wemptronics
No bio...
User ID: 95
wemptronics
4d ago
Hah! If you don't damage property or health I don't see why it would be illegal. I'm in. Where's the kickstarter?
Chatting on Discord is left coded in a way chatting never was in, say, the heyday of IRC or the short era of relevance for AOL chatrooms. Discord is/was primarily a platform for gamers. Gaming being left-coded checks out in a Gamergate way, but not so generally. If you're looking for left of center gun groups Discord is where you will find them. It's a weaker generality than reddit or Bluesky, but still is one.
Rats are known for their commitment to understanding over vitriol, even if imperfectly or to a fault. It's good your local rationalist group hasn't cast you out despite approaching disagreement politely with a demonstration of shared values, but that's what I'd expect.
Text chats, in my experience, are not less prone to flamewars. Especially for those with high percentage of combative people. There is maybe a higher ceiling for trust in chatrooms than a forum, but also greater familiarity-- that cuts both ways. Flamewars on forums commonly devolve from posting to chatting-like text. Voice chats and in-person communication provide additional meaning and off ramps for those so inclined
wemptronics
5d ago
Doesn’t discord share that culture? If I pick a general hobby discord I expect to find an overrepresentation of trans moderators, pride flags, and progressive mantras. Just as I would at reddit. The Discord devs either cater to this audience or share the culture.
My experience with discord is limited and potentially outdated, but I have the impression of overlap between the Discord user identity and the average redditor. The redditor is older, but they're both likely to be socially progressive, with the younger Discord user more likely to identify as a radical.
My personal suspicion/conspiracy is that there's serious coordination on various Discords to astroturf reddit. Reddit is the biggest left of center messaging platform online. This suspicion is reinforced some stories like this one, where discord is used to manipulate messaging on reddit. Not by the DNC, Qatar, or Russia psyops, at least not directly, but by passionate believers in The Cause who happen to be prolific contributors on reddit. I am sure there's plenty of Discords that aren't of the mainstream discord culture, but the same can be said of certain subreddits.
It also occurs to me that chatting, the main discussion method on a Discord, is a different type than the more complete posting of a forum.
wemptronics
6d ago
I don't know about its forecasting value, there's plenty of mess, but sure I'm not opposed to publishing a finer tune on your substack
A Report on the Relatively Recent Desire to Kill for Preah Vihear Temple & Thai Politics
Cambodia and Thailand are shooting at each other over temple ruins again. The same ruins at the center of the last temple related border dispute. Admittedly, Preah Vihear temple looks like a pretty rad, old temple. Oddly, neither Thailand or Cambodia host substantial numbers of practicing Hindus. It's the principle of the matter, I'm sure.
I. Preah Vihear: Origins
The French, as a benevolent colonial neighbors should, sought to clarify French Indochina's territorial relationships with its neighbors in the early 1900s. This included what is now Thailand, then Siam. In the Franco-Siamese treaties of 1904 and 1907 Siam ceded some territory and Siam gained some territory. What's relevant for this post is that it was agreed a geographic watershed would mark the border in an area between French Indochina and Siam. A simple natural barrier makes the cartographer's life easy.
Colonial overlords are popular for mucking up maps and France is no exception. True to stereotype, the French ignored terms set in the treaty when they put pen to paper. They either misunderstood the geography or decided to take the high ground for themselves. Mistake or not no one cared about forgotten ruins in the jungle, so Thai officials never contested the discrepency. That is until the 1950's-- a half century after the Franco-Siamese treaty of 1904. Thailand was nation building. It sought out opportunities to build nationalist sentiment, centralize control, and develop ethnic asabiyyah among its people. A perceived injustice can go a long way.
Thailand made its move shortly after Cambodian independence. There is no dispute that Thailand struck first in 1955. Thailand did not strike with bombs, bullets, or sneaky covert ops. The government of Thailand did something more insidious-- Thailand built a road.
That road went to Preah Vihear, because it was easy and they could. The same can not be said for Cambodia. The linked picture demonstrates why the Thai claim is not without reason. According to the wording of the 1904 treaty, the demarcation of the border should be on the "line of the watershed." That big valley below the temple? That's where the water runs. The water lands on the high ground and makes it way South to Cambodia. Water-shed. The cliff? Not the watershed. What's on top of the cliff? Not the watershed. So, Thailand built a road into Cambodian territory. Despite the fact that they relied on, and shared an understanding of, France's 1907 Annex I map for 50 years.
"You can't do that," Cambodia protested. To which Thailand responded, "You and whose French Foreign Legion?" Thailand then immediately moved troops to the temple on its fancy new access roads. In this way Thailand becomes de facto owner of Preah Vihear. Without firing a shot and for no great cause except the geography agreed with the action. Thailand can get to it while Cambodia faced a steep climb. The two nations bicker over this border dispute for the rest of the 1950s until the Cambodian government grew tired Thai intransigence.
II. The Peaceful Making of a Violent Grievance
The Cambodian government wanted resolution, but must have decided against warfare, because they took the case to the International Court of Justice (ICJ). In 1962, the ICJ considered all the evidence and unambiguously ruled in favor of Cambodia. The primary reason the ICJ gave can be distilled to acquiescence by conduct. Thailand knew of the map, Thailand used the map, but Thailand never bothered to object to its inconsistencies. Given enough time without objection silence became, in the eyes of the ICJ, consent. Here's a PDF link to the 1962 ICJ ruling, but it is not exciting. Thailand begrudgingly accepted the ruling after they made clear they have cause to dispute other nearby areas. Thailand withdrew its troops from Preah Vihear Temple, but maintained a presence within several hundred meters.
Fast forward another half century without Preah Vihear news and, in 2008, Cambodia lobbies UNESCO for Preah Vihear to be added as a World Heritage site. This upsets Thai nationalists who were energized by turbulent, exciting times. A military backed coup a year prior had sent Thaksin Shinawatra -- Prime Minister, political dynasty patriarch, wealthy telecom mogul and oligarch -- into exile. If the perfidious Cambodian wasn't enough to demand action of the noble Thai people, then the fact Thailand's very own Foreign Minister supported the UNESCO bid certainly was. This led to the resignation of said Foreign Minister who, as an ally of now ex-PM-in-exile Shinawatra, was basically asking for it.
On July 15th, 2008, five days after the Foreign Minister's resignation, Thai and Cambodian troops exchanged gunfire near Preah Vihear. One Cambodian soldier was killed in the skirmish. It is here that we can say Preah Vihear Temple claims its first casualty. He died not due to tensions of the Vietnam War, nor did he lose his life for reasons downstream of Khmer Rouge horror. The first man fell 100 years after a treaty led to the creation of a map. A map everyone used and a map the French likely fudged for a theoretical benefit they'd never realize. This conflict heats up and, over the next three years, dozens of killed and hundreds of wounded can be attributed to the fight for Preah Vihear.
Cambodian representatives returned to the ICJ in 2011. This time they sought a ruling that would address the surrounding areas of Preah Vihear-- roads, hills, trails, and access stairways. The ICJ ruled in favor of Cambodia once more. The court declared the entire promontory as Cambodian clay. Thai officials begrudgingly grumbled.
III. Thailand's Turbulent Politics and the Shinawatra Dynasty
Which brings us to today. This past spring Thai soldiers shared misgivings with visiting Cambodian tourists. A Thai soldier steps on a mine and tensions are heightened. Come July, a metaphorical bombshell: Prime Minister Paetongtarn Shinawatra was suspended from her role by a high court. PM Paetongtarn, a Cambodian translator, and the leader of Cambodia Samdech (Khmer honorific) Hun Se were engaged in a diplomatic call to decrease tensions. PM Paetongtarn's political opposition leaked the call, framed it as overly friendly (calling him "uncle"), accused her of appeasing a hostile nation, and declared an investigation into her potential treason. The PM claims she did nothing but represent her nation's interests. She awaits trial.
Here is one translation I found of the controversial phone call snippet. I didn't see anything I would consider treasonous. But, if the translation is accurate, then I can see to how the PM's enemies could smear her with it. It might be too informal, too chummy for diplomacy with a nation that's can be considered hostile. Inside the transcript, however, she states she needs to consult with her military before concluding the matter. On its face, this is deferential towards the military-royal establishment-- her main political enemies. One interesting irony in the translated excerpt:
PM Paetongtarn: Right now, the administration is at its weakest, ever since I took to the office, it is this matter on Cambodia which I myself chose to not respond to any allegations posed to me yet. This is because I both love and respect Mr. Hun Sen and therefore if there is anything you want, please tell me directly. Just lift up the phone and tell me. Whatever it is that isn’t news will not become news, what you saw leaked was the product of the press, when you haven’t talk with me one-on-one, when we talk as a group, these things can leak. If you talk to me personally one-on-one, there’s no way this could leak anyways.
Nope, no way this could leak. Very suspicious! To explain some of the hardline pressure on the PM we require a brief political overview.
The Shinawatra family is a powerful political dynasty. The aforementioned ex-PM Thaksin Shinawatra, Paetongtarn's father, was exiled after being removed from power in 2008. PM Paetongtarn's aunt, Thaksin's sister, was similarly ousted in a 2014 coup. I'd call the Shinawatras New Money elite. The Shinawatra family's electoral power lies in rural, populist support. They are extremely wealthy and curry electoral favor by maintaining regional patronage networks in the country's North.
Shinawatras are in competition with the more conservative establishment elite. This is the traditional royalist establishment. The Old Money, Old Guard wield power from Central and Southern Thailand. It collects this power, places it in the capitol and coast, then manages much of the country with unveiled force. The Old Guard also maintains the marriage between monarchy and military. The establishment has control of the judicial branch such that ousting a PM, changing constitutional law, or dissolving political parties is barely an inconvenience. The censure and prosecution of political enemies has become routine in Thailand. The party dissolution is often predicated on the basis of criticizing King Rama X, thinking about criticizing the monarchy, or not supporting the monarchy enough.
IV. Why?
I sought out information on this conflict, because I was curious about the history of what was commonly reported as an old feud baked in blood. It's not an unreasonable assumption. We saw similar skirmishes to today just over ten years past. While the border dispute is old the willingness to send boys to fight and die over it is not. There is some military value of the land disputed, but not any significant amount when compared to 1904. These days there is some value in tourism at the temple, though I doubt enough to offset the costs of F-16 sorties.
These neighboring nations share a long border and a longer history. Each carries its own motivations that encompass more than any single, simple item like a temple. A conflict cannot be reduced to a 9th century Hindu temple. Still, the fight for Preah Vihear most resembles a manufactured conflict of political convenience to me. A nationalist narrative to be pulled out of pocket as political winds dictate or as an opportunity to cook up a kind of conflict comfort food. A home cooked war.
Does Israel actually want to be the ones distributing aid?
I don't know. The March-April blockade ends with Israel propping up, scaling, and now supporting its own sanctioned distribution network. The GHF posts daily press releases. Today's message is the same as yesterday's:
“As we exceed 91 million meals delivered to the people of Gaza to date, we are taking a moment to reflect on the adversity we’ve overcome for this herculean humanitarian mission. Our aid staff and local partners have demonstrated tremendous courage and commitment to those in need.
“Looking ahead, we will not stop until our mission to feed as many Palestinians in Gaza is accomplished. We are also offering to distribute UN and other international organization aid for free — we have the scale and operational efficiency to feed more Gazans, and we encourage all humanitarian groups on the ground to partner with us. The people of Gaza are depending on us and we cannot let them down.”
Israel wants to at least threaten a commitment to solely manage aid distribution. If you think "ceasefire talks" are serious, and Israel is going to sign a deal for some hostages, pack up, and go home, then this is simple leverage to speed that process along. If you think ceasefire talks are not very serious, and to me this appears very possible, then this may be the start of the long haul. It looks like one stage of a plan than it does negotiating leverage, but I'm open to other interpretations. If the UN does hand over its trucks to the GHF I'll be more certain.
Moving further into a true pariah status does not engender sympathy. The further a nation is moved into Certified Rogue State™ category the easier it becomes for people to justify and excuse hostility against it. Bad Guys get what they deserve. A high degree of tragedy in relation to their offense is required to turn Bad Guy into sympathetic character. For Israel, without the Certified Rogue State™ status, a reversal among Palestinian Aficionados might require something like tens of thousands of casualties from a chemical gas attack in Tel Aviv during a peace summit.
It's been 30 years since the end of apartheid in South Africa, yet considering South African whites oppressed in any fashion is not very popular. If South African whites were slaughtered at scale they'd garner some more sympathy. The value of this hypothetical changing sentiment a personal judgment.
This recent article from WaPo via their local reporters is filled with anonymous and Unnamed General claims, so I take it with a grain of psyop salt, but its the first time I've seen a WaPo-like outlet assert that the food aid is important to Hamas operations with any specifics attached.
For instance, the officials said, Hamas seized at least 15 percent of some goods, like flour, and aid vouchers that international agencies had intended to provide to hungry Gazans...
A Gazan businessman said Hamas had imposed a tax of a least 20 percent on many goods. But the group also would take control of trucks carrying high-demand goods like flour, which could sell for up to $30 for a kilogram, and steal fuel meant for aid groups. Fuel supplies have produced high revenue for Hamas during the war, with the group both taxing and seizing fuel stored at gas stations for sale, said an Israeli military official who spoke on the condition of anonymity in accordance with military protocol.
Taking control of the food distribution is the first yuge strategic decision that Israel has committed to following the invasion. If aid supplies are as critically important for Hamas as reason and reporting implies, then this is actually a plan to judge. Hamas can subsidize motivation with martyrdom, but even fervor requires sustenance. Assuming Israel doesn't starve everyone to death -- which I don't expect they will -- then the NGOs will cave before famine. They will submit to Israel's request to manage all the aid distribution and Israel takes full charge of the grain doles. I guess it is technically more accurate to call the GHF an American group sanctioned by Israel for aid distribution, but, is anyone under the impression there's any real difference in this case?
They are perfectly willing to watch Gaza starve until some entity comes out of the territory that they can negotiate with.
Which, until that happens, Gaza and the responsibilities associated with managing will increasingly fall to Israel. Until it finally becomes governance. Sure seems to me they wanted to avoid that outcome and may have even procrastinated decisions in hopes of an alternative. Israel left Gaza not 20 years ago. There's no winning. Not even if they defeat their enemies do they win.
At the moment Israelis may shrug callously at the idea of governing Gaza. Certainly not with any measure of goodwill or with any concern for headaches that are associated with that responsibility. Until I see the yet-to-be-seen viable alternative actually come into existence, then that's what the future looks like to me. Alternatively, Hamas has enough recruiting power to be fed by Israeli aid distribution while continuing to lead the forever war. I doubt it.
I expect a society that has a number of educators who endorse pedagogy that prioritizes niceties over competence will generate less competent individuals. Although, I'm not sure that Americans at large ever did value competence much.
As for the government, the USG didn't seem that smart during the Cold War either. There was the government that allowed an intelligence agency to believe a 1000 strong militia could successfully execute regime change in Cuba with an amphibious landing. Sure, the CIA was a silly place filled with wacky ideas and incompetence. The very serious people -- the ones who didn't think the Bay of Pigs would work -- decided it was all well and good. They could just as easily deny involvement with a carrier task force offshore.
The USG has been exposed as inept in counter-espionage for century. Does this plane look familiar, or maybe I meant this one? US intelligence agencies and Federal law enforcement were repeatedly compromised at high levels right up to the end of the Cold War. Despite the fact Soviet espionage efforts were proven beyond a doubt from get go the USG allowed, decided, or forgot to correct the public's perception. Instead, they were led to to believe Soviet-friendly memes like McCarthyism instead of the reality that the nation's adversaries posed serious threats. Then there was that time where the USG unwittingly decided America and the rest of the world should go hungry and foot the bill for Soviet breadlines. Woops! Didn't think about that one.
The USG belatedly rounds up spies from time to time, but its counter-espionage appears dismal as it ever was. It could be that general government incompetence can no longer be propped up by blessings, luck, or being too big to fail. Alternatively, China could be a far more capable adversary than the Soviets ever were. China is also not without its own incompetent fuck ups despite our general interest and the Iron Curtain Great Firewall. COVID, ahem.
If I had to water down my thought to one feeling it’s this: black Americans are faking being black Americans.
I've shared that thought, although I'm not as sure it's new. I haven't watched the movie, but I'll take your word for it that the performance lacks the authenticity of a Friday.
Most black people are interested in protecting an ethnic identity. I'd bet that number approaches 100% when it comes to black entertainers. Cynically, because ethnicity means a target demo to make money from. Less cynically, because they are responding to cultural norms that push them to be black, and actors, often annoyingly, consider themselves representative.
Maintaining a culture that can induct new generations requires understanding and conformity. Time and entropy weakens the ties to founding myths and common understandings. A culture then places more importance on fewer pillars, popular ideas, and easily identifiable signals. There are still many black people alive who can share personal experience that bonds them to the black experience. However, these people are dying. As they die fewer grandparents share the old understanding of Civil Rights, racism, victimhood, etc. Young black people can (and do) try fit their experiences into the broader cultural framework and society, in this case, helps facilitate it. But, since these individuals cannot always credibly sell their stories as the same old stories they can sound little off. Did you know 13 unarmed black men are killed by police each year?
It's not unusual to hear black people tired of being black because blackness imposes on them. The bits that outright blame black culture is a less public grievance, because there's taboos, norms, and bad words to call people who fight this type conformity. The most socially acceptable way to express this sentiment in the mainstream is to primarily fault white people for the cultural pressure or, in entertainment, blame the Jews. Even with a few naysayers, demand for blackness remains staggeringly high. Black people favor more blackness, the studios want more blackness, many white people want more, but the black people selling blackness today lived different lives than the story everyone wants and is familiar with. Those within the culture can choose belief, others that are most inclined can humor it, but for the rest of us this is more difficult. It requires talent to sell us on an update that aligns close enough with our own. Maybe Sinners as a production didn't have much talent, but a show like Donald Glover's Atlanta did.
Black people may have another Tyler Perry to rally behind, but it's also possible we'll notice more performative blackness as relatively unblack, untalented people contort themselves to try and fill that demand. Blackness has already been fully commodified and commercialized, so maybe we can call it post-commodified blackness? Uber commodified? Flanderization also comes to mind, but what is an identity if not some grade of caricature or stereotype?
That said, if you're just now noticing this, then it's more likely something has changed your perspective recently. This is an ongoing, decades long trend, and Friday is a part of it.
wemptronics
28d ago
At one point I knew his name and his position as a grad student. Thanks.
But Adelstein's take on veganism strikes me as aggressively, surely willfully obtuse
They appear to becoming more like performance art with time, which is likely the product of a growing audience.
If you told me that you enjoy a video game where the goal is to torture fictional characters, I'd also probably remember your face and tell people to avoid you.
Listen, I did not intentionally trap those Sims in their living room. The placement of the stove was an innocent mistake. That fire could have happened anywhere! A terrible tragedy.
as an instrumental goal in the process of doing something else
One man's instrument is another man's cross to bear, or something like that. They demonstrate that it's not as instrumental as you (or I) claim, or not instrumental at all, by existing and being more righteous. People in Africa or Indonesia get a necessity pass for now, but you, neighbor, have a choice. That is if they cast judgment. I've met more vegans who are simply tired of the same old jokes, jabs, and want to be left alone than I have met the stereotype, or vegans cognizant of utilitarianism for that matter.
I felt what I consider an appropriate level of bad one particular time I found a rat in a traditional trap. It was gravely maimed, and as I went to put it out of its misery I saw, as it had lain incapacitated, its friends or children had taken the opportunity to feast on its guts. If I had chosen to not put it out of its misery, then I would have thought less of myself. The experience did not make me think more highly of rats, but it's not as if I am above considering the suffering of other animals.
Targeting an animal one already hopes to exterminate for pest control is not outlandishly cruel. To argue against that one needs to argue against effective rodent control more generally.
If I told you I trapped rats to torture them because it felt good and made me laugh you'd probably remember my face and tell people to avoid me. Except, in this case, instead of one weird kid you make sure your child stays away from, it's all of society that is going out of their way to torture rats. That what I imagine and have been told the emotional prism is like for dedicated vegans. As a personal choice it is common and well enough. The personal choice I don't have much objection to. The more foreign value impositions, especially done in a way that where they only logically hint at the most moral ends, are where I find objection.
After Zizians and the efilist bombing I have tried to pay more attention to the cross section of ethical veganism, rationalists, and nerdy utilitarian blogs.
A Substack titled "Don't Eat Honey" was published. Inside, the argument is made that to buy or consume honey is an unethical act for insect suffering-at-scale reasons. According to the essay, bees, like livestock, suffer quite a lot at the hands of beekeepers. That's a lot of bees. Thus the title: don't eat honey.
The median estimate, from the most detailed report ever done on the intensity of pleasure and pain in animals, was that bees suffer 7% as intensely as humans. The mean estimate was around 15% as intensely as people. Bees were guessed to be more intensely conscious than salmon!
If we assume conservatively that a bee’s life is 10% as unpleasant as chicken life, and then downweight it by the relative intensity of their suffering, then consuming a kg of honey is over 500 times worse than consuming a kg of chicken! And these estimates were fairly conservative. I think it’s more plausible that eating honey is thousands of times worse than eating comparable amounts of chicken
This particular post is high on assumption and light on rigor. It received outrage. Another post on Bentham's blog on insect suffering I recall as higher quality material for understanding. Did you know that composting is an unethical abomination? I'd never considered it!
'Suffering' presents an incommensurable problem. Suffering is a social construct. Suffering is the number and intensity of firing pain receptors over time. Suffering is how many days in a row I experienced boredom as a teenager. Still, science attempts to define and quantify suffering. An equation works out the math: how conscious a cricket is in relation to man, a cricket's assumed capacity to feel pain, the length of time it spends feeling pain, and so on. My prediction is we will figure out the consciousness part of the equation with stable meaning before we ever do so for suffering.
We will manage to rethink, remeasure, and find additional ways of suffering. People always have. Today, plants do not feel "pain", but tomorrow, pain may not a prerequisite for suffering. Maybe starvation becomes a moral imperative. If the slope sounds too slippery, please consider people have already built a (relatively unpopular) scaffolding to accept and impose costs at the expense of human comfort, life, and survival. Admittedly, that suffering may present an incommensurable problem doesn't negate any imperative to reduce it. Find more suffering? Reduce that, too. It does give me reason to question the limitations and guard rails of the social technology.
According to Wikipedia, negative utilitarians (NU) are sometimes categorized as strong NUs and weak NUs. This differentiates what I'd call fundamentalists --- who follow suffering minimizer logic to whatever ends -- to the milder "weak" utilitarians. The fundamentalist may advocate for suffering reduction at a cost that includes death, your neighbor's dog, or the continued existence of Slovenia-- the honey bee capitol of the world. Our anti-honey, anti-suffering advocate has previously demonstrated he values some positive utility when it comes to natalism, but much of his commenting audience appears more in the fundamentalist category.
One vibe I pick up from the modern vegans is that the anti-suffering ethics are the ethics of the future. That our great-grandchildren will look backwards and wonder how we ever stooped so low as to tolerate farming practice A or B. I don't doubt we'll find cost effective, technological solutions that will be accepted as moral improvements in the future. I am not opposed to those changes on principle. Increase shrimp welfare if you want, fine.
My vague concern is that this social technology doesn't appear limited to spawning technological or charitable solutions. With things like lab meat showing up more frequently in the culture war I'd expect the social technology to spread. So far, however, vegans remain a stable population in the US. Nerdy utilitarian bloggers are yet to impose their will on me. They just don't think I should eat honey.
Democratic Socialists are the vehicle for socialism in America. They develop relations with leftists, organize them, use them for elections, and seek to implement socialist policy. Solidarity is praxis.
Differentiating is not a requirement, it's a method to clarify ones own position from another related position. You want Democratic Socialists to stand on their own two legs in America and be less open to smears for bad(?) socialism. I might call it socialism lite or entry-level socialism. Another idea might be for an organization like the DSA -- which Mamdani contributes to and has used to seek power -- to police and toss out the revolutionaries. Truly be a Democratic Socialist organization instead of the place for leftists. I suspect neither of these things will occur. Mamdani is more interested in winning office than standing up for Democratic Socialism. He likely appreciates the fact Fox News will lambast him as a Socialist.
It seems to be conservatives that omit the Democratic half of the moniker Democratic Socialist way more than progressives
It is not unique to conservatives. Parents that object to teacher-student confidentiality are far right. Canadian truckers are far right. J.K. Rowling is far right. Elon Musk is far right and an extremist. All those individuals are probably Islamophobic and racist, too. Many words are unfair. I wish people would be more noble and curious, but this is politics. Being far right is bad. Being a socialist is bad. Being a leftist is bad. There are no goal posts or purity. It is what it is. Don't watch Fox News.
Mamdani has a campaign platform that lists some policy ideas. Several I consider to be bad ideas regardless of how socialist they are. They do appear to be broadly popular among leftists. He also doesn't appear to have an issue using propaganda. Cable news networks are imprecise in their opposition to Bad Ideas from Bad People. That they're imprecise due to a definitional standard that doesn't meet yours or mine is not of consequence. In Bizarro world, Mamdani is a Democratic National Socialist and there's a whole lot of focus on the National Socialist part. Some of it is fair, some not so much.
would argue that "deregulation" that is often cited as "capitalist" is simply rent-seeking cronyism
I share the understanding that, as a general rule of thumb, a more laissez-faire policy is more capitalism. Nuance can be found in every crevice.
wemptronics
1mo ago
Tony Blair, Nicolas Maduro, Pol Pot, and Castro walk into a bar...
Yes. Anything that can be spun as controversial means no revelation. Even something like bankruptcy can be spun as a cumulative problem that [current mayor] merely had set on their plate. Lag time also plays a role. Costs may only become become apparent after a term is over and he's off to Congress or wherever. Barring an Escape from New York level of catastrophe, then one should expect to fight free stuff in the immediate future forever regardless of results.
As an alternative to the expectation voters learn -- which voters are bad at -- they are pretty good at forgetting. They'll forget the last time it didn't work out, they'll forget why, but if a party wins enough times they might forget about bad ideas. Win so hard, so often, that the bad ideas become foreign. Then there is less voter recognition which creates an additional hurdle for advocates. NYC can still partly do this by embarrassing Mamdani in the general.
when did our definition of socialism become so drowned-down?
The second half of the 20th century. Expansion of the welfare state and government programs are attacked as socialist. The meaning gets diluted through the 90's after the Cold War. In the 2000s-2010s the meaning continues to change rapidly as progressives claim much of socialism for themselves.
Is FoxNews blocking the term DemSoc from taking off in the US?
I doubt it. Mamdani has not, as far as I know, gone to any great lengths to explain what a democratic socialist is or why he is not a socialist. Did Bernie even bother with this in his 2016 bid? That kind of distinction does nothing for Mamdani's campaign. The public does not have that demand for accuracy or nuance if it actually matters or is real. Plus, I suspect the well off progressive base of NYC quite likes voting for a socialist more than they do not-really-a-socialist. A diffuse contempt for capitalism is a popular meme that can be harnessed. No reason to put a damper on that for the sake of centuries old ideological accuracy.
I think if you're going to demand consistency here, then you should do so consistently. Are these capitalist policies he is proposing?
I can also get annoyed at the politics and the (especially online) culture.
A recent example: there was a shooting at Salt Lake City's No Kings protest a couple weeks ago. There is a brief video that shows what went down. It sounds like the SLCPD was aware that event volunteers were carrying pistols which resulted in reported "peacekeepers" (volunteer event staff) shooting a man armed with a rifle.
A pair of volunteers, easily identified by high visibility vests, observed this individual dressed in black "seclude" himself, don a mask, take out his AR, and approach the crowd with his rifle at what looks like low ready. The volunteers draw their pistols, aim at him as seen in the video, and allegedly shout at him to stop. The 24 year old panics, runs towards the crowd, and a volunteer fires 3 times. He hits the the suspect once, but then also kills a bystander beyond him. Turns out charges are not yet filed against anyone, although the 24 year old was initially arrested for reckless endangerment or some such thing.
The demonstrator -- reportedly a lefty anarchist John Brown Club adjacent type -- dressed in all black with a mask approaches the crowd by his lonesome. Apparently he was not prepared to be challenged. Despite the politics of the guy, the open carry fetishists guys, or people pretending to be them online were in absolute uproar about the violation of his rights. Of course it's unreasonable to intervene. How dare they! He didn't even fire a shot. These volunteers had no right to stop this guy from demonstrating if that's what he meant to do. They wrongly believed a different intent. They were probably so concerned about a shooting they created one. They fucked up so bad one of them killed an innocent man.
To me, a basic expectation for carrying in a public demonstration, especially doing so alone while obscuring one's identity, requires all sorts of technique, safety, and etiquette. Sling your weapon, signal your intent, and prepare to be challenged. Be a prosocial advocate. The freedom to demonstrate is limited in trivial ways with my expectations, but we get to have mass gatherings with firearms.
There's that absolutist SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED ideology floating around, where any violation of 2A rights is perceived as abhorrent, and thus worthy of maximum outrage.
I find it easy to believe takes like Rov_Scam's below. A trashy individual who can't manage to present himself as a decent, responsible person doesn't get what rights he is entitled to. Pretext for a judge to judge an individual as too irresponsible or dangerous.
Capital A-bsolutists are real, though they are less common among advocates. The absolutist rhetoric is some part cultural signal, part true belief (what is a right?), and part tactical. For the last bit, what benefit is there to giving an inch? 2A groups fight alone for a right, at best, most don't care too much about. The public is fickle and of limited value to the advocate's position. The world and many American jurisdictions set an example that incentivizes and justifies obstinance.
The 2A lobby is arguably more alive than ever, so that also contributes to being annoying. Where and when the lobby fails -- which happens -- many people scream with glee. A great many more shrug.
It's the duty of gun rights advocates to show that any given restriction is unreasonable
Unfortunately, yes. A government reinterprets, ignores, or dismantles a right, and the onus is on the citizenry to challenge it. This should carry additional explanatory power for any stubbornness. It would be nice to not require advocacy at all in a high-trust, high-functioning society. Lots of things would be nice!
Are you going to send a donation to a 2A advocacy group because, upon reflection of the details in this case or another, you perceive them as acting reasonably? As @gattsuru studiously documents for us, every little niggle, every small "in", each precedent and alternative interpretation that can be exploited gets explored fully.
It's real. In the sense that this looks like a tit-for-tat draw down preceded by a mad smash and grab. It is not real in the sense that "ceasefire" means ceasefire. The two nations haven't conducted open diplomacy for 40+ years. I don't think anyone believes a "ceasefire" looks anything like peace. Iran will mostly get its airspace back after the launch missile quota, the US gets to leave for a moment, and Israel must be satisfied with the operation. None of these things prevent future actions or new phases. If you require a "ceasefire" be a ceasefire, then it's not real. It's still a meaningful change in posture.
-
Blinkers: Yes, for habit. Nearly every time. There is almost no effort involved in using blinkers.
-
Stopping: Yes, for habit with qualifications. Stop signs I may slow California roll. Traffic lights, hard yes.
-
Speed limit: No, don't be silly. If you're in The Neighborhood you shouldn't speed. If you're on the highway and 90% of traffic is going 70mph in a 55mph zone, no.
-
Left lane passing only (highway): Yes. Passing lane riding: No, that should be a reminder to move out of the lane at your next opportunity. We live in a society, people!
-
Merging jerk: I'm sure I have done this before, but it's not a major issue. Since you correctly anticipated the turn you'll find someone else who will allow you to merge, wave at them, and go about your day. If one jerk successfully prevents your merge, then you likely did not correctly anticipate the turn. Lesson learned for next time. I've yet to drive in an American city where aggressive merging that could be described as cutting off (rather than assertive/clear) is a regular requirement to merge, so if no one wants to let you in you've probably messed up.
-
Breaking rules: No. There seems to be something close to consensus on what qualifies as extra bad behavior with some local variation. For example, almost everyone considers cheating a highway's exit traffic by riding the shoulder as bad behavior.
Highway packs in general are bad, and drivers should do more to avoid/deconstruct them. 12+ cars densely packed at 75mph with two cars in the front driving to some degree and the rest merely following. If we we had better enforcement of slow left laners it'd make high speed driving more enjoyable. Left lane hogs go first against the wall.
wemptronics
1mo ago
I suppose I'm just a high enough decoupler that the fact that in some future conflict I may need to take up arms against the majority of my fellow posters here doesn't bother me too much.
A shame. Positive Mottezen identification should confer basic gentlemanly prisoner of war treatment. Ideally it would include a parole d'honneur standard of defeat that allows Mottezans to go home and post about it. We should make patches.
Don't. I mean don't argue. Are arguments with angry drivers worthwhile? They are unproductive at best. At worst, they end with a bullet in your gut. Unless arguments are with someone I trust to reconcile, then I consider arguments as unproductive affairs. Cathartic release at best. Don't argue.
From what I've observed, minority (or majority) opinion havers that come here primarily to defend the honor of their tribe burn out quickly. They crumble from their own hatred, or they generate too much heat to follow the rules. More interested in locking horns or drive-by shooting than discussion.
The few (bless them) minority opinion havers the forum retains seem to manage their engagement. They set limitations for themselves. They understand they aren't compelled to reply to every disagreement or grievance. They probably find a way to enjoy themselves or glean other value while they provide a minority opinion. This is a recreational activity. You should enjoy contributing. I know I appreciate the minorities who are willing to contribute honestly.
If it is impossible to enjoy or find value here because you are committed to conflict, then there's not a good reason to spend time here arguing or not. Not even if you're committed to pyramids due to other fading principles. If you're committed to conflict, then it'd be more productive to prepare. If you're interested in an exchange of ideas -- with all that comes with it -- this isn't the worst place to practice.
This kind of asocial behavior is either performative edgelordism (edgeladysm?)
Yeah, that's around where I land. A soft impression. The linked essay isn't even the basis for that impression, which is older than that, but it was the last piece of hers I read. I have no will to dig for evidence on this topic.
"At social events, I keep lowkey evaluating lots of men I have faint brushes with. I notice signs of coolness - competence or bravery or something - and any time a whiff of it floats by I follow it to chat with them at parties. But my body does not like them. One man talks about his failures in a tone that implies he's uncomfortable with himself, like somewhere deep down a part of him believes he's a bad person, and it seems that many of his bids for social approval are attempts to be reassured that he is in fact okay."
She can't write "I like confident men," because that defeats large portions of the essay. There's nothing autistic about that. Most women judge confidence and, intentionally or not, use it as one gauge of attractiveness. In this case to explain a lack of attraction.
"I would have felt safer if he seemed at home among awkward questions."
She chooses to push the envelope with "awkward" or inappropriate behavior in the context of a date. As she relays to us, it's not a failure to consider or model the emotive state of others. On the contrary, she knows it is uncomfortable. Plenty of non-autistic women enjoy their little tests. Maybe autistic women do this as well. I'm no an expert in autism, autistic women, or Aella.
Autists may act cruelly or too directly in their quest to make sense of the world, but it's little things like that I picked up that suggest different explanations. She doesn't cite any of this as a reason for autism which might be unfair. Even if that is the case, logic bot behavior is probably more common among her audience.
I ran into an example of this in even a small town policing context. An older Dead Head hippie lady decided to create, then cycle through semi-permanent campsites nearby an elderly relative's property. One camp she chose was as close as possible to private property while technically still sitting in national forest. I'm talking yards when there's thousands of acres of accessible national forest to choose from. She must have decided a great cosmic injustice had occurred when more secluded alternative sites were offered for her, uh, more natural demeanor and trash. Areas that would be out of view of a sweet, old God fearing woman.
If the squatter was ever liable to exude nice old hippie vibes instead of robbing your campsite is karma, also fuck you scumbag vibes I never saw or heard about it. One expects, unless you're in Vermont or something, a Sheriff can be called out to apply some pressure on behalf of an elderly taxpaying resident. If not to drive a squatter out of town, then at the very least to make a token effort to comfort a voter. "Yes ma'am, you give us a call" instead of "Sorry, nothing we can do-- federal land." Nope.
Eventually this was resolved with trashy, angry nudist hippie squatter moving on. Maybe there was liaising between police and National Forest Service I never learned of that aided in getting the squatter to move on, or maybe the federal land excuse really should dissuade any action. Regardless, I was left a greater impression that the injustices and costs of small town prejudice in law enforcement are mostly just that. Not any great leeway to actually get stuff done or help people that should matter.
More options
Context Copy link