sodiummuffin
No bio...
User ID: 420
Administration officials [...] have claimed that the decision was made to attempt this regime change gamble in part because they were aware that Israel was about to launch a series of decapitation strikes and they assessed – correctly, I suspect – that the ‘blowback’ would hit American assets (and energy production) in the region even if the United States did nothing.
This isn't actually true. What Rubio actually said was that the specific timing was determined by Israel finding an opportunity to kill a bunch of leaders, the war itself was planned before then. It was just quoted out of context by some media outlets.
This shows once again weakness of premise of effective altruism and 80,000 hours movement that money alone is sufficient to change the world. It is not specific to communism/leftism, many cases of right wing money wasted in even more pointless way.
One of the main premises of effective altruism is that some forms of altruism are vastly more effective than others. Some people wasting vast sums of money ineffectively is very much compatible with that.
Many effective altruists have also specifically been wary of political giving (like Scott's article Beware Systemic Change), especially when it takes the form of picking a side in a mainstream left-vs-right tug-of-war rather than finding niche "pulling the rope sideways" issues that are disproportionately important compared to how much the public cares about them. Yes the controversial issues also matter, but they believe those are generally not where you can most effectively spend a marginal dollar (or even a marginal 250 million dollars).
Per the Census, if you exclude multiracial people who identify as both white and another race from "non-white" it goes down from 144 million to 113 million. Note that people who identify as both white and hispanic are already included in "white alone", counting all hispanics as non-white raises it to 160 million. So we're hypothesizing a DHS white-supremacist who thinks Barack Obama is white and then rounds from 113 to 100. I'm guessing the "dogwhistle for number of non-whites" claim was from someone who looked at a "whites in U.S." statistic that included multiracial people, falsely assumed it could be subtracted from the U.S. population to get the number of non-whites, and then thought 113 million was close enough.
Presumably the actual explanation is that "100 million" is a big round number chosen without any reference to actual statistics as a hyperbolic way of saying "more deportations good". It could say "1 Billion Deportations" and the meaning would be the same. Also I very much doubt that accusations of twitter dogwhistles are having much impact on people's opinions on the Trump administration at this point.
- Prev
- Next

Note the "human baseline" isn't based on the human average, it's based on the "second-best first-run human playthrough" among the 10 people tested for each individual puzzle.
More options
Context Copy link