phosphorus2
No bio...
User ID: 3264
phosphorus2
29d ago
I bring this up particularly because psychoactive drugs are just one example of dangerous good. People have weirdly specific intuition about those drugs that often doesn't really track how they feel about the larger class.
The "weirdly specific intuition" people have on drugs is not merely because they are dangerous, its because they are also addictive. Dangerous + addictive is bad in a way exponentially worse than dangerous or addictive alone. Hence the intuition.
Chainsaws with no safeties are not killing 100k+ americans a year.
phosphorus2
1mo ago
Evolutionarily speaking, a woman's worth is largely dependent on immutable physical characteristics (modulo things like plastic surgery), so these sorts of stories tend to psychologically resonate with women.
"worth is largely dependant on immutable physical characteristics" is true evolutionarily speaking about all forms of life
phosphorus2
1mo ago
Terry Tao gives all of the great reasons why we like science. And hes right on those reasons. But he does not give the reason why his funding was cut. Which is odd, he is a smart guy, but reading his letter you get the impression that Trump / the NSF just came in and randomly cut his funding. He actually say this himself:
This is not because of a negative scientific assessment of the work, but instead by seemingly arbitrary justifications.
[Side note: very lame Terry. Your entire funding just got gutted, and you can't even nut up enough to say it was "arbitrary", just "seemingly arbitrary". Weak.]
Anyways, it just seemed odd that UCLA got its funding cut for no reason, the admin has been sending letters to colleges outlining its reasons. So I looked, and this is what I found. I took it from the link to the lawsuit below, where the Trump NSF letter to UCLA is reprinted.
The U.S. National Science Foundation (NSF) has undertaken a review of its award portfolio. The agency has determined that suspension of certain awards is necessary because they are not in alignment with current NSF priorities and/or programmatic goals. NSF understands that [UCLA] continues to engage in race discrimination including in its admissions process, and in other areas of student life, as well as failing to promote a research environment free of antisemitism and bias. We have considered reliance interests and they are outweighed by the NSF’s policy concerns.
Effective immediately, the attached awards are suspended until further notice.
NSF is issuing this suspension to protect the interests of the government pursuant to NSF Grant General Conditions (GC-1) term and condition entitled ‘Termination and Enforcement,’ on the basis that the awards no longer effectuate program goals or agency priorities. This is the final agency decision and not subject to appeal.
Costs incurred as a result of this suspension may be reimbursed, provided such costs would otherwise be allowable under the terms of the award and the governing cost principles. In accordance with your award terms and conditions, you have 30 days from the suspension date to furnish an itemized accounting of allowable costs incurred prior to the suspension date.
The lawsuit gives details on claims/allegations from a second NSF / Trump letter:
• UCLA engages in racism, in the form of illegal race-based preferences in admissions practices;
• UCLA fails to promote a research environment free of antisemitism and bias;
• UCLA discriminates against and endangers women by allowing men in women’s sports and private women-only spaces
What does Terrance Tao say about these allegations? Nothing. Totally ignores them. Doesn't acknowledge them.
I am sympathetic to the argument he makes. But he is willfully blind to the larger systemic issues in his employer and university system at large. UCLA has been told over and over again to stop doing affirmative action. Its the law. And in response UCLA just sticks its fingers in its ears and mumbles something about holistic admissions and does it anyways. Which, to be fair, got them by with doing what the wanted to do for the last few decades.
But not anymore. Sorry Terry.
https://calmatters.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/08/9e9d118f-51fb-4e98-a9c0-fa060ea131ad.pdf
phosphorus2
1mo ago
Hmmm, ok. So he was the only one released from jail while the other 7 caught in the same operation remained imprisoned and have already had court hearings, and his passport was not revoked, he was allowed to fly to Israel the next day... yet the U.S. government did not intervene. Well someone intervened, who did? Who made the decision and why?
The other 7 were denied bail?
According to Shaun King's sources:
lol
phosphorus2
2mo ago
"despite all their craziness, I would rather the woke have power than people with TheMotte-like views".
I think the prevailing views and values here are anti-individualistic and anti-meritocratic. To make more precise how I'm using these terms
Ok so the motte has anti-individualistic and anti-meritocratic views, to the extent you would prefer the woke to have power. But the woke are notoriously and unambiguously anti-individualistic and anti-meritocratic. One would think that if those were your reasons you would prefer the motte, no?
A few weeks ago, J.D. Vance made a statement that citizenship in the US should be based on ancestry instead of individual choices and beliefs:
J.D. Vance does not actually say that. If your quoted paragraph was the entirety of his words on the matter then I think that your reading would be a fair one. However in literally the next paragraph, w/ emphasis mine:
So I believe one of the most pressing problems for us to face as statesmen is to redefine the meaning of American citizenship in the 21st century. I think we’ve got to do a better job at articulating exactly what that means. And I won’t pretend that I have a comprehensive answer for you, because I don’t. But there are a few things I’d suggest off the top of my head. And given that you guys are all brilliant intellectuals, I see Michael Anton back there. He’s the most brilliant. Given that you guys are all brilliant intellectuals, I think this is one of the main things that we need to run with over the next few years in our country. What does it mean to be an American in 2025?
Vance goes on to list what he thinks citizenship means. They are: Sovereignty, Building, Obligations to Fellow Americans / Gratitude. Noticeably absent is ancestry.
When Vance explicitly addresses what he thinks citizenship means and you ignore it in favor of an implicit reading it comes across as dishonest.
phosphorus2
3mo ago
You are misconstruing
Given that he has called himself a socialist and he addressed a significant group dedicated to socialism where he quoted approvingly from the Communist Manifesto, seems like they got it right.
as
one time said something in a speech
If Mamdani did actually did actually give a speech at an event for socialism, in which he described himself as a socialist, while approvingly quoting foundational socialist texts - that is very obviously not "one time said something in a speech".
phosphorus2
3mo ago
Here is the Imperial War Museum's purpose, in its own words:
IWM was founded in 1917 to document the First World War in real time, and to preserve for future generations a record of everyone’s service and sacrifice, military and civilian, across the UK and the British Empire. IWM’s remit was later extended to cover the Second World War and conflicts involving British and Commonwealth service personnel, up to the present day.
The next, and final day, had been organized at my behest. At some point, I'd evinced interest in visiting the Royal Armories Museum (to meet the ever-entertaining Johnathan Ferguson), but was enthusiastically informed by my cousin that we had the Imperial War Museum in town. With a name like that, how could I not go?
It was a bit of a drive, and the exterior was uninspiring. Very 1990s, all angular slopes and little decoration to break them up.
The insides were rather interesting. I was a bit confused by the currently running exhibition, organized by a Punjabi lady and celebrating her experience of growing up in the UK as an immigrant. A lot of East meets West, leaning towards the East. Not particularly exciting to me, I'd grown up there.
Of course there is an exhibit exploring the family, marriage, religion, and the role of women within Punjabi culture in an English war museum. Its like they picked an exhibit as conceptually distant as possible from what they tell the public their purpose is. Its so quintessentially English, of their all encompassing self debasement. Just a little snapshot, a microcosm, of the degradation of their own culture and people perpetuated by their own elites.
phosphorus2
3mo ago
America loves doomed interventions and military misadventures, but it loves them because it has such an overwhelming military and wealth advantage over everyone else it can afford to be reckless and half-ass imperialism
Not true, not convincing
I reject that population size is an important factor when deciding to halt nuclear proliferation. It is the military and the President who will handle the logistics of destruction and/or conquest.
If stopping proliferation were all Ted wanted to do in Iran maybe youd have a point. But its not. So you dont.
What? No, of course it means those things. Why do you think Ted Cruz or people who support bombing Iran care about another civil war in the Middle East? So long as they're not nuclear, they're welcome to go full Mad Max.
Becauase if there is a civil war, then all of the progressives in America are going to do whatever they can to import a billion refugees.
phosphorus2
3mo ago
The wrong goals were pursued in all of these cases.
Yeah its why I said that American superiority doesn't matter. Seems that you should be not confident in American superiority. And yet you are. Ok.
I asked this to another, I ask it to you: at what point do you think the US military asks Ted Cruz to handle logistics? This is not a Senator's role. The country's population numbers are not an important concern for him. They are trivia.
No, it is not a senator's role to do logistics. Yes, it is a senators role to make informed choices on the people he wants to declare war on. Ted Cruz not knowing basic information about the country he wants to attack is an excellent indication that he is not making informed choices.
Knowing a country's population and demographics is not trivia when you want to overthrow its government. Tucker asked those questions for a reason. Iran's government is not popular. Iran has ethnic separatist movements, there are close to 15 million Azeris. How many want to join Azerbaijan, does Ted know? 10 million Kurds, how many want a Kurdistan, does Ted know? If Syria, with a quarter of the population of Iran, caused a refugee crisis, why does Ted think that won't happen in Iran? Ted Cruz thinks everyone in Iran is Shia Persian, Ted doesn't even know there are tens of millions of ethnic minorities who have a history of separatism. The fact that Ted Cruz could not answer those questions, that he didn't know there were large minority populations, is a damning indication that he did not consider that regime change very likely means civil war and refugee crisis.
phosphorus2
3mo ago
This all may be true, to an extent (it's obviously not as simple as adding people means more state capacity).
No. It is true. There is no "may". These things I mention being complicated and multifaceted doesn't mean there is a chance or a scenario in which population is not critical in their determination.
But again: so? I'm confident America is superior regardless.
America was superior to Iraq (2003), and Syria, and Afghanistan, and Libya. Did our intervention in these countries go well for America? No, they did not.
It does not matter if America is superior to Iran. It matters if America can achieve what Ted Cruz wants to do, in the way Ted wants to do it, at an acceptable cost. If Ted Cruz does not know basic facts about the capacity of Iran to impose costs, how will Ted be able to know what costs Iran can impose?
phosphorus2
3mo ago
They're a far group whose only relevance is how much they might endanger our investments in the Middle East with their constant terrorism funding and sabber-rattling. There could be ten million, twenty, one hundred, it'd change no calculus.
Iran's population is Iran. Iran, like the US, will act on its own interests. 10 million person Iran has a much different capacity to act than 100 million person Iran does. The extent that Iran can fund terror or saber rattle or endanger US investments is proportional to their population.
Things like industrial capacity, military budget, GDP, are all largely contingent on population.
phosphorus2
3mo ago
In the context of the original comment, I am going to point out that a baby is not a potential person. A baby is a person. A gorilla will never be a person, and it will never be a potential person. But otherwise nice thanks, a pretty good way to take it into account.
phosphorus2
3mo ago
Its a beautiful book, isn't it?
https://www.themotte.org/post/1208/culture-war-roundup-for-the-week/259175?context=8#context
phosphorus2
3mo ago
The US is based on this idea yes. But the idea "rights are bestowed by our Creator" is not correct on its own terms. If those rights were bestowed by our Creator, then they would have had those rights. But they didn't. So they fought a war to get those rights. Saying "we actually have these rights, King George is just going against God" or whatever is unfalsifiable. Those rights didn't exist in a material, verifiable, empirical sense in 1770. And if the war was not fought, then those rights would not exist in a material, verifiable, empirical sense.
Hence the position that "right" is a human construct. It exists not as intrinsic, regardless of the claim, but because humans make it exist.
phosphorus2
3mo ago
Also, R's are looking to have a durable advantage on court appointments due to Dem weakness in the Senate. The idea that R's auto-lose every court case is just not correct.
You would think so, but it seems that Rs are not as "good" at picking judges as Ds. Taking SCOTUS, from the lens of pure partisan power politics, the Ds have appointed 3 judges, the Rs 6. The Ds judges vote together, at higher rates. The Rs judges are split. 3 vote together, at high but less high rates as the Ds vote. Then there are 3 more moderate, more swing votes from the Rs. So the Ds are great at picking judges that advance the cause, the Rs have a mixed bag.
https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2024/06/02/supreme-court-justice-math-00152188
I can't find the graph, but lower court judge appointments follow this as well. Ds overwhelmingly go for liberal judges, Rs were pretty evenly split. A lot likely due to Rs having lower capacity to draw from though is my guess.
phosphorus2
3mo ago
Singerians who think that babies do not have more of an intrinsic right to life than other mammals of similar cognitive capabilities.
seems like a very short term view to have. maybe you can argue that a baby is currently as cognitively capable as a gorilla, but within a year or two there is no comparison, a toddler that babbles dwarfs the gorilla in this realm. do you / singer not take this into account?
does peter singer even believe in intrinsic rights? utilitarianism is not really a rights based philosophy. if singer can be summed up as "actions should be judged by their consequences in terms of maximizing the satisfaction of interests and minimizing suffering", its not immideatly clear why or how rights are needed except for expediency.
even the idea of an "intrinsic right" is somewhat of an oxymoron. a "right" is a human construct. how can a human construct be intrinsic?
phosphorus2
4mo ago
Republicans have a strong incentive to drop a big bailout to keep the urban machines from going whole-hog with the democrats again
GOP has no incentive to bail these guys out, and every incentive to let them go bankrupt. The gop will never pull these cities and they know it. Slight chance they could have pre trump, 0% post trump. If (when) they go bankrupt, they have a huge chip to bargain with and will force concessions.
phosphorus2
4mo ago
There's really no way out of this hole that has been created.
Basically everything I have read about transgenderism is ridiculous. Neovaginas, dilators, the fetishes, the entire ideology, like there is no way its true. There is no way it makes these people happy, these people are not going to be happy. They are destroying themselves. The kids parents are destroying them. Why stop them? Why argue to save them? Just let them destroy themselves. Let them destroy their children. These people are my out group, they believe almost every other thing I hate about my society, and they are destroying themselves. Why stop them?
phosphorus2
4mo ago
It shows a reckless disregard for the lives of civilians, for one.
Does it really though? These were pagers that were getting encrypted messages from Hezbollah. They set up a front company to rig them. What exactly is a "civilian" doing with an encrypted Hezbollah pager?
These weren't grenade sized explosions, most people lost hands and eyes not their lives. It wasn't something that would take out an entire room full of people.
phosphorus2
5mo ago
Guys, the subway is not very dangerous during work hours, and the problems with it (congestion, speed) can all be fixed with investment.
People need to get places outside of working hours.
I don't even disagree with what you are saying overall. But "you shouldn't be worried about public transit safety, the subway is not very dangerous from 9 AM to 5 PM" is not a very compelling rebuttal to someone who is concerned.
phosphorus2
5mo ago
OK. I don't take that perspective because lording itself disgusts me, regardless of who does it, and people who lord it over anything/anyone disgust me. I'm not aware that I said anything which could be construed as telling you not to assume that perspective. Why are you attracted to that perspecive?
I like the "overlord perspective" to the extent it is a perspective on ownership as defined. I like having exclusive access to things. I see lots of benefits to ownership. I see lots of problems with sharing. If I own a thing I do not see myself as "lording" my ownership over that thing in the traditional sense of the word "lord" / "overlord" / "lording".
Well, no. Read it that way if you prefer. I'm talking about talking about sharing in the context of actually sharing. Talking about it is part of doing it. Apparently, you've found sharing to be complicated? I haven't. "Why is it not complicated?" strikes me as an odd question. My son at 2-y-o would ask me, "What's that, daddy?" all the time. I'd tell him, and then he'd stump me. I distinctly remember once, driving, he pointed to a dog and asked, "What's that, daddy?"
Ok, I am reading it that way because those are your words and that is what they mean as written. If you want me to read it in the way you are thinking of it then you need to use words that mean what you think. These are your words I am responding to:
"If you're just one of the guys talking how you're going to divvy it up, naw -- not complicated at all."
Like you only mention talking about sharing, so that is what I responded to. Talking about it is a part of doing it yes, but what about the other parts? Why are those not complicated? You don't address why the reasons the other poster gave for why the act of sharing is complicated, you just say talking about sharing is easy.
And you don't actually address why sharing is not complicated, you just say that you haven't found it complicated. Exactly why is sharing not complicated? Others have mentioned it requires continuous coordination, continuous conflict management, continuous interest balancing. But your response is just "If you're just one of the guys talking how you're going to divvy it up, naw -- not complicated at all." Your response give substance to your dismissal of the counterpoints, its just a dismissal with a justification that sharing is easy.
Why is it not complicated?" strikes me as an odd question.
Devoid of context it might seem odd, but you have context. I can rephrase the question:
Given that sharing requires continuous coordination, continuous conflict management, and continuous interest balancing - why is it not complicated? Ownership does not need these things.
Good to know. How would I share with you or someone like you? As best I could without letting your egocentrism negatively affect the people I love and care about. Negatively impact me or mine to any serious degree, and I'll just shut you down.
If you don't know how you would share with someone like me, then, to me, it would seem that your ideas on sharing are more complicated than what you write them to be. In your mind, if there is no legal right to deprive others with ownership, how do you not share with someone like me? How would you shut me down?
phosphorus2
5mo ago
It's "more complicated" if you unconsciously assume the perspective of an overlord responsible to make sure it works.
If I have the legal right to deprive access to a thing, then I am that things overlord. I have great power and authority over that thing. By your own definition we are overlords over our property, why would we not assume that perspective?
If you're just one of the guys talking how you're going to divvy it up, naw -- not complicated at all.
You are conflating talking about sharing with sharing. No explaination as to why sharing is not complicated. Why is it not complicated?
Plus, you're all in it together seeking the best outcome for everyone involved, so the entire proposition is radically different
Im not in it with you, so how could we be in it together? Im not seeking the best outcome for everyone - I want the best outcome for me and people I know and like. If I am forced to share with you I will take advantage of you as much as I can. What is your plan for sharing with people like me?
phosphorus2
5mo ago
About 2 weeks ago ICE arrested 2 people at the same mikwaukee courthouse and it caused a lot of pushback. They were probably expecting trouble. Also some were plainclothes, they went unnoticed when judge dugan told the rest they needed to talk to the cheif judge. Them going unnoticed and hanging back by the courtroom is how they caught the guy going out the side door.
phosphorus2
5mo ago
Ok in the context of what you are saying US News doesn't matter. I think Harvard and Yale etc. care for bragging rights. But big picture doesn't matter.
None of the rankings or loans or grants really matter, as long as businesses keep hiring from Harvard, bar associations keep admitting Harvard Law grads, Medical Boards keep licensing Harvard Med grads, other schools keep admitting Harvard undergrads to grad school or hiring Harvard PhDs for professorships, etc.
If Harvard Law loses accreditation then Harvard Law grads will absolutely not be hired. In most states, by law, you can't sit even sit for the bar if you don't graduate from an accredited law school. Likewise with Harvard Medical - graduation from an accredited medical school is a requirement for a license in most states. So if accreditation is lost, these schools are done.
https://www.princetonreview.com/law-school-advice/law-school-accreditation https://lcme.org/about/
The agencies that accredit HLS and HMS are given approval from the Department of Education. The DoEd has a lot of power over these institutions, but not direct power to just go in and delist Harvard. But it can apply a lot of pressure. Enough to kick out Harvard? No idea. My guess is not unless forced. The ABA seems very liberal, they're already fighting Trump tooth and nail.
The year is 2010. The Los Angeles Department of Water & Power (LADWP) publishes its initial environmental study on a large power infrastructure maintenance project. A portion of the project involves replacing about 200 wooden power poles that run through Pacific Palisades. The California State Lands Commission reviewed the initial study and requested that LADWP provide a Native American Ground Monitor during any digging to ensure that cultural resources are not inadvertently damaged or destroyed. By the final EIR in 2016 LADWP decided that replacing the all of those +70 year old power poles was no longer necessary.
The year is 2018. The Camp Fire ignites in northern California. It's cause was the failure of a 100 year old power line. By early 2019 LADWP decides to replace those 70 year old powerlines running through Pacific Palisades, they're in a now deemed high fire threat area. The California Public Utilities Commission has recommended they be replaced as soon as possible. Work is to start in 2019.
July 7th, 2019. LADWP has started work to replace the powerlines, as well as leveling and grading new fire roads. Amateur botanist and avid hiker David Pluenneke is hiking in the area. David is a member of the California Native Plant Society. He sees that LADWP has trampled the endangered Braunton’s milkvetch. In all, 183 milkvetches were murdered. He is livid:
Our hero David reports LADWP to the California Coastal Commission. The CCC is not happy, with unpermitted work done within their fiefdom. In order to get a CCC approved permit to replace the wooden poles LADWP must:
I wasn't able to find if / when this particular project was completed by LADWP. But overall there are 300,000+ power poles in LA. As of 2019, 65% of them were older than the average lifespan of 50 years old. In 2024, LADWP replaced just 2743 poles. Their average cost to replace a pole in the same year was $69,300. At their 2024 rates it will take LADWP over 70 years and $14 billion to replace all past lifespan poles.
To relook at the culture war angle - why was their a fire in Pacific Palisades? Maybe Jonathan Rinderknecht will be found guilty, maybe he won't be. But Jonathan didn't create a massive tinderbox in the LA hills for ideological reasons. Jonathan didn't let firehoses go without water while they sat a mile away from an empty 100 million gallon revisor. Jonathan didn't empower a council of retards at the California Coastal Commission to nuke every project from orbit at the behest of any and every nature activist. LA burned with or without Jonathan, the parallel Eaton fire was just as destructive and (as to current knowledge) not caused by him.
There will always be Jonathan Rinderknechts. We won't fix them by grasping for the very abstract universal meaning, or high-minded civic metaphysics, or better pathways, or whatever. If we need to have a confrontation with modern liberalism, it shouldn't be because it "prizes the autonomy of the individual above the stability of society". It should be because it fucking sucks. It empowers tiny little bean counter despots to make sure your critical infrastructure construction isn't too loud for the little fishes. It sets environmentalists as legally proscribed tattletales against those that produce and build. It fails to build and maintain basic infrastructure, and housing, and anything that isn't a patronage network. We should ask "Why there was a massive tinderbox outside our second largest city", instead of "what can we do to make sure every young man feels special."
More options
Context Copy link