@pusher_robot's banner p

pusher_robot

PLEASE GO STAND BY THE STAIRS

0 followers   follows 0 users  
joined 2022 September 04 23:45:12 UTC 

				
User ID: 278


				
				
				

			

		

	














	


		


			



	

		

			

			

				

					

						

							
						

						

							
							

								
pusher_robot


								

								

								
								
								

								
							
					
 
				


				
PLEASE GO STAND BY THE STAIRS

				
				
				

				

					0 followers  

					follows 0 users  

					joined 2022 September 04 23:45:12 UTC
				


				
					

					
No bio...

				

				

				

				

				

					

					

					
					
					

					
User ID: 278


					
					
					
				

			


					

						
					



		

	

 











			
			

			
			

			




	


		

			
‎

			

				
				

					Hour
					Day
					Week
					Month
					
					All
				

			


			
‎

			

	
	

	 Hot Bump Bottom New Old Controversial Comments
	



		

	






	

		
		

		
		
	

	

  







		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of December 4, 2023
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
I've found the recent imbroglio with Congress v. the University Presidents pretty interesting due to the somewhat conflicting reactions I've had and just wanted to post some thoughts.


For those not aware, the Presidents of Penn, MIT, and Harvard recently appeared before at a Congressional committee on the subject of antisemitism on campus.  Somewhat unexpectedly, the video of the hearing went somewhat viral, especially the questioning of Rep. Elise Stefanik, who repeatedly asked point-blank if calling for the genocide of Jews would be a violation of the campus code of conduct, to which all the Presidents gave evasive answers.  The entire hearing is actually worth watching, at least on 2x speed.


Some of my thoughts:


    

  1. 

    Rep. Stefanik has a trial lawyer's skill for cross-examination. Her questioning was simultaneously obviously loaded and somewhat unfair but also dramatic and effective at making the respondent look bad.  However, I wish she would have focused more on the obvious hypocrisy of claiming to only punish speech that effectively is unprotected by the First Amendment, pointing out some of the more obvious cases where they elevated things like misgendering or dog-whistling white supremacy to "abuse" and "harassment" while refusing to do the same for genocide advocacy.  In fairness however, other representatives did ask questions along those lines, though not nearly as effectively.
    

    2. 

  2. 

    The University presidents were either woefully unskilled or badly coached on how to handle hostile questions like this.  They gave repetitive, legalistic non-answers and declined to offer any real explanation of their underlying position or how to reconcile it with other actions taken for apparently viewpoint-related reasons.  Stefanik was obviously getting under their skin, and their default response to grin back while answering like Stefanik was a misbehaving child was absolutely the wrong tactic.  The Penn President came across so poorly that she felt she had to post a bizarre follow-up video to almost-apologize for not appearing to take it seriously while at the same time implying without really saying that calling for genocide might be harassment.
    

    3. 

  3. 

    Their performance was especially frustrating because they were taking a position that I basically support: that the University will not police opinions, even terribly offensive ones, but will police conduct and harassment.  It's not that difficult a position to explain or defend on basic Millian principles, but they couldn't or wouldn't do it.  Granted, Stefanik would probably have cut them off if they tried, but they didn't try. They didn't use their time during friendly questioning to do so, and they still haven't.  I want to support them in an effort to actually stake out that position.  But--
    

    4. 

  4. 

    It's hard not to think that the reason they haven't is because they don't believe it.  Actions speak louder than words, and there have been a number of cases of Universities, even these specific ones, taking action against people for harmful "conduct" or "harassment" when the conduct in question is actually just expounding an offensive opinion.  "Safety concern" has also been a ready justification for acquiescing to heckler's vetoes against disfavored speakers.  I simply don't believe that they believe their policy requires them to allow hateful speech against Jews.  I think they are lying, and that makes me want to not support them.
    

    5. 

  5. 

    The episode seems to have especially impacted what I'll call normie Jews, who are reliably blue-tribe but not radically woke.  On the one hand, I think they have a legitimate grievance against the hypocrisy of how the code of conduct policies are interpreted for some opinions vs. arguable antisemitism.  On the other hand, I think it's bad policy to not be able to make antisemitic arguments ever, even if maintaining civility.  I don't actually believe that hate speech is violence, even antisemitism, and I don't support their movement to make antisemitism a per se violation. On the other, other hand, the cause of knocking down the prestige of the Ivies and exposing their rank hypocrisy might be worth allies of convenience. On the other, other, other hand, as a SWM I feel like the prisoner in the gallows in the "First time?" meme.  You have a grievance at their hypocrisy, but I have a grievance at your hypocrisy.  Most normie Jews have had no complaints at all about woke people saying similar or worse things about "white people."  Some of those woke people were themselves Jews, and I suspect that if the universities capitulate, it will be by making Jews a special protected class, which would further from the outcome that I want.  I've had a superposition of all these reactions going on.
    

    6. 



				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of December 11, 2023
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


People stop thinking 'trans' is a thing and it's illegal to call someone by different pronouns than they were born with?




People stop thinking 'trans' is an identity and instead an unfortunate mental illness.  Relatedly, mental illnesses generally are viewed as undesirable, both practically and socially.




We go back to having white men be 70% of characters in all entertainment media, and another 25% are white women with zero character traits beyond 'sexy and horny for the main character'?




I would settle with characters roughly in proportion to population, as opposed to the gross over-representation of minorities we see today. In particular, race-swapping characters and even historical figures would require justification beyond "representation matters". Media that appeals to characteristically male fantasies should be permitted to exist on its own terms without its creators being subject to harassing accusations of sexism.




We all agree that actually women and minorities are genetically more stupid and incapable than white men, and stop giving them jobs that earn more than a subsistence wage?




We agree that differences exist and that unequal outcome is not itself proof of discrimination.  We explicitly reject equal outcomes as a reasonable policy goal.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of July 17, 2023
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


I think part of the reason it doesn’t get the fanfare is because it doesn’t create 12 figure networth people. Its a constant costs business versus most building business. Of course if the businesses are not as profitable then the surplus value went to consumers in the form of lower energy costs. Also likely led to America not needing to write giant checks to the Saudis which meant are trade deficit could fund other things and those depend more on price leading to the strong dollar. People working in constant-costs businesses (farming, manufacturing, energy) tend to vote red people working in wide moat with ability to extract economic rents or winner take all markets tend to vote blue.




I think a bigger factor is that this success goes directly against the carbon-reduction platform that is important to much of the Democratic party base.  Democrats are not too keen to paint any fossil energy extraction as anything but an economic negative and ate a lot of criticism over things like blocking Keystone XL, even if from time to time they quietly throw their environmentalist base under the bus when it comes to opening federal lands for drilling.  But politically, fossil fuels are "bad", and good things can't be caused by bad things, therefore shale oil and gas can not be responsible for positive economic developments.  Lucky for them, the press is generally fine with not talking about the double-think taking place because stoking environmental panic is good for their bottom line (and some, I assume, are true believers).


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				American middle class is the worst socioeconomic group to ever live
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
Have you never grilled out and drank beer with friends on a nice green lawn?




To sum it up, the only real question is... Why are they like this? Who hurt them?




The answer is bums, hobos, panhandlers, psychos, perverts, buskers, criminals, litterers, and generally obnoxious people, and the leaders that do nothing effective to stop them from shitting the commons.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of December 25, 2023
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
You're right, you wouldn't expect any different from the campaign and the partisans.  The difference was the way the media treated it, the nauseating network of "fact checkers" and "journalists" who willingly, even gleefully participated in the smear job.  It was no campaign worker but a "journalist" who used the debate forum to harangue and "correct" Romney's facts - erroneously!  It was not just the Obama campaign and the DNC that mocked Romney for saying that Russia was the top geopolitical foe, it was also newspapers, magazines, late-night shows, and even straight news programs.  What the Romney stomping clarified is not that Republicans would be subject to completely unfair smears from their opponents.  It clarified that the media was also an opponent, and one so powerful that it could not possibly be defeated without attacking it directly.  That is what Trump was not afraid to do, and that is why he won.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of December 18, 2023
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
It should be apparent by now that Garland was not the middle-of-the-road moderate he was painted as in the media.  Nothing stopped Obama from nominating someone more palatable to the Senate.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of January 22, 2024
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
    

  1. 

    The size of the Supreme Court shall be permanently fixed at 9 members.  All Presidents are guaranteed one appointment per term.  If there is no vacancy during the term, then the President may vacate any single judge to create a vacancy at the conclusion of the Presidential term.  If there is more than one vacancy, the President may appoint additional interim justices who will automatically be vacated at the start of the next Presidential term. [EDIT] The Senate may veto permanent appointments by a two-thirds majority.  Interim appointments may not be vetoed.
    

    2. 

  2. 

    The House of Representatives shall be expanded to 1,000 members, with additional districts being added proportionally. The House of Representatives must conduct its business in a way that allows members to participate without being present in the chamber.  Members shall be required to maintain residency in their district, spending no less then 50% of the calendar days per year there.
    

    3. 

  3. 

    Birthright citizenship shall be granted only to children where at least one biological parent is a citizen or resident having legally remained in the country continuously for a period of at least 3 years.  Children may have no greater than two biological parents.
    

    4. 

  4. 

    The non-state district of Washington, D.C. shall be formally dissolved and the land de-annexed to the original states from which it was obtained.  Congress may designate property within the current district to remain federal enclaves immune to state jurisdiction.
    

    5. 



				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of June 5, 2023
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


Given a historically bipartisan-ly corrupt system, how do you begin enforcing the rules without appearing to play favorites?




Easy - you do so in a way that disadvantages yourself voluntarily. If your counterparty continues to defect anyway, you take an L, but that's really the only way to break the cycle.  I actually thought the Trump administration coming to power and then legally completely laying off both Hillary and everyone else in the previous administration was a significant de-escalation, given this represented a substantial political climbdown from the election.  For better or worse, it wasn't reciprocated.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of June 5, 2023
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
This is basic game theory. In any iterated model, fairness matters, whether it's sports, trade negotiations, or political hardball.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of May 8, 2023
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
If we're going to demolish civil rights, why don't we start by reinstating stop-and-frisk, and see what effect that has on the crime rates? Maybe actually lock up felons in possession?


I'm not willing to countenance a massive reduction in rights when lesser reductions are taken off the table purely in the interest of racial balancing.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Friday Fun Thread for September 22, 2023
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
Party in the USA seems like an obvious choice.


    

  1. It has USA in the title
    2. 

  2. It's at least somewhat positive about the USA in the lyrics
    3. 

  3. It's singable and upbeat
    4. 

  4. The other major theme is parties, which are also popular
    5. 



				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of April 15, 2024
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


The white woman/black man "pairing" as you put it is not, as far as I am aware, a particularly new concept




That this is the most common or ideal pairing is definitely a new concept.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of December 11, 2023
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
I think the writing overall was better enough that it made for a satisfying watch even if you disagreed with the messaging.  I think often about the TNG episode First Contact.  In this episode, the crew is making covert overtures to an alien world with no prior knowledge of the existence of aliens about joining the Federation, which is fanatically opposed by Krola, an alien minister who is a clear conservative stand-in: suspicious, paranoid, religious, xenophobic, cruel, and fanatical.  We the viewers know he is wrong in everything: we have prior knowledge that the Federation is benevolent, peaceful, and altruistic and that his concerns are groundless.  But at the end of the episode, the leader decides that he has a point: the Federation were actually infiltrating them, and the changes they are offering may actually be destructive to the society they have.  He rejects their offer, at least for a while, and they leave.


The intended message is clear: unfortunately, less-progressive attitudes have cost this society a chance to join the glorious future, and this is an parable about how conservative attitudes in contemporary society hold back the glorious future depicted in the show.  But the writing is intelligent enough to see that there are both benefits and costs to any change, and actually gives their villains an in-episode win while still promoting their message.  That's good writing.  That makes an episode enjoyable to watch, even if you think the intended message is wrong or not a good parable.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of June 5, 2023
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


If they had wanted to be maximally aggressive, they would have done so 2 years ago, not given him so many chances to make the problem go away.




That completely ignores the political benefits of the timing. I just can't take seriously any strictly legal analysis that ignores the political impacts.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of January 15, 2024
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
He's funny


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of January 1, 2024
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
See, in the twist cap situation, I would always lead with, "may I offer a suggestion?" When they inevitably agree, you're now offering solicited advice.  You've engaged them in asking for your help, which makes them inherently more open to accepting it.  "Don't offer unsolicited advice" doesn't mean "speak only when spoken to."  And of course etiquette always takes a back seat to actual danger.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of December 18, 2023
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
Trump is probably the most centrist candidate, if you look at actual polling on the issues.  He's only "not centrist" in that he dissents from the nondemocratic "Washington Consensus" established by entrenched by would-be technocrats, bureaucracy, and special interests.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of November 13, 2023
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
I agree, but it does go well beyond the ADL. Nearly every prominent Jewish academic, entertainer, or magnate has voiced similar views.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of September 4, 2023
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


We talk a lot on this board about dangerous precedent. Letting an interest group invalidate an election by storming the legislature is particularly bad.




We allow protestors to storm government buildings and interfere with proceedings all the time with little or no legal response.  This seems like special pleading to me.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of May 8, 2023
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
This is basically the "you calling me a liar?" argument.  Wouldn't a straightforward boundary be that statements about your own thoughts and behavior are always permissible, regardless of the implications about the thoughts and behavior of another?  Thus, "I don't know her" is not actionable, even though it implies "she is a liar", which could be actionable.  "I was afraid of him" would not be actionable, but "he threatened me" could be.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of November 13, 2023
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


The underclass already elects to just skip insurance




And frequently, licenses as well


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of June 5, 2023
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
That's why it's important to have a principled rule in the first place, because majorities don't have principles.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of May 15, 2023
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
Yeesh.  Old timey church ladies didn't shame male sexual interests this much.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of February 19, 2024
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
This already exists in the form of, e.g., Unitarian Universalism.  It has not been hugely popular.  I think there are a couple of reasons for this that similar proposals generally run into as well.


First, its teachings aren't different enough from intuitive "be nice" ethics to have any point.  People who even think about the idea of ethical living generally do not need such basic levels of guidance, which makes the enterprise little more than a social club.  But demanding more is too exclusionary or too "irrational", and therefore left to the other churches.  I think that being exclusionary in at least some ways is critical to fostering a bond and creating a sense of actual belonging.


Related to this, the entire idea of religiosity without contradicting material existence is oxymoronic and counterproductive.  The thing that people with a religious void feel they are missing is mystery, an insistence that there are some things that are beyond our comprehension, that are above and beyond us, forever.  The peace that religion offers is from knowing that you don't have to think about it or justify it, you know and believe it without thinking.  You cannot replicate the things that religion offers without offering undoubtable truth, but this is something that materialists cannot really bring themselves to do.


Another problem is that organizations without an unshakable grounding in text or canon will be highly vulnerable to entryism and taken over by activists.  We saw this precise thing play out already in the Atheism movement, which tore itself apart when activists started trying to add political planks to the Atheism belief framework.  Wishy-washy "be excellent to each other" churches will quickly succumb to the exact same issues simply because activists are more motivated than people who are there to sing hymns and pat each other on the back about how moral and ethical they are.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of February 14, 2024
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


If they're telling the truth, I've seen no explanation for why they've refused to cooperate with election authorities.




One possible explanation is that they don't believe the election authorities wish to cooperate with them in good faith.  For example, look at what cooperation with the FBI got John Paul Mac Isaac: they sandbagged the case, seized his property and refused to give it back, tried to deny claims that he was cooperating with them, and tried to intimidate him into silence.