voters-eliot-azure

voters-eliot-azure patently unbiased 3mo ago

Close enough to socialism.

I guess this is the issue lol. Point-by-point, why none of this is particularly radical in most societies that people don't consider "socialist":

rent freeze

Rent freezes are controversial cart-before-the-horse band-aid solution to a problem that may or may not be caused NIMBYism. The proposed rent freeze is for rent-stabilized tenants, a specific class of asset. So hopefully you weren't trying to paint this as a city-wide rent freeze, which would never pass anyway. But also not specifically socialist, at all. Very much no means of production being seized.

state built housing

Hardly uniquely socialist. They used to be called "projects". Also controversial because it tends to have extremely high per-unit costs vs. market rent ROI, but that may or may not be attributable to not being able to just build housing, and more to needing to be state-of-the-art energy efficient, fully ADA compliant, up-to-code, etc. etc.

Better than "company towns" imo.

free public transport

Another exaggeration. The free part is for buses only. As someone who's taken a lot of public transit in many different cities, buses are frequently used by more blue collar / "barista" type workers, whereas light rail is more often used by professionals. It's a pragmatically progressive (in the sense of: tax those who can afford it) solution to the problem of rising fare prices, imo.

Also: no one bats an eye about free public roads. Damage to roads is quadratic to the weight of the load: we all subsidize the trailer truck shipping industry with our gas prices and taxes that build our roads. This lowers prices at every checkout, at the cost of an anemic rail system.

state owned grocery stores

Obviously an experimental / pilot project. Curious to see if there's a nice food distribution middle ground between "soup kitchen" and "Whole Foods" that a city government can occupy. An ideal implementation of this looks more like a 7-days-a-week farmer's market to me than a crumbling Aldi with yellowed fluorescent lights and grimey 90s tiles.

free childcare

Are grade school, middle school, and high school not "free childcare"?

The most ambitious and least achievable point in his agenda. To someone completely removed from the situation, I think expanding pre-K and early childhood programs is the more pragmatic way to go about effecting change - but that doesn't pop on a web page meant to excite people about an election campaign.

all of this paid by wishful thinking and unicorn dust.

Along with everything else the government has spent money on. At least these things are attempting to have a positive impact on working class families as opposed to ammunition for a genocide on the other side of the world.

Context

voters-eliot-azure patently unbiased 3mo ago

My theory: VHNWI are so disconnected from reality that they seek out proletariat experiences in order to feel human.

But the funny thing is they seem to fail so hard at it that it probably makes their valley feel even more uncanny: Bezos wedding, Musk trying comedy with Dave Chapelle, Musk trying to get into Berghain, etc.

Oh well, it's probably just cope for being a wage slave. At least I don't have to try to manufacture experiences for myself to feel human.

Context

voters-eliot-azure patently unbiased 3mo ago

Same with Brandon Johnson in Chicago. The man has made enemies out of nearly every faction aside from the highly-controversial Chicago Teachers Union, who basically blessed him with the position.

Humorously enough, Chicago would've been put in a bizarro-world situation if the opponent had made it in (Paul Vallas), with the Fraternal Order of Police pulling the strings instead of the CTU.

I think either way Chicago's budget would've been fucked, which is the number one issue anyway.

Context

voters-eliot-azure patently unbiased 3mo ago

Nit: when did our definition of socialism become so drowned-down? Is anything that's not free (free-as-in-captured) market capitalism now considered socialism? The only "means of production" that Mamdani is suggesting be owned publicly are a few grocery stores, no? That's hardly a "seizure" of means.

Is FoxNews blocking the term DemSoc from taking off in the US?

Context

voters-eliot-azure patently unbiased 3mo ago

Government solves problem
Rent seekers are inconvenienced, lobbyists are deployed
Problem comes back with a vengeance

Many such cases.

-3

Context

voters-eliot-azure patently unbiased 3mo ago

You really set me up for a "Just following orders" response here after I already invoked Carl Schmitt.

-7

Context

voters-eliot-azure patently unbiased 3mo ago

I put this in my edit, but your comment stood out to me:

I appreciate the responses, there was actually quite a bit of variety which was nice to read. I came away with a steelman (which I didn't have originally) which is that the theatrics of ICE is meant to intimidate illegal immigrants.

What are your thoughts on the selective pressure this will have for illegal immigrants? My first thoughts were that it would select for:

immigrants who are reckless and fearless (or motivated by lots of money, e.g. coyotes) - basically, criminals
immigrants who face such extreme danger in their home country that even Twitter videos of brown people being tackled by men in masks doesn't slow them down - these desperate people would probably be considered "authentic" refugees by most leftists, and not just "economic migrants"

Probably a general success, then, because "economic migrant" is probably the lowest position on even the left's list of "immigrants who should move to the front of the line".

Context

voters-eliot-azure patently unbiased 3mo ago

Forcefully and publicly initiating the detention of illegal aliens for their removal is not a novel tactic: raids on businesses (but no accountability for the business owners) has always been an ICE tactic. That new-new is everything that's actually being complained about: masks, no badges, no warrants presented, no cooperation with the judiciary (yet), no oversight by congress (yet), no transparency with the public beyond "Rah Rah go-get-em" and "Enemies of America"-rhetoric by Noem and Leavitt.

Context

voters-eliot-azure patently unbiased 3mo ago

I think you should read some of the co-commenter responses to get a better idea about what most people thought of when I mentioned "ICE" and "blackbagging" in the year of our Lord 2025, June. I don't think I was being particularly vague.

-3

Context

voters-eliot-azure patently unbiased 3mo ago

I can tell by the lack of responses that this comment didn't really resonate with anyone else either.

Is this just "Nothing ever happens, stop overreacting" in more words?

-9

Context

voters-eliot-azure patently unbiased 3mo ago

I appreciate the response. I had figured that your perspective existed among the perspectives on this forum (I've seen ~ "illegal immigration is the most existential threat the US faces" expressed).

Context

voters-eliot-azure patently unbiased 3mo ago · Edited 3mo ago

General poll of opinions here, since I don't see much conversation about it - either because of news bubbles or general disinterest in discussing the ugly side of authoritarianism.

Main query: Are the blackbagging tactics of ICE a necessary evil, a dangerous overstep, or some nuanced in-between?

Genuinely, I don't have a steelman for blackbagging tactics. Right now, ICE is targeting a certain type of "undesirable", namely, allegedly undocumented illegal immigrants, and appear to have carte blanche to apprehend anyone who disrupts that process. But the hallmark of authoritarianism is to expand the definition of "undesirable" to include your political opponents - and if blackbagging undesirables is already palatable, then you can blackbag your political opponents. It's a matter of convenience that political enemies are already attempting to disrupt the blackbagging of undocumented illegal immigrants - it makes that leap that much easier were it to happen. How convenient as well that there's now an entire organizational apparatus gaining valuable experience in how to make people disappear on US soil? They may look like mall cops who are dressed for the paintball arena for now, but if they happened to get any of that DoD money...

Blackbagging by ICE seems to be an extrajudicial process by design, as a flex of the unitary executive theory that the judiciary exists only to serve the will of the executive. The judiciary is viewed as uncooperative and painted as obstructive, despite being intentionally hamstrung by the right wing of congress that has refused for several presidential terms to pass any immigration reform despite bipartisan efforts. One doesn't have to look very hard at all to find red tribe voices foaming at the mouth to declare enemies of the state: official mouthpieces of the current administration, senators, congresspeople. History rhymes, and I know enough of the current admin has read Carl Schmitt to recognize the paths that are available to them at this point if they happen to be hungry for power.

Ending query: Assuming (for the sake of this question) that the end goal of this administration is to establish a type of authoritarianism where people are kidnapped and disappeared because of vocal opposition to the regime, what should be the response by the opposition that would want to prevent that? History buffs, what are the best examples of countries barely recovering from the brink of authoritarianism?

Edit: I appreciate the responses, there was actually quite a bit of variety which was nice to read. I came away with a steelman (which I didn't have originally) which is that the theatrics of ICE is meant to intimidate illegal immigrants. In effect, it would seem like that would select for immigrants who are reckless and fearless (yikes), or immigrants who face such extreme danger in their home country that even Twitter videos of brown people being tackled by men in masks doesn't slow them down (these desperate people would probably be considered "authentic" refugees by most leftists, and not just "economic migrants").

-7

Context

Culture War Roundup for the week of May 26, 2025

voters-eliot-azure patently unbiased 4mo ago

There's also a pretty big difference between an 18-year-old spending 6 figures to go to a state school whose uncle happens to be well-connected to the party in a rural province, and a 26-year-old grad student with a fuzzy past going into [insert military relevant field] at [insert top tier school for that field].

Context

voters-eliot-azure patently unbiased 5mo ago

Nope, just trying to move the goalposts so we're at least on the same playing field.

Unfortunately you edited your comment though and now I've completely lost the context of our discussion. Maybe I'll wait next time for the second version of your argument.

-4

Context

voters-eliot-azure patently unbiased 5mo ago

AI-hallucinated quotes seem likely to be exactly as easy as falsifiable as human-fabricated quotes, and easily-falsifiable propaganda seems to be an example of something masquerading as journalism. These just seem like describing different aspects of the same thing.

I'm clumsily trying to capture the sentiment that AI-hallucinated quotes and human-fabricated quotes have different motivations that can be attacked in order to discourage them, the former basically being increasing revenue without increasing costs, and the latter being the age-old "lie to someone to manipulate them". I don't think either are particularly moral, and it's a cultural battle to be waged against both. I don't think we'll ever convince fellow humans to stop lying to manipulate people, but I can at least imagine a world where we universally condemn media companies who publish AI slop. We've done it with companies who try to sell cigarettes to children, for at least one example of "universal condemnation".

Mea culpa, I shouldn't have said "worse", but "more easily discouraged".

Context

voters-eliot-azure patently unbiased 5mo ago · Edited 5mo ago

Obviously not, or you wouldn't be making an appeal to elitism as opposed to popular consumption, i.e. the numerically broader basis where 'we all' consensus derives.

I make the appeal to elitism because I don't think popular consumption has shown any evidence of being capable of fighting against manufactured consent. Unless you think otherwise? Personally: I'm making the appeal because I want to live in a world where publishing AI slop is universally seen as low quality as the content in the 90s conspiracy magazines at the grocery store checkout (National Enquirer), and evidence of a media institution using AI slop should create scandals large enough to cause executives to resign. Personally: AI-hallucinated quotes are worse than fabricated quotes, because the former masquerades as journalism whereas the latter is just easily-falsifiable propaganda.

The belief that AI outputs would be equivalent or even higher quality than human writers at election propaganda has been the basis of AI election interference concerns.

I actually haven't seen much in the way of "AI election interference concerns" specifically. There's been a lot of noise around the potential for deep fakes to sway an election, but so far there's been no smoking gun that's been brought to my attention. On the left, I don't think people distinguish much from someone blindly consuming FoxNews opinion propaganda versus X AI bot propaganda (or MSNBC and Reddit, if you prefer the examples for the right). Which kind of plays into your broader point:

There is no russel conjugation in play. It is not your humans produce articles, your opponents' partisans demonstrate bias, and AI make slop. It is nearly all slop regardless.

Can I extend this to your view on the OP being that it doesn't matter at all that the article that Adam Silver reposted is AI slop, versus your definition of "slop" in general? It doesn't move your priors on Adam Silver[1] (the reposter), X (the platform), or Yahoo Entertainment (the media institution) even an iota?

[1] Leaving the error. NBA playoffs on the mind.

-2

Context

voters-eliot-azure patently unbiased 5mo ago

Hmm, is this a signal that we can finally go back to a time where a wider populace puts trust into specific media institutions, and rewards ($$$) them for earning that trust? Can AI be the deathknell of the mAiNsTrEaM mEdIa snark? Can we start being elitist about media institutions that don't utilize AI slop, regardless of their political slant? Surely articles written by an actual human, no matter their political bias, are universally better than AI slop of any particular bias? Can't we all agree on that across the political spectrum?

That Adam Silver posted an article from Yahoo Entertainment damages my base level of respect for him, regardless of the content of the article. The 90s version of this is like picking up a magazine from the grocery store checkout[1] and trying to form a cogent political argument based on its cover article. I guess that makes X the backyard grillout: "Dave69420 told me that the Clintons had Vince Foster killed".

[1] Curiously, though, I haven't actually seen magazines where I buy groceries these days, but they're still at CVS / Walgreens and other drug stores.

-1

Context

voters-eliot-azure patently unbiased 5mo ago

I mean your comment kind of acknowledges that using or not using AC is something that most mathematicians do mostly as a thought experiment, and that they don't have a personal, ideological bias for or against it. In other words, rejecting all proofs that use AC on purely ideological grounds (dear-leader-style) is flirting with quackery.

I think the important thing for avoiding political targeting of a field's theories isn't whether the field is "pure", but whether its complex-to-apply theories lead to simple-to-verify results.

Agreed, up to the point that "simple-to-verify" can also lead to ideological ambiguity, e.g. is the Earth's oblate spheroid shape or even gravity "simple-to-verify"?

Context

voters-eliot-azure patently unbiased 5mo ago

Your response made me reflect on my own secondary education, where my school district certainly punched above its demographic weight in terms of educational quality. When I look back at it in terms of my personal experience, I remember specific teachers who were highly effective and probably had a profound impact on the way I think and reason about things. I also had plenty of teachers who were completely uninspiring and gave no indication during class that they had an IQ above room temperature (maybe they were different in their personal life). I actually don't think about the textbooks or exam structures at all, but maybe that's because it's a bit easier to remember human beings rather than pens and paper.[1]

In retrospect, I think what made those highly effective teachers exceptional is that they really seemed to know more than I could imagine even learning at that time in my life. They also seemed genuinely keen on sharing not just that knowledge, but in little ways their own personal philosophies on how to properly learn. Is the "industrial scale" version of this identifying these highly effective teachers at scale, properly compensating them, and just letting them loose on our youth?

Tying into the second paragraph of your response, I think I just got real fucking lucky that my father's blue collar job transferred him to a semi-rural Midwestern town that somehow managed to gracefully keep up with the regional transition from a populace working on assembly lines to working in cubicles. Our sister city across the county line didn't fair nearly as well: it smelled twice as shitty, had 75% of the median household income, and sent almost no one to our state's flagship university. The question it provokes: what's the incentive structure for the ruling class for organizing education in these two cities over the coming years?

[1] Actually, funny anecdote, there was one AP class that a lot of the "jocks" took because the teacher presented as hypermasculine while he wasn't teaching (I think he was the strength coach for the football team?). But the thing was, he was actually a pretty damn good teacher as well. A bunch of boneheads accidentally got a pretty good European history education because of masculine vibes.

Context

voters-eliot-azure patently unbiased 5mo ago

if the Politburo demands you go to the moon or be shot

The funny thing about this is that the "golden age" of Soviet mathematics directly coincided with the height of Lysenkoism, and both somewhat petered out before the space race really kicked off.

But yeah, the broader point here is probably that some disciplines manage to avoid being dismantled by the regime. But I could also easily imagine a scenario where a despot decides to do something like reject the axiom of choice and cancel any mathematicians who don't agree (there is quite a bit of quackery in amateur mathematics...), so I'm not necessarily convinced that just because a field is more "pure" (e.g. mathematics) doesn't mean it won't get targeted.

Context

voters-eliot-azure patently unbiased 5mo ago

I see. So any policy that predates "DEI" as a boogeyman is safe from being labeled DEI? Bummer that affirmative action was collateral damage.

Context

voters-eliot-azure patently unbiased 5mo ago

Currnetly you have cases where people who score a literal zero in exams can teach math

I know this isn't the main thrust of your post, but it reminded me of a blog post that was trending on Hacker News sometime this past week. It basically describes the author's disillusionment with the academic "industry" in Romania after an influx of EU funding to increase the number of PhDs in the late aughts.

I'm becoming more convinced that creating an actual education system (one that creates highly skilled intellectual workers) is nontrivial and probably rare throughout history, and it's far too easy to create systems that LARP or cargo-cult education instead of actually performing education. Authoritarian regimes seem to have a knack for creating systems of alternative science that are more palatable to their dear leaders and their cronies than whatever "mainstream" science they are supplanting. It's almost as if the deck is stacked against humans and scientific progress is an unnatural status quo that we've lucked into because of certain post-enlightenment conditions?

This is also me positing nurture over nature - that humans have quite a bit of potential but the difference between a real education system and one that LARPs as an education system is staggering in terms of the intellect of the people it produces. There's a bit of big fish little pond / little fish big pond in there as well (speaking from firsthand experience).

Context