and infantry on the ground with active air support if needed.
At least, that's what Anduril is clearly banking on. They're making missiles that are also drones.
The technical issue of holding territory if you manage to capture it is still hard to solve.
But I imagine the opening stages of a non-nuclear war between peer powers looks like a scaled up version of what happened to Iran. Missile swarm exchanges targeting enemy Command and Control and defensive systems, coupled with cyberattacks and other sabotage to maximize penetration.
And of course, if you can smuggle a ton of drones into the target country in advance and set them up near vulnerable targets you're able to leverage the carnage even further.
Knock out the defenses in the first wave, then successive waves will be all the more destructive and you can diversify targets. Seems like it soon becomes an all-or-nothing exchange b/c if you can kill off their ability to launch retaliating strikes, you can just keep on striking without fear.
Then drones of various sizes to reconnoiter and identify pockets of potential resistance, and start softening up the troops who actually stay at their posts. I don't know how you maintain morale for human infantry when the chain of command is tossed into chaos and they can see the writing on the wall when the FPV drones start buzzing in for the kill.
Add on the extra consideration that you can fit missile launchers and drone swarms on shipping containers and suddenly the task of predicting where the strikes will originate from is more difficult.
Civilian ships are potential launching points for missiles and drones, so it might legitimately become doctrine to attack any cargo ships inside your air defense's envelope just in case they could be used to retaliate.
Hell, the scariest thing I can imagine is using missiles coordinated with drone swarms to penetrate armored facilities so the drones can sweep through and murder everyone inside.
And yeah, I would not want to be a head of state or military leader of one of the belligerent countries, when poking my head out of my deep mountain bunker could be instantly fatal. Traveling by air would be right the fuck out, and any attempt to move over land is inherently exposing me to missiles or drone salvos.
I see comments mentioning that decapitation strikes have been a feature of warfare for eons, but we're seeing the ability to reach out and touch someone from absurd distances, and DEFINITELY the ability to coordinate the simultaneous strike much more effectively. And redundancy. Want to be SURE a guy is dead? Fire more missiles, then have drones on cleanup duty.
Safest place for a leader to be would probably be on a silent nuclear-powered submarine deep enough underwater to avoid depth charges.
Except... oh shit.
I take it back, the safest place for the leader to be will be on the fucking MOON while the conflict is active.
faceh
2mo ago
You got it.
Anarcho-Tyranny is the inevitable result when you half-ass the police state and try to pick and choose who really feels its weight. ESPECIALLY when that police state is what you get in lieu of a high-trust society where a light touch is all that is needed to maintain order.
I love that Simpson's joke: "I thought you said the law was powerless?" "Powerless to help you, not punish you."
"We let these guys get away with everything because it's too expensive to stop them. But we detain YOU instantly because we know you'll cooperate like a good citizen."
From the perspective of the average citizen, seeing immigration laws enforced probably just reads as finally bringing the incentives in line. Even if there is no real 'crisis' pending from illegal immigration (I can see arguments both ways), its just known that illegals are able to skirt the law in ways that your average citizen would never get away with, and we've learned there are a lot of NGOs and 'hidden' government programs that apparently confer direct advantages on immigrants (both legal and illegal) which are pulled from the taxpayer's pocket.
Unfortunately I've seen a lot of libertarian-leaning righties become much more sympathetic to the argument "if there's going to be a boots on necks regardless of what we do, I guess we'll just have to be the boot" when, e.g. a citizen can be punished for virtually any form of discrimination against a minority group, and said minorities will be treated with kid gloves for actual property destruction.
faceh
2mo ago
There's a decent argument that this adds friction for actual citizens as well that is generally a deadweight loss that you'd prefer to avoid. Banks being on the hook if they allow illegals to maintain accounts means they get VERY aggressive about verifying identities.
And the authoritarian concern that these systems can be very easily modified to target any other group.
It does indeed require a police-state lite to ensure you get them all.
From a pure technology standpoint, though, it should really be pretty cheap to enforce this in most places that aren't actively resisting.
I mean, incentives rule everything around me.
The fact that new border encounters have dropped to almost nil tells you the story.
If it was generally known that you could easily hop the border into the U.S., get handed enough resources to subsist on for a while, get paying work, and possibly even qualify for some charitable or governmental programs to bolster you, and the chances of being abruptly snatched up and chucked back to your country of origin was small (if only b/c the courts are hopelessly backed up), then the risk/reward ratio is pretty low.
If the risk of getting deported doubles or triples, then it becomes less worth it. If the programs and institutions that previously promised support for you are shut down or become hostile, then it is even less worthwhile.
If a huge portion of the population of the host country are actively and happily declaring how they want you removed, it would really make the risk quite unappealing.
I'm sure the calculus is different for those already here, especially if they've been here a while and managed to tie up much of their wealth in the U.S., but if the prospect of keeping your head down for ~4 years seems unpalatable, then unwinding the entanglements you have and returning home significantly wealthier than when you left could also be enticing.
Although add in the complication of Sanctuary cities making it seem possible to stick around and slightly reducing the risk of being caught.
faceh
2mo ago
I will say that one of my favorite fictional tropes ever is when a small group of people who each have a particular skill/expertise that is world-class in their field get together and coordinate an insanely precise, unprecedented yet completely plausible set of actions and circumstances long enough to achieve a very particular effect, and such effect sort of has the appearance of magic because your average Joe or team of average Joes has no clue on how to replicate it.
That is, all the years of research and development of skill are implied in each character's backstory, and now they just have to apply those to the plot's problem in a unique way, which may only takes weeks or days or minutes, so maintains the 'fun.'
Michael Crichton novels often use that sort of trope, and more recently, Daniel Suarez.
I put RI in the same category as Worm or Wheel of Time: I admire it, I'm glad to have read it, and while 'low status'...But it desperately needs to be about 30% its wordcount.
I'm having a hard time finishing out Worm because of this. Specifically, I realized I do NOT need a whole chapter of Taylor's internal monologue as she ruminates on/processes the last set of horrifically traumatic events. I enjoy almost every other aspect of the story and writing, but this is what pads it out. Skipping those sections usually doesn't deny you critical info, either.
Like we get the point. Humans pretty much suck, most humans with powers suck, being a 'villain' is apparently the only way to do good as it lets you break rules that need to be broken. You can try to justify your behavior or just admit that you're doing what makes you feel better and/or indulging your worst impulses.
Great, now we didn't really need a mile's worth of internal angst written out to achieve a couple inches of character development.
Actually that may be a notable problem with ANY long running piece of fiction, from One Piece to The Walking Dead (TV show).
The main characters are constantly having life-altering experiences and thus should be experiencing rapid personal change, but they also have to remain stable enough over the course of the story that their arc doesn't feel rushed, and reaches the 'satisfying' endpoint. Also if you alter a character's personality too much fans might revolt.
And most writers seem to err pretty heavily on the side of stability. Which means they have to pace the character development out over dozens of chapters. Some, I guess, resist the impulse to have said characters ruminate constantly on their experiences despite it not altering their thinking much.
faceh
2mo ago
What's funny is that back when the chapters were being released live, people used to complain when it got far afield of "Harry Potter pokes holes in or abuses the laws of magic", as many seemed to genuinely expect that the series would end with Harry discovering the source of all magic and using that to become God or somesuch.
Also, the reveal of Quirrell's true identity caught a lot of people off guard.
There's maybe a fair critique there, the series starts to get REALLY BIG in the scope of its ideas when you're past the midpoint, and brings in a lot of characters and implies a LOT going on... then as it comes in for a landing the plot has a laser focus on the few main characters. And then the somewhat unfortunate message, which is all but outright stated in the last couple chapters is: "Only about a dozen people in the WHOLE WORLD are capable of making any real difference in the grand scheme of things."
So people who came in hoping for Harry to break everything were let down... and yet there's literally no doubt at the end of the book that Harry is the most important person in history™. Which isn't a knock against the plot, but looking back its pretty on-the-nose as to how EY and perhaps other rationalists view themselves.
Ditto Luigi Mangione.
Not everyone on the left was celebrating the guy, but virtually nobody was shushing the ones who were, and nobody took up the "please don't murder CEOs" cause.
At a bare minimum, they can use it as a wedge issue, as with abortion or gun control.
Like they're doing now.
If there was minimal illegal immigration to speak of, what would be their case for increasing it.
faceh
2mo ago
But your hunting club has norms, not to mention careers and families that they would potentially sacrifice if they had to go hot.
I think the demonstrated WILLINGNESS to start killing is the factor we're seeing here.
Not clear that your hunting club would actually start killing unless REALLY pushed.
faceh
2mo ago
The democrats lost the popular vote for president and pretty clearly don't have the general support of the populace.
faceh
2mo ago
So what's the deep, unresolved tension surrounding keeping noncitizens in the country?
Is there any reason other than "it helps us win elections?"
faceh
2mo ago
And I'm suggesting that it wouldn't really matter.
The riots in 2020 were triggered by one guy dying under sketchy circumstances.
If Trump didn't give them am impetus, I think they'd find one.
It's not particularly surprising for Trump to run on a mass deportation platform... then make a big deal about fulfilling that promise.
faceh
2mo ago
Yes, black bag the illegals in the dead of night and try to suppress news coverage of the "dissappearances."
Quiet, stealthy operation.
Do you believe the left would sit quietly by for such tactics?
I'll just link to the comment I made on @Dirty_DemSoc 's "WHY BOTHER" post. Since its relevant to the protests AND the assassinations.
Quote:
And yet we know that democratic elections don't completely avert violence, or else Mexico's most recent election wouldn't have been so damn bloody. Turns out that violence is also a way to influence outcomes in a democracy, when you don't expect the votes to go your way 'organically.' So there's a bit of a feedback loop.
Right now we're in a phase where a minority faction is fomenting chaos for want of being able to achieve their goals via electoral process.
In a sense, this is ALSO one faction that is demonstrating that it has motivated, competent shooters on its side, so if something real DID pop off they are at least capable of carrying out deadly violence. The capacity for this violence is no longer just theoretical.
Of course the basic motives will be more complex than that, but the goal of having mass protests is ALSO to demonstrate "we are numerous, we are organized, and we could turn violent if things don't change in our favor!"
But we had a spate of lefty-coded assassination/killing attempts going back at least to Trump's earshot, and THAT trend is a bit scarier because the people of his tribe either ignore it (tacitly approving, I'd say), line up in support like with Luigi, or actually denounce it and try to lower the temperature and root out the radicals among them who are willing to get froggy.
Anything other than the last option will mean MORE attempts going forward. I'm waiting with a TON of consternation for the first FPV drone-based assassination that succeeds.
PLEASE try lowering the temperature, Dems.
faceh
2mo ago
Egregores: The Occult Entities That Watch Over Human Destiny.
Can't speak to that one.
In keeping with the traditions of this forum, its probably worth starting with some of Scott Alexander's writings.
Have you read Meditations on Moloch?
https://slatestarcodex.com/2014/07/30/meditations-on-moloch/
faceh
2mo ago
It's the perfect shorthand for describing what at first seems like a whole variety of disparate effects and behaviors but that really has a lot of nonvisible connections and correlations.
So I ask again- why bother? Is the time for talking over?
Its a good question, although it appears I've come about to it from the opposite direction you have.
The factor that has gotten me to just about throw in the towel on the entire concept of political discourse is watching for four years while one side kept pointing out that Joe Biden was very probably demented in the most medically literal sense of the term, and the other side, the full weight of every mainstream/respectable media and academic outlet claimed this was a nutty conspiracy.
Then the presidential debate happened.
And now, having the exact same parties who maintained that he was just fine and dandy are doing the rounds on book tours and media interviews claiming "SOME (completely unidentifiable) PARTICULAR PERSONS IN THE WHITE HOUSE MISLED EVERYBODY ABOUT BIDEN'S MENTAL ACUITY." No way, really? Somehow they seemed quite eager to be misled in this way.
And now that we've admitted to being misled, are we casting blame anywhere? Why... no. Its all just a completely amorphous conspiracy comprised of nobody in particular. Oh well. What a weird chapter in history that we can now close while suffering no consequences whatsoever.
Just a perfect encapsulation of the problem: an enforced narrative that nobody is permitted to question, a breaking point where the narrative CANNOT be maintained in the face of unavoidable reality. A brief period of panicked denial... then distraction... and finally a very carefully constructed withdrawal that absolves anyone of blame and pretends the whole issue was just an honest mistake with little or no malicious motivation whatsoever.
How does one fight such a keenly evolved, utterly remorseless memetic entity, where its self-preservation is dependent solely on how many skulls it can lodge itself in as deeply as possible.
I admire its purity. Such a perfectly enclosed epistemic environment, policed by the most advanced egregore wranglers that history has ever produced.
Regardless of how logically sound and carefully researched my arguments are (and I really DO spend a lot of time researching my arguments) it cannot compete with an endless stream of repeated thought terminating cliches and carefully curated facts and stats that grant the pretense of knowledge but deny someone any real understanding of cause and effect.
And now we can add sycophantic LLMs to the mix, which can be curated to at least try to maintain a given narrative and write pleasingly-worded missives that either dodge the real question of what is 'true' or can lead you just far enough along the path towards truth to make you feel informed... then pull you off in a different direction, forgetting to take the last few steps and actually change your mind.
As the kids say, "We're fuckin' cooked."
Of course, I'm so rabidly averse to violent conflict as a first, or second, or even third resort that I am (perhaps irrationally so) very willing to seek peaceful, cooperative resolution options right up until the very moment somebody flicks a fist in my direction.
And my current solution has been to insulate myself from the attack vectors of that memetic entity. Adblock on. No cable tv. No influencers. Don't read the articles, don't listen to the podcast, don't watch the movie written by the hollywood leftist. Maybe read the books but definitely don't try to discuss the book on reddit. Do not give the hostile egregore full write access to your brain.
I live in one of the reddest areas of a red (formerly purple) state, and have manipulated enough about my immediate environment that the chances of the culture war frontlines ever reaching me are virtually nil. This comes at some level of personal cost, but I've placed such a high value on maintaining my sanity that I GLADLY pay it.
And so I sit here wondering WHY I still pop onto themotte to do a little bit of sparring, keeping my debate skills honed, when even around here the odds of any given argument or set of arguments moving the needle on someone's personal beliefs seem slim.
One of the arguments in favor of democratic modes of government is that it allows peaceful transition of power because elections are viable proxies for battles/military force.
Quoth Federalist No. 10:
The inference to which we are brought is, that the CAUSES of faction cannot be removed, and that relief is only to be sought in the means of controlling its EFFECTS.
If a faction consists of less than a majority, relief is supplied by the republican principle, which enables the majority to defeat its sinister views by regular vote. It may clog the administration, it may convulse the society; but it will be unable to execute and mask its violence under the forms of the Constitution. When a majority is included in a faction, the form of popular government, on the other hand, enables it to sacrifice to its ruling passion or interest both the public good and the rights of other citizens.
That is, the side that manages to pull 51% or more of the population that is engaged enough to vote can reasonably claim "if there was to be a physical war our side, being more numerous, is more likely to win it. In lieu of fighting that would be ruinous to both sides, you will accept our rule for a few years, we will rule with a certain amount of respect/deference, and then we can run another simulation to see if anythings changed."
Of course, it seems like the Dems/lefties haven't managed to process how they got trounced in the last election, even with some thumbs on the scale, and what this implies about their popularity in the country. So they "convulse the society" and "clog the administration" (how many national injunctions are we at?), but are 'unable to execute and mask its violence under... the Constitution.'
And yet we know that democratic elections don't completely avert violence, or else Mexico's most recent election wouldn't have been so damn bloody. Turns out that violence is also a way to influence outcomes in a democracy, when you don't expect the votes to go your way 'organically.' So there's a bit of a feedback loop.
So in a sense, the current upwelling of conflict doesn't read to me as a real instigation to war, but more just a disadvantaged minority faction pressing the 'foment chaos' button as a means of gumming up the works for the majority and maybe influencing outcomes, at least locally, towards their favor.
No, I'm not drawing a moral equivalence between drug cartels and ICE protestors, or even rioters. Just pointing out how these actions are closer to the "open violent conflict" end of the spectrum than the "free discourse and exchange of ideas as means of persuasion" that was idealized by, e.g., the Federalist Papers and that we try to maintain on this forum.
So what are we doing here? What's the point? Why bother?
I'd posit that everyone is in the continual stage of trying to size up the field and gauge the relative power of each tribe so as to determine if it is possible to make any decisive attacks or maneuvers that will lead to one group's victory and ascension to unquestioned rule over the cultural landscape. And the literal landscape, too.
Which faction has the best tacticians? The most guns? The most tightly organized units? The most efficient logistics? The most loyal/zealous footsoldiers? Which is favored by God? (love that scene, perfect illustration of this point about sizing up the force your opponent can bring to bear), which side has their Oppenheimer, their Feynman, their Von Neumann who can build superweapons, memetic or otherwise?
And as long as we're mostly convinced that the aggregate combat strength of each side is approximately at enough parity that the conflict would lead to uncapped casualties, including complete obliteration (which, in the age of nuclear MAD is a real possibility!), then even a conflict that you win is just not worth entering in the first place.
I'd argue that the more kinetic version of this is what led to the openly aggressive conflict with Israel and Palestine... and Israel and Iran, more recently. Israel knows it can pound Palestine into a fine powder if left to do it... but they can't ignore the various potential interlopers who might enter the fray. And so occasionally swatting Iran across the nose is a nice reminder to the rest to keep the claws sheathed.
Its why the Pakistan India thing didn't truly spiral out of control, neither side had a path to victory that wouldn't OBVIOUSLY leave both sides in ruins.
This little site is just one facet of a glittering jewel that is human social network, whose topology is beyond the comprehension of any individual human, but maybe if enough of us enlightened apes discuss our various perspectives and unique insights (we have those, right?) then the collective hivemind can manage to ascertain enough of the rough shape to determine if any particular faction has an egregious edge in power.
Because let me admit, about two years or so ago I would have told you that the Blue Tribe was close to locking insurmountable advantages which it could leverage to maintain complete control, and I was mentally gearing up to have to shoot at [redacted] agents in a last ditch effort to not be assimilated.
And now, though, now it looks like the ballgame is way closer than I anticipated, and I am now more uncertain than before about the current trajectory of U.S. political power. I guess Red Tribe is currently at bat, and they're trying to load up the bases, but really, really counting on some kind of grand slam to put them far ahead before, presumably, blue tribe grabs the levers of power again.
So I keep coming back here, hoping someone will hit on the observation or connect some dots that will help me foresee the unforeseeable and align myself with the right people (or, failing that, align myself AGAINST the right people) to ensure my longer term success and survival.
Some might actually be intending to get froggy if the tide is shown to turn in their favor, and are quietly trying to sense who might fight back, who might ally with them, who might look the other way. Maybe they want moral justification for doing some really nasty thing to the hated opposition. I don't know. But I think we're all at least idly, casually interested in figuring out the shape of the conflict and the ebb and flow of the battle and then making whatever use of that information we can.
And where else can we go for an actual clearheaded view of things?
Rejection is rejection. No two ways about it.
But "unfair" rejection, when you can look over and see the guy next to you got accepted though he appears equally or maybe less qualified, is what triggers the envy and resentment.
Its not nearly limited to romantic pursuits either. Job interviews, team sports, elections.
I dunno, I think men find it more tolerable to compete for the hand of the 'fair maiden' who is making everyone play the game to win her affections, than to have to face the reality that the maiden isn't so fair after all and they were burning efforts trying to get her to pay heed, meanwhile she's banging Sir Lancelot on the side and was never actually considering his proposal.
faceh
2mo ago
Yeah. I was going to say, negative feelings are less likely to arise when an attractive woman won't sleep with you because she is flat out waiting for marriage.
It's when she is clearly having sex with other dudes but for some reason rejecting it with you when the feelings of inadequacy and the male sexual competition drive speak the loudest.
A woman who opts partially out of the sexual marketplace, and dresses and behaves accordingly, is still going to stir feelings in men, but easier to rein those feelings in when its just known that NOBODY is getting the prize, so rejection isn't specific to you.
faceh
2mo ago
Yeah, you'd assume that she's smart enough to have thought of that. She'll age out of the profession (at least, the high-paid tiers) eventually, so just make sure you're socking enough away to live off when that happens.
But if she's being honest that she didn't foresee the massive 'backlash' from the positions she openly supports it doesn't speak well of her foresight.
Like, her best-case scenario is she can buy some land in a rural part of the country with really nice views, raise some animals, and maybe find a guy willing to retire out there FAR from the public eye and thus well-insulated from all the cruelty, so she can live out a peaceful life with her accumulated wealth.
It is really unclear to me what impact she intends to have on the world, otherwise.
I've psyopped myself into believing that the general task of continuing human civilization and seeding the galaxy with intelligent life is important (I've taken the Muskpill, if you like). So having and raising kids, avoiding existential risks, and generally trying to push society forward technologically are goals that I find give me a sense of purpose.
And there's something to be excited about there. No matter what it is you like about living on planet earth, EVERYTHING ELSE is out there in space, if you can just find a way to get there. Every human could have their own planet to shape to their preferences, eventually.
But I've also got to recognize that most people don't have an inherent appreciation for space exploration nor any expectation that space exploration will improve their lives.
And as AI and VR tech gets better, the majesty of outer space is going to have to compete with just plugging into the infinite experience machine that will make you feel whatever emotion you want to feel and allow you to have endless new experiences customized to your liking... without ever leaving home!
Me, I like living in (what I perceive to be) baseline reality too much. There's still so much goofy stuff to discover, and we haven't even unlocked the truly interesting stuff on the tech tree.
More options
Context Copy link