@naraburns's banner p

naraburns

nihil supernum

11 followers   follows 0 users  
joined 2022 September 04 19:20:03 UTC
Verified Email 

				
User ID: 100


				
				
				

			

		

	














	


		


			



	

		

			

			

				

					

						

							
						

						

							
							

								
naraburns


								

								

								
								
									
								
								
								
								

								
							
					
 
				


				
nihil supernum

				
				
				

				

					11 followers  

					follows 0 users  

					joined 2022 September 04 19:20:03 UTC
				


				
					

					
No bio...

				

				

				

				

				

					

					

					
					
					

					
User ID: 100


					
					
					
				

			


					

						
							
								Verified Email
							
						
					



		

	

 











			
			

			
			

			




	


		

			
‎

			

				
				

					Hour
					Day
					Week
					
					Year
					All
				

			


			
‎

			

	
	

	 Hot Bump Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
	



		

	






	

		
		

		
		
	

	

  







		

			
			
				Under a more libertarian world most kids will have richer smarter dad and poverty will be gone mostly by themselves
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
Hello, welcome to the Motte!


These three short posts you've made at the top level are all a bit out of phase with community norms.  They contain just enough "culture war" material that they should probably be posted as posts in the weekly CW thread.  But also, maybe rate limit your posting--give people a chance to respond to one post before dropping another?  These aren't exactly hard and fast rules, but basically, this site is not an LLM that you can just spam with shower thoughts.  The goal is engagement with others, and that should be reflected in your posting behavior.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of March 16, 2026
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
Yeah, sadly I think this has become the new equilibrium in many contexts, including a lot of U.S. politics.  Losers seek coexistence.  Winners exterminate the opposition.  The fact that this seems to inevitably descend into a cycle of conflict which both sides would be better off having never entered in the first place is simply shrugged off as a problem for some later generation.  It's maddening.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of March 16, 2026
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
Okay, but it's not clear to me what I am supposed to conclude from all that.


I am trying to speak as descriptively as possible, here.  If you think Israel should not exist (is that what you think?) then like--I don't have much to say about that.  I'm not interested in (or, probably even very capable of) defending any particular Israeli action on the international stage.  The country exists.  Like all countries, I'm confident that they get up to some shady stuff.  I don't know all the answers to your (rhetorical?) questions, but I don't think that any of them have any substantive bearing on my point.




If there were a group of oppressed Jews somewhere in the world, then Jewish communities worldwide would be pressuring their governments to intervene.




We do see some of that, though interestingly some American Jews seem to also be of the view that Israeli Jews should, ultimately, be subjected to mass migration or genocide (though they would not phrase it that way, it would be the result of their advocacy succeeding).  Politics makes strange bedfellows! But one perhaps important difference between Middle Eastern Muslims and Middle Eastern Jews is that there are many Muslim countries, both in the Middle East and outside of it, and there is only one Jewish country.  Strangely, very few Muslim countries are therefore willing to open their borders to Palestinians.  Indeed, in many Muslim circles, Palestinians are scarcely better than Jews!  Outside of Israel/Palestine, the Middle Eastern Muslim attitude toward Palestinians seems to be that they are useful idiots and foot soldiers, but you wouldn't want your daughter to bring one home for dinner.


If you're right that (A) Israel's nukes are what is substantially destabilizing the region and (B) Israel is safe because it has nukes then you are suggesting, deductively, that the stability of the region depends on Israel no longer being safe.  I think that what I am doing here is agreeing with you, while pointing out that "therefore Israel should stop being safe" is neither a humane nor a plausible solution to the problem as you've described it.  Indeed, it seems like your real argument boils down to something like "Israel's existence is what destabilizes the Middle East, so probably the rest of the world would be better off if Israel didn't exist."


I have my doubts about this--I think that the Middle East would be filled with different conflicts, absent Israel--but even if I'm wrong about that, I find myself quite unable to endorse "allow the expulsion and/or extermination of Middle Eastern Jews and Christians from Israel/Palestine" as a humane approach to the problem.  YMMV!  But that seems like one hell of a Danegeld.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of March 16, 2026
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


I do not think there is any country safer in the Middle East than Israel. They are nuclear-armed...




Sure, that clearly matters.




No single group is safer. I just do not see a reality in which Israel is threatened.




Perhaps not!  And yet your own recommendation seems to have been in part--




we need to get rid of Israel’s nukes




By your own logic, Israel should give up (at least some portion of) their safety.  And my response was, and is--that is not plausible, but even if it was, it seems very likely to end badly for them.






a significant percentage of Muslims will not be satisfied with anything less than the total annihilation of Israel








I’m not so sure.




I mean, sure, #notallMuslims, but as a rule a majority of Palestinians report that their preference is for Israel to cease to exist.  (I believe that the reverse is now true as well, though my memory is that it did not used to be--most Israelis today apparently report a preference that e.g. all Palestinians be expelled from Gaza.  I'm less sure about the West Bank.)  Likewise, Egyptians do not seem to favor the existence of Israel.  Other Muslims in the region seem to broadly follow this pattern.  People want peace in theory, and favor de-escalation in principle, but are nevertheless comfortable with the proposition that Israel should not exist, that they should not do business with Israel, nor accept aid from Israel, nor come to Israel's aid in case of a natural disaster, etc.


Muslims are a diverse group, with a lot of factions and infighting, so there are always counterexamples, of course.  Whether they should be required to coexist with Jews is an interesting question!  But as things stand, I do not think there is very much likelihood of Muslims willingly coexisting with Jews anywhere Muslims wield significant political influence. I don't think it requires a person to be "pro-Israel" to observe the reality of public opinion among the Middle Eastern Muslim demographic clearly favoring the destruction of Israel.  Realistically, I suspect that without the United States' continued involvement, we would eventually be looking at the genocide of Middle Eastern Jews as an inevitable historical outcome.  Perhaps it is inevitable anyway.  But certainly there is no Israeli capitulation beyond mass migration that I see the Muslim world accepting on a permanent basis, and I'm sure Israel knows that; certainly, they are beginning to behave as if they know it.


(But only beginning.  If Israel still exists in 200 years, it may only be because they have, and perhaps will have used, nuclear weapons.)


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of March 16, 2026
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


get them out of their occupied land




Which land is that, exactly?  "From the river to the sea?"


I would not characterize myself as "pro-Israel" but it's weird to me that you (and many, many others) present anti-Israel as the neutral position.  The fact is, a significant percentage of Muslims will not be satisfied with anything less than the total annihilation of Israel.  If the Muslims and Arab colonists terrorizing the non-Muslims in the region stop fighting, there will be no more fighting.  If Israel stops fighting, there will be no more Israel.


Of course, "no more Israel" is plausibly a more stable equilibrium than "some Israel remaining!"  But I don't think one needs to be "pro Israel" to suspect that "just somehow convince all the Jews and Christians to vacate the region, or agree to be subjugated under under Islamic rule" is neither a humane nor a plausible position.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				The logic of fact and opinion
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
Welcome to the Motte.  There's enough Culture War content in this post that it probably belongs in the CW thread.  Post removed.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				common sense: not to be rejected, but to be mastered and overcome
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
While promoting your Substack is not strictly against the rules, when a freshly made account with no community engagement begins with self promotion, it's difficult to distinguish from simple linkspam.  Post removed.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of March 2, 2026
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
There are almost a thousand billionaires in the United States.  About one third of them inherited their wealth; in the U.S., 70% of billionaires are billionaires because they started a company and were successful at it.  Most of their wealth is tied up in their ownership stakes; if you were to confiscate the wealth of every single billionaire in the country, it would not fund the United States federal government for more than a single year.  Asking them for money "when it's  time to contribute to the public good" is pure grandstanding.  They simply haven't got that much real, actual money.  Their valuation is as real as international borders, that is: it takes its reality from the collective faith and expectations of humanity.


I know a handful of billionaires and many, many multimillionaires.  I have also met government officials whose control over the economy and other things makes them effectively billionaires and millionaires, for all practical purposes, even when their personal assets are not that great. Wealth and power are functionally interchangeable.  People in all such positions often develop strange outlooks on the world!  They are frequently out of touch with the "normies."


To my eyes, then, your post reads approximately like this: "there are some powerful people doing things that upset me, and I think it's because they are too powerful and it has driven them insane.  Can we pick some different people, empower them, and take this current batch down a peg?"


But of course, you've already seen what happens when people get power.  Giving different people the power will not fix the problem.  It will simply cycle the cast.  China is full of "billionaires," not just the ~500 monetary billionaires but all the government officials with contextually absolute power.  They're not any better (or worse), over there.  They're just different people.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of March 2, 2026
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


It’s simply that the Jews control the U.S. government, likely through Epstein-related blackmail operations.




Proactively provide evidence in proportion to your claims.


But also, most of your posts are extremely low-effort one liners, and it has been less than a year since you were threatened with a permanent ban.  I would stop a bit short of calling you a true single-issue poster, but when you put in any effort at all it seems to be limited to making sweeping claims about "Jews" or occasionally other ethnic whipping-boys.  At minimum, sweeping posts about "Jews" nearly always violate the rule about posting on specific rather than general groups.


You're banned for three months.  And that's probably on the lenient side, which is something you should keep in mind should you wish to return to posting at that time.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Small-Scale Question Sunday for March 1, 2026
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
Are your parents aware that this is a taxable event, and that they are essentially throwing a large chunk of that money at the government by not structuring it properly?


If they are aware and you are simply eliding structural details, then... carry on! But I can imagine they are not aware simply because the previous gift took place internationally and so may have been overlooked by taxing authorities.  Of course, the IRS doesn't always notice these things, but often they do.


You might thus "discourage" the gift by requesting that they structure it for tax avoidance, e.g. by creating an appropriately drafted trust (use a reputable lawyer, this should cost somewhere between several hundred and a few thousand dollars depending on the details, much less than the anticipated tax bill). Of course, you then must rethink the timing of your benefits.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Quality Contributions Report for February 2026
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
I think trans issues have largely, albeit by no means completely, supplanted homosexuality issues in the culture war meta as compared with, say, 20 years ago.  And this is one of the few online spaces that enforces neither a trans-advocacy orthodoxy nor a trans-critical orthodoxy, so it's a pretty perennially popular topic here.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Quality Contributions Report for February 2026
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
Thanks.  It does feel a little like that, sometimes.  But I do not nominate AAQCs, I only winnow them down from among those nominated by the userbase. So it's more like a whole bunch of people giving each other awards while I wander about snatching most of them back...


Upvotes, by contrast, are immune from my penurious pilfering.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of February 16, 2026
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
I have a great many objections to the way that you've framed this presentation, but this in particular really stood out to me:




I bring this up last because it really goes to the heart of conservatism and the first principle. The idea underlying all of these objections is one of deserving. Certain poor people don't deserve access to government food assistance.




Why do you take "government food assistance" for granted, here?  Any conservative worthy of the name is going to hold that no poor people "deserve" government food assistance. For one thing, "government food assistance" is just a fancy way of saying "confiscating some people's property for the benefit of other people."  Indolent people do not deserve food, even if it is morally praiseworthy to provide them with some.


Some people warrant charity, particularly when they have contributed, do contribute, or can reasonably be expected to contribute to society.  But to insist upon the charity of others is quite morally objectionable; the only appropriate response is gratitude.  The entitlement that many indolent people clearly feel toward my labor is absolutely appalling, quite regardless of whether they are afforded a life of luxury or relative privation.  The strangeness that you are tracking in your post is not a problem with conservatism, it is a problem with conservatives trying to meet you halfway.  They recognize that for various systemic reasons it would probably be a bad idea to just abolish food assistance entirely, so they fuss over details (like donuts) in vague and dissatisfying compromise.  Then, having been given an inch, you reach for the mile.


The economics of food and government subsidies is--I'm sure you well know--complex.  Farm subsidies here, food subsidies there, "cui bono" becomes an impossible labyrinth of special interests, not all of them neatly aligned to the red/blue grid.  But another principle of conservatism is that you can't just decide to burn the system to the ground and start over.  You must live in the real world, not the world of splendid ideas.  So you try to at least put reasonable limits on the ways in which the government steals from the productive to benefit (or at least mollify) the unproductive.




No conservative criticizes food stamps on the one hand and speaks of an obligation to help the poor on the other.




I infer from this that you have surprisingly little life experience with conservatives.  I haven't seen the inside of a church in a goodly while, but as a child I was treated to many sermons on both the evils of government assistance, and the obligation to help the poor.  I understand that Trumpism has introduced a lot of confusion into political discourse on the right (as well as the left), but here you just seem to be indulging a maximally uncharitable stereotype of your outgroup.