netstack
Texas is freedom land
No bio...
User ID: 647
Pretty strong, at least for political terror. Think about the selection effects in making it to the "planting a bomb" stage. The absolute dumbest or most impulsive are likely to get filtered out, one way or another.
I'm not saying they're making a reasonable calculation. Sometimes there's a big thumb on the scale saying "you'll totally go to heaven for this" or "there's no risk since you're smarter than all those people who got caught." But they are demonstrating a basic ability to think about actions and consequences.
The current vibes aren't nearly enough to tip that scale. I get that you feel like BLM protestors and Gaza enthusiasts are getting away with murder. I don't think your confidence is shared by the mainstream left, let alone any radicals. They're terrified that Trump is going to black-bag them in the middle of the night!
Culture war topics go in the weekly Culture War thread, please.
I'm guess I'm not convinced that those are actually better at creating psychos. The 60s and 70s were fertile ground for New Age religions, sex cults, exotic drugs, serial killers, and Godless communists.
This site is still not a link aggregator or a Xitter mirror.
How much do you think those vibes influence an honest-to-God terrorist?
They have about as much connection to the actual risk:benefit calculation as tea leaves do.
Why wouldn’t they still be symbolic and non lethal? What’s changed on that front?
We don’t even have a draft anymore. That alone must have reduced the average American’s comfort with violence.
I’d say there’s a categorical difference between protests, even ones that turn into riots, and bombings.
There have definitely been prison sentences in the Minneapolis and Seattle arsons. Same for protest-adjacent murders. Even statue vandals have gotten convicted. Were there particular cases you had in mind?
I’m not sure what you’re trying to convey here, but it’s looking awfully lazy.
That’s the UK importing EU policy, not the other way around, isn’t it?
Quite. That’s why it’s a bad example of EU failures. Guilt by non-association.
That’s why it’s foolish to present UK policy in a screed against the EU.
I agree that institutions may be judged by their works. I don’t believe the OP is talking about a coherent institution. The consumers of Russian gas are probably not steretypical Brussels bureaucrats; the safetyists in government are not upset about fining Twitter; the people who are upset are largely separate from the Musk haters.
effortposting on x
I’ll believe it when I see it. Wait, no. We have rules against nutpicking, so I can’t exactly ask you to dig up an example.
Xitter is possibly the worst medium for estimating public sentiment. Even wild support might be real and representative, or it might be astroturf. Something as relatively subtle as “trust the experts” is only going to be harder to measure. How would one know that the people bitching about Musk are the same ones who have suddenly discovered a libertarian streak?
they’ve effectively driven investment out
they’re still buying endless amounts of Russian oil
importing their safetyism
Who? I think you’ll find that the subjects in each of these sentences are actually different people with different incentives. For example, did you know that neither Scotland nor the UK are actually in the EU?
Ah, a modern classic.
It’s really not a good post.
More like a window into a bizarro-verse where economics don’t exist, “everyone knows” that the OP’s views are the only moral ones, but “we” won’t risk offending our ruling feminist cabal.
I appreciate your willingness to write a more sane version.
Ah, the famously feminist political bloc of “loser chumps.”
This is like seeing the sales figures for Modelo and acting shocked that “we” aren’t prepared to jettison Mexicans.
group activity
Is that…Trek?
advocacy organizations
Not exactly unusual—didn’t Scott write about ADA enforcement in these terms? The main limiting factor is the difficulty of bringing a case. Technology has to have reduced that cost, so a given org can target smaller companies.
I dislike this class of law for other reasons, but I think we’re seeing a difference in degree, not in kind.
That…doesn’t make a lot of sense.
Spiky benches are chosen for deterrence, and deterrence is at odds with reeducation. Conversely, if you imprisoned every homeless person, it would do approximately nothing to the demand for ugly art.
“Slow children at play”?
What’s the last statement you remember hearing from a VP? Not a prospective on the campaign trail—a seated VP.
I can’t even remember what Pence was saying when he broke with Trump.
Place your bets on which host country will have a worker exploitation scandal first!
Have you gotten to the part with a bunch of West Coast intellectuals sitting around in an earthquake-proofed house?
It assumes that they are, in fact, in position to arrest the decline.
My experience with teachers is that they may be powerless, but are rarely cowardly.
See, I don’t think most people have confused the metric and the reward. A college degree gives you some combination of skills and prestige. Gaming a disability policy decouples your degree from your skills, but it doesn’t stop you from claiming some of the prestige. Maybe even a lot of it, depending on your field. Connections, investment, political backing, all sorts of benefits.
If what you most value is skill, you suck it up and go to a non-elite school. You’ll get most of the skill and none of the prestige. If you crave the latter, though, gaming the system is a rational choice.
The emperor’s sycophants complimented his new clothes because they were afraid of his anger. In your model, why are the universities going along with it? Are they stupid?
I think the narcissism label is a way to sneer at people one thinks are delusional. If they’re actually making a rational decision, it’s not a useful framing.
- Prev
- Next

I almost mentioned the toaster thing, yeah.
See, I think you can have culture/technology/whatever that breeds more bizarre views without effectively cultivating homicidal ones. There is reason to believe that Internet activism is significantly less effective at mobilizing actual people. It certainly doesn't get them into bars and malls and third spaces. You could imagine cultural phenomena that are eye-wateringly, post-ironically strange without actually hurting and killing people.
Actually, we don't really have to imagine, do we? That's the Satanic Panic. It's thinkpieces about video games encouraging violence or licentiousness or misogyny. You can't suggest a damn thing without someone countersignaling it and getting backlash in turn.
We may or may not have some fundamental disagreements on trans politics, but that makes for a pretty illustrative example. Has the overwhelming aesthetic weirdness actually translated to violence? Does holding specific views on gender presentation actually make people more likely to bomb government buildings? Are trans men wildly overrepresented at riots?
(I legitimately don't know the answer to this. Testosterone is a hell of a drug.)
Speech is not inherently violent. Aesthetics are not inherently violent. The outrageous weirdness of modern culture has not yet given rise to 70s levels of violence. It's quite possible that they never will.
More options
Context Copy link