@stuckinbathroom's banner p

stuckinbathroom


				

				

				
0 followers   follows 0 users  
joined 2022 September 07 00:40:05 UTC

				

User ID: 903

stuckinbathroom


				
				
				

				
0 followers   follows 0 users   joined 2022 September 07 00:40:05 UTC

					

No bio...


					

User ID: 903

Let me guess: you just finished watching Evangelion for the first time?

One is also reminded of New Zealand PM Robert Muldoon’s famous quip that Kiwi emigration to Australia “raised the IQ of both countries”

P Escobar describes the monopolisation of local civil society thus

Not sure I would trust the King of Cocaine on this, but then again I imagine he has significant experience in dealing with various arms of the US federal government

Unrelated question: why is this (Bulgarian?) word for dog so different from the Russian/Ukrainian/Belarussian (собака/сабака)?

Though the same may not be true on Endor

Is it deadnaming or misgendering to call a transwoman’s cartilaginous protuberance around the larynx the “Adam’s apple”? Should we call it an “Eve’s apple” instead? Or perhaps we should go with “primordial human’s apple” to be extra safe

gestures broadly at everything

in the same way that docker environments run on a virtual machine inside your pc

[pushes up glasses]

Well actually, virtual machines and containers are different things. It is certainly possible to run containers inside a VM, but a VM is not strictly necessary.

(OK, in fairness, I think Docker in particular relies on features of the Linux kernel, namely cgroups and namespaces, so e.g. Docker Desktop on Mac or Windows will indeed spin up a Linux VM)

/pedantry

Since OP mentioned Milton Friedman as the defining figure of neoliberalism—a characterization I mostly agree with, mind you—here’s what I think Friedman would have to say about the aforementioned 5 points:

  1. Basically agree; Friedman did write a bit about social libertarianism here and there (in particular, I remember his opposition to the draft) but his focus was of course on free-market economics—which he saw as necessary but not sufficient for a liberal (in the European sense) political order.

  2. Agree, but perhaps object to the somewhat-pejorative term “trickle-down economics”

  3. Agree in principle, though in practice would be against so-called “free trade agreements” that are full of un-free pork-barrel incentives (see also: Friedman’s famous support of a negative income tax in theory, but opposition to the EITC in practice, on the grounds that he wanted to simultaneously get rid of all other federal welfare)

  4. Mostly disagree, with perhaps some exceptions for national defense and alleviating the worst kinds of poverty (though on the latter point, he favored direct cash transfers). Certainly Friedman would not be in favor of industrial policy.

  5. This would have Friedman spinning in his grave. The only remotely similar thing that Friedman would support is the government not allowing a massive contraction of the money supply, so as to avoid repeating the mistake of the Great Depression. But this is a far cry from “bailouts for companies”.

I’m not claiming that these 5 points are a bad definition of neoliberalism as it stands today, necessarily. It’s just that the definition of neoliberalism has shifted in a more interventionist and less free-market direction since Friedman’s time, due in large part, I think, to the kinds of personalities that go into academic economics and the attendant wonkish/“soft paternalist” culture that the field has adopted.

tbh it’s just pathetic that the Japanese blew their potential goodwill with anti-colonial Southeast Asians as badly as they did. They had every opportunity to back “freedom fighters” a la Reagan inviting mujahideen to the White House; the stars were perfectly aligned for them to portray themselves as stalwart supporters of liberty and self-determination against the evil white oppressors, aaaand … they ended up being even more reviled than the Western colonial powers to this day 🤦‍♂️

At least the (non-KMT) Taiwanese still generally look back fondly on the Japanese colonial era.

Minor nitpick, but

Progressives admire patriotism in non-white countries, even as they scorn it in whites.

I'm not sure progressives think much about patriotism in non-white countries, and I don't think many of them admire Israeli patriotism.

AFAICT progressives oppose Israeli patriotism precisely because they think of Israel as a white (hence settler-colonialist, oppressor) country.

How do we know they were born in the US? They may have lost their birth certificates. Basically what is being proposed here is not grandfathering in current citizens, but either (1) amnesty and automatic free citizenship for everyone who already made it here illegally, plus a pinky promise that we’ll never do this again, or (2) a Gestapo-tier “papers, please” state in which everyone is presumed a noncitizen until he provides proof to the contrary—which is likely impossible for a lot of low functioning, high time preference people.

I’m not sure this is quite so simple—there’s no national register of citizens, and at least half of all US citizens don’t have a passport. What are we going to do about (e.g.) all the hillbilly families in Appalachia who have never voted, never traveled outside the country, never (provably) served on a jury or in the military for generations?

Really? I’ve actually never seen any studies on percent of anchor babies with one US citizen parent vs. percent with none.

In any case, if a child has a US citizen parent, is it even accurate to call him an “anchor baby”? The US citizen parent has unfettered right of abode in the US regardless of the child’s citizenship status (though I suppose the non-citizen parent might not, if they aren’t married to the citizen parent).

Also a Japanese nursery rhyme (TW: exactly what you would expect, dead_dove.gif)

It's beautiful hearing the Battle Hymn of the Republic, seeing soldiers march to it. Same with Glory, Glory Hallelujah.

Uh, isn’t the latter just (part of) the chorus of the former?

Not totally sure what you mean by “get worse” here; you mean both sides will only continue to experience more and more casualties in future, because of their above-replacement TFR resulting in net positive population growth?

I’m sorry, did you mean “main’s house with the main’s tools”?

—GitHub, probably

Funnily enough, I had the exact opposite impression: I rather wonder whether this will be picked up by the far right as a way to legitimize opposition to immigration, in normie eyes: “Real diversity” means preserving the native people and culture of $WHITE_WESTERN_COUNTRY, who are a tiny, beleaguered minority in global terms.

One man’s modus ponens and all that.

Could it be that this is Trump getting revenge for Bibi not backing up his election fraud claims in 2020 and instead calling Biden to congratulate him? I vaguely recall Trump saying “Fuck him” (in reference to Bibi) at the time. For someone as vindictive as Trump is said to be, this seems like a reasonable hypothesis.

Not quite sure who the “brown people” would be in a Ukrainian context though: ethnic minorities/foreigners in the Russian military (or mercenary groups fighting alongside them)? That would make some sense, but they wouldn’t really constitute a “ghetto”

Alternatively, if the intended meaning is “ethnic Russians in eastern Ukraine”, I’m not seeing where the “brown” part comes from.

Let the bodies hit the floor, let the bodies hit the floor, let the bodies hit the … tss tss

FLOOOOOR

He believed he could create a genuine intellectual movement, like the early Progressives, winning people over to his cause through reasoned argumentation and leading by example.

My initial reaction to this quokka-esque faith in reasoned discourse was “lol, lmao even”

But then I realized that Taylor is the product of a different time, a time when public intellectuals really did have some cachet and, even if they weren’t household names per se, they still had some power to set the conversation and shift people’s opinions through logos. The Mont Pellerin Society, for example, was instrumental in laying the groundwork for the Reagan/Thatcherite revolution of the 1980s.

I wonder if Taylor will embrace the new meta, or if he will cling to the antiquated ideals of the Ivy League debating society to the bitter end.

The better analogy would be, suppose the US broke up and, say, Texas and California became independent states (in the international relations sense), with California internationally recognized as the “successor state” of the US.

Would formerly-US nuclear weapons, located in Texas for the purpose of deterring an invasion through Texas’s flat and quickly-traversible terrain, manufactured by personnel from all over the former-US (including California), but maintained and operated primarily by Texans, become rightfully Californian overnight? What about all other formerly-US military hardware/personnel in the former-US?

Anyway, back in the real world, the point remains that no signatory to the Budapest Memorandum ever provided Ukraine with any kind of “security guarantee”. Indeed, the Americans were well aware of the military obligations such wording would entail, and thus specifically insisted on the weaker “security assurance”.

whose security they have guaranteed in the 90s

I assume you are referring to the Budapest Memorandum, by which Ukraine surrendered all of its nuclear weapons. That Memorandum famously did not use the term “security guarantee”, but rather the utterly toothless “security assurance”.