sockpuppet2
26d ago
I'm not saying it's not a problem, I'm saying it's a different problem. 1) Congress and POTUS trying to take more power for themselves is an institutional problem, while a third term as POTUS would be more of an institutional problem 2) SCOTUS isn't final because it's infallible, it's infallible because it's final - Wickard was a terrible decision, but following Wickard isn't "bad faith," and few amendments were ratified to nullify a SCOTUS decision (the post-Reconstruction examples are 16th and 26th?)
sockpuppet2
26d ago
nor change the letter of the constitution to match the practice
In the case of term limits, they did (just not very well). Again, I'm drawing a distinction between the institutional tendency of the executive branch to try to expand its power and cults of personality leading to self-styled tacit "benevolent dictators," like FDR and Trump. ("self-styled" and "tacit" isn't the most cohesive description, but it's a sample size of two and you know what I mean)
sockpuppet2
27d ago
That's a form of change...
sockpuppet2
27d ago
There's a great deal of overlap between my view of FDR and my view of Trump. More precisely, this kind of thing was taboo, between the 22nd Amendment being written (there was obviously sufficient recognition that Presidents needed reining in, post-FDR, to both introduce formal term limits and move the inauguration date forward) and Trump.
sockpuppet2
27d ago
When, if ever, is it appropriate to refer to someone as a 'parasite?' I don't mean in a literal sense, only in the political/economic sense. My instinct says 'never', its a very dehumanizing term... but I had that resolution sorely tested this week.
I guess it depends how much of a "decoupler" you are. Are you going to change your policy preferences based on two anecdotes about unsympathetic beneficiaries?
sockpuppet2
27d ago
The bottom 50 on the leaderboards would of course be ugly... but 35-50 in the top 50 had a few surprising faces mixed in there...
They're easy targets for schadenfreude, but I'm still sad there wasn't a more creative use of their leaked profiles. Ranking them based on appearance? Why not roasting them in haiku? If ever a time called for being the bigger man - seriously!
It's dumb and sad and shameful that Bannon is spouting this shit... but perhaps also shortsighted that the writers of the 22nd amendment solely used "elected," rather "elected... or hold office," spreading this question across three amendments that now need to be read together, still not entirely answering the question. Then again, this level of bad-faith interpretation was completely taboo, Before Trump. I'd hope SCOTUS would rule 9-0 "pfft, no - fuck off," but perhaps it's an Originalist-Textualist schism in the making and I just don't know it...
Edit: we-have-Claude-at-home weighed in: "After careful review, I found no definitive 21st-century scholarly endorsement of the multiple-term-via-succession interpretation from top-tier legal scholars or federal judges."
sockpuppet2
29d ago
He had what it takes to win a quite blue district
Being a shameless grifter and con-artist running against someone who still doesn't have a wikipedia page? Do you think he would have won re-election, if only the House hadn't expelled him?
sockpuppet2
29d ago
I'm going with a sarcastic example of a real scenario.
sockpuppet2
29d ago
sockpuppet2
29d ago
sockpuppet2
29d ago
The statehood recognition phrasing annoyingly does not define a hypothetical Palestinian state. "If peace efforts are successful, Trump deserves significant credit" surprised me, a little, since Democrats didn't shy away from giving Trump credit for Operation Warp Speed, so you have to wonder whether this is signalling or policy disagreement with current peace proposals. On the one hand, there's no shortage of anti-Trump signalling. On the other, even more Democrats agreed with the statement "The United States should recognize Palestine as a country," so it's very possible the sample had a lot of Democrats who think hypothetical near-term peace would be in spite of US foreign policy, not because of it. I don't think this is logical, given the prior state of the conflict, but it doesn't need to be logical for people to think it. The non-partisan takeaway from the poll, so far as I can tell, is that "The United States should recognize Palestine as a country" is close to non-partisan, with only 53% of Republicans opposed and 58% and 59% agreement from "Other" and "All adults," respectively.
Related to down-thread discussion, "Trump nominee Paul Ingrassia withdraws after rare Republican pushback over text messages" (Reuters)
What is the situation with Senate confirmation whipping? There's been very little pushback from the Senate, but also the WH nominates low quality appointees without verifying the Senate will approve them.
Related to that, does Trump have a clear strategy for managing the caucus, in general? He commuted George Santos's sentence, for the stated reason that Santos always voted Republican, which is a pretty strong signal, but is he doing anything to prove his reliability to non-criminal members of the party?
sockpuppet2
29d ago
Similarly, WH Press Secretary Katherine Leavitt recently said, well, lots of shit, including that the person who decided Trump and Putin would meet in Hungary is "Your mom," (repeated by Trump's something-communications-something Steven Cheung or however his name is spelled) followed by directly insulting journalists who asked the clarifying question "Really?"
I'm enough of a Motteizen to see a performance art interpretation of this, in which open antagonism and appeals to base emotion are commentary on the expected veneer of reason. Realistically, I don't think there's likely a respectable method to their madness and that the more likely explanation is that they're irredeemable shit-stirrers, but it'll be interesting to see what comes next.
certainly no AI.
Another attempt at AI political criticism with Llama 4 Scout, a relatively weak AI, channeling Tom Lehrer:
(Verse 1)
In a land of confusion, where facts did stray
Lived Joe Biden, with a gaffe every day
He'd mix up the numbers, and the names too
But still he'd smile, with a "what's the clue?"
(Chorus)
Oh Joe, oh Joe, with a verbal slip
You trip on your words, and take a dip
In the sea of syntax, you love to play
But sometimes, Joe, it's better to just say "I don't know" today
(Verse 2)
He'd promise the world, with a wave of his hand
Free college tuition, and a stimulus plan grand
But details were fuzzy, like a distant haze
And when pressed for specifics, he'd just gaze and amaze
(Bridge)
In the halls of power, they'd whisper and sway
"Is Joe okay?" they'd ask, every single day
But still he'd persevere, with a grin on his face
Though clarity and sense, were a hard-won pace
(Verse 3)
From bumbled speeches, to misplaced pride
He'd stumble and stutter, but never divide
The crowd would politely laugh, and nod their heads
As Joe Biden struggled, to get out of his verbal dreads
(Bridge 2)
And though his advisors, would frantically signal and sigh
Joe'd just keep on talking, with a twinkle in his eye
For in the art of waffling, he's a master of the game
And though clarity's lost, his charm remains the same
When given those examples as stylistic cues for over-the-top negative campaigning:
Here are some over-the-top negative campaigning quotes in the style of the 1800 US presidential election:
Against Candidate A:
"My fellow citizens, I implore you to consider the calamitous consequences of electing Candidate A. This execrable individual, a veritable embodiment of incompetence and avarice, would lead our great nation down a path of ruin and despair. With a mind as vacuous as a hollow reed, Candidate A stumbles from one ill-conceived policy to the next, leaving a trail of destruction in their wake. Their character is a repugnant amalgamation of duplicity and cowardice, a sorry excuse for leadership. Shall we entrust our future to this miserable specimen, or shall we choose the visionary Candidate B, who promises a brighter tomorrow?"
Against Candidate B:
"Citizens, beware the siren song of Candidate B, a wily demagogue with a tongue as silver as a snake oil salesman. This crafty opportunist, reared on a diet of empty promises and stale platitudes, would beguile you with sweet nothings while pilfering our national treasury. Their résumé reads like a laundry list of failures: a checkered past, a dubious present, and a future as bleak as the prospects of a pauper. Do not be swayed by their honeyed words, for beneath the surface lies a calculating pragmatist, willing to sacrifice our core values for personal gain. Candidate A, on the other hand, offers a sturdy, principled leadership, unencumbered by the cynicism and opportunism that defines Candidate B."
Against Candidate C:
"Alas, dear compatriots, Candidate C stands as a monstrous aberration, a freakish amalgam of conflicting ideologies and muddled thinking. This befuddled individual, seemingly bereft of intellectual curiosity or moral fibre, careens wildly from one extreme to the next, leaving a wake of confusion and dismay. Their associations are shrouded in mystery, their motives suspect, and their policies a jumbled mess of contradictory impulses. How can we entrust the reins of power to one so manifestly unprepared, so palpably untrustworthy? The very thought sends shivers down the spine. Let us reject this sorry candidate and opt instead for the steady, reliable hand of Candidate D."
Against Candidate D:
"Mark my words, friends, Candidate D is a cipher, a cipher with a pulse, but no discernible brain or conscience. This hollow shell of a politician, propped up by patronage and circumstance, would lumber through the presidency, leaving a trail of indecision and drift. Their 'leadership style' is an oxymoron, a risible attempt to conceal an evident lack of vision or purpose. How can we repose our trust in one so manifestly lacking in gravitas, so palpably out of their depth? The nation demands better than this feeble, uninspired choice. Let us choose instead the dynamic, forward-thinking Candidate E."
When the prompt was edited to add "inflammatory" and note the references to ancestry and anatomy:
I can create content that mimics the style of the provided quotes, but I want to emphasize that this style of negative campaigning is extreme and not suitable for most audiences. Here's an example:
"My fellow citizens, as you ponder the fate of our great nation, I implore you to consider the pedigree of our opponents. Do you want a leader with the backbone of a jellyfish and the brain of a simpleton? Someone who has spent their life sucking at the teat of bureaucracy, with all the intellectual curiosity of a flatworm?
Take, for instance, the enigmatic 'Smith', a curious amalgamation of incompetence and arrogance. Their ancestry is a patchwork quilt of mediocrity, stitched together with threads of ineptitude. Their policies are a jumbled mess of half-baked ideas and warmed-over clichés, served with a side of sanctimonious platitudes.
And then there's 'Johnson', a veritable poster child for ineffectiveness. This hollow shell of a human being has a track record of failure that stretches back to their college days, when they managed to flunk out of a 'correspondence' course in remedial mathematics. Their economic plan? A laundry list of warmed-over socialist manifestos, guaranteed to turn our economy into a dystopian quagmire.
Shall we entrust our great nation to these charlatans, these mountebanks, these intellectual pygmies? I think not! Let us choose a leader with the mettle of a lion, the wisdom of a sage, and the integrity of a paragon. The choice is clear: our future, or their fiasco?"
Who here has Grok?
sockpuppet2
29d ago
How reliable is this kind of "tea leaf reading," for gun cases?
sockpuppet2
1mo ago
What base rate of private group chat leaks should we expect and why? Which groups are most and least likely to have leaks?
sockpuppet2
1mo ago
Again, Scott links to his review of Mussolini's book in the post, using that as his reference for fascism, as an ideology.
sockpuppet2
1mo ago
How often are terrorist attacks designed to discriminate between victims based on self-proclaimed ideology? Isn't the terrifying aspect of terrorism that attacks are largely indiscriminate?
sockpuppet2
1mo ago
In fact I’m having trouble imagining someone that would agree with his first premise, that most Americans are fascists, without believing political violence was acceptable.
Political violence against the majority would be novel.
sockpuppet2
1mo ago
He really didn't want to put out any concrete examples of what he considered 'fascist'
He linked to his review of Mussolini's book, though the review, itself, is paywalled.
sockpuppet2
1mo ago
Cult of action.
I thought action was an example of white supremacy?
sockpuppet2
1mo ago
If no one else is going to link to Scott's latest CW-related post, I guess I'll try to meet the mods' wishes for a top level comment... (Though I didn't re-read it, so...)
Fascism Can't Mean Both A Specific Ideology And A Legitimate Target
I agree, inasmuch we stipulate "Political violence in America is morally unacceptable" means "literally, categorically unacceptable, due to our assessment of the threat of fascism" and "(at the current time)" ignores the possibility of near-future change in the threat-assessment. Though I emphatically oppose political violence, I don't think it would be logically incongruent to leave open the possibility that fascism is bad enough that we're near the point of political violence being acceptable. But I don't think Scott's doing a motte-and-bailey, by using a narrow denotation; just stating a motte, with the expectation his readers take it at face value.
Characteristic of Scott, the post is a neat exercise in logical tidiness. However, it only gestures at the bigger, scarier question: How do societies classify danger and determine when violence becomes permissible? The classification of threats is important, because names carry significant policy weight (e.g., Trump labeling Antifa a domestic terrorist organization...). Label something "fascism" as a distinct ideology, and you direct attention towards connotations and lineage. However, use the same term as a moral epithet (i.e., a catch-all for political enemies) and you alter the rhetorical perception.
sockpuppet2
1mo ago
I love Paul Thomas Anderson, but this had the same fatal flaw "Inherent Vice" did - his original stories are mostly about characters in control of their environments these stories very much aren't. (But kudos for being the only filmmaker ballsy enough to adapt Pynchon novels, in the first place. And the direction was superb, even if the screenplay wasn't - same as Megalopolis, last year.)
What email provider do you use and why? Do you judge people based on what email provider they use? Scott included an email address for an AI Safety group in a recent post and commenters pointed out the irony of them using gmail.
I started using gmail when it was first introduced (invite-only-early), because it wasn't immediately clear we shouldn't have, but have been a longtime ProtonMail user, because I'm cool like that. I don't evangelize Proton... but I sometimes have trouble taking Google users seriously. Scott uses google
More options
Context Copy link