iprayiam3
38m ago
No you're correct he wasn't trying to beat Trump while courting his voter base - that was a mistake DeSantis made. He was specifically running a self-marketing campaign to bootstrap himself into Trump's orbit. I do think being a spoiler to distract anti-Trump sentiment were and being 'insurance candidate' in case Trump disappeared from eligibility, were real secondary aims.
iprayiam3
41m ago
maybe failed is too strong. but the context I'm saying this, is in the general ambitions of Musk from a government influence perspective. DOGE's accomplishments were not met with enthusiastic co-momentum from Congress. A lot of opportunity was squandered or actively ignored. DOGE lives on most, IMO, in spirit through the focus Vance has given to uncovering fraud - but again, this isn't really driven by the technocratic influence on the government from outside 'business efficiency' energy.
iprayiam3
1hr ago
MAGA was pillaged from 2 sides in 2024 - the technocrats and the neocons; The technocrats, were a mix of recently politically homeless 'elites', with a sense of social liberalism, and economic conservatism (to a point), and mostly anti-woke (some of course, had been instrumental in enabling woke). They cozied up to Trump and Trumpism in a variety of ways, but in reality are a mix of opportunistic and somewhat aligned politically. Basically all were Obama liberals, and would have been quite to the left of Clinton.
Vivek is the worst and most transparently slimy of this crowd, and boy isn't it great to see his grift collapse. Here's a guy who's presidentail campaign was a super strained argument that he was an even bigger Trump ally than Trump himself, and relied on word games like "God is real" as a major campaign plank, to appeal to Christians, while simultaneously asking them to agree with it in a form that was transparently a unitarian platitude. Point being, tortured epistomological games worded in ways meant to trick the dumb voters is neither new, nor successful trick of Vivek's.
His Governorship run is just a leftover plate spinning from when early in Trump II it looked like the technocrats had won. Elon had DOGE, Vance came from Thiel, SV had trump's ear... The neocons had attached themselves to DeSantis (who, was an otherwise viable actually America First, populist conservative successor), and helped sink in by attaching their stink to him, while he went up totally unprepared to skip Trump in line.
But alas, DOGE was a failure, Vance turned out to be more MAGA than SV (yay), and the neocons won the current administartion in the end with Iran; Vivek is a dying gasp of the silicon plot.
iprayiam3
5d ago
Sorry for the double response but on for the thought the simple answer is No you can’t.
That would be like answering a question in an accounting job interview about your greatest strengths with an answer about your bench press.
The issue isn’t about true or false, impressive or unimpressive. It’s that you are embarrassingly answering the wrong question
iprayiam3
5d ago
What’s the actual point of telling a prospect what you like to do for fun?
- Status signalling
- How much fun she’ll have with you.
2 is both on a. an object level - are these things she can expect to participate in?
And b. on a generalized level - do these help her understand your personality in a way that prepares her to have fun with you?
None of your listed activities answer 1 or 2a, nor 2b particularly flatteringly - except watching football at a most basic normie level.
Don’t think of the question as a literal list of activities. Answer this question instead:
“What activities will help me understand what to like about you and anticipate the kinds of things we’ll do together?”
Watching YouTube or breaking down classic music is irrelevant. It’s not that those things are a turnoff it’s that they autistically miss the point of the question.
The correct answer is
I like to spend time with my friends, try out new places to eat, and X
X is a place to answer one legitimate high value activity, particularly something physical
Hiking, marathons, volunteering with homeless veterans, international travel, refurbishing furniture, etc.
If you want to add a Y last, that’s a little extra you, fine: watching movies, watching sports, model trains, video games, whatever.
But anything you add in there should answer the question - are you a fun high value person she’ll have fun with?
If you want to also make it filter against women who you won’t have fun with, ok. But It is not a demand for an accounting of your interests weighted by time.
iprayiam3
22d ago
No, you sound like a feminist. Not all feminists are pro-sexually liberalized society, and not all sex libertines are aesthetically interested in girl power narrative, but both are part of the same fundamental school of thought:
Women (and men) should be understood as atomic individuals first, and social or cultural expecations that restrict liberal expression in favor of traditional, Christian-based, role-based hegemonic ideas are to be rejected as oppressive.
iprayiam3
29d ago
Right but my reaction isn’t just “deception”. I wish that society as a whole found it offputting and offensive to personify robots past 70s sci-fi androids. Calling your AI agent Jessica and giving her a cute white girl icon isn’t fooling anyone, but should still be anathema
iprayiam3
29d ago
It should be illegal for AI to imitate humans. (now, this is obviously both unworkable and too late, but still.)
I'm not just talking about scams or intentional deceptions. I hate that every commercial website has an "AI assistant" with an human name and picture in the corner like Jessica.
It should be illegal to name your AIs with human names, it should be illegal to allow it to imitate a human voice - Robots should be named things like Rx-12 and talk with a robotic voice. Siri and Alexa should not have been allowed their names or voices.
AI should not be allowed to produce textual output that reads like a human, AI should not be allowed to generate images or videos of humans, and robots should not be allowed to have human bodies.
iprayiam3
1mo ago
Right about non practicing Catholics of course. But mentioning Vance OP seemed to be asking whether practitioners actively believed it.
iprayiam3
1mo ago
Yes….?
If your model of the US is one where most educated practicing and professing Catholics don’t really believe it, you’re very wrong. Now of course, you can give some side eye to politicians, but if your assumption is that we all are mostly just larping, no.
iprayiam3
1mo ago
Without looking deeply and taking this at face value, yeah it's pretty bad and I agree with all your points except #2. I still think this is quite different from the core contention of #2.
iprayiam3
1mo ago
It is obviously a very good idea. Traditionalism is more importan than liberalism, and conservatism that conserves liberalism rather than traditionalism is not my ally. Traditionalism is also Christian Western American tradition, attempts to support other forms of traditon are not conservatism and not my ally.
There is a broken pattern now, that anyone with eyes is able to recognize: Welfare is incentivization.
Subsidy spending is bad! Ok but what about the needy? Well of course, we'll subsidize the needy.
All well and good, unless being needy is at all downstream from individual choices.
The libertarian response: Just remove all the welfare is absolutely nothing but controlled opposition. It's pie in the sky nonsense. Libertarian boomers are free to distribute their Medicare and Social security check to the taxpaying base or better yet their married children who can't afford to start a family, while they go on cruises. I won't hold my breath.
Just cut spending mean: Don't spend on the base! Spend on the liberals. Establishment conservatism hates its base.
But that's not the only issue with the 'just cut the spending' crowd. It's also wrongly ordered. I've typed at length about "Liberalism of the Gaps" and my interest in post-detraditionalisation, and this is as good an example as any.
I don't think atomizing society is good, I don't think atomic liberalism is good, While I agree in the abstract in reducing spending, I'm not motivated by many of the same reasons as Con-Inc is here. Supporting traditional institutions like marriage and stay at home mothers is among the highest goods. When we've returned to a healthy social order, then I'll entertain discussions about why spending thats already being spend shouldn't be spent on good things instead of bad things.
iprayiam3
1mo ago
No it’s not the same fundamentals -
The argument was that insanity should not be a defense and your example was of a scenario where charges shouldn’t be pressed.
You can remove insanity ad a defense and not have to charge every person having a small episode
iprayiam3
1mo ago
NO this is an argument for prosecutorial discretion or 'not pressing charges', insanity defense is a concept that exists inside of a jury trial or at least a plea deal.
you're conflating a solution to a different problem.
iprayiam3
1mo ago
I think there’s a few things going on here, some more justifiable than others. Sure pure collective guilt is wrong and pre-rational. But that’s not all that’s happening.
I don’t think it’s crazy to say that society leaned too hard into blank slatist atomic liberalism and that some updating back is actually very rational.
You’ve got a spectrum of what you’re describing that goes from “irrational guilt by association” to “observing stereotypes” to “actual acting in collective interest”.
If I blame all people who wear sneakers because I got assaulted by someone wearing sneakers, I’m acting irrationally. If I blame people who dress like homeless bums for drug needles on the streets, I’m generalizing a stereotype and acting semi rationally even if I end up placing blame on individuals who aren’t users. If I blame Democrats for the outcomes of a Democratic policy implementation. I’m acting rationally.
What we’re seeing is that a lot of things we wanted to be entirely in camp 1, turn out to belong in camp 2 and 3.
It’s not just actually racial stereotypes are true sometimes and you’re not a bad person for noticing and acting on probabilities. Because this, while rational, still does have the problem of assigning collective guilt in your frame which I agree isn’t right.
No it’s observing that actually a lot of affinity groups do act in group interest. We want things like race or place or origin or gender or religion to be neutral associations, but we do see that in some cases it is much more like “democrats” than “people wearing sneakers”. So when you have groups collectively acting in group interest, you can rationally and morally place group blame on them, while withholding individual judgement.
I am not saying I always agree with this but it’s not dismissable as “pre-rational”. Regardless of being factually or morally correct, it’s coherent to claim that say, X group seems to act in their groups self interest over their neighbors, and blame them for it, even while giving any 1:1 interaction with an Xian the benefit of being treated like an individual
iprayiam3
1mo ago
Not true in that simplistic of a formulation. But it’s complicated. There was no conspiracy to cover up infanticide across society. Rather SIDs as a catch-all included poorer safety standards / knowledge, accidents, negligence, and yes infanticide but as a minority.
iprayiam3
1mo ago
I mean, I'm not even thinking that extreme. I just mean creeping incrementalism of abdication of maternal duty being ok.
iprayiam3
1mo ago
He's really a skilled commentator because he's able to pick positions that generate the maximum amount of heat. Recently he took a bold position on Epstein that made him enemies on both sides of the isle (part of his point was that Epstein was/is a perfect storm because both sides' pundits can use it for fodder)
This is really easy to do, and doesn't require all that much exceptional skill. And one of the easiest ways of doing it is by being a white knight. I'm not saying this guy is generally a white knight or not, but pretending to be the guy who can 'look outside of themselves' and condescend both sides of a debate for being troglydites is really easy and the opposite of being a skilled communicator. One really easy way to generate maximum heat is just by producing really bad takes Here's a bunch of maximally heated coward takes that basically play 'both sides are dumb':
- All these Republicans are Zionists and IDF dicksucking are really undermining the strategic importance of defending Israel as a middle east ally.
- Anti-data center views are Chinese propoganda, we should be create a national body co-chaired by leading AI firms and the Fed Gov that pick data center locations.
- The issue with transwomen in the WNBA is that it's distracting from the real white supremacy problem we're seeing from Caitlyn Clark fans
- Immigration is too important to leave to the useful idiots on either side, we should let a bipartisan commission of CEOs and economists set annual immigration levels based on labor demand
EDIT: the more I think about this, I had to work harder than I needed to, to just not make these boilerplate neocon takes, which is really all you need for maximal heat.
iprayiam3
1mo ago
There is a lot more culture war meat here than random celebrity gossip. Maybe it shouldn't have gotten this much attention, but now that it has, the meta is CW relevant.
This is far closer to a gun control debate following a school shooting than celebrity gossip....
Also, there is a giant memetic threat here, that I wont be surprised if we see sympathy for Clance increase cases like this. I think there is a precursor in SIDs. SIDS may have hidden the causal mechanism of infant deaths so effectively that society learned “babies occasionally inexplicably die” rather than transmitting a more specific warning about dangerous parental practices. While this mostly disappeared in sleeping safety reducing accidental suffocation, I suspect that some amount of infanticide also got 'disappeared' into this statistic.
When SIDs is some 'act of God', nobody internalizes or normalizes the idea that some women(and men) can't handle it and are irresponsible with their babies to the point of homocidal neglect or even outright infanticide. The toaster fucking meme is apt here.
iprayiam3
1mo ago
lulz. Without even opening the article - what a soy, white knighty headline. I basically agree with your point - Anyone lokoing at any of the discourse around this case, and coming away with the hot take that this is a good opprotunity to lecture men, needs to get their head out of their ass out of 2016 tumber.
That's why I said 'in spirit'.
More options
Context Copy link