jake
9d ago
You could see this playing out in modern satire, or satire in modern intrigue fiction. The BBB has sections in it, Stephen Miller's posted on this, expanding the authority of the executive in deportations. It would go, the media will care more about the Trump-Elon alliance breaking and Elon's very public tantrum than something dastardly buried in the bill, so fake a fight, and go loud and brash so it's not "insider sources" but the men themselves who force the story. Bill is passed and signed, Trump and Musk post a picture shaking hands with the caption "lol pranked" and the administration proceeds with using whatever new authority they've been granted.
But that is (probably) not how the world works, and I think @nopie has described the truth of it.
Have I read what life was like for the aristocracy? Have I read the sort of fictions I close that comment with criticizing? Would I have been spared your angle of comment had I instead written "dating sucks because of love stories"?
You quote my answer, there were not enough instances and nothing close to enough time to see the skill evolved. Like those noble women whose "myriad" options were noble men, so past number and time the third hindrance was the scope too limited for beneficial selectivity. Beneath the nobles the true stock of humanity experienced life exactly as I described. The fifteenth century peasant girl did not exert a meaningful control on the father of her children; nor for the those girls in sixteenth, seventeenth, eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. And whatever controls they may have exerted they were still nothing compared to when the phenomenon of autonomy and variety of selection emerged in full in the twentieth century.
genetic testing has started to indicate that female infidelity is truly a woman’s way to choose when more traditional methods are removed from her
A genetic inclination and justification for infidelity is a very sharp argument. I worry that whatever research comes from highly motivated reasoning.
Why else do you think teenage boys so actively, so instinctively, try to impress the girls around them?
Why do young men jockey for status? We can consider chimps where we understand we're seeing juvenile displays of fitness targeted not really at a particular female but the cohort, or we can consider Alexander, where we understand we're seeing juvenile displays of the coalescing inclination, desire and ability to subjugate.
I need only gesture vaguely at the world to support my thesis, short as it is, as there is no shortage of evidence on the lack of skill in the human female to select good mates. This is a qualitative judgment, the man who propagates has succeeded in the eyes of nature, but this is also a quantitative judgment, evolutionarily a single child is as good as none. I accounted for the potential flaw in my thesis in taking the kindest interpretation for the decline: that men and women equally lack acumen in mate selection, that we are equally to blame and equally blameless. I took this interpretation as acknowledgment of my ignorance, because despite the evidence, I may be wrong, and this is how. It is exactly how, for given all evidence, there is no alternative. Either both sexes lack the skill, or only one, and as the defining graph of post-industrial civilization is female liberation, if it is one, we know which.
I'll finish by speaking to my cohort. The woman who was the queen of my class in my large high school, as lovely a person as she is beautiful to this day, is a single mother with a single son, never married, her bastard's father in the picture briefly. I don't think if she chose better she would have chosen me, I only had eyes for her best friend anyway (who's living her best life with her "roommate"). I have no resentment except a fateful sort about the tragedy that is her life as it could have been. Socially, today, one child is more than good enough, she should have several, and were our world better she would have been swiftly taken with a man of due quality and spent her years since as the happy stay-at-home-mom. Incidentally and I find joyfully, this is exactly what happened with the third in that trio of friends: Queen, Sappho and Blessed. Blessed eloped the summer after we graduated, we now live in the same neighborhood and this time of year I can count on regularly seeing her walking with her growing flock and oh, how she emanates life. That is a woman who could choose a man. If only it were all so easy.
Yeah, what happened in China after that? With all that American-educated Elite Human Capital™ the country must have flourished.
The quasi-westernized person of color raises hackles at the truth because his world swings upon the selective white humility he doesn't recognize as racism. Those WASP "EHCs" are sadistically racist, they're just so good at obfuscating it the person of color, only familiar with the boorish sort of racism from his countrymen, mistakes it for humility. Every measure of their ostensible praise is patronization, you cannot sing in their peculiar timbre the delights of folks of color without feeling to the marrow that infinite satisfaction in certainty of superiority at being born white. The most belligerent Xitter 1488-er can't begin to apprehend such intrinsic belief in white supremacy. I'll hold up my media literacy certificate and put on my serious hat, have you seen the movie Get Out? It's 104 minutes of literally this point. I digress. He knows the boorish racism and he conflates it with what he sees in America, not as substantive argument but as an appeal to aesthetic and a subconscious plea to mother and father WASP EHC to intervene. Unfortunately for him, though fortunately for greater discourse, the surging right no longer cares about being impugned by aesthetic.
I myself, as an enlightened centrist, never cared.
So you bring out the typical and lazy responses. "Cousin Trevor" or "Cousin Billy Bob" no, it's not the pejorative strawmen about people in very blue-collar occupations or the perpetually unemployed indolent who would have a spot at MIT if only they kept out foreigners. It's about what we know for a fact:
-
All compulsory American education is weighted against white male students
-
All non-vocational institutions of higher learning in the US are weighted against white male students
-
All STEM employment in the US is weighted against white male applicants
-
And I'll throw in a corollary #4, US corporations hire vast numbers of Indians because, chiefly, it's the closest thing to legal slavery
Nobody is saying the physics genius with a special understanding of reality is being kept out. Men of such stature are defined by their persistence in the face of adversity, they will get in, whatever it takes. What we are saying is most men don't know their calling, they choose a career and it becomes their calling. There are men who feel no calling to medicine but who would have made superb surgeons, same with civil engineers or simply as research assistants. But they've gone through #1 and they're in the process or they've finished #2 and they see #3 rushing toward them and they choose a field or employer where the hostility of modernity toward them appears least present. 70 years ago a bunch of men weren't doing nothing, "twiddling their thumbs" while they waited for Computer Science to exist. They chose among the options they had, and now there are many options.
Here's a question, how many South and East Asians now work at Microsoft? Here's another question, what's going on with Windows 11?
Fuck me, look at the output of that Elite Human Capital™!
I wonder why white guys might second-guess a job at Microsoft. Aside from knowing they'll have to make it through the gauntlet of interviews where, again, the policy is "Come up with literally any reason possible to not hire white men." In the rarity they do get hired, their reward is working with and for South Asians, Indians, who will only promote other Indians. "They should just deal with it." No, they just take low-visible-prestige jobs in small outfits and regional corporations with comparable compensation given massively lower costs of living and real estate. And some of them are unspecific geniuses, because there are more than 350 million people in this country and even at third sigma above that's quite a few. They didn't all go to Ivies, and they aren't all in STEM.
You know what else? Some of those Americans, all of them not just the geniuses, will have lost spots at universities in favor of Chinese or Indian or whatever other country's nationals, and I can provide you the exact number of acceptable instances for that to happen, the country over, totaling every student at every institution: zero.
America exists for Americans. If a Chinese national good enough on academic merit for Harvard wants to come here, renounce his citizenship, and pledge to help us root out CCP spies, by all means take him. Pay for everything, give him a pile of gold, we want him, he is elite. Objectively, for a university to take a Chinese national over an American and provide them with qualifications they take back home is a cost that will not be recouped. That is the rule, we do benefit from elite talent coming to this country as long as they stay. The experiment of taking in foreign nationals and sending them out with an American education in some hope of our later benefit has been an empiric failure. For decades almost every aspiring Mexican Technocrat got a US education, shall we check in on how we've both benefited?
(I'll let you imagine the cartel-chainsawed corpses.)
I will compliment you, though. By commenting here you prove yourself more astute than Hanania. He is a person who is notable in this sphere solely for being notable. He was relatively early on X, and that is the only compliment he could get from me, because if he fielded his ideas here first they would be trashed, because he did field them here years ago and they were trashed. I would trust him quoting you over you quoting him. The follower count is no endorsement, EHC knows this, many such cases.
jake
16d ago
If anyone thinks we can win a cold war against China without immigrant brainpower, they are out of their minds.
Depending on the amount of espionage we could in fact and quite confidently say we would win if we blocked Chinese nationals from all US STEM.
Wet streets don't cause rain, and top-ranked schools don't cause good students. If China didn't need our schools, their nationals wouldn't be here. If those Chinese geniuses are making such great contributions, they wouldn't have been let out of the country. There is an alternative explanation, which I'll address in a moment.
There were 76 million people in the US circa 1900 and they were 88% white. The American Empire followed, and it wasn't Chinese students building it. We did have a glut of Jewish talent but if anything the peak of our Empire was smaller than it would have been as their contribution was hastening the inevitable that was American victory.
There are twice as many whites in this country now, so we can also confidently say that just given a larger population there must be far more geniuses and far more overlooked geniuses. This relates to the alternative explanation, which is China does sequester their best and brightest, but they let the lessers attend school in the US because of the most fortuitous consequence of reducing opportunities for Americans.
Anymore, be it either true success from China or paper success, there is no reason for their nationals to be allowed continued participation in US STEM. I do agree this plan will be haphazard and amateurish, but not truly indiscriminate, as their nationals in US STEM should be indiscriminately and unceremoniously expelled to the last. But we could reach a happy medium with reciprocity: they can have, given the difference in populations, 1 student in our schools for every 5 we have in theirs.
jake
18d ago
Eternal childhood, except ersatz mommy lets you fuck her.
Well said.
If men want the easy girlfriend, why do you think women won't want the easy boyfriend?
Because if women prioritized ease in relationships this thread wouldn't exist.
Time share in a high status guy versus a whole robo-boyfriend? Some women may take that deal, but if you think "little kings" will reign over powerless concubines, I suggest you watch some Chinese harem drama series. Men can and will be subtly manipulated in such situations.
Certainly there will be manipulation and "court drama" but on the country level, look to any Muslim nation that allows harems. It's not that individual women have no power, it's that the group "women" does not comprise a meaningful political bloc. Thus "female sociopolitical power will collapse", not "the wife's sociopolitical power."
If AI is doing all the work and all the thinking and all the research and all the planning and all the productivity, why does it matter if the human in notional charge has XY or XX chromosomes? We won't need "ah, but men are more adventurous, more risk-taking, make the big breakthroughs in science" when the AI is super-intelligent and doing all the research work. Link this in with
This and your point on chaos are very strong observations. It could be that I'm wrong about sex disparity in simulacra interest, and that would significantly change the progression. I could also be wrong about the swiftness of automation and the requirement for human labor. If women are equally interested, all these changes occur so quickly there isn't the span of decades between 2050-2100 where significant amounts of human labor are still required, it would make sense to reduce the male population first. Women are sensible about these things, they'll take quite easily to life in post-scarcity civilization.
But I'm not wrong. The matter of automation isn't one of logistics, it's one of society. We can't flip a switch and become a post-scarcity civilization, we have to prepare for it. We have to draw plans to sunset all those structures based on human labor, and that's all of them. We have to develop the spirit, inculcate to posterity, so they are psychologically prepared for the cessation of the cycle of School -> Career -> Retirement. We have to develop new structures and new politics to accommodate a country where people only work if they want. This means an interim where labor is still required. Some labor automation won't cover for that reason of giving people work, some practical reasons of redundancy, some aesthetic, but wherever there is labor automation can't cover, that is the domain of men.
I'm also not wrong about the sex disparity in use. Clear evidence of biology informing these preferences can be found in the share of US households with children where the mother is the breadwinner and the father is the homemaker: 1% Women don't want to provide, they want to be provided for, deservedly, but this is exactly why simulacra simply cannot offer for women what they can for men. Men aren't attracted to Alexandra Daddario because she's an actress, but we all know why Grace Brassel is with Shane Gillis. It doesn't matter if it's by the time few are working, because attraction isn't really about being provided for either, it's toward the man doing the providing, and how. It's not enough about attentiveness or emotional labor or housework. It's not enough about physical attraction. It is a gestalt thing that a robot cannot achieve with women by fact of its existence. Shall I be more clear? The "relational prostheses" are lesser things, pathetic things, contemptible things women are above, and no enduring attraction may arise from that sort contempt.
In a vacuum, the sex disparity in births could be flipped as you suggest. It makes sense, the inclination to chaos is a powerful argument for reducing the male population. All the way up to when a country that isn't 90% women decides to invade.
I wrote on this about a year ago here, but I was replying to a Friday comment on Sunday and it found few eyes.
I'm reposting it because short of cataclysmic war or calamity, what I describe is exactly what will happen.
What's wrong here is the particular equivocation of politics and war. Politics is not equal with war, politics are meant to avert war, but they are equal in that both are about the transferral of power. If we were to assign a sex polarity to the practices, politics would indeed be the feminine method to the masculine method of war.
Beyond that, I can tell you where this divide ends. We'll pass the core of this turmoil, enough to stabilize us as we move into the approach for the singularity.
Around 2030 we'll see the first examples of convincing human simulacra. These will be proofs of the concept but they won't be largely available until later in the decade. Boston Dynamics maintaining their exact rate of advancement will have robots with convincingly human articulation by the mid-30s, especially with AI improving at helping research.
In the 2040s, simulacra will be able to replace a great deal of labor and production of simulacra will become the national industry of whatever country that perfects them. My bias is Japan: they're most poised with the combination of established acumen, workforce and key socioeconomic factors, namely their inverted population pyramid. Low TFR will be neatly solved by simulacra taking over labor. As so-ordered a nation and people as the Japanese, they will implement the necessary policies to begin the country's move toward quasi-post-scarcity. Those few other similarly ordered nations will likewise swiftly adopt simulacra, and as tens of millions are produced by the year, and only increasing, simulacra will quickly become a reasonable household expenditure. I expect by the end of the '40s they will be ubiquitous in every country where they are legal.
For the price of a mid-range car, households will be able to purchase a lifetime of service from a chef-maid-assistant. So average households will acquire simulacra, further increasing demand, and lonely men will also buy them for all obvious reasons. That motivation for purchase will not end with lonely men. "She's a 10 (she's a hotter-version-of-pick-your-hottest-celebrity), but she's a robot" won't last. One of your friends will get one, and you'll interact with it, and even if you're obstinate about "it," eventually it will be her to your mind, because she talks, she laughs, she appears to think, she in all ways seems the part. You'll only know because you know, that won't be enough. It won't matter how they aren't "real" because they will be real enough. All but indistinguishable for the existential question of soul in the machine, and it won't be long before you're not so sure about that, either.
At ubiquity they will end dating. The bottom third of men who can afford them for a start, to half, to I'd expect a Pareto 80%. The man is accustomed to not having children, it's our evolutionary history, it may bother them, it won't stop them. What women say won't matter, a guy might want what only they can offer, but not at the cost, especially not if they've never had that success, and that already increasing population will represent an even greater percentage of the next generation. To put in such effort to settle for someone less attractive, less responsive, more burdensome, more risky, to settle for something human when he can have something machine-perfect. Work, go home, play games until she has dinner ready, watch a movie, fuck, maybe play more games, go to bed. His friends can and will talk shit, his base urges are satisfied, he won't care enough about what they say. His true needs will go unsatisfied and it will be a lifestyle harmful to his soul, but it will be so much easier.
Some women will have them, not many. I'd rather not invoke inceldom, I find the specific slant to their ideas irrelevant here, but it's true men pursue while women are pursued and that imbalance defines dating. The asymmetric effort of dating as a man versus dating as a woman, again the man pursues, he works, he pays; the woman is pursued, she is worked for, she is cared for. The simulacra will thus be unnatural as a thing women acquire as a relational prosthesis; why would she pay for what, for good reason, she gets free? The simulacra will have no being (or so we'll reassure ourselves), can father no children, can offer no increase, can offer no status. Women will have them as the chef-maid-assistant models, maybe even more sometimes, but they won't replace, not in the way they will replace relationships for men.
Harems will re-emerge, they will be the only option for most women, so they will be easier. Between simulacra and harems, female sociopolitical power will collapse. They will lose too much leverage with too many low-status men, while high-status men will each become a little king with his court of concubines who will certainly have no power.
The 2050s will see human gestation in synthetic environments, so clinic-based artificial wombs. Here I don't think that it will take that long for the breakthroughs in tech, instead it will be the economics and social impacts of simulacra that will give incentive to developing the tech. Again I expect Japan to widely adopt, as their already low TFR falls off a cliff from their herbivore men taking to simulacra. They will have a reduced need for a new generation from so much of their labor being automated but I expect there still to be decades between the ubiquity of simulacra and those simulacra reaching the capacity to automate >90% of all labor. This will also be the first sight of the real benefit to the age of simulacra, the offer of stability in overseeing the drastic reduction in human population.
Starting in the 50s or 60s we'll see government regulation on reproduction. It won't be severe because it won't need to be, so anyone who really wants a big family will be able to have one with minimal structural hindrance. It will be simple incentive-based, I've referred to the policy as the "Half-Right to Reproduction." Systemically its purpose will be to halve the population with each generation, it'll work faster than that. Every person will be bestowed with one half-right they can exercise at age of majority. Would-be parents can combine to a whole-right and exchange it for their child's addition to the government dole, UBI, which will also exist. As AI and simulacra come from almost all labor, the newly jobless will need placation else promiseless young men become bored and at-risk for chaos. AI-managed industry, so all goods, pharmaceuticals, medical care, farming, and also advances in 3D printing, will see the cost of goods plummet while their quality peaks. It will become progressively harder for the government to not adopt major socialist practices as capitalism finally begins to "win" in competing itself out of existence. The population can't keep growing in such a system, at least not until we have FTL and a thousand shipyards in Sol. Assuming FTL is possible, which I don't, but I sure hope it is.
Simulacra will play a critical part in stability in keeping men satisfied. Advancements in entertainment, so another 20-30 years of development in video games, the arrival of UBI and the removal of needing to work to live. The population will need to be distracted until most can die childless but "happy enough." Half-rights help this goal, because people can sell their half-rights or buy other's half-rights, all at government exchanges. The exchanges will always buy half-rights, subject to reversible sterilization. A guy will go to a clinic next door to the exchange, maybe incorporated into the exchange, get whatever implant that stops sperm from working, get the cash to order a simulacra, sail into the sunset. Easy.
I don't expect western nations to swiftly automate labor like Japan. We'll need to acclimatize to the idea, begin the inculcation of no-work-to-live in successive generations so that when they're older, or their kids are older, they'll be prepared for not having jobs. With that and the shrinking population, by the turn of the century Western nations will be ready for post-scarcity life. New generations will still be needed in the interim, artificial gestation is pivotal here for the other paradigmatic social change.
As relationships and childbirth are "solved," as countries most adopting simulacra and bespoke children grown in vats enjoy golden ages while their men break productivity records, why would a country not produce as many sons as possible and as few daughters as necessary? There will be outgroups, so the Amish and the like, potentially a new movement of tech-circa-1999, but they will be small, none meaningful political factions, or where meaningful, supportive of the new power structure. I'd also expect a "reserve" population for practical concerns of catastrophe and ovum stocks, but most women will belong to the elite population. This above all is why we will see minimal and then no opposition to sharp sex-demo disparity with the great decline in the population of the human female: with so few, being a naturally born woman will be a position of immense status, inherently aristocratic. They will necessarily be the best of the best. Those chosen, those expressly wanted few. A new nobility, and it will indeed be so easy.
Women will "benefit" first, eventually men will, as again the purpose will be to shrink the entire population. So each generation will more-than-halve itself until the population is at an "acceptable" – at least stable – level. The sex distribution will once again be at parity, and those naturally born biological males will also be inherently aristocratic, as all civilized humans belong to the new nobility.
And all of this will just work. What I describe will happen because it isn't fighting back, it isn't trying to undo anything, it doesn't require conquest over more than a century of culture, it doesn't require recovery from war or calamity. It will work according to slopes and entropy, it will work in congruence with human nature. It will be the easiest path through, so it will just work.
If it's physically possible we'll break the tyranny of the rocket equation and achieve FTL travel. We'll begin spacefaring regardless and when, in however long, man reaches frontier planets to settle and dominate, they'll return to lifestyles us today find familiar. Those humans will begin the real work, of understanding and healing the light scarring on our gestalt soul from the depravity of human civilization, culminating in what was necessary to pass through the 20th and 21st century – with what was necessary to pass the Great Filter.
It didn't have to be this way, now it has to be this way. Or else we're all fucking dead.
Mr. Trump, the first convicted felon elected president, has erased ethical boundaries and dismantled the instruments of accountability that constrained his predecessors.
Quoted to make clear the journalist behind this article interprets all of Trump's actions in maximally bad faith.
Jeff Bezos agreed to finance a promotional film about Melania Trump that will reportedly put $28 million directly in her pocket
A documentary made by and about Melania was acquired by Amazon for $40MM, her cut is $28MM. Higher by percent than typical EP share in cinema, but in cinema they profit from tickets.
A business entity tied to the Trumps sits on a large stash of the $TRUMP cryptocurrency and collects fees every time the coins change hands. So far, the coin has generated at least $320 million in fees, which the Trumps share with their business partners, according to Chainalysis, a crypto analytics firm.
Extrapolation from trading volume and an assumed fee. Appears correct. As for Smith:
And the crypto people are right that TRUMP and MELANIA just make the whole space look bad
Crypto has required no assistance from Trump to look bad. Smith's scenario is plausible but an extreme reach, at the value and volume it would take tens of millions to move it 10%, and it would have to keep that value until Trump's sons could sell enough to profit the intended amount of the bribe.
I do find it interesting, because I feel a quiet dissonance about Trump having a memecoin beyond the obvious issues. It's something about the aesthetic of it all, cryptocurrency has one kind of griminess to it, while politicians have a different kind of griminess, and to me, these clash. This even despite TRUMP having its namesake as a man who controls aircraft carriers, and thus it carrying more objective value than all other cryptocurrencies combined. Cue obvious issues, in no circumstances should a President profit from alternate fiat currency, and his family shouldn't either, whatever those "ties" are exactly. But if a businessman capitalizing on crypto is the only criticism of merit in this piece, it's nothing, and ultimately, those who lose on crypto get what they deserve.
The Securities and Exchange Commission in 2023 accused Mr. Sun of fraud, but after Mr. Trump took over the agency put its lawsuit on hold even as it dropped other crypto investigations.
The SEC under Biden opened an investigation into Sun a year ago after he invested in the Trump-tied WLF. Not difficult to see what happened here.
The luxury jumbo jet from Qatar that has been heavily featured in the news. In what I'm sure was a total coincidence, Trump announced a big AI deal with Qatar, KSA, and UAE that's almost certainly a big net-negative for the USA according to Zvi.
Hollow. They criticize because it went to Trump.
Zvi gets lost in the weeds on deeper AI questions when it's a matter of geopolitics. The oiled Arabs are beyond desperate for diversification, if they attain economic salvation it will be through AI. Terrifically easy and critical win for US diplomacy.
Congressional Republicans spent years investigating Hunter Biden, the son of President Joseph R. Biden Jr., for trading on his family name to make millions of dollars, even labeling the clan the “Biden Crime Family.” But while Hunter Biden’s cash flow was a tiny fraction of that of Donald Trump Jr., Eric Trump and Jared Kushner, Republicans have shown no appetite for looking into the current presidential family’s finances.
Hunter Biden is a fuckup, Trump's kids aren't. Had Trump never entered politics, his eldest sons' dealings would be unsurprising . . . but this isn't a defense, because he did enter politics, and his sons run his organization and are part of his political brand. It caps your list but reading about it makes me feel like you've made an afterthought of the point deserving this entire discussion.
Zach Witkoff, a founder of the Trump family crypto firm World Liberty Financial, and son of Steve Witkoff, the president’s special envoy, announced a $2 billion deal in the United Arab Emirates, just a couple of weeks before his father and Mr. Trump traveled there for a presidential visit.
Sitting in front of a packed auditorium in Dubai, a founder of the Trump family cryptocurrency business made a brief but monumental announcement on Thursday. A fund backed by Abu Dhabi, he said, would be making a $2 billion business deal using the Trump firm’s digital coins.
That transaction would be a major contribution by a foreign government to President Trump’s private venture — one that stands to generate hundreds of millions of dollars for the Trump family. And it is a public and vivid illustration of the ethical conflicts swirling around Mr. Trump’s crypto firm, which has blurred the boundary between business and government.
Corruption in politics is those three principled civil libertarians who care equally about all corruption and those seven zillion witches taking turns trying to cudgel each other with hypocrite. We know this, no more state of the discourse.
There are clear lines here, and it doesn't matter if it's entirely above board. If a hypothetical business in one of those countries invested two billion in a hypothetical non-political Trump org then he would visit as quickly as possible. For it to happen with the President gives the appearance of impropriety, and for the President, appearing improper is being improper.
Except impropriety isn't a crime, and I'm not sure what crime is supposed as having been committed. Now I did just say appearance alone is a problem, and if say the Soros org gave Trump a large amount of money, even if they loudly proclaimed their opposition and continued to operate antithetically to one another, everybody would be suspicious. Even still, impropriety is not a crime. What's the result? Like we might say it's improper, it is spiritually criminal, for politicians to engage in insider trading, but it's not a crime, and how many traders now profit from the Pelosi Index? It's also only spiritually criminal to lobby for and support politicians who campaign on making a kind of business illegal or regulated into insolvency while shorting those businesses and also investing in alternatives to those businesses. The Green Industry thanks them. Corruption is the game and the rules against are now only used as weapons. I will not hear appeals to convention, against Trump, the left struck first.
A person or organization can bribe a politician. The sheriff is bribed to ignore crime, the judge the same, the city manager bribed to softball a contract. I'm not so sure a country can bribe a politician. Foreigners can, but I just covered this. People who happened to be Ukrainian were bribing the Bidens so their own wealth increased. The governing body of a country? Somewhere on that path it must veer into geopolitics and diplomacy. If an entire country makes it personally worthwhile for the President to pursue better relations, what's the crime? Their accepting of gifts? To what end? Favoring them in policy? If it harmed US companies that would be a crime. If it harmed companies in other countries? I think they should have made a better offer. The President is America, and no length of litany of "incompetence" applies to the man who gains that office. Even if in his later years he sharply deteriorates and someone else holds the pen, he still first made himself electable. I say this because these are men with a special quality of judgment, and an emissary delivering a horde of gold unto the king might make him very interested in that country indeed.
The Bidens saw only money. Hunter Biden was on the board of Burisma and the US relationship with Ukraine has brought hell to that country. The real crime of the Bidens' corruption isn't the impropriety of taking money from foreigners. There is a crime, but the rote ho-hum sort, of taxpayer dollars being pilfered out of Ukraine and then funneled into private coffers. Taxpayer dollars are already pilfered into private coffers, so this isn't unusual, just elaborate. Their real crime matches whatever degree of their involvement in the greater machinations behind all those young men dead in holes from kamikaze drones.
What of the Trumps' impropriety? And while one final time it is impropriety by our standards, I'm just not sure it's corrupt. These aren't sinecures for Junior and Eric, these aren't private businessmen buying access in interest of their own wallets. These are governments, who may well have bought access to the President, but who are acting in the interest of their peoples. So it might have also been for Ukraine, sometime, someplace. In theory. But those involved aren't state department spooks running a color revolution. It's Trump walking on stage and talking about his hopes for the region and asserting et refrain their right of self-determination. We're investing, American businesses are investing, Trump's organization is investing in these countries. If economic flourish results, if Trump Tower & Resort Jeddah becomes a beloved destination, where's the grift? If his efforts at enduring peace and prosperity in The Middle East succeed, what will history care if his motivation was personal wealth?
I'm often blinded by my optimism, but I know I see better than Peter Baker here, who is blinded by hate. Or I should hope he is, because I can respect that. If that article came out of pure cynicism, I know as fact I'm right.
A bold response, Jake, "Trump is corrupt but actually that's a good thing."
jake
19d ago
the law firm Trump sanctioned earlier this year, only to drop all sanctions against them after they eliminated DEI policies and promised to do $40 million of pro bono work for
himWhite House initiatives.
jake
27d ago
If we ask what most defines the bad governor the singular example is "He has an innocent man put to death." Whatever the truth of Pilate's reasoning, he was in dereliction of his greater duty to good governance. You call to cold practicality. Kill the innocent rebel, end the movement, prevent instability and possibly save many lives. Those bad but "necessary" decisions don't come from nothing, rather they come as the long consequences of earlier bad decisions and failures. How many seemed necessary at the time?
There is also a nice irony to preventing instability. Jesus, who held tremendous draw, offended the elders. They wanted him killed and they were appeased. Bar Kokhba also had draw; thus went Judea.
There's a fair criticism of pickiness, and not to put unspoken words in your mouth but if you're implying it, you're only implying it, that the righties wouldn't want the chainsmoker at the bar. A lot of those young men are picky, but it's turnabout from the woman being more picky. Not to cast blame here because there isn't blame, the behavior from both sexes results from society. But blaming society is also a folly, might as well blame the sun for rising, for the good it can do to change it.
You're right and you're wrong. We're in the most narrow slice between past and future where you will approach rightness. Some of these men couldn't get dates if they were born 10 years earlier, or 20, 30, 40, 50--except far enough back and then things change, because dating is a hyper-modern activity, as is equally the degree of autonomy that men and/but far more women, have in romance. Go far enough back and dating doesn't exist, it's courtship, a bit farther back and courtship lands between betrothal and marriage. Farther back and it's pure arranged marriage, and far enough back and it's men dragging women and girls away from the primitive domiciles of their slain husbands, brothers, and fathers.
That violence is so relevant. Most men never reproduced, each of us is the legacy of those few who had many wives and many children. Because those were the traits of our most ancient forefathers, this urge courses through our veins. We're happier and better as couples, but even while you are (I assume) a married man, and to cast no aspersions, I assume you still notice the beautiful waitress, or young woman at the gym or working as a paralegal. You're not blind, you appreciate it viscerally because it's biological. Or maybe you're better than me, which I probably believe myself; wiser, more mature, and you actually don't really think about it. Still you would understand generally men are like this, even the most faithful of husbands.
Most women did reproduce, but up until the 20th century, pretty much no women anywhere on Earth -- not enough to change the behavior of the sex -- had a choice in who would be the father of their children. Men ravished, women were ravished. This is our nature, it is what our environments selected. There was never environmental pressure nor enough advantage conferred for men, as a sex, to apprehend some ineffable and holistic quality of "wife and mother material" beyond the purely physical. She's young, she has wide hips and nice breasts, good enough. Equally, there has never been a reason for women to acquire the mirror of that trait, just as men didn't get to reproduce, women didn't get to choose not to.
Then very, very suddenly, for the first time in the history of our species, most women became the ones who chose. I don't like a lot of the points I could branch to from here, but what is certain is that no less than 50% of women simply lack the good judgment to make that decision, and oh boy is that rate identical for men. See I don't think the damage is autonomy itself, not dates, not those men who can't get dates. The damage comes from a beast of many facets, all of them culture, but the cruelness in its eyes is named fictive love and soulmate. Women look for it, men look for it, who gets it?
Based on divorce rates, the answer seems to be not very many.
jake
1mo ago
What does it mean to hold yourself in what you think is the right way if there is an absolute standard for righteousness?
What does it mean to hold yourself in the right way if righteousness doesn't exist?
jake
1mo ago
I've leaned on its empiric benefit here because I question the receptiveness of this audience to moral condemnation.
It's the one-two, we of low agreeableness thinking we know better than the tradition civilization stands upon, and of simple rebelliousness at the idea of being judged and found unrighteous. I hate to invoke Pascal, but something runs parallel here. If I am wrong about the universe, I will not be wrong in how I have held myself. If you are wrong about the universe, you will have been wrong about the very nature of your soul. We can slap fight about whose personal investment functions as greater cognitive vulnerability, but it's not me, and I know I'm right.
At any rate, we live in a world of ideas so foolish only a smart person could believe them.
jake
1mo ago
The universe, our solar system, our planet and all life are the consequences of the Big Bang and the laws of physics. These events happened, cosmological and Earth's natural history, but they are simply and solely what happened. They neither support nor repudiate the Genesis account. The skeptic takes the Genesis account as expressly literal and says "but history." In this they err, but understandably so as the American skeptic particularly will have been exposed so much to Protestants who hold to Young-Earth creationism. The apologist in turn errs in accepting the skeptic's framing as they concede the point of natural history as supporting the naturalist paradigm. This is true for the YEC, whose first error is that belief, it is also true for the OEC/believer in Theistic Evolution who accept it as having explanatory power.
But the apologist is correct in the importance of faith, the point is ubiquitous. I assume you are familiar enough to know the recurrence of "The Jews fall to apostasy and ruin, God personally delivers them, and yet they fall once more." They knew, still they fell, again and again. It's never been about what you know, it's about what you hold in faith. That we see no glaring gap in natural history is not because if there were we would have no choice but to believe. We see contiguous natural history because that is what happened. Faith is for why.
jake
1mo ago
Do you mean which specific events? Preterism resolves this as the belief that most or all Biblical Prophesies, such as those in Matthew, were fulfilled with the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD. I can't rightly say it's what "I" think, by which I mean I didn't derive it myself. I was curious about certain verses in the Gospel, read on eschatology and found Preterism.
In particular, in Matthew 24, the disciples ask Christ:
"Tell us, when will this happen, and what will be the sign of your coming and of the end of the age?"
He says in verse 34:
"Truly I tell you, this generation will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened."
Generation here, and elsewhere in Matthew, is the Greek genea, and in its uses in the context it means the living generation, the people who were alive at that time. The genea would witness those events. What events did they witness? Nero's reign, his imperial cult, his persecution of Christians, and the Romans destroying the Second Temple as they razed Jerusalem. The Antichrist, the False Prophet, the War with the Saints, and the Great Tribulation.
jake
1mo ago
Yes, and again, it violates bureaucratic decree, not divine proscription.
Partial Preterism, which is not considered incongruous with orthodoxy, holds much of the prophesies of Revelation as being fulfilled in 70 AD. The destruction of Jerusalem, Nero as the Antichrist, and the Romans as the tool for God's judgment on Israel as the Great Tribulation. It does not hold the Second Coming, the bodily resurrection of the dead, and the Last Judgment as having occurred.
That said, 29 is metaphorical, it uses the same language found throughout the Tanakh where what is being referred to is not the literal sun, moon and stars, but God's judgment on the nations of man. Invoking the Tanakh continues with 30, as God is repeatedly described as arriving upon a cloud to enact his judgment. And also, Paul was writing and died before 70 AD. He did condemn those, in his time, who claimed the prophecies had been fulfilled, but he did so while warning in his epistles of the imminence of the Second Coming.
jake
1mo ago
John Paul II himself saw Cardinals in excess of the number. It wasn't a proclamation of God ordaining there be only 120 Cardinals, it was a matter of bureaucratic efficiency to "establish fitting norms to regulate the orderly election of their Successor." Sola Church has libraries of debate, and I would need to know your exact issues with Vatican II, but for the last I can at least point to—
Matthew 24:34
jake
1mo ago
Dugan was under no obligation to permit ICE in her courtroom but she exceeded passive refusal into affirmative acts of concealment and harboring when she warned Flores-Ruiz and escorted him through the jury door. You don't have to let ICE in, you can't warn your roommate and say "I'll keep them busy while you book it." She should face those as charges in addition to obstruction.
jake
1mo ago
I know what you mean by "no religion is correct" or I assume you mean it cosmologically, as in "no religion correctly describes the cause of existence." I was going to say you mean it metaphysically but morals are part of metaphysics, and there is one provably morally correct text and it is the Bible. I also know that is quite the claim and is itself worthy of a separate discussion so I will collapse it to this: as a set of rules for the people of a society to follow, we find empirically Christianity produces outcomes superior to all other belief sets.
The reason this discussion exists, the reason this website exists as a place for this discussion, the reason for the internet, for your internet-connected device, for the grid that powers your device, is the give or take 2,000 years of Christianity that raised this civilization.
What we can say of Christianity that we cannot say of any other faith on this planet is how perfectly it is tailored to key human biotruths. No other faith approaches Christianity's understanding of man, of his weaknesses, his wickedness, his worst excesses, but and of course also, our strengths, the best of ourselves, and how we use these to address our shortcomings. How we may edify ourselves and conquer the worst of ourselves in pursuit of becoming the best of ourselves. This flows out, it defines the people and the nation, it raises the civilization.
Take monogamy: most men who have ever lived did not procreate. In religiously-proscribed monogamy, until death, women were given value beyond their wombs, and men were simply given value. This implicitly but so crucially and truly individualizes, it recognizes the inherent value of the person. For each and every man to be a husband and each and every woman a wife, that we might be joined as one. Civilizationally this produces buy-in. As the couple is wedded and has children, they are invested in their place, in their community, in their people and in their nation. Young men who are not invested in their nation time and again burn it down, it is the precipice the West hangs upon today, large numbers of unmarried young men with little or no hope for the future, just waiting for the match.
Islam explicitly endorses polygyny and the keeping of concubines, as does Hinduism. Buddhism and Taoism do not circumscribe, and polygamy has a history of being widespread in China, among other traditionally high-practicing nations. Shinto also does not circumscribe, though Shinto endorses monogamy and polygamy was historically rare in Japan, a practice limited to their elite and largely for heir production and the securing of alliances. Similar most to Western Europe. Why is it that the most highly developed nations on this planet are the most historically monogamous?
And Christ preached this in Rome in the first century Anno Domini. Morality is a technology and I wish I could recall the exact analogy I read on this point because it was a historian who understood far, far better the moral context of Rome and he put it in appropriate technological terms for these principles to have emerged during Tiberius' reign. Western civilization's moral framework laid out entirely in a few years of Christ's teachings, was it like if they had instead progressed to landing men on the moon? It feels appropriate, as Aldrin took communion there.
This moral framework, this inconceivable leap forward--if God walked this Earth as a man, it was as Christ, and his historicity is not at question. The totality of manuscripts and indeed the existence of Christianity is attestation of its namesake. But here we do have a critical problem in the debate. The naturalist historian and the layman atheist operate from a fallacious first premise: Miracles can't happen, so this text is false. If the texts lacked any and all content the naturalist could dismiss on first-principle rejection of the supernatural the accounts would be universally accepted as overwhelmingly true. But the miracles are in the accounts, foremost that he rose from the dead. If it didn't happen, why did his first followers believe he did? We reinvite that fallacious premise. The premise is God doesn't exist, the premise is miracles can't happen, so they don't conclude that they were lying, they premise that they were lying and reason back.
I say all this, and I believe it, even as I know this isn't a place for proselytizing nor me the suitable evangelist. I also know this isn't something that can be reasoned into. I've personally always felt the truth of Romans 1, that God is evidence in his creation. I do wish I could impress this feeling on others, I think it's the only thing that I would ever view as something I could give as testimony, that I can step back from myself and invite this awe in creation and axiomatic apprehension of the creator. But these are words on a page and saying how obvious it is to me has worth only to me. I might then appeal to logic, at one point I had here a full formula for the argument, but you can't logic yourself into this either. Even if I convinced you of Christianity's moral supremacy and its historic solidity or else you found my logic unassailable, even if you then for a time pursued it, you might and rightly feel it was for the wrong reasons, that your heart wasn't in it, that you were lying to yourself.
I don't know what to say, I don't have the words, and this isn't the venue.
It is nice to feel truly known. I've been thinking a lot lately about Orson Scott Card's depiction of love. Ender of course; to defeat the formics he needed to understand them truly. To understand truly was to love them, to love truly was to understand them. This I must believe informed Card's depiction of the character Jane, an AI that started as a program to understand Ender, and she does, and she loves him, it is in loving him she gains her specific personage. So I'll say again, it is a nice thing to feel truly known. It is nice in this to have something that makes sense of existence.
But this is me, and maybe you don't feel like you need to make sense of existence, or that you feel your view of things already makes enough sense of existence, and you don't need any more. You might also wonder if I am reliant on this, if I need this to be true, if I am as guilty as making the conclusion of its truth my premise, and reasoning backward. On the last you'd be right, it's what makes me an unsuitable evangelist, my lack of testimony. I know it's true. Not for any moment, I've had no definable spiritual moments, nor do I feel like I need to. I know it's true regardless. Why, though, and what good is that to tell others? You can tell it's true by the way that it is. Such elucidation. I don't have the words!
You say you've thought about going to church a few times in the last decade, but each time "this isn't true" rears its head. Why, then, do you think you consider going? This might be worth considering, and deeply, how this feeling has arisen repeatedly within you despite your belief that you know better. Maybe you do know better, just not in the way that you think.
jake
1mo ago
Miran covers this is in his paper, presenting his argument of China as having effectively paid for the 2018-2019 tariffs.
During his campaign, President Trump proposed to raise tariffs to 60% on China and 10% or higher on the rest of the world, and intertwined national security with international trade. Many argue that tariffs are highly inflationary and can cause significant economic and market volatility, but that need not be the case. Indeed, the 2018-2019 tariffs, a material increase in effective rates, passed with little discernible macroeconomic consequence. The dollar rose by almost the same amount as the effective tariff rate, nullifying much of the macroeconomic impact but resulting in significant revenue. Because Chinese consumers’ purchasing power declined with their weakening currency, China effectively paid for the tariff revenue. Having just seen a major escalation in tariff rates, that experience should inform analysis of future trade conflicts.
If tariffs cause the average consumer to pay +$1800/year when they don't make +$1800/year, or simpler, if tariffs are causing people to spend money in excess of increased wages, what would they care of a stronger dollar? Miran also covers this:
Second, Cavallo et al find that the price hikes occurred for prices paid by importers, not prices sold by retailers, limiting the ability of tariffs to result in increases in consumer prices but squeezing margins. That means that for the measures of inflation commonly prioritized, like the Consumer Price Index, or the price index for Personal Consumption Expenditures, there was little consequence. That helps reconcile the micro- and macro experiences. However, it would be bizarre for economies with sufficient competition not to see importers over time restore their margins by shifting suppliers if currency weakness isn’t passed through.
The game of tariffs appears far more complex than "cost passed to consumers" but I'm just copy-pasting Miran, I don't know economics.
jake
1mo ago
I often think how cozy it must be to live with the child's view of politics. They disagree with me, those idiots!
What is stupidity, what is intelligence? What is their value? With intelligence as a descriptor we attempt to measure and describe something else. It's IQ and g, the thing itself, "it." What is it? It's building skyscrapers plural with your name on them and being elected POTUS twice with the most powerful media machine in the world standing against you. Trump has it, so when someone says he lacks intelligence, maybe! But he doesn't lack it, so if he lacks intelligence its value is far less than we think, if it has any at all.
It's the most complicated game and just because Trump has it doesn't mean he always or even often makes the right decisions. He made plenty of bad decisions in his first term, but here I must observe in those areas firmly under the executive's direct purview, where he didn't have to delegate it into an adversarial bureaucracy or broker with an ambivalent-at-best congress or wait and hope for the court's approval, he delivered two unequivocal aces. No further adventurism in the Middle East, and his strong attempt to normalize relations with North Korea. Had it been Obama with Un on the DMZ the picture would have won a Pulitzer and Obama would have won a second Nobel Prize. Instead, like so many truly historic pictures of Trump-as-President, it's just another icon ghettoed to where few beyond his supporters both know and appreciate. When Trump can play the game without an arm or both tied behind his back, he wins, and this is indicative of it.
As for his cabinet and advisors, I'll only talk about one: Stephen Miran. The last few weeks has seen a lot of discussion on the tariffs, including one particular user who opened his brief fluff of criticism by repeatedly calling Trump a retard. Is Miran? Because it's his work, his exploration of the potential hazards of holding the reserve currency and holding trade deficits and how tariffs might correct these hazards, that is influencing the Oval Office (after Trump's old affinity for tariffs). When your adversary does something incomprehensible, it's the vapid feel-good shortcut to say it's because they're stupid. They can be wrong, and the sum of everything that makes them wrong may be an indict of their reasoning, but that conclusion isn't useful. It doesn't help your own decision-making. It's a belief, or it may be true outright, but either way it doesn't pay rent. What does is knowing that everything: what do they read, or what do the people they listen to read? What do they believe, what ideas do they hold, what's their ethos? Assuming necessarily they reached their conclusions through reason, what were those reasons? I've lately been arguing here very strongly in favor of absolute sovereign authority to expel foreigners with the minimum possible due process. I know the people disagreeing with me aren't stupid and I don't think they're evil. I'll be the first to say if they were right, their fears would be justified entirely, and I don't fault them for those fears either, it's eminently rational, their conclusions logically follow from their premises. We differ in premises, and I would be doing myself a disservice let alone everyone else if I just said "Of course you believe that, you're stupid." They're not, and Trump isn't either. The establishment left certainly isn't, yeah I'm here on record calling Biden demented behind the wheel, but the people who were actually making the decisions behind him are competent, are intelligent, and did a damn good job, though thankfully not enough, at the end.
The world is as it has always been because powerful, competent and intelligent people disagree with each other. There are moral judgments to be made sure but oh, does all history stand as the final testament on evil not being synonymous with stupid--nor good with intelligent.
jake
1mo ago
The court system does not have a monopoly on that force as it applies to foreigners. The sovereign possesses a priori, categorical, unconditional authority on matters of border control. The reason we have courts is because we first had a border within which to enact laws. Where it pertains solely to deportation, the foreigner is owed no due process, no hearing, and in fact no explanation whatsoever for their expulsion. The justification is supreme at "Because it is our right." Moreover, we are under no sovereign obligation to play host to refugees. The asylum system is a courtesy, an act of generosity that like all contemporary acts of government "generosity" are at least attempted to be gamed 100 times for every 1 legitimate claimant. Yet even still Abrego-Garcia couldn't manage it years into Round 1 of the "We're going to deport you" party president.
Courts have ruled illegal aliens and foreigners are due such rights. No they aren't. The foreigner by definition is not part of the social contract of the nation they visit and worse is the illegal who in entering and residing perpetually violates the social contract. The courts have chosen to protect those whose acts if universalized would render this country unto nothing. Their positions don't originate in law or reason, they originate in those judges who contrived precedent from authority because of their beliefs in what ought to be. They have made their ruling, I await the day when we demand they enforce it.
As for law and order. Yeah, where one side has to still play by the rules to correct the rampant rule-breaking of the other. Tell me, what happens in a game when one player is found to be cheating? They don't roll it back to a point when they're sure there wasn't cheating. They don't run everything by the cheater, requiring their sign-off. They disqualify the cheater and award the win to the player who wasn't cheating. Harder to do in politics, to be sure. For every citizen like you who holds your position earnestly and in good faith, who really believes in these principles, you aren't outnumbered but you are vastly outgunned by the people taking your position in bad faith. Who appeal to law and order and slow attempts at deportations because their goal is for there to be no deportations. What is lawful and orderly about heeding the cheater's demands?
There are >30 million illegal aliens in this country, and even if it's the 10 million I've been hearing since 2005, how do we have trials for all of them? We don't. So what, fait accompli? We have to live with the consequences? Tossing that board is sounding real nice. But no, let's not, for the sake of this I'll agree, we will play exactly by the rules. We will give every single accused illegal alien in this country--who requests--a full trial. But those will wait, because we're playing exactly by the rules, and that means we're not holding their trials first, because we're holding other trials first, the ones from this:
Trump declares martial law, federalizes the national guards of the entire country, and proceeds with the dissolution of the state legislatures of the following: California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Virginia, and Washington. Every single sitting or former city councilman or equivalent, mayor, state representative, senator, and governor who voted for or signed off on any policy or legislation that in any form would obviously aid and abet the continued residence of illegal aliens in their municipalities and states is arrested and charged with sedition, among other federal crimes.
This is playing by the rules. This is keeping the board. This is the moderate centrist option.
jake
1mo ago
This is true, the purpose of the American justice system is to protect the accused. Mobs need no courts, the court exists as protection from the mob, for the man and for society.
Abrego-Garcia is not the accused, he is the guilty criminal. The question is his measure of criminality.
Courts should not assume just because he entered the country illegally that he would also join a notoriously murderous gang. Courts should assume that because he entered the country illegally, he would lie to remain in the country. Assuming he is lying, telling the truth would get him deported, but perjuring himself only might get him deported. Young children can follow these incentives.
Courts shouldn't take the negative inference, that would be presuming guilt. However, presuming he is a liar, or sufficiently motivated to deceit as to make sola testimony necessarily unreliable, is the only reasonable position. He had a decade to make that claim, this is not the behavior of a man in fear for his life. Where does that leave us? An El Salvadoran man who entered illegally, and that's all we know for sure. Okay, send him back.
To use the Monopoly metaphor, one player has an awful lot of fake-looking $500s, but when you call them on it they demand you prove each individual $500 is counterfeit while accusing you of trying to cheat. Why would they toss the board when they can just rig the game?
jake
2mo ago
There is a shocking credulity here with Abrego-Garcia's claims. These are the facts:
- He entered the US illegally in 2011
- in 2019 he was apprehended by ICE on a CI tip of MS-13 membership
- ONLY THEN did he attempt to claim asylum
A man willing to go to such lengths to break the law as his first act in a nation will also lie to the courts of that nation. Any sane judge should presume the testimony of an illegal alien of his circumstances as unreliable; I can't imagine what was going through the judge's mind to believe a man who had eight years to make that claim. I assumed they were handcuffed by the law to presume truthfulness in asylum claims but it turns out they're not, the judge just took his testimony at face value and thought nothing of him being a criminal or indeed criminally lazy.
MS-13 is active in the Beltway. I'd say it's a point to questioning the claim of his being associated with a New York clique but if the CI was making shit up why wouldn't they say DC or Baltimore? There's also the lack of tattoos, but more and more MS-13 members aren't getting tattoos(p.12). It's not the witch's bind, the lack of tattoos isn't evidence of anything, but anymore that's exactly it: it's not evidence of anything, for either side.
jake
2mo ago
Ever played They Are Billions?
I once again ask that literally anyone provides me with evidence of this. Not bootstrapped citation farming and not faked x-rays. Specific, unambiguous footage of Palestinian civilians being murdered.
https://x.com/search?q=palestinian%20civilian%20shot&src=typed_query&f=media -- you won't find it here. I've looked in darker places and found nothing there, either, but I could have missed it.
What's so galling about this claim is with the volume of media coming from Palestine and the alleged frequency of the outright murder of civilians, there should be at least one glaring example. One I would have heard by specific reference as it made the rounds among judenkritikal lefties and righties alike. Instead it's always the generic, "They're shooting kids," not "They shot this specific child, here's his body, you'll notice the distinct lack of a head."
I don't give a shit about Israel, I don't want a penny going to them if we don't get a dime back and I don't want one single American dying for that flag. I just want the truth, and being told something exists when I would have seen if it did, and when I then look for it and still can't find it, makes me quite certain the videos don't exist, because the deeds they would show haven't happened, because Israel does not indiscriminately murder civilians. They do murder civilians, many civilians, as is the nature of war in casualty of their real targets. It's just that you can't allow your enemy in war to dictate how you fight. If they use human shields thinking it will save them, you shoot the hostage then the soldier, you blow up the apartment building or hospital. If those shields know with certainty they will be killed by Israel, then it's on them to put down the ones who hold them hostage, and if they don't, they get what they deserve.
It's that old chestnut, where the white supremacy of yesteryear emerges in intersectional politics that can't help but treat whites and especially white men as the only beings on this earth with full agency. The Palestinians either have agency or they don't. If they can't see that there is truly no win condition and behave accordingly, Israel should rule them.
More options
Context Copy link