whenhaveiever
No bio...
User ID: 3296
whenhaveiever
1mo ago
Would you mind expanding on that? If Poilievre gets the security briefing and couldn't share what's in it, how does that make him less effective than not getting the security briefing in the first place? Either way, he can't talk about it. What am I missing?
whenhaveiever
1mo ago
As I typed that, I wondered if someone here would have a solution I'd never heard of, and you came through almost immediately!
It's temperate enough here that I'm probably usually in too small of a heat gradient, but I appreciate the new rabbit hole to go down.
whenhaveiever
1mo ago
Yeah, that would have been it! Though I was not one of the 129 in the survey.
whenhaveiever
1mo ago
It's not a bad negotiation tactic to stake an initial position that you don't really want so you can give it up later. Trump's problem is that everyone knows he does this, so he has to go to even further extremes and repeatedly insist on them to draw the other side's estimate of what he really wants closer to his side.
The old chestnut is that we should take Trump seriously but not literally, and I think with Canada that's true. The global left for decades has talked about the American Empire and Trump has said, well, why not? That doesn't need to mean formal statehood but it does need to include personal deference to the emperor.
whenhaveiever
1mo ago
I'd call him up and have frank negociations on what he really wants
That's exactly what Trudeau tried to do when he visited Mar-a-Lago. But a big part of what Trump really wants is fealty from his imperial vassals. Reshoring, unity against China, unity against Europe/whoever doesn't matter as much as personal loyalty to him. Trudeau has been far too opposed to Trump before to credibly demonstrate loyalty now, and I doubt that he even tried.
Another big part of what Trump really wants is to come away from the whole exchange with "a good deal." He knows he can get a better "deal" by holding a constant and ever-changing threat of tariffs over everyone. He doesn't care about the cross-border companies trying to figure out if they'll be able to pay their truck drivers next month, as long as in some way Trump can say the other side caved to his demands.
Now Carney has a tough balancing act. If he doesn't appease Canadian anti-Americanism, he'll quickly be out of a job. But he can't do that and give Trump the victory that he wants. In normal negotiations, there'd be room to say one thing publicly and do something else privately, but I don't think private acquiescence would be enough for Trump.
whenhaveiever
1mo ago
Years ago, I bought a CO2 monitor after reading something about indoor air quality (maybe gwern? I don't remember). Even just cracking the window makes a huge difference in the CO2 level. Sometimes I notice a difference in my drowsiness/motivation, sometimes I don't.
What I really need is some kind of magic vent over the window that lets the air freely circulate but keeps the warmth inside.
whenhaveiever
1mo ago
So I think Jesus would have to be the physical one (the physical aspect?). Is the Law-giving Father logic, and the Spirit emotion?
Is the Old Testament God showing the emotional Spirit when he gets angry? Is He showing the physical Jesus when He leads the Israelites from the pillars of fire and cloud?
And I guess my questions can apply both to your sincere Triessentialism belief and also to your heresy (does it have a name?). I'm reminded of that SSC post from ages back of AIs in parallel universes deducing each other's existences.
whenhaveiever
2mo ago
An evolutionary need for revenge is a misalignment in the same way a foot fetish is. Evolution just wants you to maximize your offspring. If you live in a world filled with positive-sum opportunities and mistake-theorist competition, then evolution wants you to sing kumbaya and grow the economy together so that there's more resources for your many children to use on their many children. If you live in a zero-sum world dominated by conflict theorists, evolution wants you to waste as few resources as possible in swiftly eliminating the competition. Neither really leaves room for using up resources on vengeance, especially if seeking vengeance puts you at risk at all. If anything, the extra costs associated with seeking revenge are a punishment on you for not eliminating the competition before they could do whatever they did that makes you want to seek revenge.
whenhaveiever
2mo ago
Increasingly, personal vanity seems to be the explanation that makes the most sense for most of what Trump is doing. After decades of the left talking about the "American Empire," Trump is embracing that view and demanding fealty from his vassals.
whenhaveiever
2mo ago
I'm still unsure that Trump is paying very much attention to Canada. The timing of the first delay in response to Canada offering basically the same thing they'd already started doing in December really made it look like someone had to remind Trump about Canada after already delaying the Mexico tariffs.
What I've seen of the meeting with Zelenskyy similarly just reinforces the impression that Trump is governing on broad emotional direction and really doesn't keep any particular details in mind at all.
I end up coming back to what I said last month. After decades of the left talking about the "American Empire," Trump is embracing that view and demanding fealty from his vassals. In Canada, at least, the incumbent thinks they'll do better in the upcoming election by leaning into the anti-Americanism, so the best hope for delaying or canceling the tariffs seems to be that Trump forgets he's mad at Trudeau the way he forgot he called Zelenskyy a dictator.
whenhaveiever
2mo ago
fucks off and let's Europe negotiate.
Considering Trump's statement, "I have determined that President Zelenskyy is not ready for Peace if America is involved [...] I want PEACE," it sounds like that might be the direction he's heading.
whenhaveiever
2mo ago
Ukraine happened to have nuclear weapons on its soil. It never had operational control of the weapons.
Does that mean they were missing critical technology needed to use the weapons? Or something like on paper the people authorized to use them were all in Russia?
In the absence of the Budapest Memorandum, could Ukraine have become a nuclear state in its own right?
whenhaveiever
2mo ago
I remember the memes showing Seattle's Space Needle on a foggy day as "the first day of legalization" so I guess that has calmed down. But I also mean how casual is the average user? How much does using it define your social circle and your free time activities?
whenhaveiever
2mo ago
There's exceptions, but most ads don't define people's identity. If we want something that's legal but non-intrusive, shampoo seems like a good enough model.
I think OP wants something like legal but shamed. Given the tendency to want to make bad things illegal, I don't know if that's a stable category. Given the influential weed culture that already exists, I don't know if either legal-but-non-intrusive or legal-but-shamed are really options.
whenhaveiever
2mo ago
Our rules-obsessed culture seems to have little space between "totally banned" and "fully commercialized and celebrated". But there are lots of things that belong in a third category: "grudgingly tolerated".
There's another "third" category: fully commercialized but not celebrated. Nobody cares what kind of shampoo I use or what snacks I eat at home, and I can buy what I want when I want, for the most part. I'm also not pushing my choices in your face.
I don't know how much weed culture is inherent to the product vs cultivated through the isolation of decades of being illegal. If we have decades of it being legal, will weed culture disappear? If you live in a small apartment, smoking weed in your home is necessarily making everyone else in your building smell it, unlike most of my shampoo and snacks, so maybe there is always stigma that then attracts "the worst people" who don't mind the stigma.
whenhaveiever
2mo ago
I believe conservatives are more correct in their approach to the inescapable reality that conflict is inevitable.
This becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. If two conflict-theorists disagree, there will be conflict. It's very easy to assume the other side is full of shit and acting in bad faith, and acting as if they are gives you an advantage in the conflict that you are helping to create.
If two mistake-theorists disagree, maybe there will be conflict, maybe there won't, partially depending on how committed they are to mistake theory. It's very hard to put in the effort to find the often-very-nuanced sources of error in your two world models, and assuming the other side is putting in that effort in good faith when they're not puts you at a disadvantage if they end up starting a conflict.
Overall, it is a mixture of the theories.
Both conflict theory and mistake theory bring advantages and disadvantages, largely depending on what the other side chooses to do. Any group needs people with both approaches. The hard part is deciding who to listen to when so you win inevitable conflicts but don't create unnecessary conflicts. There's lessons from game theory there, but everything from above also applies to this decision. Conflict theorists get the advantage when they create the conflict, so they will create it, as dutiful servants to Moloch.
whenhaveiever
2mo ago
I find it kind of a weird idea to suppose there was a conspiracy capable of murdering a president and getting away with it but incapable of getting rid of the paper trail when given six decades to do so. If there is evidence for conspiracy in the JFK files, it will be entirely deniable circumstantial evidence, something like "this report was filed weekly except this one time in October 1963."
whenhaveiever
2mo ago
This reminds me of the wait calculation from speculations about interstellar travel. If you leave Earth too early, your technology is too slow, and future faster travellers have already colonized your destination planet by the time you arrive. So you wait... But calculating the best time to leave has so many uncertainties that you end up never leaving, and humanity dies on Earth, never traveling to the stars despite having the technical ability to do so.
whenhaveiever
3mo ago
Apparently, also 10,000 troops at the border, plus a "fentanyl czar." I could've missed something, but as far as I can see, the last-minute concessions agreed to by Trudeau are just all the same ones he'd announced in December, which muddies the picture in figuring out what is really going on. It's at least somewhat likely that Trudeau's December plan was what Trump wanted and Trump just wasn't paying close enough attention to Canada to notice that Canada already gave in to his demands.
But I really don't see any specific thing Trump wants from Canada for these tariffs. Or rather, he keeps adding new justifications for them so often that I don't believe any of them is the real reason. It's possible he really wants to go after Mexico, but can't go after Mexico alone because of CUSMA. It's also possible he faults Trudeau for the trucker protest response or for more personal reasons and just wants to kick him in the ass on his way out. But I'm increasingly leaning more towards the theory that this is the 21st century version of a new emperor demanding fealty from his vassals. It doesn't matter what Canada does, as long as they're seen as giving in.
whenhaveiever
3mo ago
He was on Twitter during the riot, tweeting multiple times with messages to the rioters, including to "stay peaceful," although he didn't say anything like "go home" until after the rioters had already mostly been cleared from the building.
There's lots about Trump's inner thoughts that isn't publically known, but he clearly knew about the riot as it was happening. Even if he hadn't been tweeting to the rioters, it would be a difficult to defend the stance that the President of the United States of America in 2021 could go for literal hours without knowing there was a riot at the US Capitol.
whenhaveiever
3mo ago
He really wasn't. His speech ended at 1:10pm. The first barriers were breached at 1:50. At 2:38 he tweeted "Stay peaceful." At 3:13 he tweeted "No violence." By 3:19 the Rotunda is cleared and fitting is moved outside and into the tunnel. The video linked above was posted at 4:17pm, and is the first time he tells people to go home.
whenhaveiever
4mo ago
This doesnt make sense. Trump is clearly telling people to go home, AKA OFF SWITCH.
Hours later, too late to make a difference anyway. Was someone stopping him from speaking out earlier?
whenhaveiever
4mo ago
If Trump had wanted a full on armed coup, he had command of the military at that point, and as far as I know it's never been claimed that Trump tried to issue illegal orders that day. And it is worth remembering that a relatively small percentage of the people at his speech actually went to the Capitol, and only a smaller percentage of them went inside.
On the other hand, if Trump was shocked and appalled at the riot, he could have spoken up a lot sooner. Even this video is mostly taken up with reiterating claims that the election was stolen, justifying the riot while asking for it to stop.
I've seen someone else on The Motte say that Republicans view political violence as an on-off switch, while Democrats view it as a dial. On that day, in the context of the BLM riots that weren't that long beforehand, I think Trump saw violence as a dial. People who continue to see if as a switch either condemn Trump for attempting a coup (switch was on) or dismiss the entire thing as a nothingburger (switch was off).
whenhaveiever
4mo ago
Wasn't that video posted hours into the events that day, after it was too late to make a difference anyway?
I admit I had never heard of USIP before yesterday, but there seems to be a critical disagreement over basic facts about what USIP actually is. I see sources saying it is an "independent" "private" organization, and therefore DOGE and Trump have no authority over it. Meanwhile, it seems to be funded by direct Congressional appropriation, forbidden from accepting private funding, and its board has to be nominated by the President and approved by the Senate. Those two sets of facts do not seem compatible to me, even given that there is a spectrum of organizations between fully public and fully private.
Whether the Administration's actions here are legal depends on which set of facts is really true.
More options
Context Copy link