I think one can end up constructing a mostly cohesive internal narrative where the context of what they're preaching as social norms and the context of what you're doing in individual interaction can be considered different enough that there's no actual contradiction of words and behavior.
For a very rough example, you can imagine someone who is a staunch anti-gambling advocate, campaigns hard to keep gambling and similar vices out of their town and state, to keep kids from engaging in gambling activities, etc. And yet takes their yearly trip to Vegas and goes on a moderate gambling spree while there, and justifies in on the idea that it's fine to do gambling when you go to Las Vegas but you are still against its spread and consider it, overall, a social ill.
Its worth noting that the reason the problem exists is because women often won't be publicly honest about what they actually find attractive and actually want from males when interacting with them.
Its the collision of female-driven social standards with the female-driven desire to get high status males to give them attention. Hard to satisfy both at once, where attractive males give attention to women but only within the (boring) socially permissible ways.
Okay, that's oversimplifying, but if you frame it like that, a famous man who is preaching the female-preferred social standards AND engaging in the female-preferred behaviors when dealing with a romantic partner is still being consistent as to the female perspective.
That's a devastating point there.
Any given woman is certainly going to have at least 4+ potential suitors in place she could select at one time, and if a 50-year-old guy propositions her she can say 'no' and pick another male regardless of any 'power imbalance.' There's some reason she says no to all the others and YES to this one, and power imbalance is only one possible explanation and not a likely one, since she would have had to say no to a lot of guys before hitting the older one she said 'yes' to.
The cheerleader who Bill Belicheck is banging undoubtedly had dozens of possible options blowing up her cell phone. Literally could have her pick of men and could leave Bill on read. Regardless of the age difference, wealth difference, experience difference, whatever, some factor got her to pick him as her 'best' option among MANY.
Perhaps those alternative suitors WANT to support the 'power imbalance' explanation as it is a bit less painful way to accept rejection than "she just picked the richest, most high status guy she had available and that wasn't you."
faceh
11mo ago
If I were ranking potential assassination risks my top would be that if Biden is elected and has a Senate majority (even 50/50 with VP as tie breaker) the value of killing a right leaning SCJ would be very high in certain eyes.
Well now I'm genuinely curious, have you reassessed this at all?
faceh
11mo ago
I think the odds of Trump being assassinated are low, but there's some value in speculating about it.
Any updates on your thinking here? Am absolutely curious.
faceh
11mo ago
You were mocking people for even talking about a potential Trump assassination about 2 months ago.
https://www.themotte.org/post/995/culture-war-roundup-for-the-week/210703?context=8#context
Can't really believe you're inputting in good faith.
faceh
11mo ago
I can see you went through your "enemies list" and looked to see if they thought there wouldn't be an attempt on trump so you could try to shame them. It only shames the accelerationist right wing as this was done by one of your own.
Nah, I just went through the responses to the comment @Recursive_Enlightenment directly linked up above and noticed there were some people expressing clear opinions about the likelihood of someone trying to off Trump and wanted to see how this updated any priors.
I also saw yours there, and its just ironical that your position is such that you can attack people for speculating that someone might take a shot at Trump, AND dismiss the event when someone takes a shot at Trump.
For what it is also worth, my comment was specifically pointing out that it would likely be some irrational actor with no real agenda:
unless the outcome you want is literally "X politician is dead" then no rational person would carry out such an assassination in hopes of achieving their end goals.
So my position isn't shifting much from the revelations thus far.
Even now it isn't clear if this guy wanted any other outcome than a dead Trump, so I'm not going to speculate further.
In a way, though, I rather envy the Democrats' ability to snap quickly into place around a candidate, utterly unbothered by whatever claims they made or positions they staked out a mere week ago.
The reason 3 months will be long enough to run a campaign for president is because the party will quelch dissent in record time, disseminate new marching orders, and can generally expect their people to hop to it and follow through regardless of who the candidate is both because of fear of Trump and the unwavering belief that blue tribe has their best interests at heart.
And I wager that none of the rank-and-file democrats will be bothered by the fact that the party elites, including Kamala, were complicit in pulling the wool over their eyes and creating this situation.
That said, they're inheriting most of the same disadvantages Joe was already laboring under (sans the age/dementia one), and one hopes that independent voters are noticing both that they were lied to for months if not years, and that a party forcing a new nominee down their constituents' throats without primaries and 3 months to the actual election is a signal of deep dysfunction. Every other attempt at rehabbing her image has been a failure.
On the other hand, the independent voter who is looking for any excuse not to vote Trump has an easy out, the Harris administration would promise to be the most seamless transition and least disruption to whatever the Biden admin's goals were.
Indeed, one can argue that (modern) historically the VP is meant to perform this role, stepping right up to the plate to keep things humming along. Ehhh, except she's NOT getting to step up, unless Biden formally resigns or they 25th amendment him. Which, I'm willing to give you even odds that's the next big 'crisis.'
faceh
11mo ago
But isn’t it weird how the same guy just keeps being phenomenally, impossibly, successful at multiple different things?
If there is any human being on earth who I might believe is actually playing some form of 4D chess at this point it'd be Elon.
The only other explanation is that he is actually from outside the simulation and has access to the in-game console.
faceh
11mo ago
This requires independent voters to ignore that the Democrat party as a whole, INCLUDING Kamala, pulled the wool over their eyes and just created this mess without even putting the candidates through primaries.
In a sane world, this kind of chaotic revelation of the lie would result in a few weeks of terrible polling for the mainstream party until they manage to re-establish a cohesive narrative and/or Trump shoots his mouth off again. Misleading constituents this badly should provoke backlash.
I don't really know how it plays in our actual world.
Yep. But that is just par for the course too. Such people only dared speak different opinions because there was an obvious breach in the consensus that made it 'safe' to deviate from the group. The group being in the process of coalescing once again is their signal to jump back in line.
I'm mostly amused by Aaron Sorkin suggesting that they should nominate Mitt Romney EARLIER TODAY then aggressively walking that back as soon as the decision was made.
I'd be disgusted at such spinelessness if I thought it mattered at all.
It's also amazing that they are managing to convert the "Biden and Co. hid his decline from us all!" into "he is a hero of democracy for nobly standing down." Although it shows a good grasp of classical conditioning. Reward the behavior you're trying to encourage.
faceh
11mo ago
Corporations, as creatures of the state, should be able to have their speech limited by the state, which was the law prior to CU v. FEC.
They're 'creature of the state' but uh, they also do not exist independently of the people that invoke the state's rules to create them.
The fundamental question is how you can recognize individuals' rights to free speech, including the right to spend money on political messaging, and yet NOT recognize that a group of individuals organizing as a corporation and pooling their funds to spend on political messaging are just invoking the exact same right they each individually possess.
I mean, sure, you could say that the state is entitled to define the rules under which corporations operate at all, but they can still avoid running roughshod over the 'fundamental rights' that citizens are supposed to posses irrespective of the state's position on them.
Extending your logic to its furthest reaches would also enable an end run around other constitutional rights. The Second Amendment says people can keep and bear arms, but if people want to form a company to manufacture and sell firearms, they can get shut down unilaterally? The Fourth Amendment protects people against unreasonable searches, but why should internal corporate communications have such protection? Nevermind that it is people who are 'exercising' the rights in either case, if a corporation can be punished or shut down for performing actions that would be constitutionally protected if an individual performed them, then there's an argument that a corporation can escape that punishment by simply paying some separate individual to do it for them.
"Oh, so corporations aren't allowed to spend money on political campaigns? Okay. Well we just sent 1 million dollars over to Bob, and Bob just happened to spend it all on a given candidate in a given race. Are you saying Bob doesn't have freedom of speech?"
faceh
11mo ago
Hard to be certain of that when Kamala's got such low approval. I'm not sure if she qualifies as a 'normal' candidate, either.
But we're in weird times.
It is indeed.
The outcome we're seeing was set in motion almost directly as a result of the same mechanisms that originally cleared the way for Biden back before Super Tuesday in 2020. The same iron hand that brought all other candidates to heel and lined Kamala up for the VP spot is now having to execute some delicate maneuvers to oust one candidate and elevate another without generating more chaos than already exists and handing the election to the guy they were worried about beating all the way back when they originally coalesced around Joe.
The big failure of Dem's centralized leadership, in my view, was not holding Joe to his 'transitional' role. It would have been far more believable for Joe to declare that he had fulfilled his main objectives and now wanted to enjoy a well-earned retirement and either bow out entirely or anoint his successor than to cancel the entire primary season THEN 'decide' he wasn't cut out for running again.
But the OTHER feature of centralized leadership is never letting go of power once it has it, even if it has worn out its welcome or is incapable of wielding authority effectively.
faceh
11mo ago
I refuse to adopt the meme phrase, even if I find it funny.
That said, it is amazing to see that Party continue to march on as if past evidence has ceased to exist. Heel-face turns are common in politics. JD Vance has to contend with his history of anti-Trumpism, after all. But now there should be people wondering why Kamala got to get the nod WITHOUT going through the standard selection process, but I'd bet for real blue-teamers, in their mind she would have won anyway so why bother with the formalities? In fact why even think about that! We've got an election to win!
Sure, I just haven't gotten a single good explanation for why you are ignoring that Dem elites, including Harris herself, lied to you guys and covered up Biden's condition for months or possibly years, and have caused the current bout of chaos by failing to get Biden to step aside earlier. I got into a long exchange on twitter where I pointed this out and repeatedly asked why Kamala should be able to skip the normal process one would go through to earn the nomination, especially when she has demonstrated incompetence in how this Biden situation was handled.
They skipped over the primaries, which means millions of Dem voters did not get to register their voice for whom they'd like to have as a candidate. The whole premise for skipping the primaries was that Biden was mentally fit and able to run. And this got revealed as false in the most spectacular way. Kamala, in particular, had to be aware of this issue, and yet never raised it once. Why is the outcome to reward her for this?
This should cause SOME kind of backlash from the constituency for both denying them a voice AND lying in such a way that now the Presidential race is in flux and may very well have handed it to Trump.
Serious question: why bother with primaries at all, going forward, if it is acceptable to just let the elite consensus dictate who gets the nod, and all you proles just fall in line? I can believe it if someone says "These are extraordinary circumstances, not to be repeated." BUT THE PARTY'S ELITES CREATED THE EXTRAORDINARY CIRCUMSTANCES. I think any reasonable read of this situation has to agree that it is anti-democratic.
My position is that I can't see myself supporting or voting for Harris given the apparent dishonesty around Biden's health (who knows what else), overall lack of competence for the job, and the fact that there's no demonstrated support for her candidacy since she hasn't gone through the process. Seemingly the only way you can overlook these factors is A) Abject fear of Trump, or B) just being so loyally committed to blue team that you'll suffer any abuse in silence. Both of these imply that there are no repercussions for blue team leadership abusing your trust, which is a recipe for disaster.
faceh
11mo ago
I mean, yes, but also no, a person wielding a weapon can charge in and close distance before the bullets put them down.
If she was holding a kitchen knife it would still be dangerous at that range.
I wouldn't get into the mechanics of it all, but a person "cowering" with a weapon can very quickly turn into a person "charging" with a weapon. They are not neutralized/incapacitated merely by laying on the floor.
The greater context of the situation very much weighs against shooting her, but I really think people don't get how the presence of a weapon, ANY weapon, escalates the nature of the threat.
Here's a 2020 incident where the perp surprises and slashes one officer, who doesn't immediately shoot her, perp drops the knife and appears to comply for a moment, then suddenly swoops down to pick it up again and charges another officer.
https://nypost.com/2020/09/03/bodycam-footage-florida-woman-stabs-cop-ahead-of-fatal-shooting/
Until the person is either fully restrained or, unfortunately, poked full of holes, they are posing a danger.
The weapon in the current case being boiling water is a really unique twist, but the principle is the same.
faceh
11mo ago
If you're not going to run and escape the situation (which would be my advice for that scenario, shes not a danger to others) then you damn well better make sure you have the clearest shot possible.
If the opponent is behind a barrier like a kitchen counter, guess what you gotta move in to make sure you have a shot.
Being stuck in close quarters with a melee attacker is nightmarish, even if you have a pistol.
If escape isn't viable, then tactically speaking advancing on the opponent is a "sound" choice. Something about how meeting danger head on can nearly halve it, or whatever.
Again, I'm just pointing out how the presence of the weapon is a larger factor than people give credit for. Not praising the cop's reaction.
One thing about the George Floyd case, the guy was unarmed and completely restrained when he died. That's what really made it stand out.
This... ain't quite that.
faceh
11mo ago
Well yeah they came into her house and started making demands and bossing her around. I wouldn't blame her for feeling threatened.
It is unclear how her actions improved on the situation though.
To be clear, my presumption whenever a standard police encounter results in a death is to assume the cops fucked up royally. That seems to be the case here. It is a rebuttable presumption, though.
faceh
11mo ago
I guess there's a question of reasonableness. Could you assume they have a cache of grenades in the cabinet? Are they hiding trained attack tigers in the attic?
Whole problem for me is that most of the danger was avoidable if they don't let the lady get off the couch. If they thought she was dangerous at the outset, then don't let her get the boiling water.
Once she does, maybe exit the house and see if she escalates further.
I don't buy that they feared for their safety up until a second or two before she threw that water.
faceh
11mo ago
Right, but its simultaneously hard to understand why their immediate response to seeing the boiling water in her hand is "I'm will shoot you in the face."
I guess I'm suggesting that their failure to control the scene was a problem. Okay, they don't see the boiling water as a danger until she's holding it. Maybe that's a training flaw in itself.
If they didn't think she was posing any danger prior to that point, I'm confused as to why that escalated to "I'm going to shoot" you nigh instantaneously. If they DID think she was a possible danger, then just keep her on the couch and shut off the stove off yourself, don't let her roam around to, e.g. grab a knife or set something on fire.
faceh
11mo ago
Right. I think the whole problem with judging these situations is that they tend to be interactions between cops, who are already edgy about being ambushed, and less-than-rational types who are edgy because they know they might be arrested or they're just suffering from a mental condition that affects judgment. Cops are more likely to encounter those types than the average citizen. So these interactions come with some extra hostility/tension built in.
(there's valid debate as to how much of this cops bring upon themselves when they have a very aggressive approach to policing and the fact that they have less accountability)
For example, here are a couple other semi-recent police encounters:
One where the cops take out a dude who is directly threatening another person's life:
https://youtube.com/watch?v=zi4Lw981G9w?si=E5riO0NlRu_KEIq4
Obvious good shoot, with plenty of time to set up, take aim, attempt de-escalation, and act at the most opportune moment.
And another where holy shit a 'standard' traffic stop IMMEDIATELY results in automatic gunfire their way:
https://youtube.com/watch?v=6UzsEvst1MI?si=a2bokSAmX2vJGAct
These are the two extremes of the sort of situations cops can find themselves in.
We'd all love for every police shooting to look like the first: obvious justification, attempts at de-escalation, and minimal force employed (one bullet, in that case). But cops have a general (not entirely rational, odds are they'll never face such a situation) concern about suddenly being confronted with the second situation.
So I dunno, I don't blame police for treating suspicious characters with a vague sense of hostility, but some subset of those characters are going to respond very badly to their presence, and if they're truly irrational, then we should be scrutinizing the cop's actions harder, overall.
I have noticed a LOT in recent years how almost all of young females' major complaints about how they're treated by men would dissolve if they had a strong, trustworthy male figure in their life who could act as a simple disincentive for outsider males to behave badly. Not that women should have a male escort where-ever they go, but if they could simply text said male and say "hey I'm feeling uncomfortable about this situation, what should I do?" and get some advice or, if needed, immediate intervention, then there'd probably be a LOT less regret in their lives later on.
A lot can be said about fatherless women, but really I'd also guess that smaller average family size in the west makes it such that women are less likely to have brothers, male cousins, etc. who can step into such a role if needed, so they're trying to find some other male outside the family that might suffice, but other males are just as likely as not to exploit that situation for their own gain.
More options
Context Copy link