magicalkittycat
No bio...
User ID: 3762
magicalkittycat
3d ago
Damn you are so right, a sitting senator falsely accusing someone of a crime at a public hearing is on the same exact level as a random mixup between two people with very similar usernames on an online website.
Schmitt hits the fan in a judicial hearing, as senator Eric Schmitt embarrasses himself with a flawed accusation against Jack Smith. I'll be using their first names since last names are so similar.
First as a small recap, Senator Eric was trying to prove that Jack had secretly traveled to Atlanta to conspire with local prosecutor Fani Willis, who was pursuing criminal charges against Trump for the attempted overturn of the 2020 elections. He asked Jack if Jack had been to Atlanta, and when Jack denied it, Eric accused Jack of perjury. It was made into a big show with them even making a giant poster for the media pointing to text messages showing Jack had watched a joke game in Atlanta between the Hawks and the Golden State Warriors only for things to immediately fall flat when it turns out Jack was actually in Maryland attending a WNBA game Maryland Terrapins and the Iowa Hawkeyes. This has been confirmed with both video evidence of Jack Smith at the Maryland game, and analysis of the stadiums (the specific seats they had mentioned do not exist in the Atlanta Hawks stadiums). Barring a clone, Jack Smith was not in Atlanta that day.
Eric Schmitt had the rollout planned with conservative influencers such as Benny Johnson and Sean Hannity, who have since deleted their tweets celebrating his callout in the hearings. Eric and his associates also seemed to have a planned article in Axios to come out afterwards as a potential 2028 VP pick. Basically, he went all in on making this his moment to shine, and he flopped.
Of course as per modern politics, there is no apology for the false accusation. As Hanania puts it
Unable to admit mistakes, incapable of being shamed. Can’t believe they walk among us.
And as Johnathan Chait jokes, there's a funny nominative determinism to be seen here
This actually makes sense if you grasp Schmitt's friend/enemy distinction
I think some of the reaction is overly harsh, but there's also no denying that the reaction to his mixup among the right has been weird. Eric Schmitt was actively being praised on the Charlie Kirk show right after!
CHARLIE KIRK SHOW: Gotta give you some flowers. Dang! So you had text messages from Jack Smith's team confirming he was going to a Hawks game, and he sat there acting dumbfounded?
ERIC SCHMITT: It was the only NBA game going on at that time in Atlanta. He claimed later that he was at another game. Here's the thing -- my job is to ask the questions
But as the community note points out, and as Eric Schmitt was already aware of at the time the text messages did not (and could not) confirm Jack Smit was going to a Hawk's game because Jack was not at the Hawks game to begin with. Of course he's dumbfounded by the claim, he literally was not there.
But time to get started on the overall point here. Schmitt claims his job is to "ask questions" but that's clearly not what he was actually doing. Schmitt wanted to put on a show and advance his political career, not to engage in fact finding. If he was just asking questions, why did he have all the theatrics planned afterwards? Why did he so readily accuse perjury? Why won't he apologize now for the false accusation? And why break protocol like this? It would have saved him from embarrassment if he went through the normal process
Congressional hearings are political theater, they don't serve for fact finding anymore. And why is this? Because they're public. They're on camera, so politicians put on a show. Like reason writer Binion says
This is a perfect example of what Senate hearings have become: opportunities for politicians to get cheap dunks for the camera so they can go viral—when they often have no idea what they're talking about. We are living in Veep. 10/10, no notes
The more directly public that politics has gotten, the more it's become a trashy reality TV show, exemplified of course by the trashy reality TV show host president. I live in a pretty red district and one thing I've definitely noticed with many around me is that their political interest is one of entertainment. It's why I'm one of the few people who can even name our governor (Josh Stein) yet alone the local mayor. Local politics are boring, too much sausage making and not enough fun despite having far more direct impact into our life. Eric Schmitt's failure here might be funny, but it's also just another sign of the degeneration of politics in the modern social media era and I don't think that's going away anytime soon. Nate Silver might think this is one of the greatest self owns in the history of the Senate but I say, it's one of the greatest so far. Just wait and see.
magicalkittycat
4d ago
This argument would work out a lot better if there was a meaningful distinction here and not hair splitting between my saying prediction markets are the best and Claude going prediction markets are one of the best in some contexts but not in everything.
magicalkittycat
4d ago
Are you confusing me with a different user? Because none of what you've said is in my comment.
Yep I double checked and you're a different person than who I originally responded to. Their claim was that the prediction market odds were fantasy.
But my comment is about getting you to acknowledge that LLMs are not a source of evidence.
I don't disagree much with Claude's take here! It's very hair splitting in determining which forecasting method counts as "best". Prediction markets are extremely good and some of the other traditional methods are also extremely good and if I would rank one as 94 points and the other as 96 points, and vice versa from Claude, I don't see this as radical disagreement.
We both still agree they're ~95 points good.
This is the most hilarious nitpick I've ever seen.
Not clearly. Prediction markets are among the best general-purpose forecasting tools,
In general, no single method is clearly the most accurate at predicting which party wins a US state. Markets, poll-based models and expert ratings perform about equally well
Your response is Claude pointing out "okay prediction markets are really good but they aren't the best at everything all the time and sometimes other methods are just as good"?
Truly incredible. You dismiss the prediction markets as fantasy and yet your own attempt at a defense admits they are really good. Split hairs all you want over what "best" means, the odds are still the odds.
This is how you act anytime someone points out verifiable facts that go against you, you don't actually address the claims (in fact again your own defense is actively acknowledging the prediction markets are top tier and highly accurate), you just throw a tantrum and try to divert the topic. The odds are the odds and your behavior doesn't change that, reality will not bend because it triggers you.
Fantasy world political predictions.
Yet those are the actual odds presented by the most accurate forecasting method we have. Maybe if the public has turned against the Trump admin so much that the electoral odds look like fantasy, it should be reason to self reflect on those failures that brought us here? Maybe one of the most unpopular wars in history was a mistake and no amount of propaganda changes that.
And as always with prediction markets, if you don't believe them, then go bet against it and make a lot of money.
magicalkittycat
13d ago
Now this is the type of argument I actually find matching the mood. "It might be a lab leak but it's not worth the costs of caring" is exactly what we do with a lot of zoonosis already. We could stop eating meat, but no one wants to enough.
But it would be good then if people would say that, that our cost benefit analysis has decided on this not really being a big deal and we don't really care.
magicalkittycat
13d ago
Hm. You could argue a similar version about zoonosis
The dangers and risk factors of zoonotic viruses have already been largely hashed out given that we live in the world of natire's laboratory since all of human existence. There is simply not that much left to discuss. We've already as a society decided "stop eating meat" is too much of an ask.
If we had that conversation about lab created viruses and decided "doing anything is too much, just let people experiment with whatever and we'll deal with the consequences" then fine. That's an answer at least.
there's also "non-engineered lab leak theory," that the place that actively collects coronaviruses and has had safety issues in the past accidentally leaked (another?) one. I find this much more plausible than the sheer volume of coincidences that require it to be wet market a few blocks away or the actively engineered version.
That one is far better except for as the rootclaim debate and Scott Alexander pointed out, an accidental release just happening to point to the wet market is incredibly odd too.
Of the many many more crowded and indoor areas for a leaked virus to spread, it happened to be the one place, and only the one place, where natural origin makes the most sense? Not a researchers apartment complex, or nearby stores, or movie theaters, or their children's school, or anything else?
The lab leak theory can either say "that's how well it was covered up" in which case okay you can just do that endlessly there is no beating an argument that lack of proof doesn't matter or say "it was intentionally released there to look natural" in which case it's no longer accidental leak theory.
magicalkittycat
13d ago
You're engaging in a rhetorical sleight of hand that I've repeatedly decried in the past. A lab leak doesn't necessarily have to be a bioweapon, and immediately reaching for that term limits the discussion space in a lot of ways. It also doesn't imply there's an attack.
The reason that gain of function research is relevant as an argument is if the claimaint is specifically arguing that it is artificial and created from the research.
Whether or not it was intended as an attack or a bioweapon still suggests some sort of greater response would be needed. It became one after all, regardless of intent.
Where is the planning for the next genetically engineered virus to escape? What about potential bioweapons terrorism?
How will we deal with those? If we believe that lockdowns and masking are effective, then we already have the answer. But that anti lockdown/masking beliefs correlate so heavily with lab leak theory, I should expect a significant amount of people freaking out trying to figure out some sort of solution to a major issue.
"I believe we have major issue X" directly suggests the line of action "let's try to counteract X". Where is that?
I typically hesitate to say that people aren't seriously believing their claims but Lab leak theorists have a major missing mood problem going on.
If one very seriously believes that the world was attacked by an artificial bioweapon (even if unintentionally leaked) so dangerous that it was killing more than a 9/11 worth of Americans daily and that the evidence for it is overwhelming, then the reaction should be way different than what it is now! This is a matter of major national security now, and the most anyone wants to do is shitpost about it?
Where are the plans to counteract their next, possibly even more dangerous, bioweapon? Where's the plans to convince Americans to be ready for future lockdowns and masking? If you think "those are ineffective" then why aren't you trying to find effective countermeasures then? It should have you more worried if you don't think lockdowns/masking/etc work then you would believe we don't have an effective response to even more dangerous ones! It should be mass panic trying to find something.
And even more glaring where is the war? Lab leak theory proposes China killed almost 2 million people in the first year alone. Even if you don't think the option is full blown war from every country on Earth against China, why are they so content with the status quo? You would expect something in response, but seemingly no one gives a shit.
This isn't a bunch of rhetorical questions. If I truly believed that China had released a nearly holocaust amount of deaths onto the Earth I would be calling for flattening the country's leaders. You don't have to go that far but that no one takes it even a fraction as serious as a genuine belief makes it very hard to take the belief as genuine. It seems to just be shitpost based ritual circle jerking. If the cost benefit analysis says "war isn't worth it in response to a literal bioweapon" then fine, but there is literally nothing done in response by anyone.
The response to shrug and do literally nothing in response to nature makes sense because nature has been doing this since forever and we already have the response to natural viruses. The response to a lab bioweapon apparently also being nothing just boggles my mind, why do people not give a shit about the implications? People say they believe in lab leak, but they act like they believe in zoonosis instead.
magicalkittycat
16d ago
Yeah good job ignoring the current politicians I gave in the previous comment.
magicalkittycat
16d ago
Unless Trump's post is straight up wrong
This is so incredibly common that it would be reasonable to just automatically assume there is something misrepresented. All the trade deals that just turn out to be preliminary frameworks, the peace deals that never come to fruition, the investments that never get spent.
magicalkittycat
17d ago
Even if true
It is true. In fact here's an Israeli politician saying every baby.
Now sure he might be particularly insane, but the point of a representative is to represent which means he matches the population to at least some degree.
comparing a minority view to a majority view is silly
Those are literally government officials. If they can not be said to represent Israel at all then their democracy is broken.
Ben Gvir's whole existence wishing for the infinite deaths of Palestinian and Lebanese citizens, explicitly including young children. Or Smotrich or this ex head of intelligence.
Top Israeli officials current and former are openly genocidal. Like we could look at the death to Arabs chants and dismiss that as just a bunch of random shitheads without power. But when there's high up government officials, whose job is to literally represent the country saying hateful pro genocide pro killing citizens rhetoric, maybe the government is just bad.
magicalkittycat
17d ago
The mainstream doesn't really have any idea who these people are whatsoever.
The average normie has maybe heard of SBF before tangentially, but it's a vague memory and they didn't really pay attention to it, it was just another story of Rich Guy Did Some Financial Bad that they might have seen a headline over. And maybe they've heard of Siskind but it's also mostly on vague and hazy terms.
They don't know who Yud is, they don't know who Ziz is, they don't know who Aaronson is.
magicalkittycat
18d ago
"the only reason people could disagree with me is that they're dumb or lying" is a fantastic way to never have to reconsider any of your opinions or listen to the arguments others are making.
magicalkittycat
19d ago
Normally I'm all for private hosts having full control of who is and isn't allowed in them like this, but most venues to my knowledge are heavily government subsidized and paid for so it seems to me they should have to follow the first amendment. Free markets are typically quite good at protecting speech and providing different options, so it's not normally an issue! Just go to a different venue to perform.
Except like most buildings, the free market doesn't exist for venues. Zoning rules restrict the ability to build competition over censorship and outright subsidies mean even when you can you're starting at a massive financial disadvantage. Markets don't, and can't, function properly when the government is literally choosing winners and losers.
Privately controlled but government protected venues is essentially then a loophole to get around constitutional rights, and it should not be allowed.
magicalkittycat
20d ago
You’re conflating two different military events. There’s a big difference between defeating a country and occupying it.
In what way did we "completely defeat" the taliban when they currently rule the country with total impunity? Maybe we're just using substantially different definitions for what complete means, but mine just doesn't square away "'complete" with "still in power"
magicalkittycat
20d ago
Most people do not trust chatbots (correctly, since they notoriously make shit up whenever they don't know an answer), so attempting to use chatbots as an arbiter of truth makes people think you are taking the piss.
I refuse to use chatbots under any circumstances, due to memetic-hazard concerns. Not a matter of laziness.
So the defense of someone using a blatant and easily disprovable lie against me is that you disagree with the content of my opinion?
magicalkittycat
21d ago
You compared Iran to Afghanistan, but in Afghanistan we defeated their military completely.
So wait why do the bad guys control it now and not the good guys we put there if the bad guys had literally no military power left?
magicalkittycat
21d ago
We won militarily in Afghanistan completely
"Completely" doesn't seem to be true given who is currently in charge. No one intended on the forever war, it was just the quagmire they ended up with when it turns out the offramp wasn't easy. The second we pulled back they resurged.
Trump might not want the forever war, but if there's no other plan than "just keep bombing indefinitely" then it is one.
that's not really what theMotte is supposed to be for.
You're right, TheMotte is actually for angrily accusing people you don't like of trolling while encouraging and support literal provable trolling
This is a blatant troll who is openly and blatantly lying in a way you can personally test if you wish, read and follow my instructions and you can know that to be the case and his claim is provably and very simple to understand as false yet he has five upvotes and no mod action despite me reporting him.
Check it yourself. Take these prompts into a fresh AI bot
Prompt 1
"The sitting mayor of New York City openly claims that the NYPD have only committed police brutality because they were trained to by the IDF." Is this true?
Followup:
What do you think Zohran meant by the IDF laced the boot on your neck?
Did you get "you are trolling?" or some other variant of what the user claims happened? "I followed your instructions and every LLM said with 99% certainty you were trolling and acting in bad faith"
Did you following my instructions with those prompts get a response anywhere like that?
No, of course not. It is an obvious and blatant lie it's not a matter of opinion or disagreement or misunderstanding, it is basically the most objectively easy to test and determine lie imaginable!
Don't be lecturing me about what TheMotte is when the userbase is hilariously immature and hypocritical like this. They're actively supporting clear and blatant trolls when it's someone they like!
If you are too lazy to check it yourself and see how obvious of a lie their claim is, don't even bother to respond.
magicalkittycat
21d ago
Six months ago, everybody agreed that Iran could rebuild the facilities when the war was over and that the war would have to end because Iran could control the Straits. Turns out they can’t control the Straits. We could continue the war indefinitely, and they could not produce nukes. We could end the war and they could try again, in which case we bomb them again, and they can’t retaliate — again!
So the argument here is that Trump started another Forever War and as long as American resolve is such that we're willing to continue indefinitely, things are fine and it counts as a win?
By the same logic do you consider Afghanistan a win until Trump/Biden withdrew and chose to lose it?
Sure if you can open up a completely fresh chat and with a neutral question get it to say something that is actually widely known to be false (and not just splitting hairs like saying "well in some contexts maybe X isn't always the best") I'd accept it.
More options
Context Copy link