justmotteingaround
No bio...
User ID: 2002
justmotteingaround
2yr ago
While I don't expect the public to follow the plot, both incidents do have quantitative and qualitative differences, though I suspect this will become less true as time goes on. As far as I know, Team Biden found about 12 documents and handed them over within 24 hours, whereas Team Trump had around 300 and dragged his feet for months.
Anyone crying "where is the raid" is either trying to score political points in bad faith (which is fine if that's the game), or is not thinking too hard.
the President is deflecting and denying rather than crying “witch hunt”
He appears to be front-running it, if anything. Now that the story is (finally) out, he said
[The people who found the documents] did what they should have done. They immediately called the [National Archives] … turned them over to the Archives, and I was briefed about this discovery and surprised to learn that there were any government records that were taken there to that office," the president added. "But I don't know what's in the documents. My lawyers have not suggested I ask what documents they were
justmotteingaround
5mo ago
we all sort of just know what's right and don't need reference to any kind of overarching moral framework.
FWIW that isn't remotely close to what he argues. He claims that apropos of nothing, we could/should define "bad" as the worst possible misery for everyone. Any step away from that lowest valley is in the direction of "good". He argues that this is the overarching moral framework we need. Many consider several steps in this to be bad philosophy.
I'm not sure how atheism itself could be a moral parasite any more than not collecting stamps could be parasitic hobby.
justmotteingaround
5mo ago
Most of my critique revolves around extending a single instance of an unreliable narrator into viewing women as children, and questioning their right to vote. This is an insane extrapolation of the data, and wouldn't be accepted as a fundamental policy or philosophical argument.
Lots of people have been agitating to nationalize the credit card industry for this exact reason.
I know, and the govt heavily regulates lending anyhow, but less now than ever in terms of max ARP.
My point being that even the most egregious instances of usuary (ie pay day loans) do not portend the end of lending. Nationalizing the credit industry seems less fringe and hairbrained than not treating women as adults. However, neither are practiced anywhere worth living.
I'm sure there is bias in the law as practiced, and men and women suffer unfounded disparate impact, but AFAIK the laws theoretically apply equally wherever possible. Given men's propensity to fall for romance, finance, and gabling scams, its odd that I've never seen it argued that we should view all men as hapless children, and restrict their rights. A maximally insane take would be restricting unrelated rights like driving or, I dunno, voting.
justmotteingaround
2yr ago
This conflates national and federal polities. And at the Federal level, you have the Koch and Federalist cartels to undermine the public for conservatives, balancing things out. The US is a divided nation, but its between 60/40 and 50/50. Nevertheless, what flies in California won't pass muster in Alabama.
justmotteingaround
5mo ago
Like the last amren article I read, its the woke right cobbling together a smattering of aborted syllogisms, half-truths, and outright falsities to advance even more identity politics. Its not completely devoid of truth and, especially towards the end, political insight. But on balance it comes off as whining. Whites are, in fact, increasing their real wages. Middle earning whites are dwindling, but only because they're becoming the upper earning whites. I have about as much sympathy for them as I do for laggard blacks: the government should probably help, but get your shit together.
My most pressing current thought is this guy needs to read more history. About 400 years ago, when the requisite technology was fresh, Dutch Jews whose ancestors had recently fled Portugal moved to proto-Brazil, then Surinam, then NYC, chasing state alliances and riches. Most people don't give two fucks about race, even if they think HBD is true.
Modern white advocacy holds that race is the most salient identity today.
Massive claim, and almost certainly a waste of thought.
For non-whites, though, race trumps class solidarity.
Perhaps, but they are also wasting their time and thoughts. The smart ones overcome this concern and do well on average.
Progressives admire patriotism in non-white countries, even as they scorn it in whites.
While its true that Progressive definitely scorn it in (jingoistic coded) whites, even reddit regularly vocalizes the inherent racism of modern Japan, let alone Israel.
More broadly, a person’s fate is generally linked to that of his political and ethnic community.
Such a pessimistic an narrow view of what is possible. However, I think convincing readers that this is true is the point of this rhetoric.
White Americans are essentially a stateless people.
Hysterical whining.
Whites have no real stake in [Americas] success as a political entity
Pure bullshit.
because there is no respectable “alternate” political expression, whites are left with Old Glory and the Constitution.
I think this is the nexus of confusion. The author seems to have no idea how prescient, capacious, and wise the founders vision for a future America was, especially for the time.
Perhaps Steve Sailer put it best: “White Americans are behaving more and more like how Americans Indians have long behaved, as a defeated and despairing race.” It is a political and spiritual defeat, but its consequences are like those inflicted on Germany after the Second World War.
This is the most deformed aborted fetuses of a syllogism. For one, I blame American Indians for their own regressive attitudes. Yeah, they're a conquered people. So am I, if we push the clock back far enough. Open a casino already. Second, Germany roared back to success post WWII. Its 1% of world population, yet one of the best places to be born. Wow. Such consequences.
justmotteingaround
8mo ago
Because of the 1A. Fox News and OAN should be allowed to broadcast their opinions. The regime shouldn't be in the business of telling them what they can and cannot say. Trump is arguably a public figure, although some people are saying he is a Marxist born in Kenya. Big if true.
justmotteingaround
8mo ago
Specifically, did we ever see these threats? I hit bedrock here
On reddit Zorba:
Alright, so the admins are paying attention to us now. Not going into details, they aren't relevant and I don't want to draw their attention more; ask me again once this is done and I'll vent.
Poster:
Ok, it's a year later. Spill. I'm really curious about the fucked-up internal politics of Reddit.
Zorba
I am confused why this is coming up so often, you're the second in the last two days and I'd totally forgotten about it for months before that.
But anyway, out of a possible overabundance of caution, I'll PM it to you.
AFAICT, the threats were never discussed openly. I could be wrong. I only ask because this new threat rang some bells. Lots of arguably paranoid cloak and dagger stuff in the Meta: the motte is dead thread. I'm still grateful for all the hard work that goes into this place. Its the kind of place I can ask: does this place exist here because of a persecutorial complex; or was the move, like, justified...
justmotteingaround
8mo ago
The influence of US media narratives on crime has been especially distorting outside the US. Total gun deaths and police shootings between the UK and US are almost impossible to compare as the rates are respectively 60x and 150x less common in the UK.
I haven't heard of this case until now, but was there any claimed reason he didn't just get out of the car? Do I have the facts correct: the car and plate number were reported to have been involved in a shooting the day prior, the car was registered to someone other than Kaba, and nothing was found in the car? When pulled over, rammed several cop cars and tried to run the shooter over. Unsurprisingly he had been charged with attempted murder days prior.
justmotteingaround
1yr ago
That's great and I don't want to take anything away from a fantastic accomplishment. I do want to provide some useful info on your diet plan. There is lots of good published studies on which weight loss strategies lead to long-term decreases in fat mass (youtuber jeff nippard covers a lot of the science if interested). In short, you want to aim for an average weekly calorie consumption of about 10% below maintenance, with weekends eating at maintenance, and weekdays consuming 14% below maintenance, with 2-3 times a week resistance training, and protein consumption of 1.8-3g protein per kg bodyweight. Cardio is not strictly necessary. Low impact cardio is recommended. So that is a brief description on how to increase and keep lean body mass gains. I think calorie tracking apps are a good idea for the first few months. Keto is fine for many, but I would bump the calories, take the fat off more slowly, and do something to retain muscle. That way when you're done dieting down, you're most likely to keep the gains you made. Whatever you choose, best of luck and congrats!
justmotteingaround
3mo ago
An inherent problem with populism that skepticism goes out the window. People are placed in power based on what they say, and the electorate is hesitant to criticize what they do. Sure, populists don't talk or govern like effete Borgpeople, but their competence, effectiveness, and leadership should receive no less scrutiny. Musk has been positioned like a Soros fever dream: way more money, more involved in government, less oversight, more in control of media.
Its probably too early to tell if Musk's signature DOGE program will be a success like Tesla, or a total failure like Hyperloop or The Boring Company. I'm guessing it will be somewhere in between. He's overpromising and underdelivering with wild claims. This is a pattern. Second human crew to Mars by 2024, self driving LA to NY parking lots with no supervision by 2016. For DOGE he set the mark at 2T in cuts, revised down to 1T, apparently by July 2026. They've already published a bunch of erroneous stats and stories, and people are swallowing the narratives wholesale. USAID is suddenly and obviously bad, and everybody knows it. We shouldn't infer anything from the fact that every other developed nation has an analogous agency - who usually spend more as a % of national income - just ax the whole program, its 100% waste, fraud, and abuse.
I can be optimistic, but that needn't lessen my skepticism. Politics is a game of promising the world and delivering an atlas. Usually there is pushback. Granted, most major political media is now decidedly right leaning (at least podcasts, cable, and youtube), but for a group that rightly (if hyperbolically) showed interest in Bidens Ukraine dealings, The Twitter Files, Bidens mental decline, there seems to be no appetite for investigating the worlds richest man plugged in to the backdoor of government by an agency that tried to permanently dodge FOIA requests, run by what Vance insinuated were "kids".
justmotteingaround
5mo ago
In his own words, Bin laden repeatedly states his theological concerns as his sole justification for both wanting to kill Iraqis and Americans (esp in his 96 and 98 fatwas). He quotes scripture. His modern followers do likewise. They think Non Muslims should not be in "Muslim lands" unless they pay the tax. That's what they're upset about. Not geopolitics - but pissing-off the creator of the universe. They have stated this stated explicitly, many times, pointing to scripture, quoting specific passages, getting ascent from Imams and ulama. Bin Laden viewed the Baathists as apostates. That was is issue with them.
If you take the view that all these movements are sincere religious movements and really believe what they say, everything starts makes sense. The same goes for Hamas.
I posted bin ladens fatwas and writings recently, as well as this, which seems apt:
Dabiq Magazine 'Why We Hate You and Why We Fight You - 2016:
"One would think that the average Westerner, by now, would have abandoned the tired claim that the actions of the mujahideen—who have repeatedly stated their goals, intentions, and motivations—don’t make sense... There are exceptions among the disbelievers, no doubt, people who will unabashedly declare that jihad and the laws of the shari’a—as well as everything else deemed taboo by the Islam-is-a-peaceful-religion crowd—are in fact completely Islamic, but they tend to be people with far less credibility who are painted as a social fringe, so their voices are dismissed and a large segment of the ignorant masses continues believing the false narrative... We hate you, first and foremost, because you are disbelievers... we have been commanded to fight the disbelievers until they submit to the authority of Islam, either by becoming Muslims, or by paying jizya... We hate you because your secular, liberal societies permit the very things that Allah has prohibited... What’s important to understand here is that although some might argue that your foreign policies are the extent of what drives our hatred, this particular reason for hating you is secondary... we will never stop hating you until you embrace Islam."
justmotteingaround
5mo ago
I'm happy with this EO but I think calling Trump an idiot who couldn't govern was reasonable during his first term. He spent like a drunken sailor on non Covid stuff (more than double Biden!) to purchase a tax cut, a trade war, remain in Mexico, Space Force, and he warp sped a vaccine. Negotiated with the Taliban to end the war. No new wars. Pressured NATO to up the price of admission. And as an indefatigable culture warrior, he got the ball rolling on a vibe shift. Okay, all great.
But no wall. Lots of illegals regardless. No Trumpcare. Domestic manufacturing barely budged. People in his orbit regularly went to prison, were disbarred, or quit. The trade deficit remained the same. No critical infrastructure. No strategic industrial policy. Covid was a disaster despite him publicly saying it'd be gone in a few months, while saying on private tape he knew it wouldn't be. Initiated the stimulus stairway to inflation. Total of 8.4T added to the deficit (also double Biden). Nationwide riots under his watch. Historic amounts of golf. Told Brad Raffensperger 'I'm informing you that certifying the current GA votes is illegal, so certifying them will cause big problems for you' thus igniting the embers of J6. All this while The Blob remained unaffected.
I think its fair to ask for better, and notice that Trump 1.0 wasn't the most effective leader. Trump 2.0 could deliver, but a victory lap now is retro causal. Trump is energetic and with it for a 78 year old, and JD Vance is sharp and hardworking. Here is to hoping for a golden age!
justmotteingaround
5mo ago
Avoiding those bad things requires agency, and women demonstrate more of it than men in those contexts. This is true around the world. In general, males show greater impulsivity in both humans and lab animals. Nobody has argued for a broad societal reconsideration of whether men are adults. People would laugh that argument out of the room.
Is there a problem with women claiming a sexual encounter was consensual, and arguing for a take-back some time later? Absolutely. Does it follow that we should seriously consider whether women are adults? No. Thats insane.
justmotteingaround
5mo ago
Yeah I agree with your assessment quite a lot. My point is that extrapolating these outlying male deficits in self-control/agency all the way to questioning if society can treat men as adults is absurd.
justmotteingaround
8mo ago
Unless I'm missing something Skrimetti is just about banning / age limits on gender medicine. I don't see how it's qualitatively different from banning heroin or other recreational drugs.
I think I've been pretty clear that entire reason I'm against Skrmetti prevailing has noting - whatsoever - to do with banning flawed gender medicine. The precedent it sets can be argued in favor of the next Bad Thing(tm). Just sue the current bad thing for torts.
justmotteingaround
11mo ago
Serena wasn't anywhere close to dominating her sport
You may want to look into this. She has numerous career and individual superlatives, and won nearly half of all grand slams for 10 years straight.
justmotteingaround
1yr ago
Counterpoint: history is largely a one-way conversation of destroying traditions in favor of such progress. Preserving tradition is a balancing act for the more necessary goal of maintaining the the systems and institutions which beget the traditions. Its 60% compromise.
I don't think the Catholic Church is at a point where blessing gay unions is necessary to optimize the institution, but it's clearly now in their Overton window.
justmotteingaround
1yr ago
That is trying to understand a really complex system
This is practically a definition for 'science'.
Well, they have a vested interest in it, no?
This is largely true for most fields of science.
the system as such began a long long time ago and we don't know much about that period.
Similarly, this is also true for most of science.
I can't find anything that makes these arguments apply to climate science, but not biology, medicine, chemistry, physics, etc.
Eg. Do we really know bacteria cause disease? Researches have a vested interest in continued research, but the proposed mechanisms are beyond complex, based on biology that began over a billion years ago.
that they at least produce the predicted results
Apparently climate models have been, on average, predictive. But this is not the kind of inductive claim I'm searching for.
weather forecasting as I see it isn't much better than an old man and bad knees.
Apparently, these are accurate 75% of the time inside of 5 days. This would be easy to disprove. Again, not an inductive claim. As an aside, if interested I'd be willing to bet money that weather forecasts are about as accurate as 30 sec. of googling led me to believe they are.
that a myriad of special interest have their hands in all kinds of places
I'm extremely mindful of this regarding climate policy.
justmotteingaround
1yr ago
I don't think the solution to the problems of the poor is "kill the poor". But it's a classic pro-abortion talking point, isn't it?
I mean, that's the least charitable interpretation of: allow people to answer the widely debated philosophical question of the moral worth of a fetus for themselves, all while providing society with a list of known benefits. The implied eugenics (initially a progressive cornerstone) is just a bonus imo.
justmotteingaround
1yr ago
When the PODUS, or any higher ranking politician, calls someone to tell them "The ballots are corrupt and that's illegal... Its more illegal for you than it is for them. You know what they did and you're not reporting it, and that is a criminal offense. You can't let that happen. That's a big risk to you... And you're letting it happen. I'm notifying you that you are letting it happen. And all I want to do is find X votes" just put them in jail.
justmotteingaround
1yr ago
I've actually wondered how public schools dodged the bullet of horrific pedo scandal that rightfully hit the Catholic church and the Boy Scouts.
It's probably way less common on a per-capita basis. For whatever reason, males commit ~90% of child sexual abuse. The younger the students, the more overwhelmingly female the teachers. And unlike schools, The Catholic Church and Boy Scouts have structures where the highest ranking authority figure can create significant alone time with children. The Sandusky scandal was similar.
justmotteingaround
2yr ago
I'm sure exceptions to the rule exist, but we should deal in probabilities and stive for accurate piors. The president ran on being against the death penalty, and was elected. In my examples, I'm talking about sub 20% popular support. I don't know what it was in France.
justmotteingaround
5mo ago
Sometimes you can just do stuff.
That was my main take away, and probably where all the substance lies. That, and pondering how much time Petro wasted penning his reply. 20 minutes?
I highly recommend giving it a read. Its fairly beautiful. A chiding message from a particular kind of nationalist/ humanist who clearly thinks highly of himself. Delusional in parts, but oh so delicious to read knowing that all Petros hot air was rendered into farts when he capitulated a few hours later.
justmotteingaround
5mo ago
But if you entertain one groups racial grievances you have to entertain all groups racial grievances. That door gets shoved wide open. Yes, in more recent times some whites have been vilified and discriminated against in some awful cases. Welcome to the club. Now lets slam that door in Ibram Kendis face, dismantle such programs (as Trump recent initiated), and move towards a legally colorblind, merit based society. Organizing around race mistakes the map for the territory in most cases. The political needs of whites aren't inherent to them being white. Not all whites are equally susceptible to opioid addiction or welfare dependency. Whiteness certainly doesn't explain who those people are. And whoever they are, they have agency and thus responsibility. Government help is not out of the question, but skin color is a bad heuristic. And keep in mind that all this grievance is in the face of increasingly median prosperity, while bring the most decisive voting block, over-represented in positions of power.
As an aside, I still think chess fits. I don't even think we know how many games of chess are possible. Humans recently approximated a Go engine - something people long claimed was too complex to ever be done, much like chess. Models + compute can beat humans at games of unimaginable complexity.
Regardless, even if chess is a bad analogy, admitting that doesn't gets me out special pleading that climate science is not only special in its complexity, but also special in that thousands of people with PhD's, from Montana to Mongolia, overwhelmingly agree that its possible to model climate usefully.
What reason do I have to disbelieve climate science that doesn't also apply to designing bleeding edge microchips, or medicine, or applied physics, or the improvements seen in weather forecasting? I'm trying to argue myself into climate science skepticism inductively and/or by way of inferences. A strong quantitative scientific consensus about cause and effect is usually a good bet. What makes climate science different?
The only thing I can come up with is that climate science is more akin to a year-long weather forecast (ie cannot be computed in P time because well understood chaotic conditions). But then why do such a large amount knowledgeable keep spending money on the practical applicability of climate models? I'm back at special pleading that science is a liar in this case in particular.
More options
Context Copy link