This should be an incredibly interesting discussion for anybody following this topic: https://twitter.com/lexfridman/status/1712170815637061914
This is Lex Fridman interviewing Jared Kushner. Jared Kushner is interesting on his own, and as an advisor to President Trump, but what makes him really interesting given the topic at hand today is the role that he had in negotiating The Abraham Accords: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abraham_Accords?useskin=vector
The Abraham Accords are bilateral agreements on Arab–Israeli normalization signed between Israel and the United Arab Emirates and Bahrain on September 15, 2020.[1][2] Mediated by the United States, the initial announcement of August 13, 2020, concerned only Israel and the United Arab Emirates before the announcement of a follow-up agreement between Israel and Bahrain on September 11, 2020. On September 15, 2020, the official signing ceremony for the first iteration of the Abraham Accords was hosted by the Trump administration at the White House.[3] As part of the dual agreements, both the United Arab Emirates and Bahrain recognized Israel's sovereignty, enabling the establishment of full diplomatic relations.
The Trump administration had normalization between Israel and Palestine as one of its primary policy goals, and they actually (via the Abraham Accords) made real progress towards it. It's a tragedy that they weren't able to keep working on this. I strongly suspect that this, (as well as [not to get too far off topic here], Biden's multiple absolute foreign policy embarrassments) will be a major issue in the coming 2024 elections. I think that the reality is that the world really was a much safer, much more peaceful, much more prosperous place under the Trump administration (although not domestically, given the Floyd riots). The guy being interviewed here, like him or not, seems to have had a role in making that happen.
And as a complete aside: my absolute dream podcast guest on Lex Fridman would be Steve Bannon. I strongly suspect that Trump is largely a creation of Bannon, and hearing a long form interview with him would be absolutely fascinating. If you need an introduction to Bannon, here's a talk, as well as substantial Q&A that he did at the Oxford Student Union 4 years ago: https://youtube.com/watch?v=8AtOw-xyMo8
Anyway, this is all related. Kushner definitely has some interesting things to say about the current crisis.
edit: not to sneer, but god damn this is depressing: https://old.reddit.com/r/lexfridman/comments/175kl5e/jared_kushner_israel_palestine_hamas_gaza_iran/
This is the /r/lexfridman discussion about this podcast. Nearly every one of these top comments are some version of "what the hell does Jared Kushner have to say about anything?" - Lex Fridman's audience I suspect thinks of themselves as above average intelligence and doesn't even have basic knowledge of this topic they're all talking so confidently about. Insane.
firmamenti
2yr ago
There really isn’t one single source where updates are being posted. Definitely makes me nostalgic for the days where a Reddit live thread (not the “live” thing the Reddit company tried to make, but the honest to god organic “live” thing) would pop up seemingly within seconds of any major global news happening.
That community largely moved to 4chan from 2016-2020ish, and now a lot of it has moved to individual telegram channels, and accounts on twitter. As usual, it takes a bit of time to get up to speed on the culture of the people posting so you can filter what’s real and fake, what’s trolling, the in jokes etc.
As a side/meta note: something really changed around 2016; at least on Reddit it was related to the_donald routinely taking over the front page of the website. This meant a lot more heavy handed moderation, and more of a top down management approach to the way people are allowed to have discussions with each other online. This sort of moderator micromanagement culture seems to have spread to a lot of other communities; I see the same behavior on Facebook groups, certainly here on this forum, etc. things will be deleted and the users banned for trying to discuss things in a way the mods don’t like. This makes the sort of organic discussions which lead to really valuable stuff like live information sharing impossible. A serious loss for the internet in my opinion.
Your best bet if you want to get good up to date information at this point really is twitter, but it will take a lot of work to find accounts, aggressively follow related accounts, prune that following list, verify what they’re saying, and build an internal heuristic.
This account retweets a lot of good (and a lot of garbage) stuff: https://twitter.com/EndGameWW3 and might be a good starting point if you want to try and find stuff to follow.
This is another good one: https://twitter.com/sentdefender
Right now as of around noon to my local time Northern Israel is under drone attack (maybe), and these guys are retweeting a lot of live info. Could be a good, very noisy time to find some possible accounts to follow. Again: buyer beware. A lot of this stuff is shit.
firmamenti
2yr ago
Apparently some left wing organizations are revealing themselves. Here is an X account claiming to represent “BLM Chicago” implicitly (but very nearly explicitly) declaring their support for the terrorist attacks: https://x.com/BLMChi/status/1711793142742073573?s=20
My questions are:
-
Who actually runs this account?
-
Have they tried to articulate what they actually mean by this?
I’ll be honest that my opinion of BLM, especially after the 2020 riots, is quite low. This seems to fit a little too well into the right wing hatred of them.
Ok the other hand: are there any stories in Jewish folklore about creating a monster and then having it turn on you?
firmamenti
2yr ago
To put it into context: if we are talking about moving 1 million Gazans, then in Ukraine equivalent spending this is about $100k per person to cover the logistics of it.
firmamenti
2yr ago
We just gifted like $100 Billion dollars to Ukraine. I think we can probably buy a few cruise ships to facilitate this.
firmamenti
2yr ago
“Because the Gazans are violent sociopaths” is the obvious answer. What I am asking is what the people who call Gaza an “open air prison” give as an answer.
This topic perhaps more than others is impossible to find good analysis of. Could some of you help me understand the arguments around something?
I routinely see people call Gaza "an open air prison". But...isnt' Egypt participating in this open air imprisonment? Egypt has a border with Gaza. If the Israelis are imprisoning the Gazans, then aren't the Egyptians doing the same thing?
And why would these two groups coordinate on this? Same question goes for: shutting of water/electricity. Why would Egypt help Israel with this? Why doesn't Egypt simply give the Gazans the water they need?
edit: I think my question was unclear here. I understand the obvious answers which are basically: Hamas/Gaza are terrorists. Of course Egypt doesn't want them. What I'm asking for is for somebody to steelman the liberal position that Gaza is an "open air prison" and that this is Israel's fault.
firmamenti
2yr ago
Something I have found interesting about this is that there appears to be a substantial amount of people who are simply unaware of what actually happened here. I think there is such a saturation of "Israel punched Palestine! Palestine punched Israel!" that people have disconnected from it. What happened over the weekend is an evolution in terror attacks. To compare it to 9/11, for instance: 9/11 had the goal of killing as many Americans as possible, but whatever this is going to be called appears to have the intent of torturing as many Israelis as possible. If Hamas had blown up a building with 1000 Israelis in it, I don't think the response would be the same.
Hamas specifically targeted a music festival full of young people, especially women. They paraglided into this music festival and started mass raping the attendees, and killing the others. They then took some of the dead bodies of these women that they had raped back to Gaza, where they were paraded around to chants of "Allah Ackbar". They flooded into Sderot, and started going door to door executing people, and again raping and kidnapping others. There are videos that Hamas has posted online of them taunting (with the implication that they will eventually torture to death) a young boy about 8 years old.
There are reports (admittedly this is a terrible source) now that they kidnapped children and decapitated them.
I haven't seen anything like this (although I don't go seeking this stuff out. Maybe it's common and I don't know about it). I have heard stories about stuff like this on The Anti Humans, a podcast by Martyrmade about the horrors of WW2 (https://martyrmade.com/19-the-anti-humans/).
Raping people as a weapon, decapitating children, indiscriminately murdering kids at a music festival - this is all inhuman behavior. These are not people that are available for negotiation.
firmamenti
2yr ago
Could you show me some examples of politicians saying what you believe to the the equivalent here?
I’ve certainly seen things about bombing Gaza, but this comes immediately after a terrorist attack, and there is an implied “let/force the civilians to leave”.
firmamenti
2yr ago
I think we are just going to go in circles on this forever.
I don’t believe that length is a proxy for quality, and I think they enforcing length requirements for a discussion forum results in people writing extremely low quality posts so as to avoid being banned or having their discussions removed. The noise has gone up substantially, and the signal has gone down. While I understand the intent, I think that the effect is obvious.
You’re right that I don’t have a problem writing several paragraphs to accompany submissions. The reason I don’t like the length requirements are not because I’m unable to fulfill them. It is exactly as I keep saying: this policy drives the quality of posts down because it incentivizes bad writing.
I think this is a bad thing. Obviously.
Previous versions of CWR did not have this length requirement, and yet fostered many, fantastic discussions for half of a decade.
What did precious versions of the CWR have that allowed them to be so high quality, and yet not require the length requirement you are outlining here?
As far as demanding content etc. again I just ask you to look at previous CWR threads back on SSC. These seemed to follow a traditional discussion style where a topic is introduced, and as you go down the tree the posts become deeper and longer. There were many, many, many really good discussions that happened in these spaces.
Those were valuable and I think we have lost something now that they’re not allowed to happen in that form. There are a LOT of places to write the type of blog posts that have taken over the CWR threads.
I understand you have had this discussion a lot, but I think that’s because there are enough people who found value in the types of discussions that were previously allowed, and miss that. Originally when themotte splintered off of the SSC sub, and then finally off of Reddit, it was proposed and grown as an extension of those existing communities and the move was being done for practical reasons, not to change the format to more blog like posts.
That could be where the frustration is coming from. If the pitch had been to move away from the existing CWR style and towards the current blogpost style, I suspect there would have been more pushback.
firmamenti
2yr ago
What stimulating discussion do you expect to get from “trans bad” link drops?
If this is what you think my post said, then I don't believe you read it, and I certainly hope you never advocate for continuing to enforce the post length limits that are being enforced here.
firmamenti
2yr ago
Posts like this are frankly just not interesting anymore.
I agree. I don't think you are understanding the point of this example within the full context of my post.
Then just... write a paragraph sharing your thoughts on a news story before you post it? I don't understand why this is so burdensome. I can't remember the last time someone got modded under the effort rule when they had written a complete paragraph. Certainly by two paragraphs I don't think anyone's ever been modded.
Look at the current CWR thread. It's getting about 1-2 topics per day of discussion. Again I'm not saying this is bad, I'm saying that it has replaced the CWR, which was a good thing to have.
The CWR was originally a containment thread specifically for those types of posts. There is utility there if the CW is something you are interested in because you can come in and get a general sense for the current state of affairs. I think that the CW is radically transforming our society, and am thus interested in it, and having meaningful discussions with smart people about it.
Posting the 9000th “look at this trans person maybe this is actually autogynophelia!” take will just naturally receive less interaction, which is generally what the people posting are seeking.
The mods here are, in my opinion, engaging in the most common mistake that people with power make: believing in the idea of central planning or central authority. An individual mod (or small group of mods) cannot effectively plan or micromanage the discussions between thousands of people. The innovation that allowed Reddit, and digg before it, to succeed was the idea of distributed or decentralized moderation. Upvotes and downvotes actually are (with appropriate, hands off moderation to remove spam etc) actually very effective.
Discussion quality on both Reddit and digg took an obvious hit when overbearing moderators tried to micromanage the discussions. It is why Reddit has become such an awful echo chamber, and unfortunately (sadly, again because I value and have valued this community for so long) the signs of this are starting to show here.
Look at the CWR, the latest post is almost a full day old, and is about a sort of meta take on the CW in general not really a roundup of the weeks events.
Well tended gardens of course die due to apathy, certainly a blogpost we all have read and repeated to each other hundreds or thousands of times.
But overtended gardens never bear fruit.
Edit: as of now there actually is a new post in CWR, the previous one was 19 hours ago. The current post is a perfect example of what I’m talking about. It is essentially just a blog post about a realization the poster had about how good being a landlord is. Not exactly a bad post, but again really just a typical blogspot/Facebook style blog post.
firmamenti
2yr ago
I don’t suggest getting rid of the blog posts, simply creating a containment thread for them, or better yet: allow them as top level posts below the stickies.
I have a suggestion for how to solve the problem of balancing the blog-length posts in the CWR with the more discussion oriented stuff a lot of people (like me) would like to see there, and I think I have a thought on why the confusion/frustration exists:
The original "culture war roundup" was meant as a containment thread for all of that weeks stupid culture war happenings. If some person showed up at a spa and insisted on exposing himself to a bunch of people in the locker rooms but insisted that he was just trans and this was just normal, instead of needing a lengthy blog post about this, you could post in CWR. It was a containment thread to prevent these sorts of common, repetitive posts from clogging up the more in depth discussions other people wanted to have.
[edit]: It's probably my fault for being unclear here. I am giving this as a historical example of the type of things which would get caught in the CWR, not as an example of the type of things which should be looked at as ideal posts for the CWR. I clarified in a response below that at least historically these types of posts stopped being made organically because people stopped interacting with them due to their repetitive nature. My general point, also made in that clarifying post, is that allowing users to organically enforce the culture of the community is a good thing, and I contrast this with what I perceive now, which is micromanagement. My response to the 'well tended gardens die to apathy' blog is that it is also possible to over prune a garden.
I think the problem is that the CWR thread has become a place where people go to post their blogs, and that they're trying to emulate the style (or more specifically the length) of SA's posts. In my opinion this results in lots of really, really unnecessarily long, usually pretty terribly written posts about long passed culture war topics. This is fine, and just like everybody else I've of course written tens of thousands of words of blog posts myself. So here's my proposal:
Split the blogs off into their own thread, call it "longform motteblog" or "the bailey: blogs from themotte" or something like that.
Allow the CWR to return to its roots: a weekly roundup of culture war topics.
Still remove low effort trolling, sneering, etc.
For reference, here is a link to the CWR from a random week in 2018: https://old.reddit.com/r/slatestarcodex/comments/9sabky/culture_war_roundup_for_the_week_of_october_29/
Notice how most of the posts here follow the form of: here is a current event, here is a couple of sentences either describing it or giving a jumping off point for analysis, and then lots of discussion. The longer posts/discussion type stuff is usually contained beneath one of these topics.
Here we can go back to 2017: https://old.reddit.com/r/slatestarcodex/comments/5z5dm1/culture_war_roundup_for_week_of_march_13_2017/
Almost every top level post made in there would be removed from the current themotte CWR thread.
Maybe this type of thing is just explicitly not what themotte is trying to do, and the name is really just a holdover. Hopefully this explains my frustration (which I believe is shared by others) with the way that length seems to be getting used as a proxy for quality. I hope this also explains the recent post (which I was banned for making) demonstrating that length is not a good proxy for quality, and is easily fakeable using LLMs. (Of course like most people who get banned for anything: I think this was completely unfair, I think the point I was making was obvious, I think it was on-topic, and I think I even made clear that I wasn't trying to deceive anybody, just demonstrate that length is a bad metric for judging quality, especially now that LLMs are cheap and available).
I value the CWR threads, obviously value themotte as a discussion forum, and it makes me sad to see something I value seemingly go away. I have enjoyed the CWR roundup threads for a substantial amount of time (at least 6 years), and I think my recent posts expressing this frustration are an attempt by me to keep that type of (imo valuable) discussion alive.
Here is this post, but I asked chatGPT to simply make it longer.
In the future, it may be a good idea to filter all posts through an LLM so that they fulfill length requirements:
The recent passing of Senator Dianne Feinstein has indeed marked a significant moment in the political history of California, as it not only reflects upon the substantial tenure of a seasoned senator but also kickstarts the gears of electoral machinery to fill the now-vacant seat. This unfolding situation beckons a thorough examination amidst a myriad of discussions among political analysts, potential candidates, and the general electorate in California and beyond. Reflecting upon history provides a lens to understand the forthcoming political scenario. Unforeseen Senate vacancies have often led to midterm or special elections, the instances of Martha McSally's election in 2019 following John McCain's death, and Edward J. Markey's election in 2013 post John Kerry's resignation stand as testimonials to such historical precedence.
Delving into the legal framework, California law mandates the Governor to announce a special election within a fortnight of the vacancy, with the election to be held between 112 and 140 days post-announcement. This relatively brief yet crucial timeline sets the stage for an intense period of campaigning for potential successors and a whirlwind of information dissemination for the voters. The succinct period earmarked for campaigning necessitates potential candidates to hit the ground running, mobilizing support and articulating their policy stance to the electorate. This period also challenges the voters to sift through the information, analyze the policy propositions of the candidates, and make an informed decision on election day.
The political ambiance is already abuzz with speculation regarding potential candidates who might vie for the vacant seat. Names like California Secretary of State, Alex Padilla, and Los Angeles Mayor, Eric Garcetti, have been floated around in political circles, albeit it's still early days. The political ideologies and past performances of these potential candidates could significantly shape the narrative of the election, and subsequently, the ideological leaning of the elected successor. The spectrum of political ideology that these candidates represent could potentially sway the policy trajectory that California embarks upon in the forthcoming years.
A predominant part of the discourse centers around whether Feinstein's successor will embody a more progressive or a traditionally liberal stance. Although sometimes used interchangeably, the terms 'progressive' and 'liberal' encapsulate different political ideologies. Progressives often advocate for more radical reforms, pushing the boundaries of traditional policy frameworks to address systemic issues, while liberals tend to favor a more moderate, incremental approach towards policy reform. The dichotomy between progressive and liberal ideologies is not just a semantic one, but reflects a deeper ideological chasm that could significantly impact policy formulation and implementation.
Several political analysts have delved into this discussion, reflecting upon the growing ideological divide within the Democratic party, both at a state and national level. This debate is not confined to California but mirrors a broader national dialogue concerning the trajectory of the Democratic party. The discourse encapsulates various facets of policy debates, from healthcare reform to climate change mitigation strategies, and reflects a broader ideological struggle within the party. Quoting a political analyst from The Washington Post, "The forthcoming election in California is a microcosm of the broader ideological struggle within the Democratic party, reflecting the tension between a growing progressive faction and a more established liberal base."
The impending election is not just about filling a vacant seat; it's potentially a narrative on a shift in California's political ideology. It's about the candidates, their campaigns, the voter turnout, and how these elements coalesce to pen the next chapter of California's political narrative. The narratives that emerge from campaigns, the debates that ensue, and the eventual electoral outcome will collectively narrate the next chapter of California's political saga. Set against the backdrop of a dynamically evolving American political landscape, this election is a testament to the continuous, unfolding story of democracy. The ripple effects of this election could potentially reverberate beyond the borders of California, impacting the national political narrative and the policy discourse within the Democratic party.
In conclusion, the election to fill Senator Dianne Feinstein's vacant seat is not just an electoral event, but a significant political occasion that could potentially mark a shift in California's political ideology and have broader implications on the national political landscape. The discourse surrounding this election, the candidates that emerge, and the eventual electoral outcome will be keenly observed, analyzed, and discussed in the days and months to come, embodying the dynamic nature of the American political system and the continuous evolution of political ideology and policy discourse.
It may also be a good idea to then use a similar LLM to summarize the post. Here is a good summary/higher information density version of the above:
The passing of Senator Dianne Feinstein prompts a special election in California, as per state law, to fill the vacant seat. Historically, such elections like Martha McSally's in 2019 and Edward J. Markey's in 2013 have followed Senate vacancies. Speculated candidates include California Secretary of State, Alex Padilla, and Los Angeles Mayor, Eric Garcetti. A key discussion surrounds whether a progressive or a traditionally liberal Democrat will succeed, reflecting a broader ideological divide within the Democratic party. The election outcome may signify a shift in California's political ideology, potentially impacting national political narratives and the Democratic party's policy trajectory.
And then a very good description. In my opinion this is the best example of what a high conceptual information density top post should look like, and while help facilitate the most useful discussion:
The passing of Senator Dianne Feinstein triggers a special election in California, with speculated candidates like Alex Padilla and Eric Garcetti. The election sparks discussions on whether a progressive or traditionally liberal Democrat will succeed, reflecting a broader ideological divide within the party, potentially impacting national political narratives.
—-
If anybody wants help decompressing their posts or repeating the same ideas a few times to fulfill length requirements, chatGPT is good, mistral was also just released and is supposedly really good too.
firmamenti
2yr ago
Ah so he has no option to negotiate?
Have you signed yourself up for the Ukrainian foreign legion yet or no?
firmamenti
2yr ago
The debate isn’t wether it was unethical for Russia to invade, it is wether or not the United States has to pay for the war.
Do we pay for the defense of every country who wants to prolong their territorial disputes?
Of course we don’t.
firmamenti
2yr ago
Yeah man it was meant to be a teeny bit tongue in cheek since, like I said, I’m not a leftist.
Here’s my actual opinion: most people don’t have a coherent political philosophy, and their support or lack of support for Zelenskys war isn’t based on anything except the latest headline they read.
firmamenti
2yr ago
Some of the people replying here seem completely out of touch with the right wing. I have no idea where they are getting some of these ideas.
The right doesn't like the war in Ukraine because they don't feel like it serves the vital national security interests of The United States. They suspect that it is a handout to the defense industry. As far as why they don't support this when they did support the war in Iraq/etc.: they talk pretty extensively about how the Cheneys lied us into this war, and how Ruper Murdoch (and fox news) helped. They feel betrayed by this.
They talk about it all the time.
Tucker Carlson, who was previously one of the (if not the) most popular host on cable news talked about this extensively.
I don't think it's complicated.
I am not on the left, so can't comment on why they seem to support it so strongly. My suspicion is that 4 years martingaling[1] the claims about Russian interference in our elections have built Russia and Putin into something resembling a Marvel comic villain and/or the nazis.
[1]Martingale betting strategy is just that every time you lose, you double down. Eventually you win and you win big. This applies to compulsive lying in: every time you get caught in a lie, you just double down and make the claims even more fantastic. Conspiracy theorists do this. It's basically how you get qanon.
firmamenti
2yr ago
Do you apply this to Putin as well?
firmamenti
2yr ago
Am I supposed to think it's a mark against him that he tries his best to get nations to support his people in a war that might very well decide the fate of Ukraine?
No. You're supposed to see it as a mark against him that he is prolonging a pointless war.
firmamenti
2yr ago
Making it a financial drain is all you need. Russia only has so many tanks, planes, etc. in storage that can be re-activated. While there are efforts to step up defense production, it's not easy and Russia is a thoroughly corrupt nation whose government hemorrhages money into the pockets of whoever holds it at every step.
Yes but as few tanks and guns and ammo as Russia has, Ukraine has even fewer, it's why they are entirely depending on Zelensky flying around the world in his green outfit and begging/shaming other countries into funding his war.
Look it's horseshit that Putin invaded. That sucks for the Ukrainian people that are suffering, but Zelensky is only prolonging the suffering. This is not a marvel movie where the good guys win. The guys with more artillery, more land, more calories for their troops, more money, and more ability to threaten the rest of the world win. In this case, that is Putin.
Putin is going to win, the only question at this point is how long it's going to take, and how many young Ukrainian men are going to die.
The only way that doesn't happen is if Zelensky succeeds in starting WW3. I hope that nobody is deranged enough to think that is a reasonable sacrifice for the rest of the world so that he doesn't have to go to the negotiating table.
At this point the optics don't matter. I genuinely believe that Israel could detonate some tactical nuclear weapons in Gaza, killing everybody there, including the prisoners, and would suffer almost no negative consequences for it.
Israel, and by extension the Jewish diaspora, has an absolute grasp on western media and government. During the American house speaker recall debate, one of the congresswomen gave a speech explaining that we should keep McCarthy as speaker because he has done the most to bring other congressmen to Israel. Major American policy debates center around support for Israel, a small foreign country.[1]
The Palestinian terror attacks were a type of brutality I don't think anybody in the modern western world has ever seen before. They were uniquely horrific, and I think this will be remembered as a turning point in modern history the same way that 9/11 was.
Israel is out for blood, and nobody in the west with any real power is going to stop them.
And by the way: good for them. I, a Catholic American, am jealous (although jealous is the wrong word since that sortof implies an animosity, which I have none of) of the power that the Jewish people have. Much of my criticism of The Church centers around not behaving more like The Jews. Why no Catholic equivalent to "Birthright Israel"? Why not make Catholics learn latin anymore? These are good things that people should do.
(Although I don't think they should be nuking Palestine.)
More options
Context Copy link