wingdingspringking
No bio...
User ID: 1348
wingdingspringking
12d ago
I'm pretty sure it's just the standard "never show weakness" logic. People who take this position are highly concerned with optics. It's hard to assert that you have a morally superior position when flaws can be found in the building blocks. Strategically it's better to gloss over as many as possible, redirect when exposed, and then scrub them from the records when the spotlight is elsewhere.
wingdingspringking
12d ago
The scary thing is it's not limited to individuals, or even just current events. You'd think history would be a little more dispassionate, but unfortunately that isn't the case.
Here's the example that really made me realize the extent of it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apache
While there are sections in there about the Apache wars with the US, there is absolutely nothing about the fact that they were almost eradicated by the Comanche. In fact, it barely even mentions the Comanche at all. That would be like discussing small pox and barely even mentioning the vaccine while going into great depth on its decline during the 20th century.
wingdingspringking
24d ago
I mean, I agree on a bunch of the points about why the establishment has lost credibility in terms of protecting domestic manufacturing interests. In my view, letting China into the WTO was the single largest political blunder of the last 50 years. But that doesn't change the fact that mathematically an overall effective tariff rate should be relatively straight forward to calculate. TOTAL_TARIFFS_PAID / TOTAL_VALUE_OF_GOODS doesn't leave a lot of wiggle room. I suppose you could always add other taxes onto the goods once they've entered the market and not charge them at the border, but that wouldn't exactly be subtle or easy to cover up.
wingdingspringking
24d ago
This seems to be the standard justification for tariffs that I hear. I don't think it's realistic, but then again, I have only a cursory understanding of the subject.
From the numbers I've seen, most western countries have a some small niche industries that they protect, and so they have high tariffs on those. But those niche industries account for a very small percentage of overall trade. Take, for example, the US and Canada (before the current Trump tariffs). Canada puts huge tariffs on US dairy. And the US puts huge tariffs on softwood lumber. But those are only a tiny percentage of total trade. So while there were double digit tariffs in those specific categories, the overall effective tariff rate was very low (1-2%) flowing both ways.
Is that not the case?
wingdingspringking
25d ago
I tend to agree unfortunately. The GOP's single largest electoral asset before all of this was being seen as better stewards of the economy. A large number of people voted for them purely based on that. If that image is utterly destroyed, we might see an electoral swing on a scale we haven't in recent memory.
Polling hasn't moved that way yet. But this also hasn't hit the working class yet. This is going to get messy.
wingdingspringking
26d ago
Okay, fair enough. You're engaging with the specific case, when the point I'm driving at is the generalization; that drastic changes to the rules by which the economy functions can have large and sometimes very negative consequences. If you want to apply that generalization to the case of the great depression, then yes, monetary policy that resulted in an insufficient money supply was a key factor. So was a large asset bubble. We could just as easily look at the case of the Spanish Price Revolution to see what happens when the government drastically increases the money supply without understanding what the effects of that will be.
None of that detracts from the fact that ideological economic changes, imposed literally overnight, are politically risky if the ideology doesn't match reality.
wingdingspringking
26d ago
It was a dumb idea to let China into the western trade networks in the late 90s. There I agree with you. But that doesn't change the fact that reversing course on a ship this size is not something that can be accomplished overnight. Trying to do so will simply sink the ship.
I think it's easy to loose site of how much we still have to loose. The poor people in Youngstown or Detroit are still better off than their counterparts from 100 years ago. At least nobody is starving on the street in the present day US.
wingdingspringking
26d ago
You are essentially saying that mass disruptions to the economy come only from deflation. In my view, that's a bit of a presumptuous statement to make about a system so large that no human being can really conceive of it in its entirety.
I'm certainly not arguing that I know that tariffs of this scale will collapse the system. What I am arguing is that making rapid changes of that scale has the capacity to cause large, unforeseen consequences. And that such consequences may not be easily reversible. From a political calculus standpoint, it's a very dangerous move.
wingdingspringking
26d ago
Agreed. On economics I'm quite conservative in the traditional, Chesterton's fence sense of the word. Re-routing the irrigation ditches with a nuclear explosion and still expecting the crops to get watered is a very risky bet.
wingdingspringking
26d ago
The 30% vote against whoever is in power. 1929 US was fresh off of a decade of republican rule. So they gave it to the dems. The Wiemar republic was a pretty left wing entity. So the 30% swung it to the right.
It's really unlikely that a right wing party crashing the economy would result in people moving more to the right. If anything, it would kill the biggest electoral advantage that the republicans have traditionally enjoyed, benefit of the doubt on the economy.
wingdingspringking
27d ago
If we see a crash on par with the great depression, the 30% of people that normally tune out politics are going to vote. Last time that happened, we got FDR and then leftist politics for 2 generations. This time it will be worse, since social media, if captured, allows for much tighter control over the narrative. Is that really worth the risk?
wingdingspringking
1mo ago
The social justice explosion from roughly 2012-2023.
wingdingspringking
1mo ago
It's easier to understand when you take into consideration that our current political environment is following closely on the heels of a full blown moral panic. Given the scale and scope of the moral panic, a lot of previous cultural assumptions can no longer be taken for granted.
I don't think the left has fully grasped this yet. So a lot of things that they previously assumed to be true, ideas like "They're just kids protesting, society will give them leeway", or "Making people feel uncomfortable for the sake of X disadvantaged group is likely to be met with nuanced consideration." are suddenly no longer valid. I think once this paradigm shift has been internalized, the bulk of the left leaning groups will chart a new course. Either that or fade into irrelevancy.
wingdingspringking
1mo ago
To some extent I'd argue that that's the crux of the entire culture war. The left, via their march through institutions as well as their early control over new media, gained access to a super weapon; the ability to point the whole of society against any individual. Western democracies, influenced by Hobbes, had gone to great lengths to make sure this could not be done without considerable hurdles. But suddenly this super weapon was not only available, but at the beck and call of anyone on the left with a good enough narrative. The only constraint was that it could only be pointed rightward.
So for a decade, we had ever increasing use of this weapon against a large number of people. But more often than not, those who were targeted were the "powerful", that is to say, successful people with something to loose . Anyone caught in the crosshairs was ruined; their career, social life, in some cases even freedom suddenly forfeit. But at the end of the day, those people were still alive. Still part of society. And as you said, I think the experience of having your world ripped away for seemingly no reason is enough to genuinely drive someone mad.
And that's what we're now seeing. A horde of these people, crazed to the point of mayhem, ripping apart the core foundations of society. And the left, like a child who shot their parent in a fit of anger, suddenly waking up to the fact that they destroyed their primary means of protection, and that there is no way to wind back the clock.
And while I think quite a few of us might take some grim satisfaction in that last statement, it doesn't change the fact that we're all on this ship as well. If it goes down, every one of us is going to suffer.
wingdingspringking
2mo ago
I think you're vastly underestimating what throwing the full power of the state at someone looks like. If you have full control over institutions, and the other side is going to pretend whatever you do is akin to killing babies, it basically means you have cart blanche to do what you want as long as you keep your base somewhat appeased. Trump seems to understand this. The old establishment didn't.
Media games/hearings to soften up support are a milquetoast response. Especially if your survival is on the line.
wingdingspringking
2mo ago
They won't fight back without power for the same reason that they wouldn't fight when they had power. "They" (the former establishment) are a bloated, hollowed out husk. They lack the ability or the consensus to take decisive action. I say this as someone that would have partially preferred that they stayed in power just for the stability it would have provided (Trump's actions will have huge unforeseen consequences - both positive and negative, even his most ardent supporters have to admit this). A competent "They" would have thrown the full power of the state against Trump the second he lost power the first time. Either that or used media manipulation to turn the page on him. In the end, they lacked the resolve to do either. They waited until it was clear he wasn't going away on his own, then launched a last minute, poorly orchestrated series of legal assaults that did little more than boost his popularity. Things that are too weak to defend themselves die. That's the way of the world.
wingdingspringking
3mo ago
In light of the stupid Elon hand gesture thing that still won’t die, let me offer a slightly different definition based on something I was just thinking about. A lot of what separates “woke” from run of the mill identity politics and/or ingroup-outgroup bias is the imposition of rules on the outgroup. This is where it takes on a somewhat religious tone ( slogans like “silence is violence” are analogous to the “convert or die” sentiment of the Muslim conquests or early crusades ).
What makes woke particularly insufferable is the rule creation mechanism. It doesn’t come from a canonical text, but rather, it’s an ever growing list of words or actions that were previously done by bad people. Racial slurs? – can’t say those, bad people used them a long time ago. Black facepaint? - can’t use that. Bad people did it a long time ago. Raising your straight arm at an angle above 90 degrees from the resting position? - can’t do that. You guessed it, because bad people did that a long time ago. Hell, you can’t even make the okay sign in some circles anymore because bad people did it on the internet. In addition, the rules are different depending on how “bad” your particular group is seen as being.
So, back to the Elon hand gesture. He’s not allowed to make it apparently. Why? Because it was done by the Nazis. It doesn’t matter that that is barely still in living memory. It doesn’t matter that none of his other actions are particularly Nazi-like. It doesn’t matter that it is a salute that comes naturally to humans and has been practiced by countless groups over the millennia. No, the gesture is verboten, now and forever. And unless you are constantly policing your actions and keeping up with the latest blacklists, you too will at some point do something that will mark you as an apostate.
wingdingspringking
5mo ago
Why do people protest? At the most fundamental level, it is because a large group of people on some level have done a cost benefit analysis and decided that protesting is more in their interest than not protesting. Their underlying motivations might be different (social status for some, entertainment for others, etc). But everyone needs a reason to be there, and that reason needs to be sufficiently positive so as to overcomes any negatives.
Let's look at a very safe, very "developed" society like SK. What are the positives of partaking or supporting such a movement.
- You get potential concessions from society if the movement is successful (laws guaranteeing more rights for women, more pay, more legal weapons at your disposal, etc).
- You get social status. Protesting for a "good cause" is generally seen as positive by your peer group.
- Personal fulfillment. You feel like you are making a difference/doing the right thing. You feel more in control of your life.
What are the negatives? Almost nothing.
1)Men might be mad at you. But there's not much risk there. Especially for younger women, since said men will still likely make concessions in order to have a chance to sleep with them.
2)The older generation might be mad. But in modern society, many young people are financially independent. So the older generation has much more limited leverage.
Contrast this to a less developed society. What are your benefits? Possible concessions (with a lower probability) and personal fulfillment. That's probably it. Your peer group will probably distance themselves from you out of fear of sharing the negatives, which are:
- Potential violence - both sexual and non sexual. This is the largest negative you can possibly have for most people.
- Ostracization - others don't want to share in your misfortune if something goes wrong.
- Anxiety - Even if nothing happens, the threat of these things always looms.
There are probably many more negatives, but I think those three are probably sufficient to deter most people. So looking at a cost benefit analysis, the choice to protest in SK vs in SA looks pretty clear.
wingdingspringking
5mo ago
"Probability is interesting, but when it comes down to it, the only thing it's good for is gambling"
I mean, yeah. But on a fundamental level, just about every decision we make is a gamble of some sort. Any significant choice in life is boils down to a decision to expend some amount of time/money/energy with the hope of reaping some reward. Any information that helps you make these decisions more clearly is therefore extremely useful.
wingdingspringking
5mo ago
Agreed. If I could be guaranteed that Trump would be dead within 6 months and Vance would take over, I'd actually consider giving them money.
wingdingspringking
6mo ago
What if they were to force them on a non-allied government? If completely unconstrained by world opinion/sanctions, Israel might do something like force march the entire population of Gaza into Lebanon and then just annex Gaza. It's not like there's much Lebanon/Hezbollah could do to stop it.
To be fair, I don't think the current government is capable of human rights abuses on that scale despite what its detractors might say. But after a few more iterations of the cycles of violence, who knows. Not to mention the fact that Israel's government is going to be increasingly fundamentalist as the ultra-orthodox become an ever larger segment of the population.
wingdingspringking
8mo ago
I agree. I think an independent judiciary is one of the better aspects of the US government system, and I'd really hate to see it done away with. That being said, in my mind, it comes down to probabilities. I think simply allowing Trump to win after having attempted to circumvent the election results the first time would signal that doing so is now fair game. I think we would see far fewer uncontested elections. And I think ultimately it could lead to electoral violence in the fairly near future.
On the other hand, I think the probability of a Democratic sweep is relatively low. Even in the case of a Democratic trifecta, I think the likelihood that all senate Democrats would be onboard with something like this is very low. And finally, if that law did somehow pass, I suspect that it would then be held up in courts for a very long time before being implemented, if not struck down entirely. In other words, the risk of the worst case scenario occurring there is extremely low.
So by that measure, the safer path is to go with Harris (and all republicans down ballot). It's certainly not a pleasant vote. But I'd like to think the reasoning behind it is sound.
wingdingspringking
8mo ago
Sure, there are some dirty tactics used with absentee ballots. I'm actually all for election security reform. I have no problem with voter ID requirements.
My problem is that the more grandiose claims of election interference are a lot harder to believe. Claims that the election was stolen by fake ballots being added to the count. Claims that dead people were voting in sufficient numbers to swing the election. I've never seen anything that supports these claims with sufficient evidence to be convincing.
As for the "gains", well, if you had evidence of a conspiracy to overturn a US Presidential election, that evidence could be used to get you almost anything you could want. Huge amounts of money, either from the right or from foreign powers. National fame. Or maybe just assuaging your own guilt. If you had thousands of people involved in something like this, you don't think a single one of them would defect?
wingdingspringking
8mo ago
To be fair, I'm strongly against changing the Supreme Court. The difference there is that the Democrats are still working within the framework of government that exists. The constitution gives the president the right to appoint justices, and there is no cap to the number. Would it be a break with tradition to pack the court? Yes. Would i support an amendment capping the number of justices? Also yes. But the fact remains that everything being done is following a precedent that has existed for quite some time. Partisan justices are nothing new. Even threats of court packing are nothing new (FDR).
When you start acting outside of the institutional framework, you get into really dangerous territory, especially with respect to elections. The threat of escalation is high. If one side does something, the other side will do it too. I really don't want to see every election being questioned by the loosing side. If that happens, it's only a matter of time before we get real political violence.
I would think the answer is be pretty obvious. Language models have struck a death blow to anonymous online forums and now they're bleeding out. Even before LLMs, once people with political agendas or merch to sell realized they could use cheap content sources to manipulate opinions, the writing was on the wall. But now, as the marginal cost of posting content anonymously approaches 0, and the ability to differentiate between humans and bots disappears, this form of media will die.
I think the trend is probably more towards things like private discord servers where at least some degree of familiarity with the other posters is a requirement. Or at the very least, things linked directly to your identity. Maybe there's some space out there for options that require payment in order to participate (substack comments sort of fit this model). But generally, anonymous online posting is on its way out; another strange relic of innovative human communication going the way of the carrier pigeon and the messages in a bottle. Still, 30 years was a pretty good run. I'm glad I got to be in on it.
More options
Context Copy link