site banner
PaperclipPerfector  8mo ago (text post)   28943 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of September 2, 2024

This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.

Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.

We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:

  • Shaming.

  • Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.

  • Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.

  • Recruiting for a cause.

  • Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.

In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:

  • Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.

  • Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.

  • Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.

  • Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.

On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.

5
Top Bottom New Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

New week, so new cultural war post- this time for Germany. As you may have seen in your morning news feeds, the German far right wins first major election since WW2 on last Sunday.

Or rather, the German AfD won a plurality of votes in the German state of Thuringia, came very close to doing so in Saxony, and did very well in the formerly communist East Germany. While they did not win a majority in any state, this wouldn't be expected in a more parliamentary-style system either, and by coming up to nearly 1/3rd of the votes it represents the further normalization of the German- and by extension European- far right. While I'll be the first to say I find the labeling of the European right as 'far right' more indicative of European peculiarities and attempts to stigmatize political opponents than objective, it certainly is an increase in anti-Establishment sentiment expressed by parties with views counter to the European political elite consensus. Notably, and in a change from 2019 elections, the 2024 election also saw the rise of the far(ther)-left BSW party, whose rise took votes from established-left parties. While BSW is of the 'refuse to cooperate with AfD' direction, they are also notable for stated opposition to supporting Ukraine with more military aid, though how hard they hold that view / what they might trade it away for in coalition-negotiation remains to be seen.

Politically, this complicates the coalition-formation capacity of the remaining German parties, which have seen efforts at maintaining a non-cooperation cordon of 'any coalition but one with AfD' crack over time. It also raises the typical post-election question of 'what topic of discontent matters most'- as there are your typical breadbasket issues of economics and cost of living, and especially immigration. AfD/BSW appear to be where the anti-Ukraine support politics go as well, though how central that is to the party voters will be subject to the normal democratic post-election shift analysis, which everyone will try to boost their favored topic and diminish others. These are all the more relevant as this leads to the German federal elections next year, which matters due to the fragility of the current government coalition, whose coalition has kept the AfD out of what would be a normal government involvement for cycles now.

Culture implications here are many, from the continued normalization of the European right, to the rise of East Germany as a political spoiler in politics that have been dominated by the western-German political center since unification, to the role of immigration as a 'we're willing to ignore the party stigma for the sake of this issue' issue.

There are also the geopolitical implications, such as how the German election results may shape the Ukraine War. The early take might be that the election foreshadows the decreased chance of future German military aid to Ukraine, but that in turn could drive the current government to 'lock in' support mechanisms in a way a government with less flexibility couldn't pass/reverse, as well as the incentives this public potential struggle could have on actors in peace negotiations to consider whether they are more likely to get a better position after the next Federal election (and thus less reason to make/signal concessions before then).

Overall, interesting if not surprising times.

far right

literally the only thing that makes them 'far right' is opposition to infinity migration.

further normalization of the German- and by extension European- far right.

Bullshit.

Citizenry never wanted this level of immigration. It was imposed from above by foreign agents in the so-called 'civil society' and by domestic activists who used regulations and humsn rights legislation to do an end run around democracy and majority interests.

'Far right' is code for minimum amount of noticeable political activity by natives in pursuit of their long term interests.

The AfD is at the very least flirting with the far right, if not being it itself. But overall the core issue is that the grand coalition under the Merkel CDU was so "pure centrist" that there effectively is a vacuum for a proper, believable moderate right. Remember: The start of the current immigration problems in the popular conception was Merkel's 2015 complete surrender to immigration on the basis that any limitation, any requirements that could possibly, theoretically keep a legitimate asylum seeker from entering the country is not morally justifiable. Which in practice meant that we actively filtered our immigrants based on honesty - that is, any immigrant stupid enough to be honest risked to have to go back, while brazen lying was consistently rewarded except if it could be proven beyond doubt (which is almost impossible in practice). The same goes now for deportations; Almost only proven criminals are affected with an order, and the majority of orders still goes unprocessed for a variety of reasons.

Scrolling forward to today, in polls around 40% of germans state that they think the CDU/CSU does not want to limit immigration at all. And this is the allegedly farthest right party considered legitimate by the establishment! No matter your own political position, it should be obvious that any functioning democracy WILL generate a new right given due time. Well, now we have that, and it is the AfD and to some degree the BSW (which is far-left on economic issues, but right-leaning on several social issues by public conception). Noting that both are somewhat kooky, incompetent and include extremists is true, but also increasingly beyond the point - if I think that, say, immigration is the most serious issue, I will vote for someone who at least attempts to limit it. Voting for someone who competently and sanely works against my interests and for his own would be stupid, after all.

I don't think the analysis needs to go futher than immigration. This is nothing new in Europe and is a literally continent wide movement, with Germany being slightly behind the curve.

The current level and form of immigration is disliked by a supermajority of the population, and reviled to an extent that it trumps all other concerns for some smaller percentage (maybe 20-30%) and they're willing to vote for absolutely anyone that promises to stop the flood and doesn't have a track record of lying about the subject.

The only thing novel here is Wagenknechts party coming in and being anti-immigration from the left.

I have little to do with East Germany, so I have no idea what the consequences for them will be. Possibly anti-AFD coalitian governments that cannot actually govern?

For Germany as a whole, I suppose this will put a small damper on rampant leftism while destigmatizing right-wing views to a small extent. It will drag the center parties somewhat to the right, or at least away from the left. There's no telling what the next federal election will bring, though my money is on yet another barely-functional anti-AFD coalition. Or maybe I just have status quo bias.

Ultimately I am happy about this. Germany needs to get away from its infinitely damaging leftist culture warriors, and this is a step in the right direction, no matter what follows.

As long as the cordon sanitaire around the AfD survives, mightn’t results like this just further strengthen the position of leftist culture warriors? If the CDU won’t form a government with the AfD, they’ll have to keep making more and more concessions to the Left, the Greens, the SPD, and now the BSW. My impression of the CDU is that they’re so weak, they’ll concede practically anything if it allows them to form a government that excludes the AfD. If I’m right about that, it seems like the only way for further AfD victories to mean anything is for the AfD to get an actual majority, which is virtually impossible in Germany’s parliamentary system. (Though the AfD can definitely influence some things if they control over a third of the seats, as is now the case in Thuringia.) Is there something I’m missing?

My impression of the CDU is that they’re so weak, they’ll concede practically anything if it allows them to form a government that excludes the AfD

The old quip about the Holy Roman Empire is even more true of the CDU: neither Christian, nor democratic, nor a union

I am sorry, but I don't see it.

The German word 'Union' simply means 'merger', no relation to trade unions. I guess that it refers to the fact that both Catholics (which had their own party in Weimar) and Protestants are welcome.

I also think that the CDU is in fact democratic. There were parties which were genuinely anti-democratic, such as the KPD (which wanted the dictatorship of the proletariat), monarchists or the NSDAP. The CDU/CSU wants none of that. If by some miracle, the SPD had won an absolute majority in Bavaria in the 1970s, they would have peacefully transferred power to them without pulling a Trump.

Their Christianity is indeed debatable. But then again, you can't look into the hearts of people. Perhaps Merz has deeply held Christian beliefs, or perhaps his most cherished belief is that he should be chancellor and he recognizes that he won't get there leading the FDP. Perhaps Christianity (as in WWJD) played a role in Merkel's decision to let the refugees in in 2015.

Sure, they can go further left to align themselves more with their prospective coalition partners, but:

  1. That doesn't seem to be what the current CDU leadership intends to do. Granted, they're in opposition so all we have to go on is hot air, but at the very least right now they seem to flirt with various right-wing positions.
  2. If they swing left again, they'll probably bleed more voters and feed the AfD.
  3. I'm fairly confident that they are conscious of 2. and thus do 1.
  4. There is no niche to their left that they can occupy.

Now, when all's said and done I have no faith in the CDU and they will probably just say whatever they think gets them back into power, and once there will run a business as usual government. They do not, as far as I can tell, have any real stomach for culture warring over contentious issues. But at least strategically I don't see them going further left as a problem for the AfD.

Though the AfD can definitely influence some things if they control over a third of the seats, as is now the case in Thuringia.

Didn't they lose one of the seats to a recount?

That was in Saxony, where they went from 41 seats out of 120 to just 40. They have 32 out of 88 seats in Thuringia.

As an exercise, let’s taboo the term “far-right”. What exactly is “far-right” about AfD’s platform? Do they propose:

  1. More strictly vetting all new asylum claims
  2. Reviewing successful asylum claims from 2015 to the present day, and deporting those found to have made false statements
  3. Kicking down doors and summarily executing men, women, and children who are not of 100% Aryan stock

… or something else entirely?

And a followup question: In what sense is a party that got 1/3 of the vote "far-" anything? They seem objectively mainstream based on that measure. Should I be using something else to categorize parties?

One that really cracked me up that I saw in a few articles today was how they reminded everyone that the this is the first time a "far-right" party has won an election since ww2 and also it's on the 85th anniversary of Nazi Germany invading Poland.

They then go on to inform us of the unspeakable far right policies of this party which warrant being compared to a group that waged war across Europe.

brace yourselves, might want to sit down for how evil this one is.

They're anti-war!

We really don't hate journalists near as much as we should, we need to invent people that don't spend 8 hours sleeping so they can hate journalists 24 hours a day or something.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/ukraine-skeptic-parties-win-big-162619480.html?guccounter=1

The continued rise of Alternative for Germany (AfD) entered a new chapter on Sept. 1, when the controversial far-right party came first in Thuringia's state election.

AfD won around 33% of the vote in Thuringia, a state of 2 million people in Germany's east. The results mark the first time a far-right party won a state election in Germany since the Second World War - 85 years to the day that Nazi Germany invaded Poland.

and their policy

"Anti-war, anti-Ukraine"

"In line with the rest of the AfD, Hocke has repeatedly urged for dialogue with Moscow and is against sending military aid to Ukraine"

"In May 2023, Chrupalla and party founder Alexander Gauland attended a reception at the Russian embassy, celebrating Russia's 'Victory Day.' Chrupalla claimed he attended the event because 'dialogue should not be allowed to break down in times of crisis.'"

"AfD's campaign in Thuringia included the slogan 'diplomacy instead of weapons,' referring to Germany's position as the world's second-largest supplier of military aid to Ukraine after the U.S."

"'Friends, we as Germans, we as Thuringians, we as voters say – no more war,' he said."

To me, this AP article takes the cake.

Headline: A far-right German party’s win has some fearing for the future. Others worry of a return to the past.

Synopsis: A lesbian couple in Berlin is worried about the rise of the AfD.

They’re concerned that a gay couple and their child might not be safe in the future if parties like Alternative for Germany, or AfD, gain more power in the formerly communist and less prosperous eastern states.

Germany’s domestic intelligence has deemed both the Saxon and Thuringian branches of the AfD to be “proven right-wing extremist” groups. The leader in Thuringia has even been convicted of using Nazi slogans. Even more ominous, this election was held on the 85th anniversary of the invasion of Poland, which makes the AfD’s win somehow even more damning. One young father is trying to figure out how to explain it to his three- and six-year-old kids:

“We don’t talk much about politics so far. He’s more into ‘Paw Patrol,’” Meister said. “It’s hard to explain. How is it that people are so proud to vote for a party that is so bad for everyone?”

Now we get to the good stuff:

Older Germans who lived through the Nazi reign of terror are frightened. Many believed their country had developed an immunity to nationalism and assertions of racial superiority after confronting the horrors of its past through education and laws to outlaw persecution.

But Holocaust survivor Charlotte Knobloch, president of the Jewish Community of Munich and Upper Bavaria, cautioned against labeling AfD’s successes as an aberration.

“Nobody should now speak of ‘protest’ or look for other excuses,” Knobloch said in a statement. “The numerous voters made their decision consciously, many wanted to make the extremists on the fringes responsible.”

Knobloch was 6 years old when she saw the synagogues of Munich burning and watched helplessly as two Nazi officers marched away a beloved friend of her father on Nov. 9, 1938, or Kristallnacht — the “Night of Broken Glass” — when Nazis terrorized Jews throughout Germany and Austria.

Gudrun Pfeifer and Ursula Klute, two retirees from the northwestern city of Osnabrueck who are visiting Berlin this week, said Sunday’s vote also brought back grim memories from their early childhood days during and after World War II.

“I know what this can all lead to,” Pfeifer, 83, said Monday as her voice broke, recalling how her family was separated during the last months of the war and beyond. She was stranded in Berlin for more than a year.

“The city was in ruins, we were all starving. I was very ill — my sister thought I was going to die,” Pfeifer added.

Unfortunately, young people are ever so slightly more likely to vote for the AfD than the population overall, which obviously spells disaster for the future. The article closes with this ominous warning:

Klute, 78, also said she was distressed by AfD’s successes among the younger population.

“People always forget the lessons from history,” she said.

The only thing this article is missing (other than, you know, any discussion of the AfD’s actual policy proposals) is a paragraph noting that Saxony and Thuringia were among the earliest states to support the Nazi party electorally back in 1928. Perhaps the authors were simply unaware, or perhaps they ran out of room with their other guilt-by-association quotations.

To be fair, they are less pacifist and more pro-Putin. I am sure that if someone invaded a part of Germany, they would sing a different tune.

I agree with you though that their objection to aid for Ukraine -- which they share with the new BSW -- is not something which is beyond the pale.

Overall, interesting if not surprising times.

Nah, I'm on team "nothing ever happens". AfD could break through the cordon sanitaire, and they'd just end up as the next Meloni.

What I find rather telling is that two of the three federal ruling parties didn't even get enough votes to enter the Thuringian parliament.

While I'll be the first to say I find the labeling of the European right as 'far right' more indicative of European peculiarities and attempts to stigmatize political opponents than objective

I don't really agree with that. For the existence of the BRD, the disavowal of the Nazis has been universal in every party. "What Germans did then was uniquely bad, and we should be ashamed about that" was consensus outside of a few fringe parties like the NPD. Granted, in the beginning, the consensus was mostly "let us not talk about it", while after 1968, it shifted to a culture of remembrance. Feeling bad about German atrocities has been a core part of German identity since then, and I think we are better for it.

The AfD, especially in the person of Bjoern Hoecke, breaks this consensus. If I was a smaller country bordering Germany, I would get a bit concerned about a German leader waxing about the 'thousand years of glorious history' of Germany, given historic precedent in that period. I mean, nobody would expect a chancellor Hoecke to try to restore the borders of the Reich in 1914, but then few people suspected that Putin would be willing to start a war of annexation in Europe to restore Russia to the Tsarist glory days.

Hoecke is trying to walk as close to the line drawn by StGB § 86a (which outlaws "Sieg Heil" and the like) without crossing it (and then gets convicted for using the more obscure SA slogan "Alles fuer Deutschland). And where the other parties treat the swastika-tattooed mobs as toxic, the AfD is willing to tolerate them in their voelkisch wing.

Then there is that whole Remigrationskonferenz thing (called Wannsee 2.0 by some). What was said and by whom is contested, but there are credible claims that some called for deporting German citizens if they had the wrong ethnicity, which would be completely beyond the pale. I mean, restricting political asylum is one thing (and unless you have a 2/3 majority, expect the German supreme court to have an opinion on that, because that right is in the constitution), but this is something different. Sending people with US passports back to the birth country of their ancestors is way out the overton window for US politics, and it is similar for Germany.

So no, I don't think that calling the AfD (especially in Thuringia, where Hoecke is the leader) extreme right is wrong.

--

Regarding the outcome of the elections, I think this puts the parties in the middle of the spectrum in a bit of a bind. I mean, they can form very large coalitions. Looking at the distribution of seats in Thuringia, if you want a majority without the AfD, you would require some delegates from every other party (except for the SPD) to at least tolerate your government. Given that BSW was formed in a messy breakway from the Linke ('the left'), this seems like a tall order. For Saxony, the situation looks a bit less dire because the conservative CDU did very well. Still, you are stuck with either CDU+Linke+SPD+Greens, or three-partner coalition with CDU+BSW+any, neither of which sound very stable. And four years from now, whoever was formed that coalition is likely going to get punished for it, unless the East Germans are actually satisfied with both state level and federal administrations (fat chance, that).

On the other hand, anyone who had campaigned on not forming a coalition with the AfD (which I gather are basically all of the parties) actually forming a government with them would be a blatant betrayal of the voters trust. In Germany, we have the concept of "Steigbuegelhalter" (literally stirrup holder), which generally refers to the parties which formed a coalition with the NSDAP in 1933 (and were eventually assimilated into it for their troubles). Nobody wants to be that guy.

As an opponent to the AfD, I thus would have liked it better if Hoecke had won 51% in Thuringia, because then he would have to deliver, and show how pushing asylum seekers to other German states would solve the manifold social, demographic and economic problems of East Germany.

As an opponent to the AfD, I thus would have liked it better if Hoecke had won 51% in Thuringia, because then he would have to deliver, and show how pushing asylum seekers to other German states would solve the manifold social, demographic and economic problems of East Germany.

If nothing else, wouldn't he at least have shiny new crime stats to show?

I mean, nobody would expect a chancellor Hoecke to try to restore the borders of the Reich in 1914, but then few people suspected that Putin would be willing to start a war of annexation in Europe to restore Russia to the Tsarist glory days.

I don’t think Putin would agree with this characterization.

He’s spoken of the historical relationship between Russia and Ukraine and used this as partial justification: these borders were made up by the Soviets and didn’t matter at the time since Ukraine wasn’t independent in any real sense.

As far as I know he’s never said that he’s seeking to restore the borders of the Empire or of the USSR. Most charitably, people seem to infer this based on his starting a war and speaking of history. Less charitably it’s a deliberate distortion to make the bad man appear even more bad.

Many borders are accidents of history. If things had gone different, the Texas might still be Mexican, or some other Mexian state might also have joined the US. In feudal societies, it might be down to the order in which some nobles croaked and inheritance was passed along. Sometimes it was just some guy with a straight ruler who could just as well have drawn his line a few arc-minutes further north or south. Sometimes, little details end up being crucial. Hong Kong might have been leased for 50 or 150 years instead of 99. Sure, if the Soviets had organized Ukraine differently, then it might have stayed with Russia when the USSR collapsed. "But I have a reasonable historical claim to these lands" might have flown in 1200 CE, but it does not fly in 2020 any more.

I think Putin wants Russia to become a hegemonic power, as it was during both the Empire and the USSR. Unlike the USSR, he is not motivated by a communist political ideology, but by a blend of nationalism and conservative Christianity, which is why I compared him to the Tsars.

I have not claimed that he precisely wants the territories Russia or the USSR held at any point, but I think the claim that he strives for Russia to be a dominant local power, as it was in the Empire (or during much of the USSR) can be rather well supported. To phrase that as "to restore Russia to the Tsarist glory days" is putting it a bit polemically, perhaps like claiming of an aspiring bodybuilder "he wants to become the next Schwarzenegger".

these borders were made up by the Soviets and didn’t matter

As opposed to other borders that were directly proclaimed by God in a holy revelation? Of course all borders are made up by humans who were in charge of making borders at that time, there's literally no other option. Concluding from that that they don't matter is just saying "I am the sole authority on declaring borders because I am the only person whose opinion matters".

Most charitably, people seem to infer this based on his starting a war and speaking of history

You're saying it as if deriving the intentions of the person from his convictions and his actions is somehow a dirty trick, while believing his words - a words of known and repeated liar - is the only way to know the truth. Of course the real situation is the opposite - it is very easy to lie when speaking directly about one's intentions. However, it's very hard to hide your true intentions consistently through all the pattern of your actions, your references, your interests, your convictions and your propaganda - even if you could do the job convincingly, that would just have the effect of hindering your true efforts, because you henchmen and your subjects would also think the opposite of your true intentions if you're so good. But usually the actual intention shines through well enough, and in Putin's case it definitely does. While literally recreating precisely the borders of the Russian Empire (which btw were never stable anyway) is not the goal, certainly recovering it's former glory is, and any territory that has been owned by it is considered as valid target (even if some currently inaccessible).

Less charitably it’s a deliberate distortion to make the bad man appear even more bad.

Or, on your side, to make the bad man less bad out of contrarianism. I understand it's tempting to think if the state propaganda says Putin is bad then it probably isn't that bad. The tragic fact is he's worse.

So, summarily I get this:

1. Hoecke doesn't apologize for the Nazis enough (or maybe at all?)
2. Hoecke mentions 'thousand years of glorious history' of Germany
3. He said "Alles fuer Deutschland" which turns out has been used by SA
4. Is tolerating swastika-tattooed mobs
5. Some (who?) in some conference called for deporting German citizens if they had the wrong ethnicity

Did I forget anything important?

I don't have much of a stake in German politics, but it would be important for me to understand whether or not AfD are Nazis or Nazis-in-building. I have a very low tolerance for Nazis, but also American politics taught me that about 99% of times when somebody calls somebody else a Nazi it's a lie. There's still 1% where it's true, about the Nazis which do exist, and some of them even wear swastikas (many others wear other outfits and signage) - but one has to be careful there.

So far, from the list 3 is a little worrying - did he know and used it on purpose, or is it like saying Trump is a Nazi because "Make America Great again" was once used 80+ years ago by some Nazi sympathizers? Hard to make a conclusion here. Is there a pattern of using such slogans and symbols, or is it one time thing? By itself, the slogan does not sound that heinous, but of course if he was attracted to it as a way to say "sieg hail" without saying "sieg hail" it'd be a problem.

4 is worrying if he's really leaning on these mobs and welcoming them and integrating them into his infrastructure on the ground. But is not worrying is it's just some jerks that happen to agree with him on something - I'm sure plenty of jerks agree with me on some things, not all jerks are obligated to be wrong about everything all the time. How important are those mobs for him?

5 would be very bad if it were his party position but the vagueness of the claim is kind of suspicious. Who said that? What exactly did they say? How important this person is in defining AfD policy? Do other AfD policymakers confirm this? Did they endorse or promote such actions? "Somebody maybe said something on a conference" is a great start of a cancel campaign, but poor evidence if you want to figure out what's actually going on. Is there more to it?

1 and 2 don't particularly bother me. Politicians can performatively apologize for anything, and 100% of those apologies mean absolutely nothing - they can apologize for a thing today and do the same thing tomorrow. And Germany does have a long and glorious history - at least no less glorious than any other place, and no less bloody and disgusting at the same time too. Nothing wrong in remembering that, it's what conclusions you make out if it and how it moves you to act is important. The moniker "far right" imply that it moves AfD to act like a Nazis or at least as far towards the Nazis as political limitations will allow. But is this true? So far I haven't seen a proper substantiation of that.

P.S. Oh, and the last point. Plenty of people said Putin would start a war. In fact, Russia has been conducting several wars pretty much since it's establishment in early 1990s - they occupied parts of Georgia, part of Moldova, intervened in Central Asian states and Armenia-Azerbaijan conflict, there was pretty much no period where Russia was peaceful and isolationist, and Putin with his "tough guy" image never indicated he's going to be any different. And they actively meddled in Ukraine for all that time, too. Full-scale intervention was by no means an obvious outcome, but a lot of people raised it as a possibility - and get laughed at by a lot of other people. Many of the latter still among the decision makers in Europe and Germany, so not sure if their predictive capacities can be used to indicate anything.

I don't have much of a stake in German politics, but it would be important for me to understand whether or not AfD are Nazis or Nazis-in-building. I have a very low tolerance for Nazis, but also American politics taught me that about 99% of times when somebody calls somebody else a Nazi it's a lie. There's still 1% where it's true, about the Nazis which do exist, and some of them even wear swastikas (many others wear other outfits and signage) - but one has to be careful there.

This gets a little confusing when you're actually living in Germany. Actual current-day nazis are rare, but pretty much everyone there had a father or grandfather (or grandmother) who worked for them. Maybe not as card-carrying members of the party, but still swept up in the war effort somehow. It wasn't really a choice, the whole country did. So I can see how the endless performative guilt and apologies would get annoying, since it's basically calling out an entire generation of your family.

Then there is that whole Remigrationskonferenz thing (called Wannsee 2.0 by some). What was said and by whom is contested, but there are credible claims that some called for deporting German citizens if they had the wrong ethnicity, which would be completely beyond the pale. I mean, restricting political asylum is one thing (and unless you have a 2/3 majority, expect the German supreme court to have an opinion on that, because that right is in the constitution), but this is something different. Sending people with US passports back to the birth country of their ancestors is way out the overton window for US politics, and it is similar for Germany.

Sorry, but it's not just contested; it is simply not credible. We now know that Correctiv was purposefully suggesting the similarity, but never actually explicitly stated that there were these plans. In their recent court case they now did, in fact, claim the opposite: That the reason they didn't explicitly stated such is because there never were these plans. According to Correctiv itself, all participants agreed that this was beyond the pale. You can read more about this at the Cicero or the Übermedien. Both in german, obviously, but google translate exists.

As much as I'd like to hear from other parts of the world, this is why I'm ultimately skeptical of discussing Culture War in non-Anglo countries. Culture War commentary has to be an adversarial collaboration, with both sides being insanely plugged in, to get anywhere close to the truth. Otherwise the mainstream narrative will be able to run circles around anyone who questions it.

Well, at least we have enough of Ze Germans here that it worked out in the end...

I take offense to making fun of our pronunciation! The correct term is Kraut, as being named after the most supreme of foods is an honour.

But yes I agree, though I would extend this to almost any topic in any country. For an example close to heart, looking up first source english papers but blindly trusting their framing of their findings is almost as guaranteed to lead to misconceptions as blindly trusting MSM reporting on the findings.

Yeah the kraut (sauerkraut) is seriously undervalued in America. It's super tasty if done right, goes with almost any savory food, can be self-made easily and cheaply (which is good because if you can even find it in store it's usually subpar), keeps very well and is a pretty healthy food.

The cordon sanitaire in Germany means they have a two-party system -- AfD and everyone else. AfD needs an absolute majority to have any power at all.

While BSW is of the 'refuse to cooperate with AfD' direction, they are also notable for stated opposition to supporting Ukraine with more military aid, though how hard they hold that view / what they might trade it away for in coalition-negotiation remains to be seen.

I have no special insight into German politics, but in Slovakia this pro-Russian and pro-Putin moniker was attached to the current prime minister Robert Fico before elections. Interestingly enough, one of the the first things he did post-election was a conference with Ukrainian prime minister Denys Šmyhaľ in the city of Uzhhorod, where he signed the treaty of military cooperation with Ukraine, expressed his support for Ukrainian EU integration as well as support for EU military package. The rhetoric from anti-Fico coalition then changed that he betrayed his voters and that he only wants to make money for his cronies who will provide the military assistance.

It is incredibly difficult to navigate this situation, I am just used to media lying and speaking from the both sides of their mouth. It is just sad state of things.

Slovak media are very lame. It's a small country, little talent. No money in media, so only lame people or partisans will do it. I haven't watched TV in decades but the overall level of newspapers is now abysmal, and Ukraine derangement syndrome and war mania made it even worse. Merely overhearing DennikN (probably the best general newspaper) podcasts while visiting my mother makes me cringe.

Fico is likely a psychopath so he's going to 'do the needful' and be as flexible as is required. No idea why he'd sign this, but it's either blackmail or greed. He is believed to have a very finite life expectancy due to heart issues and expected to die within a few years unless he gets a heart transplant, but he's drinking heavily and not a good candidate for one. This I overheard from family who are doctors in the capital.

It's not only Slovak media. Once you are marked as pro-Putin, the whole media complex parrots this endlessly even in the face of contrary evidence, I think there is some media incest in this manner. Examples regarding Fico from Reuters or Guardian or even Die Welt.

They are all lame, that is why if media say that AFD party is Pro-Russian, then it really is tough to know what to think about it, they just cannot report about these issues honestly. It really is terrible, because people do not have time to delve into these issues deeply and maybe they really are Pro-Russia. It is hard to tell.

True. I didn't mean to imply other media are good.

It's all so horribly lame at times I almost feel compelled to start translating some of the clever stuff I read into Czech. Not sure where one could post it where it wouldn't be entirely pointless.

With the recent news of X being banned in Brazil, it seems we're entering a new stage of the ongoing battle between major, multinational corporations and governments.

A common talking point on the left is that Musk is making a hissy fit out of Brazil, but has been happy in the past to censor for 'outgroup' countries like Turkey, China, et cetera. While I haven't looked into the truth of these claims, I think it's interesting to take them at face value, and ask why that's a problem exactly?

We have clear evidence that Facebook, Insta, Twitter, etc all heavily and not even secretly censored anti-right wing information (and even just true information) during the Covid pandemic especially, but also around other, more political topics.

So in this case, I suppose the question comes down to - if most people on the left think that censoring information during covid and around the 2020 election was fair game, why is it not fair game when someone on the 'other side' does it back to them?

Now personally I think that the censorship around covid was far more egregious, but again I'm hoping to pose a general question about freedom of speech, especially for these incredibly powerful media tech companies. Are we entering an era where elections are mostly decided based on corporate censorship? Are governments going to just cede power to the technarchs gently, or will there be more and more lawfare against them?

I don't think e.g. Brazil can really pressure someone like Musk much, but the battle between him and the EU, as well as the left side of the U.S. government, is certainly worth keeping an eye on.

More charitably... there's one coherent position where the complaint isn't about compliance with complainer's principles, but that X-era Twitter is claiming a set of principles and not following it. You don't have to believe in free speech yourself to notice if someone wearing a Free Speech T-Shirt is also ignoring it. And in Musk's case, the economic incentives to drop principles when China or the Saudis ask are pretty overt.

((Though in practice, it's based on a strawman. For better or worse, Musk has never been a free speech absolutist so much as a formalist, and much of the high profile bad behaviors by X-era Twitter have reflected jurisdictions with weak or no formal right of free speech. And the 'higher' compliance-with-takedown numbers are Goodhart'd to hell and back: we know that the Official Requests have always been swamped by the unofficial ones.))

Less charitably, "who whom".

Too much charity. X was initially willing to censor in Brazil, though they complained about it. Then something happened, a bunch of secret orders, and Musk got his back up. Some of those orders have since been released (by a member of the US House, I believe, since X wasn't allowed to release them); they included global censorship. That is, censoring X outside of Brazil based on Brazilian court orders. That's something X has refused before, notably from Australia. So no, it isn't a matter of outgroup country vs ingroup country.

The balkanization of the internet will continue, and has been since before the arab spring when it became clear social media censorship / influence was a security threat to autocrats, an influence vector for the west, and a basis for competition between the Americans and Europeans when the Europeans identified legislative / regulatory influence over American media companies as both an economic interest (see the attempts by national regulators to charge google news linking to country media groups) and a political influence interest (see the attempts to suppress the right / require political commentary in the name of counter-misinformation). Ever since the Chinese government enforced its own geographic regulatory zone over western internet providers during the early 2000s in the buildup of the great firewall, the ability and interest to construct similar regulator sub-divisions of the internet has been a growing interest across the world.

That said, I think X will 'win' this one, in so much that I don't expect Brazil to effectively cut off access to VPNs or Satellite internet needed to actually block Twitter from the Brazilian information sphere. In addition to Musk being able to write off the loss, Musk is both providing an internet service (X) but is also an internet service provider via Starlink, and even if the current US administration doesn't like Musk politically, it really, really likes the premise of Starlink, which allows access to X, and nothing Brazil will do will outweigh the Americans' interest in bypassing the regulatory firewalls via space network capacity.

Starlink (and the military extension starshield) have direct national security implications for the US government. You can see the direct military application implications in Ukraine, where it has given the Ukrainian substantial network access and military advantages the Russians struggle to degrade, and these are generalizable anywhere the US either wants to operate or wants partners or allies to be able to operate. These capabilities have non-kinetic implications either, such as natural disaster functions when land-based networks may be knocked down, critical infrastructure integration if a cyber-attack takes down land-based network connections, and so on. Starlink's resiliency and ability to survive / mitigate common disruption vectors is much of the point.

But Starlink also counters that balkanization of the internet, as a space-based, US-based, internet provider counters many of those balkanization efforts of regulatory enforcement in a way that the US government wants to happen to other internet-balkanization countries.

Regional internet regulation largely worked against internet service providers when the companies had to be working within infrastructure in the countries doing the regulating. When the company and the country disagreed, it was the company that bore the cost of enforcement, since it could be fined / have its critical infrastructure seized if it was found to violate laws. This is central to, say, the regulatory demands to keep personal data in-country (as opposed to the US)- where the infrastructure is matters. And regional internet regulation makes the companies pay the cost for stepping out of line, either in fees or losing access to the infrastructure.

But Starlink reverses the enforcement cost. Beyond freezing Starlink assets in a country itself, Starlink satellites are literally in outer space. Unless Brazil intends to literally launch a satellite to take down a starlink satellite, it's going to stay in space... and if Brazil were to try that, SpaceX- again owned by Musk- could throw up many more satellites for a fraction of the cost.

That leaves a general country two main avenues.

One is to try and take Starlink to court in the US and have the US enforce a shut-off to the country. This would almost certainly fail because this is the exact sort of scenario of maintaining access to the US internet that the US government wants anti-US countries to be unable to stop. While there are opportunities for the knives to come out for Musk, the ability of anyone in the world to access the US internet regardless of what their own national government wants is something the US has very, very strong incentives to maintain for strategic interest and ideological reasons. The same regulatory logic that allowed other countries to pressure US companies to regulate speech in their own countries is what protects US regulatory pre-eminence in its own market, which just so happens to happens to include it's satellites.

The other option is to go after Starlink / X-VPN users in the country itself. Which is where the enforcement cost starts to add up. Far more intrusive, suppressive, and aggressive governments than Brazil have tried to block satellite dishes and access to global comms, and the costs of doing so are non-trivial both economically and in social-political costs, especially when Starlink offers a service that is exceptionally useful the further away from government-infrastructure you are.

And this is without the internal politics of Brazil coming into play. The Supreme Court judge can ban X and demand fines on people who use VPNs on it, but that's a separate matter from an electorally-sensitive administration actually enforcing such things. It turns out that voters in relatively free democracies tend not to like governments who have huge poverty and crime issues instead sending the police in to check what sort of satellite dish you have. The Brazilian government's electoral margins aren't that strong, and the laxer enforcement is, the more effective X remains at functionally skirting the ban.

The balkanization of the internet will continue, and has been since before the arab spring when it became clear social media censorship / influence was a security threat to autocrats, an influence vector for the west

The Arab Spring was irrelevant, and if that's all that happened, western goverents would be more than happy to preserve the Internet in it's old form. What signed the death warrant on the Old Internet was Brexit and the election of Donald Trump. The establishment thought that their foreign and domestic enemies will forever remain behind the curve in the "marketplace of ideas", when that assumption was disproven, they opted to take the autocratic route themselves.

How long before authoritarian or neutral countries have their own version of Starlink? The advantages they give, if they're truly as big as you say, seem like they would attract the interest of other state actors to co-opt them. At that point, limiting Starlink is just a matter of banning its terrestrial assets in the country, which is easy enough. Normies can then switch to Chinalink or Indialink or whatever and not be that bothered.

Granted, this might not apply to the current situation, but Musk is playing a dangerous game here by directly incentivizing the creation of competitors.

The Chinese Thousand Sails/G60 project just got its first batch of satellites launched earlier this month, though I don’t know the target timeline for operational use.

At that point, limiting Starlink is just a matter of banning its terrestrial assets in the country, which is easy enough.

The newer versions of starlink have laser cross communication capabilities, so no terrestrial assets in the country are required. So you really would have to hunt down the end user dishes one by one.

You can't use frequencies in a country without that country's permission.

How exactly does this apply to what I said? This is a genuine question of clarification, not an accusation.

It seems like that should make Star Link trivial to block if the Brazilians really wanted to then.

Sure, yeah, hypothetically. But if Starlink operated in Brazil without permission, how exactly is the Brazilian government going to stop them?

Let's say I have a Starlink terminal in a house in Brazil. What now does the Brazilian government do to stop me from using it? They certainty don't have a panopticon or security state so thorough that they'll be in my home checking my electronics for frequency allocation violations.

At that point, limiting Starlink is just a matter of banning its terrestrial assets in the country, which is easy enough.

That's the very hard part. The terrestrial asset of starlink is basically a satellite dish that goes for a few hundred USD, and will generally be indistinguishable from other generic satellite dishes. From the consumer end, the biggest difficulty is to establish a payment link, and there are long established market methods to enable that in ways that avoid general financial system monitoring, such as buying pre-pay cards with cash. And that's if anything is charged at all. There's nothing preventing, say, a government from broadcasting for free.

For a frame of reference, Iran in 1994 banned satelite dishes in general, and actively jams attempts to broadcast into the country. In 2011, BBC Persia was reportedly having around 7.2 million weekly Iranian viewers, which was about 10% of the population. As of 2023, that number is reportedly around 18 million 'in Iran and around the world'.

In short, even in an authoritarian theocracy with extremely intrusive and abusive human rights conditions and active jamming, you're still looking at significant information penetration. Countries with less resourcing of the suppression-aparatus and less will to suppress will do even worse.

How long before authoritarian or neutral countries have their own version of Starlink?

You don't satellite-based internet to access the partions of the internet- you can legally access the Great Firewall of China from across the world already. Even North Koreans can access the internet, if they use the proper protocols / minder programs / etc. Regulatory internet barriers are for keeping people in, and it's the information they want to keep out.

Which brings the question of 'what is the point?' / 'why would you bring a lot of outsiders in?'

A Sino-link that exists to keep law-abiding Chinese in the Sino-web is unnecessary for anyone except the most remote / unconnected people. A Sino-link that brings in any Mandarin-typing outsider is an ideological contamination hazard.

Granted, this might not apply to the current situation, but Musk is playing a dangerous game here by directly incentivizing the creation of competitors.

The creation of competitors is a boon, not a malus, for stopping / rolling back internet partition. If everyone has access to all the different internet broadcasters, and if everyone defends their right to ignore the regulatory pressures of other countries, then no one can enact a regulatory monopoly even as everyone has enhanced access to non-approved media.

First off, thanks for replying. I always find your comments to be well thought out and high-quality.

My follow up would be to question if the situation with Iran is really analogous. The Great Firewall of China is fairly easily bypassed for anyone who wants to break containment, but most normies in China simply don't care enough to do so. Most people just want to browse whatever sites they're used to, and as long as they can do that then the other details are immaterial. So say a neutral (e.g. Indian or Russian) competitor to Starlink is born which promises to fulfill the wishes of whatever censorship regime a country may have. The government could then mandate that satellite dishes have to be of whatever visually-distinct partner brand is cooperating with them. Of course they'll never get 100% compliance, as people could disguise their dishes or whatever, but most people simply won't care about that enough to bother.

A complete banning of satellite dishes like Iran did would be costly as there are presumably a bunch of reasons why people would have them. But if the state tells people to switch from one brand to another, that's an entirely different story.

Thank you. The compliment is returned, and I appreciate reading your posts even when I disagree.

To the topic-

The point on Iran is that even when enforcement is done by a regime willing to brutalize the public, it's not feasible to keep satellite dishes out. Brazil is much able to do that, and that's before you hit the point that the more authorized satellite dish variants you have on the market, the easier it is to just hide your dish within the mess (or just out of easily inspectable sight). If someone is using the same technology base, this would be like trying to regulate cars by demanding distinctive tailpipes.

It takes a huge, system-defining prioritization to do a Chinese-style surveilance state to do such a thing... and as you note, even that is not enough to keep information out.

Which then comes back to 'what are you spending so much money and political costs for, exactly?'

Which applies to both the Starlink-suppression, and the Starlink-'competitor'.

The value of starlink as a commercial service is the internet access without having to build/have infrastructure on that part of the planet. If you are on that part of the planet, it is in many respects more profitable / sensible to just... build the infrastructure on that part of the planet. Which is what China already does through companies like Huawei and 5G networks, which produce separate geopolitical benefits that come from having your fingers on all the data. Brazil paying China to build a Sino-link to provide Brazilian internet is directly competing with money to just, well, paying China less per network capacity to build better Brazilian internet that can be physically overseen by Brazil. Corruption on such a scale isn't impossible, but it is stupid.

(Especially since the only cost-competitive space agency able to launch the satellites in the foreseeable future is... SpaceX.)

It also doesn't address the issue of ideological interest of the Americans to back Starlink on this. Starlink won't go out of business if there's business competition, because part of Starlink's value to the American government is expanding the information sphere, and it (or things like it) can practically be guaranteed funding regardless of competiting power states. You may even see the US subsidize Starlink (or equivalent) satellite-internet at a global scale in the future, just to undercut the businness of others. Providing American-media-sphere access across the globe is an interest in and of itself, no matter how many strategic competitors set up their own, and especially if they do.

Starlink is not a trivial undertaking. It's entirely possible that chinalink is outside the realm of possibility.

"Brazil-link" is certainly a stretch...

A few disparate thoughts.

I suspect that the arrest of the Telegram guy in France was a trial balloon/shot across the bow to show that Western Countries can use a, for lack of a better term, "Chinese-Style" authority to physically detain extremely wealthy oligarchs and celebrities to try to reign in their open resistance to government edicts. Compare the "Russian-style" authority where they just chuck you out a window or crash your plane.

My model of how centralized governments think holds that NO such government will tolerate a serious power base outside of its own control, which includes any 'platform' or organization that, if activated, could attempt to seize political control of said government from the current holders (organizing to vote for particular candidates counts too!). The instant such an alternative power base seems to arise, the existing government will seek to either seize it, destroy it, or disrupt it.

They will do so with even more urgency in times of war or serious unrest, and we're sliding into such times.

It was all fun and games when tech companies were helping produce more wealth and providing said government with neat tools to e.g. surveil the public and detect crimes, or analyze economic data, or better weapons to fight their enemies. But the balance of power in the relationship is becoming untenable... from the government's point of view.

I believe the U.S. and European governments strongly feel like the tech industry represents such a power base, or at least that they provide the platforms that dissidents and political opponents can use to organize their supporters into effective movements that can then undermine existing power bases. And said governments can pay lip service to classical liberal ideals while plotting to disrupt those opponents and bring those platforms to heel all the same. End of the day this will mean threatening the people in charge of and operating those platforms with serious consequences. Which is hard to do if those people are extremely wealthy and generally popular, and your country has laws that inhibit the government from arresting citizens and taking their stuff on a whim.

The one thing I know for certain is that they will NOT simply stand by and allow power to accrue outside their hands until it actually destabilizes their authority.

Finally, I have literally never felt quite this much shivering terror at the realization that the group who believes in something like unrestricted free speech even and ESPECIALLY against the efforts of government to 'protect' us... is a tiny school of fish in a sea of indifference, patrolled by many censorious sharks.

I was aware that globally the concept or ideal of free speech was vastly a minority preference, but I didn't have much concern about what a Cameroonian or Indonesian thought was okay to say or not say. But even in the West, even in the United States itself it feels like I've got maybe 20% of the population that would honestly vote for a provision protecting free speech if one didn't already exist.

The left was never in favor of it but now they've gained enough institutional control to silence enemies on various platforms, the liberals have abandoned it in the name of stopping or getting Trump, the moderates just want to grill, and the conservatives/MAGA are generally shaky allies on this particular point.

With all the tools for censorship that are now turnkey ready to implement across the board, starts to feel like it is just a question of whom will be in charge when the governments of the world lock down speech entirely.

Why are you surprised? It seems obvious to me that "unrestricted free speech should be legal" is no different from "you can't defend yourself from my swing until and unless it connects".

Because the west is still marketing itself as supporting free speech, and claiming it's different from / better than the autocrats in other parts of the world.

Though I suppose I agree that by now one shouldn't be surprised.

"unrestricted free speech should be legal" is no different from "you can't defend yourself from my swing until and unless it connects".

I would characterize it more as "It should be legal for any given person to speak to any given willing audience without interference." Trebly so on the internet, where generally an audience seeks out a speaker and the speech doesn't interfere with anyone who hasn't actively sought it out.

The right to free speech has as a necessary corollary the right to hear. As in, a speaker and a listener/the audience both have an interest in the right to free speech, and both are 'infringed' when a speaker is censored.

That's less the case when someone starts throwing punches, there is no consent, implied or otherwise, to receive a punch, vs. the consent to hear a given speaker. Unless it is in an agreed upon boxing match, of course.

I'm sure you could find a listener who's interested in hearing the nuclear codes, or, as another user put it more saliently, the coordinates of a military unit at the frontline that you're entrusted with. The listener's right and interest to hear things is not exactly under question.

What's under question is why any society would want to have free season on coordinating violence/malfeasance. Classify all communication as "speech" and thus "free", and you get bizarre anarchy where no opsec can be enforced and no threat can be reacted to until it is made true on. Make exceptions, and you get to argue over the extent of the exceptions.

I approach you in a dark alley from behind and tell you to empty your pockets with my hand half a second away from retrieving my open carry gun and shooting at you. That should be legal, shouldn't it? All I did was speak to you. If you felt threatened, that's entirely on you. And besides, don't you have the right to hear what I have to say?

I'm sure you could find a listener who's interested in hearing the nuclear codes, or, as another user put it more saliently, the coordinates of a military unit at the frontline that you're entrusted with. The listener's right and interest to hear things is not exactly under question.

I mean, I still support contractual rights to restrict the spread of information, such as nondisclosure agreements and even certain forms of copyrigght.

The constant tension between the "INFORMATION WANTS TO BE FREE!" philosophy and "Some information can cause harm" is everpresent.

I approach you in a dark alley from behind and tell you to empty your pockets with my hand half a second away from retrieving my open carry gun and shooting at you. That should be legal, shouldn't it? All I did was speak to you. If you felt threatened, that's entirely on you. And besides, don't you have the right to hear what I have to say?

Ahh, this takes me back to arguing this stuff on 4chan and reddit back in the day.

What is your specific intent in uttering these words? Is it to give me some useful information that I desire to hear or that I requested to hear? If not, then surely I am entitled to take that into account when I judge how to respond to your speech.

"It should be legal for you to utter those words" and "it should also be legal for me to shoot you on the spot if you utter those words" are not in fact in tension.

In this case, the restriction on speech is more practical than anything. You wouldn't utter those words for fear of being shot. No third party needs to 'interfere.'

Is it to give me some useful information that I desire to hear or that I requested to hear?

You would probably welcome an opportunity to hand over your valuables without a fight, rather than get shot/stabbed wordlessly and have no choice in the matter.

You wouldn't utter those words for fear of being shot.

I'm sure you're very badass, but I do believe the advantage is on the robber's side here. I specified that the gun is holstered because I expected a gotcha about brandishing, but really, brandishing is a fake crime as well.

More generally, I do support shooting people who called you a slur on Twitter. Perhaps if more progressives did that, people wouldn't give them such information that they didn't desire to hear.

I'm sure you're very badass, but I do believe the advantage is on the robber's side here.

Ironically you've presented a scenario that I can claim expertise in, since one of my jobs is in fact self defense instructor. This precise scenario is one I have thought about and trained on literal hundreds of times.

The calculation I have to make is based on whether I think your gun is real, whether it is loaded, whether you have the wherewithal to pull the trigger, and, ultimately, if I'm faster than you. Which I probably am because, as stated above, I train for this.

And in the vast majority of hypothetical cases I would... hand over my stuff without a protest and let you go on your way. Simply the easiest resolution once you've pressed the matter. But you have acted in such a way that I will consider ALL options on the table. And my calculation will adjust based on whether I have loved ones with me and whether I have reason to believe you would kill anyway.

Simply put, YOU have to make a calculation too, and if your calculation has already included the possibility of being shot yourself and you STILL take this action, I can't speak well of your judgment.

And once YOU have made a statement that shows you are willing to kill me (or someone else) to obtain mere possessions, by my perfectly, coldly rational logic you have forfeited any argument for why you shouldn't be killed in return, so the only question is whether I think that is necessary to protect myself.

Similarly, if you claim that you want to suppress the speech of others, I would HAPPILY support restricting your speech because you can't really complain about being treated the way you already agreed its fair to treat others.

Symmetry is nice, like that.

I do support shooting people who called you a slur on Twitter. Perhaps if more progressives did that, people wouldn't give them such information that they didn't desire to hear.

It sure would. But you've already stated that its on twitter, so the means to do so would certainly not be present unless you go to the effort of locating and hunting that person down, which seems like a LOT OF FUCKING EFFORT when you could just walk away from the screen. Or you could just use twitter's own tools to mute the words you don't want to hear/read and block the people you don't want to interact with.

So there's a certain level of implied consent if you consider a particular set of words offensive enough to kill over... and yet you don't avail yourself of readily available tools that will prevent you from seeing those words at all if you don't wish.

I now recall that we've disagreed before on the meaning of the word "fairness". Yet again, you seem to have your own definition for "symmetry" as well.

It is not "symmetrical" to kill in the process of robbery and to kill in self-defense. The latter is a more "fair" act, even in a situation that is not evenly matched. I doubt even your training would provide you with the means to quickly and accurately evaluate any attacker in order to make your self-defense perfectly, rationally "symmetrical" (the classic home invasion scenario - few on this forum would say they'd hold themselves back from shooting the invader, even if he's not obviously armed and threatening). This does not matter in a sane legal code because as one who has not initiated the aggression, you are in the right.

Similarly, if you claim that you want to suppress the speech of others, I would HAPPILY support restricting your speech because you can't really complain about being treated the way you already agreed its fair to treat others.

Am I correct to assume that if I want to suppress others expressing a certain set of ideas A, you would support restricting my speech entirely? That's hardly symmetrical, and not very fair either. What would be symmetrical and fair is to support restricting my speech around the set of ideas A. You'll find that many people readily agree to such proposals. In my view, that supports my interpretation of fairness. People tend to agree to fair counterproposals and reject unfair ones.

Or you could just use twitter's own tools to mute the words you don't want to hear/read and block the people you don't want to interact with.

I don't think this can be done before encountering the random person who'd say the words to me. Similarly, you can't shoot a robber before they appear and try to rob you. Instead, you rely on implicit intimidation to deter robbers. Instead of putting the onus on every possible robbery victim to "block" them, many would-be robbers decide not to rob in the first place.

More comments

What were your beliefs about freedom of speech and the importance of government power to crush dissent in 2007?

Rather than goverment vs corporations it is more about governments and companies who align agenda wise, although granted part of this process includes the goverment requesting censoring, or puttings its own people in charge.

I see it as a broader network/faction.

We are entering an increasing phase of authoritarianism. The Democrats certainly and probably several republicans, possibly even a larger share of republicans than in general, on the issue of speech critical of Jews, are after European style decimation of freedom of speech.

Moreover, the existence of centralized platforms, including platforms like this very forum where someone can decide to censor or ban people at will, it self represents a power grab against freedom of speech in a way. There is also the other side, where it also allows more communication. But meat space did have some less constraints.

I believe there is a direct relationship with moderators banning people and this being celebrated and with governments imprisoning people for hate speech.

So I see it as a struggle between figures like Musk, Durov, Torba, and a totalitarian far left faction. With someone like Musk possibly somewhat compromising with them in some areas and opposing them in others.

Another facet of this is technology which helps enable centralization of power, as also seen with A.I. models being different variations of super woke which makes it easier to take peoples freedom's away. Although if the technology was utilized differently, it could have had different effects. But the possibility of technology being used to centralize and create a totalitarian system is there and it is taken advantage of. It means we are facing a techno-totalitarian threat that is unprecedented.

Like the faction against dissent includes people in goverment and in corporations, those in favor of existence of dissenting platforms should include people both outside the goverment, but also people who ought to take influence within governance, as either legislature or executives. That way, if Brazil wants to get rid of X, but Z other country and politicians like Musk, then that raises the pressure against Brazil.

Furthermore, how is Brazil banning X different from the US banning TikTok?

I suppose the US followed a lot more legal process around it (it was an act of Congress signed by the President) and isn't so much banning it as demanding that its principals fall under US jurisdiction, and at least the cover story is not over suppressing speech but around guaranteeing that the CCP isn't conducting surveillance on every American.

In broad strokes it feels the same though?

Tiktok is a national security threat in a way that X is not.

With Tiktok, Chinese intelligence gains a great deal of data about the U.S. military and intelligence, including the location of many or all of our secret bases and personal details about the people who work in them.

From a security standpoint, X isn't a threat because they are the least likely to share data with foreign governments. It's only a threat to those who wish to censor alternative viewpoints.

you claim to care about free speech but isn't sending information about secret bases and military personnel to the CCP a form of speech? :thinking:

jk jk

isn't the Brazil judge making a similar national security argument though? not around secrets but around public order? X is fostering hate speech and supporting the return of the deplorable Bolsanaro elements, or whatever?

It seems to me there's a non-trivial distinction between shutting down a network to try to prevent influence and data gathering by a semi-hostile foreign government, and shutting down a network to try to silence domestic political speech.

I don't think you could openly do the latter in the US. Though if Harris is elected, I won't be shocked if Musk is indicted on some tenuous securities charge to try to force him out of his companies in favor of more accommodating leadership.

But of course, any domestic political speech you don't like can always be easily painted as influence of a (semi-)hostile foreign government. What's more, any hostile foreign government worth their chops will try to influence your domestic political speech.

But of course, any domestic political speech you don't like can always be easily painted as influence of a (semi-)hostile foreign government.

Under US law, I think this would also be fairly distinct from the TikTok ban. Allegations of foreign influence don't get you past prohibitions on viewpoint discrimination here. The TikTok ban is (probably) legal only because it hinges on a structural fact about TikTok (foreign ownership) rather than targeting any particular viewpoint.

It seems to me there's a non-trivial distinction between shutting down a network to try to prevent influence and data gathering by a semi-hostile foreign government, and shutting down a network to try to silence domestic political speech.

I'm pro free speech, but the distinction seems pretty blurry. Twitter is also gathering data, for sure, and I'm pretty sure you could also portray what they're doing as "influence". I guess it all depends on your relationship to the United States.

I justify my anti-TokTok stance by it being an ADHD-inducing brainrot machine, not by any political influence it has.

All the big social media companies almost certainly employ spies that are exfiltrating data.

If I were running Chinese intelligence I'd think it smart to Br'er Rabbit the Americans about banning Tik Tok. If they actually do it then maybe they'll rest on their laurels a bit thinking they've actually accomplished something. It also provides a blow to their supposed principled stance on free speech, and the debate itself is a good distraction from my lesser known methods of collecting data.

With Tiktok, Chinese intelligence gains a great deal of data about the U.S. military and intelligence, including the location of many or all of our secret bases and personal details about the people who work in them.

This seems like a fig leaf reason.

  • US personnel are a tiny minority of the population, banning it for everyone would be disproportionate. Just tell the soldiers that they can't bring their private phones to their bases and have to use phones which vetted software instead.
  • Most info you get from phone tracking in non-restricted spaces is actually not that valuable. You could probably get the same by using classical spy work, like just observing people or putting trackers on their cars. I mean, if it was the seventies, you could try to find a serviceman who frequents the local gay night club and try to blackmail him over that, but today he would just laugh at you. You would require something heinous to entice treason (perhaps being a serial killer or child abuser), which is highly non-trivial to figure out from location data.
  • Most of all, Tiktok is hardly the only avenue for getting location data. People have a shit-ton of apps installed, facebook, whatsup, tinder, candy crush, pokemon go, etc. Probably even some other apps controlled by the PRC either directly or through letterbox companies. As a general rule, all of these apps will gather all the data they can get their grubby little hands on, and store it somewhere in the cloud. If you think that the PRC can not get access to the location records of half the US smart phones, I would call you very optimistic.

The Tiktok ban is purely about controlling the flow of information between users on the platform, and what the algorithm could push.

You could probably get the same by using classical spy work

At some point, which they've long passed, making spying easier in effect grants the spies new capabilities, even though they "already could do that". (This applies to domestic spying too. The NSA could send out an agent to surveil any target that is caught up in Echelon, but surveilling everyone makes things so much easier that there's no comparison.)

Normies don't care about being anti-censorship on principle, they only care when it impacts a political opinion they personally agree with. And even then, they only raise a stink about it when their trusted political influencers tell them it's a problem. The "I just want to grill" conservatives might grumble a bit about covid censorship, but they really don't go to bat against it. Instead, half the Republican party is obsessed with trying to commit electoral suicide by loudly forcing women to have their rapist's child.

Are we entering an era where elections are mostly decided based on corporate censorship?

We've never been in the situation where elections are "mostly" decided by corporate censorship, nor will we ever be. However, it could push things lightly at the margins. But this is really no different than what the media was always capable of doing.

We've never been in the situation where elections are "mostly" decided by corporate censorship, nor will we ever be. However, it could push things lightly at the margins. But this is really no different than what the media was always capable of doing.

Right on the leadup of the 2020 election the New York Post's twitter account got suspended for publishing a story about the contents of Hunter Biden's laptop. The rationale at the time was 'misinformation' but pretty much every aspect of the story and the contents of the laptop has been verified as true and accurate.

The story was clearly newsworthy. And yet it was censored, at what we know now was likely the request of state actors.

Was the media always capable of crushing the spread of a story that a different media outlet published?

Could the marginal effects of this story spreading have impacted the outcome of the 2020 election?

Could the marginal effects of this story spreading have impacted the outcome of the 2020 election?

There's a possibility it could have, but mostly because recent elections have been decided by razor-thin margins in a handful of swing states. Almost anything can impact the outcome of elections in such a scenario, like how the Comey letter plausibly cost Clinton the election in 2016.

in your view, was the Comey letter more or less harmful than indicting Clinton on multiple felonies would have been?

The Comey letter was an example of an FBI effort to protect Clinton breaking down, due to absurd malfeasance on the part of Clinton herself and other Clinton-related individuals. The FBI did their best, but there were literally too many crimes to cover up. That is to say, subsequent crimes broke the coverup on previous crimes.

In pure polling terms, the Comey letter made Clinton go from +5ish over Trump, to ~+1ish. It'd revert a bit when he posted the "lol jk" retraction 3 days from the election, but most of the damage had already been done. By contrast, Trump being convicted of felonies did almost nothing since he's judged on an extremely generous curve. So in terms of polling, the Comey letter was far worse.

If the left was anywhere close to being as conspiratorially minded as the right is, it could have easily claimed that Comey made a conscious effort to throw the election to Trump with his October Surprise, and that the 2016 election was therefore functionally "stolen". But of course, they didn't do that.

Or many people believe the charges for Trump are trumped up kangaroo charges—not that he is graded on a generous curve.

Republicans will think any charges against Trump for any reason are politically motivated. Most don't think he's a saint or something, it's just pure culture warring -- circle the wagons and defend the leader from the outgroup no matter what.

Sure. But the NY charges were bullshit. The Florida charges may have been politically motivated but they aren’t bullshit.

Can you point to a case where the FBI offered Trump or his underlings blanket immunity in exchange for testimony that implicated only themselves, thereby forestalling any possability of prosecution?

Can you point to a case where the Logan act has been used to prosecute the underlings of politicians other than Trump?

If there is a clear disparity in how the law interacts with Trump versus other politicians, why should Trump's supporters not take this disparity into account, and object to selective application of the rules against their candidate?

More comments

Almost anything can impact the outcome of elections in such a scenario

Which certainly would explain why the sitting government would want to tip the scales so that the odds are generally more in favor of news that helps them coming out whilst stories that hurt them are more likely to be suppressed.

Literally, you're suggesting that even a tiny bit of thumb on the scales would be all it takes to, tip most otherwise stochastic elections towards the party with power to influence the media.

Well yes, it can be a factor. But then, lots of things can be factors. The original question asked:

Are we entering an era where elections are mostly decided based on corporate censorship?

Which is still a resounding "not really", same as it's always been. It's like asking if the media alone can start wars. If you squint, you can sort of see it, but you'd have to ignore a lot of other factors first if you wanted to declare it was "mostly decided" by the media (or censorship thereof).

Netanyahu not doing enough to free Gaza hostages, says Biden

Joe Biden has said Benjamin Netanyahu is not doing enough to secure a hostage deal and ceasefire with Hamas, amid reports suggesting a new proposal would be sent to the Israeli prime minister as "final".

The US president and Kamala Harris, his vice-president, met negotiators in the Situation Room to hammer out a proposal, as protests engulfed Israel on Monday over the weekend deaths of six hostages in Gaza. Asked whether Mr Netanyahu was doing enough, Mr Biden replied "no". He added that the US would not give up, and would "push as hard as we can" for a deal. US officials have categorised this latest proposal as a "take it or leave it deal", the Washington Post reported.

Meanwhile there's a massive strike in Israel today which the PM has called a disgraceful show of support for Hamas. This is all in response to the recovery of six dead hostages which were shot, presumably before they could be rescued. Although this is indicative of Hamas's weakness in some sense, it has greatly exacerbated criticism of Netanyahu that he is prioritizing political survival over the lives of hostages. Although the US has generally pointed the finger at Hamas for the failure of previous ceasefire talks, it is clear that frustration with Israeli intransigence is beginning to boil over, with the US threatening to just go home and let Israel continue miring itself in a war that is creating further political division (is it okay to rape prisoners?), damaging their economy, and causing Western countries to rethink their support.

I think that the hostages are basically a distraction, geopolitically.

I am willing to cut the IDF some slack for hostage saving operations, if 50 civilian Palestinians and 30 Hamas die in an operation that ends up rescuing a few hostages, I will not cry foul at them for valuing the lives of their own citizens higher than that of the civilians of a territory whose government are murderous bandits. Much more slack than for accepting collateral damage for other goals such as offing yet another Hamas lieutenant. Other than that, the hostages should not make a difference.

In the meta-game, the winning response to hostage-taking is to ignore the kidnappers demands. If you roll over whenever someone takes your citizens hostage, expect to be doing a lot of rolling over.

The problem with Nethanyahu's war is that is is not actually winning. Defeating Hamas would (at least) require occupying Gaza, and the IDF seems unable to do that. Just striking here and there until all of Gaza is living in some refugee camps will not get rid of Hamas (killing half of their bandits will not accomplish anything on a decade scale), and seems like a waste of human lives.

I think Biden (or his minders) does not care too much about lives of the remaining hostages either, and mostly uses this as political leverage on Bibi.

Gaza really deserves the Germany-45 treatment (occupation and the stamping out of their government), but if nobody is willing and able to do that and if we have to suffer Hamas to live either way, then it seems strictly better to cut a deal with them where both sides refrain from bombing each other rather than fighting a war whose objective will never be fulfilled. Bringing the hostages home would make it seem less like the defeat it actually is.

better to cut a deal with them where both sides refrain from bombing each other rather than fighting a war whose objective will never be fulfilled

That was pretty much the situation before the war. Israel was starting to let Gazans cross the border to work, there were a few rocket attacks which engendered similarly small responses from Israel, but mostly things were peaceful...

Then Hamas stormed across the border, taking hostages and killing everyone they didn't take. With the woefully optimistic plan that this attack would set off a country wide pogrom and rid the Holy Land of Jews forever.

Why would Hamas agree to return to the status quo that they chose to violate? Because Gazan civilians are dying? Hamas wants Gazan civilians to die, because it legitimises their position and delegitimises Israel.

I’m not 100 percent sure what Hamas expected. In my mind I boil it down to three scenarios.

  1. The one you outlined in your post, where Hamas expected an immediate uprising in the West Bank and an immediate response by Hezbollah and Iran.
  2. Hamas expected to get massive Israeli resistance and be stopped a few hundred meters out from the wall. In this scenario, Hamas was expecting a large battle where three or four hundred IDF soldiers were killed, which would justify some air strikes but not necessarily a full invasion. The current situation is the result of Hamas being victims of their own success.
  3. Hamas expected the exact scenario they have now, and are willing to burn themselves and Gaza just to scotch the Abraham accords and get the Palestinian question back on the table.

I suspect different participants may have had different scenarios in mind. The guys who were actually going in were probably pumped up with scenario one, while the leadership actually had in mind scenarios two or three.

Gaza is essentially a giant open air prison that is banned form exporting and has severely limited imports. It isn't sustainable for them to have the pre October 7 arrangement. Long term the only future for Gaza is to get a much better deal. Forcing Israel to fight a permanent insurgency is a viable strategy because Israel is going to be stuck in an unsustainable situation. Israel can't be in a constant state of crisis and war.

Gaza is essentially a giant open air prison that is banned form exporting and has severely limited imports.

Quality of life in the Palestinian territories in general pre-war was not substantially below that of other (non-petrostate) Arab nations and communities.

Quality of life in the Palestinian territories in general pre-war was not substantially below that of other (non-petrostate) Arab nations and communities.

In Egypt people aren't stuck in a tiny area that is under blockade. They didn't have hundreds of their country men killed by an enemy government in the past year and they didn't have thousands being held hostage by Israel.

POWs or terrorist being held captive is not the same thing as “held hostage.” Also wonder why IDF killed hundreds of Palestinians but not Egyptians

Daily reminder that Israel unilaterally pulled out of Gaza twenty years ago and were rewarded with redoubled attacks, after which they instituted the blockade.

Wasn't there a pretty big Gaza/west bank difference there, or am I misremembering?

You have it fundamentally backwards. Israel not only already substantially opened up shortly before Oct 7, but they also hoped to open up further and Hamas put an end to it since it was against their interest. Palestinians working in Israel and normalising relationships is in Israel's interest, since it makes Hamas' obsolete and removes their biggest thorn in the side. Or at the very least they would like to just leave the Gaza strip alone, but that was unsustainable since it gave Hamas' easier access to weapons. Endless death and war on the other hand is in the Hamas' interest, since it lets them generate western and arab support and keeps them in power.

You have it fundamentally backwards. Israel not only already substantially opened up shortly before Oct 7,

Israel was expanding the occupied terrirories on the west bank, had killed hundreds of Palestinians during 2023 and had thousands of Palestinian hostages. They were conducting a blockade against Gaza.

Endless death and war on the other hand is in the Hamas' interest, since it lets them generate western and arab support and keeps them in power.

It isn't endless. Algeria was French for a century, now it isn't. Rhodesia was British for a century, now it isn't. They are turning Israel into the next Vietnam and making Israel fundamentally unsustainable. The US left most of Iraq and all of Afghanistan because it simply wasn't going to end. Israel minus Palestinians and ultra orthodox is about 1/60th of the US but trying to occupy a quarter as many people as the US tried to occupy with the help of Britain and several other countries in 2003.

Those comparisons would be more meaningful if Israelis could just take the suitcase or death deal. Even if we wrote off the ones of European origin, the Mizrahi Jews certainly can't/won't go back "home".

It bodes ill that the Palestinian cause seems to depend on a very narrow equilibrium where Western nations are both decadent and secure enough to just eat a loss or two, given the disanalogies.

It's not worth wondering about for Westerners but I often wonder if Palestinians actually think the Algerian deal is viable. Or if they're just lying for their audience and know deep down that, when it comes to it, Madagascar really isn't an option but they'll burn that bridge when they get to it.

You see how calling convicted terrorists "hostages" makes people suspicious of your point of view right? Why are we conflating the West Bank and Gaza? They will never be one nation again unless they ethnically cleanse Israel off the map. Of course there were trade controls in Gaza, it is, I don't know how many times it must be stated, run by a terrorist organization whos interest is killing Jews and using its own citizens as human shields to try and get American and European Leftists sad.

You see how calling convicted terrorists "hostages" makes people suspicious of your point of view right?

Palestinians have every right to engage in armed resistance. Israel is taking more than combatants prisoner and not providing trials.

Why aren't there trade controls on Israel then? They are bombing and occupying Israel? Fundamentally what the region needs is a situation in which Palestinians are in control of the situation and have a stable arrangement that they are satisfied with. The needs of the Israelis can't take higher priority than those that represent the bigger population. Security in the arab world is needed both for them but also since it benefits Europe. The interests of an insignificant tiny state with no natural resources has to be way down the priority list.

Palestinians have every right to engage in armed resistance. Israel is taking more than combatants prisoner and not providing trials.

Well if its an armed resistance then they are POWs and not hostages. You are trying to have it both ways. In one part of your frame this is a legitimate war, so the Gazans are entitled to violence. Yet, in the other part of your frame Israel is not entitled to carry out its war in an effective manner, which, given normal rules of engagement + Hamas's tactics would ordinarily entitle Israel to a genocide. Which you would, obviously, again object to.

Fundamentally what the region needs is a situation in which Palestinians are in control of the situation and have a stable arrangement that they are satisfied with.

So a genocide of Israel is necessary? The people of Gaza have spoken and they prefer death to coexistence.

My question to Biden is “or what?” What exactly is the USA going to do if Netanyahu decides to say “no”. There’s not really even a threat to not sell bombs, let alone set out economic sanctions or bomb them or something. This, for that reason feels less like a statement to Netanyahu and much more about trying to shore up support for Kamala among the Pro Palestine crowd. There’s just no credible threat here for the Jews in Israel to fear. There’s not even a hinted at consequence. It’s just “stop the war in Gaza or I’ll huff and puff some more.”

A lot of Biden's decisions seem to treat this as an issue of balancing domestic messaging, without considering if parties other than US citizens are seeing and/or being emboldened by the ambivalence.

Edit: "America's" to "Biden's"

without considering if parties other than US citizens are seeing and/or being emboldened by the ambivalence.

I think there a lot of mid-wits in think-tanks who view the US managerial class as the only people in the world capable of exercising agency.

Meanwhile a cynic might suggest that emboldening certain parties is the intent.

I’m absolutely convinced they are. The entire thing sounds like a parent desperately trying to get a kid to behave by making threats that they’ll punish them in some vaguely unspecified way. “Behave or else” only really works when there’s an actual “or else” and the other party has reason to believe that you have the will and power to actually do that. Biden has neither, and I don’t think anyone actually believes he does. He doesn’t have control of congress and would thus have a lot of trouble getting any policy changes to happen. Congress isn’t going to agree to withhold weapons. They’re going to Scream bloody murder if he even suggests sanctions. Even supporting the ICC thing is a non starter. We know this, Biden knows this, Netanyahu knows this. And so not only is there no reason to stop, but if he wants to prove he’s not beholden to American dictates, he’d be wise to double down and do more of what he’s been doing. Why would he agree to stop?

Odd reports coming out of the west. I always feel strange reading these, the way they’re framed, the kind of background assumptions (or ignorance?) required to take these reports at face value.

To clarify: Hamas wants Israeli forces out of Gaza, including Philadelphi (the Gaza-Egypt border) so that they can take a long breather and resume fighting on better terms. To be blunt, Israelis would have to be retarded to take this kind of deal on these conditions alone.

Additionally, some of the Arabs released in the last hostage deal already went back to being terrorist scum and killed Israelis (and are now dead), making a deal with the 30:1, 50:1, 500:1 ratios Hamas is demanding an even worse deal. Trading a hostage for more dead Israelis is, again, retarded.

Frankly I can’t understand why any westerner thinks this is a good deal - unless they don’t actually know the details of the deal and just assume it’s some form of reasonable. The Biden admin is continually proving itself to be a terrible ally, and I just wish we could get off the American tit and make our own ordinance again.

Frankly I can’t understand why any westerner thinks this is a good deal - unless they don’t actually know the details of the deal and just assume it’s some form of reasonable.

Lots of Westerners are:

  1. Convinced Israel is in the wrong overall so all the onus is on them when it comes to ending the conflict.
  2. Suffering from some GWOT-hangup where insurgents can't be beaten and fighting them makes everything worse.
  3. Bad at game theory. You know those "they're just stealing baby formula for their kids", criminal justice reform types? Now imagine they've been seeing videos of dead children forever.

Well, let me amend that to “reasonable westerner” then. Those all seem like terrible reasons. Especially 2, which I keep hearing also repeated from the Israeli left, seems to not understand that Arabs are a finite resource.

We’re at about 2% of Gazans dead, and 4.5% wounded to incapacitation. At some point they’re going to run out of able-bodied men. Might take a few years, but that’s still preferable to another October 7th.

Machiavelli would tell you that you'll need to eliminate all the male children as well or else they'll grow up and seek vengeance.

That’s one benefit of stretching the war, then - they’ll grow up to a killable age!

More seriously though, if their society collapsed they’d likely have to move somewhere else anyway. In my fever dreams I hope Trump is elected and disbands UNRWA somehow, and then those refugees might even integrate in their host countries. That being unlikely, I’ll accept them just being further away and thus less likely to cause damage.

Which Israel can't do. So the reluctance there at least makes sense.

The fatal problem with the radicalization thesis imo is that it's all well and good for America, but not everyone can go home and stop radicalizing people.

This would work if there were 7 million Israelis and maybe 4 million Arabs. But there are about 450 million in the Arab world. Many of them do not particularly like Israel. The 7 million Israelis are not even internally united.

How many people do you have the ability to kill before the flow of Western weapons and support runs out?

There are less than 2 million Arabs in Gaza. I don’t imagine we could take on the entire Arab world, and happy that we don’t have to.

How many people do you have the ability to kill before the flow of Western weapons and support runs out?

Good question. The alternatives are cruder bombs with more collateral damage though, which I don’t imagine is a more palatable option for limp hearted westerners.

https://www.timesofisrael.com/philadelphi-is-becoming-rafah-negotiators-lament-politicization-of-ceasefire-term/

The Israeli security establishment has appeared flexible on the issue, an Arab official from a mediating country said. The Mossad, Shin Bet and IDF representatives who make up Israel’s negotiating team have stressed the importance of implementing new mechanisms to prevent smuggling. However, they also believe that the IDF can swiftly return to the corridor if need be, so it can afford to withdraw in the meantime to save the lives of the hostages, the Arab official explained.

https://www.jpost.com/arab-israeli-conflict/article-817291

There are some points where the Mossad’s position is tougher than the US position, but generally, since May, Barnea has been closer to the US, IDF, and Gallant’s view that it is time to cut a deal, even temporarily sacrificing control of the corridor, than he has been to Netanyahu’s staunch opposition to concessions in that area.

https://www.timesofisrael.com/gallant-said-to-call-philadelphi-demand-a-disgrace-drawing-fury-from-pm-ministers/

In the meeting Sunday evening, Gallant reportedly called the demand that Israel maintain control of the so-called Philadelphi Corridor separating Egypt and Gaza “an unnecessary constraint that we’ve placed on ourselves.” As a result, the government “will not live up to the war goals we set for ourselves,” he warned, according to comments carried widely in Hebrew-language media.

Yes, I’m well aware. The experts don’t impress me. These are the same people who got us to this point, and they should all go home as far as I’m concerned.

Reading those articles, they're pretty neutral - or ambivalent - towards those claims.

https://www.timesofisrael.com/philadelphi-is-becoming-rafah-negotiators-lament-politicization-of-ceasefire-term/

His office has issued repeated statements in recent weeks and days stressing the importance of maintaining control over the Philadelphi Corridor. “The need for sustained control of the Philadelphi Corridor is a security one… If Israel withdraws, the pressure to prevent its recapture will be enormous, putting our ability to return in significant doubt,” read the most recent one issued on Tuesday.

https://www.timesofisrael.com/gallant-said-to-call-philadelphi-demand-a-disgrace-drawing-fury-from-pm-ministers/

The remarks drew hostile responses from other ministers, as well as from Netanyahu, according to reports.

“If we give in to Hamas’s demands, like Gallant wants, we’ve lost the war,” Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich was quoted saying.

However, the outlet claimed that Netanyahu also said he was willing to compromise in other areas aside from the Philadelphi Corridor, maintaining that a hostage deal with Hamas was still possible.

Both Justice Minister Yariv Levin and Foreign Minister Israel Katz reportedly accused Gallant of creating a dynamic in which Hamas would receive concessions from Israel as a result of murdering hostages.

These all seem like reasonable concerns that aren't really answered in the article.

What's the general strike about? Like granted labor unions probably get caught up in a general factor of left wing politics everywhere in the world, including Israel, but is there any specific trigger?

Yes, on Saturday night the IDF found 6 dead hostages in Gaza (in the Rafah area, btw) - apparently they were killed by their captors shortly before the IDF arrived. This lead to more protests in favour of a hostage deal, and a strike announced by the country’s largest labour organization.

Edit: I should note that in Israel, labour unions aren’t necessarily left wing. Israel in general has socialist roots so organized labour is basically baked in in many industries. A lot of unions today are actually Likud power centers, after some realignment when Labour (the party) basically became irrelevant. The head of this union, HaHistadrut is purported to be a friend of the Netanyahu family actually. Conspiracy theories abound about him being a controlled opposition of sorts, giving Bibi an excuse to act in ways that his coalition disapproves of.

Frankly I can’t understand why any westerner thinks this is a good deal - unless they don’t actually know the details of the deal and just assume it’s some form of reasonable. The Biden admin is continually proving itself to be a terrible ally, and I just wish we could get off the American tit and make our own ordinance again.

I was reminded of some of the discourse surrounding @BurdensomeCount's post here reading this recent Maureen Dowd peice on Palantir.

Long story short there is a strong class-based bifurcation here where a lot of if not a majority of the West's so called "elite" are like EC in that they deeply resent western values. They want to dissolve the people. They want to see Isreal as a western ally weakened just as they want to see Iran/HAMAS and Russia as western opponents strengthened.

“If you go into any elite circle, pushing back against Russia is obvious, and Israel is complicated. If you go outside elite circles, it’s exactly the opposite.”

...because it really is that simple. Democrats in the US and Labor in the UK are all about a woman's right to choose right until it comes to a Isreali woman's right to choose not to be raped or taken hostage which point we're supposed to pretend that there is some sort of nuanced position to be had. I say "screw that".

Western elites are pro-Russian? In what world?

I’d make a more substantive comment, but frankly, this assertion seems so obviously false that I’m not sure the rest of your analysis is worth engaging with.

Edit: Reading the quote from that article in context, I think you completely misunderstood what he meant with regard to Russia. He was contrasting the positive response to his pro-Ukrainian activities with the mixed-to-negative response to his pro-Israeli activities.

Western elites are split/ukraine is complicated but i do think that the Clinton/Kerry/Obama wing of the Democratic party in particular are much much more concerned with keeping both the Ukrainians and the Russians in the game than they are the security of the US.

See the hilarious half measures like arming the Ukes with aircraft and artillary but then prohibiting thier use against russian military targets in russian held territory. Its obvious that our so called elites dont want either side to win. Given that, whats the real objective if not to deplete western stockpiles?

prohibiting thier use against russian military targets in russian held territory

Last time I checked the prohibitions were on striking pre-2022 Russian territory. Were they updated since then?

The restrictions forbid using US-provided missiles against Russian forces on Russian soil, not on Russian-held territory. This seems to me like a sensible precaution aimed at minimizing the risk that Russia claims this as a NATO attack against Russia and retaliates with nuclear weapons.

Which Russian soil? The soil that was Russian in Jan 2022, or the soil that was always historic Russian territories yesterday?

The former; the soil within the internationally recognized borders of Russia.

in that they deeply resent western values.

The ones who resent western values are Israel. AIPAC and ADL are some of the biggest threats to western values. Israel is a state fundamentally opposed to western values that causes constant headache for the west.

They want to see Isreal as a western ally weakened

Israel isn't a western ally, it is nothing but a giant burden on the west causing constant problems in the middle east, engaging in massive foreign interference and receiving a tonne of aid.

as they want to see Iran

Iran is an indoeuropean nation that is stable and exports oil. They are socially conservative while still having a modern and industrial economy. They have done an excellent job at resisting the catastrophic neo-con policies that have swamped Europe with refugees and let jihadists run amok in the middle east. We should be thankful that Iran helped liberate large parts of Iraq and are fighting jihadists in Syria.

to a Isreali woman's right to choose not to be raped

What about European women's right not to be raped by the migrants IsraAID is bringing into Europe? What about the christians in the middle east that are being destroyed by the hostile nation of Israel?

They have done an excellent job at resisting the catastrophic neo-con policies that have swamped Europe with refugees and let jihadists run amok in the middle east.

Iran has colossal numbers of Afghan refugees and has the same issues with them that European countries do. You spout DR memes without even understanding the countries you discuss.

let jihadists run amok in the middle east

What about funding Houthi Islamists whose flag says ‘Death to America’ serves Western foreign policy aims in Yemen? Since MBS’ ascension Saudi funding to Wahhabi Islamist mosques abroad has been in any case dramatically curtailed, this isn’t 2014.

Iran has colossal numbers of Afghan refugees

Whose fault is that? They didn't create the Taliban and then fight the Taliban for 20 years.

says ‘Death to America’ serves Western foreign policy aims in Yemen?

What do they mean by death to America? I don't think they mean death to ordinary Americans. They mean death to neoliberal imperialists.

I have no issue with them delivering death to people who are trying to infect the Middle East with gender studies and push millions of migrants into Europe. I consider the people who participated in the wars in the middle east absolute traitors well deserving of the Houthis are delivering.

It serves an important foreign policy goal, kicking the globalists out of the middle east.

Of course, if you're determined to be charitable you will interpret any "death to [country]" chant as a desire to merely rid it of the bad elites in a manner surgical enough to not kill the entire country, or at least large amounts of countrymen. However, it does not appear to work out that way often.

For the record, I think that when someone says "death to America", they are not aiming to be very discriminate about it if given the chance.

I'm also curious if you'd extend the same charity to the domestic extremists who say "death to AmeriKKKa".

Of course, if you're determined to be charitable you will interpret any "death to [country]" chant as a desire to merely rid it of the bad elites in a manner surgical enough to not kill the entire country, or at least large amounts of countrymen. However, it does not appear to work out that way often.

Why are they chanting death to America and not death to Iceland, Zimbabwe or Uruguay? It is clear that they are motivated by the absolutely abhorrent policies that american impoerialists have imposed on them. They are fighting the same military industrial complex that is a cancer on western societies.

I'm also curious if you'd extend the same charity to the domestic extremists who say "death to AmeriKKKa".

A lot of that crowd seem to be actively pushing the same wokeness as the people trying to impose gender studies on Afghans. If they strictly meant the NSA, black rock and Lockheed Martin I would support it. If they want to impose all sorts of wokeness then I don't support it.

It is clear that they are motivated by the absolutely abhorrent policies that american impoerialists have imposed on them.

I'd be more concerned by what they'll do, not what they're motivated by. Generally, fighting a country's military-industrial complex in any meaningful manner is not good for that country. Unless, of course, you're losing badly and are just feeding your soldiers to the enemy's weapon industry.

I think you're displaying the same naivete here that the Russian progressives do when they assume that the West, if it crushes Russia, will only kill Putin and let the planet heal.

More comments

Why are they chanting death to America and not death to Iceland, Zimbabwe or Uruguay? It is clear that they are motivated by the absolutely abhorrent policies that american impoerialists have imposed on them. They are fighting the same military industrial complex that is a cancer on western societies.

This is extremely naive. The same people will happily make terror attacks in arbitrary non-majority muslim countries they can get into, in fact even in majority muslim countries against non-muslim minorities.

More comments

There is no such thing as ‘globalists’, only competing factions seeking to expand their own (global) influence. Why are one side globalists but the other not? Islam is an inherently ‘globalist’ ideology, how could it not be?

What do they mean by death to America? I don't think they mean death to ordinary Americans. They mean death to neoliberal imperialists.

I am sure you would not apply this level of charity to Israelis chanting anti-Palestinian or anti-Muslim slogans.

When people are burning flags and chanting death to a country, they are not making a distinction between "neoliberal elites" and ordinary citizens of that country. It would not even be completely unreasonable to point out that if you think the "neoliberal elites" deserve death, then the people who vote for them and pay taxes to their regime are complicit. This was the justification for 9/11 and basically every other terrorist attack on American soil or against American civilians and military personnel.

When people say "Death to ____," they mean Death to ____, not some abstract and nuanced political objection to ____'s current political leadership.

I have no issue with them delivering death to people who are trying to infect the Middle East with gender studies

Which universities in the Middle East are pushing Western gender studies courses? Would love to know how those are going.

In mild, mild fairness, I could imagine that, like with North Koreans, the modal Iranian might carry much less hatred towards an ordinary American in isolation compared to the totality, but that probably doesn't scale well.

What do they mean by death to America? I don't think they mean death to ordinary Americans. They mean death to neoliberal imperialists.

This made me chuckle IRL

"The leopards eating faces party surely don't want to eat my face, just the faces of my outgroup!"

Again why are they not saying death to Brazil? Death to China or death to Iceland? Why specifically the US?

Israel isn't a western ally, it is nothing but a giant burden...

Israel is only "a burden" and "causing headaches" in so far as our current so-called "elites" are more aligned with the interests of Iran and HAMAS than they are those of thier own nations.

Iran is an indoeuropean nation that is stable and exports oil.

There is nothing "European" or "Western" about Iran and "stable" is releative. Thier current tegime relies far more heavily on foreign support to maintain thier grip on power than the current Isreali government does.

What about European women's right not to be raped by the migrants

Our so-called elites argue for "nuance" there to. Hence thier support for anti-western and anti-enlightenment policies like a two-tiered justice system for migrants vs non-migrants under the guise of "decolonization", "social justice", and various other flavors of socialist nonsense.

What about the christians in the middle east that are being destroyed by the hostile nation of Israel?

Christians aren't getting discriminated against or killed by the state of Isreal, they're getting killed by the people the state of Isreal are currently waging a war against.

Israel is only "a burden" and "causing headaches" in so far as our current so-called "elites" are more aligned with the interests of Iran and HAMAS than they are those of thier own nations.

The elites are completely bought by Israel and are far more zionist that the populations.

We have zero interests in wasting trillions destroying middle eastern countries and we have no interest in causing massive refugee crisis on the border of Europe. We absolutely share an interest with iran, we want a stable Iran that isn't causing a migrant crisis, we want jihadists defeated in Syria and an end to the forever war.

There is nothing "European" or "Western" about Iran

Far more than there is with Saudis. Iranians tend to be the easiest middle easterners to integrate. They even speak an indoeuropean language.

Thier current tegime relies far more heavily on foreign support to maintain thier grip on power than the current Isreali government does.

Yes, they sell oil and cashews to us. I hope they continue and don't have their oil industry go the way of Libya's.

Hence thier support for anti-western and anti-enlightenment policies like a two-tiered justice system for migrants vs non-migrants under the guise of "decolonization", "social justice", and various other flavors of socialist nonsense.

The same woke politicians want to bring the migrants here from the wars they created. I oppose the wars that brought them here and the mass surveillance state migration requires. One of the advantages of the middle east rejecting the globalists is that they don't get infected with wokeness.

Christians aren't getting discriminated against or killed by the state of Isreal

Israel has driven a large portion of the christians out of the country, killed thousands, bombed churches and orthodox jews spit on christians. The Christian community in Syria has been wrecked during the war in which Israel sponsored the Al Nusra front. Jerusalem should be a christian city and jews are the one religion in the area that completely rejects christ.

The elites are completely bought by Israel and are far more zionist that the populations.

If our elites are bought and paid for by isreal why is the US government spending so much money and materiel to keep HAMAS in the fight, while pleading with the IDF to pull thier punches? Why are the most vocal supporters of HAMAS the staff and student bodies of Yale, Columbia, Et Al?

Israel has driven a large portion of the christians out of the country

I dont think you have any idea what you're talking about. The state of Isreal has been accepting Christian refugees from across the middle east for decades now, that many of these Christians do not stay in Isreal and instead use it as a stepping-off point to Europe and elsewhere is not the same as Christians being "driven out" of Isreal.

If our elites are bought and paid for by isreal why is the US government spending so much money and materiel to keep HAMAS in the fight, while pleading with the IDF to pull thier punches?

Israel is the greatest welfare queen of them all. Trying to stop Israel from taking their genocide too far makes sense as there is a limit to how blood thirsty they can get and still win elections. Brutal wars in the middle east aren't popular.

Why are the most vocal supporters of HAMAS the staff and student bodies of Yale, Columbia, Et Al?

Why are these schools cancelling people who don't think Israel has a right to genocide Christians while they cancel people say it is ok to be white?

The state of Isreal has been accepting Christian refugees from across the middle east for decades now,

Israel is terrorizing christians: https://international.la-croix.com/world/israel-unprecedented-report-lists-anti-christian-acts

To be clear, you are complaining about spitting and anti-Christian graffiti in Isreal while ignoring the priests getting imprisoned in Iran, assasinated in Pakistan, and the lynching of non-muslims in Syria and Lebanon.

More comments

Israel is a state fundamentally opposed to western values that causes constant headache for the west.

I mean, yeah; a state organized around blood-and-soil nationalism premised on a mythic past and present-day military conquest is pretty opposed to the modern deracinated, pacifistic, cosmopolitan western ideal. A bit surprised that you're in favor of the latter over the former, but wonders never cease!

What about European women's right not to be raped by the migrants IsraAID is bringing into Europe?

Clearly the gentile governments of European nations don't care about protecting that right. Sounds like a problem with the Gentiles.

What about the christians in the middle east that are being destroyed by the hostile nation of Israel?

Sounds like another failing of world christendom. You should probably get on that.

I mean, yeah; a state organized around blood-and-soil nationalism premised on a mythic past and present-day military conquest is pretty opposed to the modern deracinated, pacifistic, cosmopolitan western ideal.

Funny how the ADL and AIPAC have been pushing hard for the polar opposite of nationalism for us. Mass migration and open borders to Europe, an ethnostate for Israel.

Clearly the gentile governments of European nations don't care about protecting that right. Sounds like a problem with the Gentiles.

Yes, we need to get rid of the AIPAC and ADL influence.

Funny how the ADL and AIPAC have been pushing hard for the polar opposite of nationalism for us. Mass migration and open borders to Europe, an ethnostate for Israel.

Why, it's almost like diaspora populations have strange relationships with the host nation and the metropole. Of course, if you actually look at the people who are doing the on-the-ground work of the mass-migration you get a lot of Catholic groups, not Jews.

Yes, we need to get rid of the AIPAC and ADL influence

Ah yes, the gentiles who actually hold office are just helpless little mice before the terrifying might of...completely ordinary lobbying groups. And it just so happens to aaaaaaallllll be the Jews...couldn't be the Turkish lobby, or the UAE, or the Saudis, or the Iranians.

The US has a policy of ensuring that Israel has a qualitative military advantage over any plausible combination of Middle East powers. This includes billions annually in military aid to Israel and refusing to export advanced weapons to other regional powers. The US even gives aid to Israel's neighbours for maintaining good relations with Israel.

Then there are the loan guarantees, the US's tactical ignorance of Israeli non-NPT nukes and the incredibly slavish rhetoric from US leaders: Donald Trump repeatedly expounded his dismay at how Israel no longer controls the US House of Representatives like it used to.

Or we could look at the Biden administration cabinet: https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jews-in-the-biden-administration

Homeland Security, Secretary of State, Director of National Intelligence, Secretary of Treasury and Attorney General are Jewish along with many more.

It's laughable to think that Turks or Iranians have anywhere near the level of influence in Washington that Jews do.

The US has a policy of ensuring that Israel has a qualitative military advantage over any plausible combination of Middle East powers.

Since 2008. Extremely GWoT-pilled. What harm, exactly, is this doing to our policy in the region other than generating more $120,000/yr. paperwork compliance jobs for folks living in Falls Church? Were we on the cusp of selling F-35s to the Iranians? Is Egypt making a better case to advance our interests in the region?

This includes billions annually in military aid to Israel and refusing to export advanced weapons to other regional powers.

The sum-total of all U.S. aid to Israel since its founding 75 years ago is about 0.5% [Edit: /u/Randomranger is correct, this should be 5%; I make sloppy math mistakes] of the 2023 US budget spend. Also, that includes money for highly-productive joint research and development projects, and billions upon billions in laundered subsidies for U.S. military-industrial conglomerates (i.e. grants which can only be used to purchase equipment/services from U.S. firms), both of which we would want done anyway even if Israel wasn't the one doing it.

The US even gives aid to Israel's neighbours for maintaining good relations with Israel.

You're right, there couldn't possibly be any other rationale for paying regimes on top of major trade and international supply routes to not blow each other's major infrastructure up. Has to be the nefarious influence of da Joos.

More comments

What about the christians in the middle east that are being destroyed by the hostile nation of Israel?

While Israel was on the opposite side of the civil war from the majority of Syria's Christians, they have no real beef with the Christian population elsewhere in the middle east; indeed, the one that they deal with directly, the Maronites, Israel would rather be more powerful as a counterbalance to Hezbollah. Of course the Maronites don't particularly want to be an Israeli puppet either.

While I'm sure some Christians have gotten hit as collateral damage in Israeli strikes and Arab Christians by and large are not huge fans of Israel, Israel doesn't seem any worse for surrounding Christian populations than the Muslim governments of those countries are.

It's the generic (and often unconscious) response to people being uncivilized on the left:

  • We ought to empathize with them, and take seriously whatever motivated them to such actions.

  • We can't put expect anything of them, because they're uncivilized.

  • We can't expect to influence them, because they're uncivilized. (And is it even right to try to sway them from it, given the justifications that they have for it?)

  • Instead, responsibility should be loaded upon those who react too harshly, because they should have known better. And we should feel bad for the victims of the response.

This is precisely the same path that leads people to adopt soft-on-crime prosecutors, and generally punish those who retaliate against the lawless. It happens often when it's easier or involves less unpleasantness for the state to punish those who are otherwise productive, than those who are wild.

This is the default thought pattern that happens when sympathy and responsibility get loaded onto different parties in some conflict. It clearly correlates with seeing things as oppressor (responsible) and oppressed (sympathetic), which is tied to why it's more common on the left, I think.

See Daniel Penny, see the UK riots (and speech arrests), see opinions on cops (when unjustified), etc.

I imagine things will get a lot better for you, if the 2024 election goes to Trump, and worse if it goes to Harris.

I understand why Biden wants a ceasefire: to make it all temporarily go away before the election. And I understand why some Americans want a ceasefire: because they have a very dim understanding about anything that happens outside of America. What I can’t get my head around is why a huge number of Israelis seem to want a ceasefire.

Perhaps the Iron Dome has insulated them from the consequences of living in rocket range of Hamas all too well?

They want the hostages back. Everyone I know is at most 2 degrees of separation from a hostage or more. It hits very close to home. Many don’t know the details of the deal, or suspect that PM Netanyahu is working from bad motives and don’t believe the reported details.

The moment the Israelis exchanged one hostage for a thousand Palestinians created a terrible precedent of which Hamas seeks to repeat.

I am not sure why the Israelis, knowing that their enemies were digging tunnels, did not dig tunnels of their own. Surely with modern equipment and a lack of a need for secrecy they could dig beneath to undermine them. Why hasn't this happened?

This is all in response to the recovery of six dead hostages which were shot, presumably before they could be rescued.

Based on some other hostages' testimony it seems likely that these 6 hostages were shot because the IDF was about to rescue them.

It's an unsourced reddit post, but this person claims the names of the hostages were being circulated a couple days before the bodies were found. There were rumors of a rescue mission: https://old.reddit.com/r/2ndYomKippurWar/comments/1f660pm/the_6_hostages_bodies_found_in_gaza_have_been/lkyth9t/

Some notes on John Forester and Vehicular Cycling

After the discussion on last week's cycling CW post had waned a bit, it occurred to me that the name of John Forester had never come up. Indeed, in the context of the two broadly defined "sides" in the discussion we had then, Forester stands out in a manner analogous to the early 20th century eugenicists and imperialists who essentially founded the US National Park system and comservation movement. Some of their ideas pop up uncredited in our discourse to this day, but they dramatically fail to be on either side of the current CW and probably as a result are not widely remembered by name. I am a lifelong cyclist and reasonably knowledgeable about bicycle history and had never heard of Forester until a recent troll thread on 4chan, though some of the advice my dad (also a lifelong cyclist) gave me when I first started riding for transport is pretty clearly Forester in the intellectual water supply--don't be scared of the streets, claiming the lane, staying out of thendoor zone, setting up for left turns, and so on.

John Forester was an engineer by trade and lifelong avid cyclist. The main thrust of his cycling-related advocacy was that "bicycles should be operated like any other vehicle — ridden in the same lanes and manner as cars and trucks rather than in bike lanes or separated infrastructure", a philosophical position which he called Vehicular Cycling. So far, so recognizable, you may well think. However, Forester made himself notorious for actively arguing against the construction of separated bike lanes and bike paths, often in fairly acrimonious terms. His general argument was that the very existence of a designated bikeway, even a hilariously inadequate one (in the door zone, frequently blocked, full of debris, disappearing, located in the right-turn lane but intended for through traffic, etc), would be used to force cyclists into more dangerous and less effective riding strategies, and even a bikeway that avoids these obvious pitfalls exposes cyclists to significant collision risk when it inevitably intersects with a road. Indeed, it sounds like there were a few legal battles along these lines in Forester's area of operations in the 70s. If this all sounds rather baffling to you, it may help to consider the question of whether it's safer to drive on interstates or surface streets. Kinetic energies are much higher on the interstate and it's much harder to just pull over and stop than it is on most surface streets, but interstates are well known to be safer than surface streets (see e.g. https://www.thewisedrive.com/side-streets-vs-interstate-which-is-safer/). Now imagine that, in order to make life easier for commercial trucks and keep passenger cars safe from vehicles much larger than them, it was proposed to legally limit passenger traffic to surface streets. You might, of course, dispute the analogy to cycling on roads vs bikeways, but perhaps it helps clarify the point.

As far as I can tell, nobody in the conversation uses scientific research in what those of us who are familiar with old SSC review articles would consider a convincing and intellectually honest manner, so I'm not going to bother engaging either Forester's studies (he likes to cite Kenneth Cross) or the Marshall paper from the Chi Streets link below. This being the Motte, I'll note that nobody in the conversation seems to have considered the likely impacts of 13/50 on either motorist or cyclist behavior.

Forester claims pretty plainly in his book Effective Cycling that an actually existing credible threat of severe punishment effectively deters truly negligent and malicious driving, which I dunno about. Every so often a motorist kills a cyclist and gets off remarkably easy. (I have been in online conversations about this where someone pipes up to say, well, what about cyclists who kill pedestrians? Sure, them too.). Forester actually cites a number of these cases in his book, but seems to regard them as an advocacy issue more than anything. "Other people should behave differently" would be nice in a lot of cases but is generally not a viable solution to your problem.

On the other hand, in Forester's favor, a lot of actually-existing bikeways in the US do in fact suck in one or another of the ways I've described and my experiences riding in them versus acting like a car generally agree with his. Forester himself was by all accounts an outstandingly disagreeable nerd and a pretty strong recreational cyclist; a good deal of his book is concerned with going faster, though I don't believe that part has been updated since the widespread adoption of the power meter so it's a bit of a 70s endurance broscience time capsule. His interlocutors (e.g. in my links below) seemingly all say things like "don't you know the population that's scared to ride in traffic is more Diverse?", a point which he essentially ignores when the interviewer brings it up. I suppose I take these as indicators of which side I should be on. From a more substantive standpoint, the problem of people who are too slow to ride effectively in traffic is at least somewhat mitigated by e-bikes, though I guess that's a whole different Culture War battle of its own.

Some further reading

Long interview with Forester: https://archive.is/5GwSs

FAQ from the training and advocacy organization that succeeded Forester's Effective Cycling courses: https://cyclingsavvy.org/road-cycling/

Unsympathetic from Strong Towns: https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2020/4/28/why-john-forester-was-wrong-design-streets-for-the-humans-you-have-not-the-humans-you-wish-you-had

And from Chi Streets: https://chi.streetsblog.org/2020/04/24/r-i-p-john-forester-a-worthy-adversary-in-the-battle-for-safe-biking

It seems that the main difference between bikes and motorized vehicles is speed, and that's also the main difference between different types of roadways- highways go faster than main roads go faster than side streets go faster than residential streets. It's perfectly reasonable for a typical cyclist to ride on residential or side streets but not main roads, and only the most elite cyclists ever have any business going on the highway.

It seems that the main difference between bikes and motorized vehicles is speed,

I am a novice to this debate, but why wouldn't two other relevant differences be stability (cars don't fall over or spill their driver/occupants onto the pavement nearly as easily as two-wheeled vehicles) and occupant safety features (seat belts, air bags, crumple zones, etc.)?

Hence why I said motorized vehicles, not cars. Motorcycles use the highway uncontroversially.

and occupant safety features (seat belts, air bags, crumple zones, etc.)?

Besides thicker clothing and a better helmet wouldn't motorbikes be the same as bikes under this standard?

Sure.

Another difference is the amount and types of data to be processed by the driver/rider.

As a person with high-functioning autism, I’ve been blessed with a computer mind and very few sensory issues. I’m a car driver with no blemishes on my record and a good feel for safety.

However, I didn’t learn how to ride a bike until the age of 21 due to severe autism-related clumsiness. The person who taught me was surprised when I wasn’t able to do with my left side what I could do on my right. He said it was the first time he truly knew I had a disability.

I wouldn’t survive a week on the bike lanes and intersections of Albuquerque.

speed, and that's also the main difference between different types of roadways

I'm not at all sure about this (lots of main roads move pretty damn slow through town, lots of country two-lanes with driveways entering them where everyone does 70 in good weather, classification by density of access points or something like that seems a good deal more rigorous), and I don't think your conclusion makes sense either. How well slower vehicles mesh with everything else is going to depend much more on how much of everything else there is, how many lanes there are, what the shoulder looks like, and infrastructure for overtaking (passing lanes, sight lines, etc) than it will on speed alone.

Well yes, bike lanes, wide shoulders, etc, make slower bike traffic mesh better with main roads- this is probably why the main road in my neighborhood has such wide shoulders(many of the boarders cannot afford cars). But those dirt-poor boarders who need their bikes to commute to wherever they work don't go on the highway and stay out of the left lane, because they will never go fast enough and they're smart enough to take some responsibility for not getting run over.

There's another rather major difference between main roads and side streets, and that's that the main roads go through. I live between two ridges; all the roads (except the highway) which cross the summits are "main streets", so is the road along the eastern summit and so is the road that goes along the valley. The side streets are mostly just little networks that either lead to the main roads or dead end without going far. The one partial exception which parallels a large section of the valley road is rather unpleasant to bike on because it's covered in speed bumps to keep people from taking it as an alternative to the valley road.

So, if you want to actually go anywhere, you will be on the main roads.

only the most elite cyclists ever have any business going on the highway.

Honestly, highways are much safer for cycling than a lot of main roads. They tend to have wide shoulders and long sightlines, making it easier to stay out of traffic and maintain visibility. Main roads often have limited room on the side and blind curves that can send motorists a little over the edge; add in traffic and it can be pretty nerve wracking. Even country roads can be bad, because people fly on them without regard for other traffic, let alone bicycles.

Even country roads can be bad, because people fly on them without regard for other traffic, let alone bicycles.

i'd endorse most of this post, but ime the rural roads around me are actually pretty friendly because it's easy to pass in the oncoming lane and people are used to passing tractors going from field to field, and honestly if you're in a hurry there are state highways and interstates to take instead. obviously not universal.

Forester claims pretty plainly in his book Effective Cycling that an actually existing credible threat of severe punishment effectively deters truly negligent and malicious driving, which I dunno about. Every so often a motorist kills a cyclist and gets off remarkably easy.

The threat does deter malicious driving, and negligent driving to some extent, but it deters it only, it does not eliminate it. And as I said in the previous thread, motorists who kill anyone (not just cyclists) and aren't drunk or on drugs and don't leave the scene usually get off without any criminal consequences. This is likely an effect of nearly everyone driving; no matter how often someone whips up a moral panic and gets consequences increased, the fact that people who drive all the time (including judges, jurors, legislators, and prosecutors) don't want "one mistake and I get raped in prison" hanging over their heads every time they get in the car tends to keep it from taking full effect.

Another thing about vehicular biking is, outside of fairly small areas of cities, is the choice is between that and no biking at all. There's no reasonable way to build up an entire separated bicycle infrastructure covering even a metro area, let along a large country; the cost per user would be enormous. Some bicycle advocates are indeed arrogant enough to demand this, but aside from a few token "share the road" signs, it ain't going to happen.

"one mistake and I get raped in prison"

Quoted from Effective Cycling, not necessarily endorsed:

Americans have been raised to believe that the greatest danger to cyclists is same-direction motor traffic. Therefore, the motorist who sees a cyclist on the road ahead of him believes that this is a moment of great peril. The motorist thinks that some strange event is likely to occur that will cause him to hit the cyclist. Because whatever it is that is likely to occur, it won’t be my fault. The typical person sees himself as driving along, minding his own business, when there is a loud crash and—“Oh my God, I’ve hit a bicycle!” That is how they have been taught that these accidents happen: an act of God or an evil magic at work. Therefore, in this type of event the cyclist is seen to be more at fault than the motorist.

Forester would dispute the factual truth of the bold based mostly on the Kenneth Cross study. Of course, equilibrium effects and so on....

Forester's intransigence was, in my opinion, largely an effect of his own political experience. He had been riding for 25+ years at the time the '70s bike boom started, and prior to that period there were so few cyclists on the streets that no one really gave them a second thought. He'd been doing it for so long that he was comfortable and developed his own set of best practices. When the bike boom cause the number of cyclists to swell, motorists started getting irritated, and their superior numbers led to local governments installing bike lanes and forcing cyclists to use them when available. Forester didn't view this as an accommodation but as a statement by government that he was a second-class citizen. I don't know what these '70s bike lanes were like, but I'll give Forester the benefit of the doubt here and assume there were safety problems with them that don't apply to contemporary designs. He fought back against this and got enough grassroots political power to convince local governments that vehicular cycling was better than dedicated infrastructure.

His advice is generally good for when it come to how to behave when riding on urban streets. But it really only works for the kind of person who isn't intimidated by riding on urban streets, i.e., an experienced rider who has both the equipment and fitness to maintain 20 mph and isn't intimidated by aggressive drivers. But it isn't going to convince casual riders to bike rather than drive. Luckily no one pays attention to him anymore because most cyclists weren't around for the California Bike Wars, don't know or care about the politics behind them, and instinctively feel safer when protected from traffic.

Yeah, this is a solid summary. Always interesting how these things shift over time.

I think he's right that, at least some of the time, bike lanes are not really for the benefit of bikers- they're used to force bikers out of the way so that cars can go faster. It seems like we've basically accepted, as a society, that you have a right to drive at whatever is the speed limit on your current street. And anyone who interferes with that is blocking traffic and needs to get out of the way. Which is a little odd, when you think about it- in normal life there's no "right to run" where you can sprint at top speed and just expect people to get out of your way. It might make sense on a freeway dedicated to motor vehicles, but even then, you'll encounter stuff like trucks going at a slower speed and you just have to wait until you can pass them safely.

I've been wondering if this will come up more in the future, as EVs have given a lot more people access to speeds that in the past you'd only see from ultra-expensive supercars. If I pay for 200MPH "plaid speed" from Tesla, why should I be stuck behind some granny going 60 in her 1980s honda civic? Make a "slow car lane" and force her to drive exclusively in that lane so that the rest of us can drive as fast as we want! Oh, and if she accidentally drifts into the "regular" lane, make her pay for the damage to my car. Or at least, that's how it feels like from the perspective of someone who got used to cycling on rural roads and is suddenly told he's not supposed to do that anymore.

It seems like we've basically accepted, as a society, that you have a right to drive at whatever is the speed limit on your current street

Yes, because speed limits are one of the most abused tools of legislation in the modern world (over the cross-section of people affected by them).

Legislators/certain factions of society impose them for reasons that have nothing to do with safety, but forget that respect for their laws is a two-way street; drivers then treat the laws (and by extension those who insist they be followed religiously, or those who aren't capable of breaking the lowest-common-denominator speed limits due to some infirmity) with the zero respect the law affords them.

they're used to force bikers out of the way so that cars can go faster

They're also a way to put the bikers in a place where drivers are expecting, or can learn to expect, them to be. Though really, it's just a hack around not having the space to put in a grade-separated lane because drivers stupid enough to be on their phones (or the aformentioned granny who can barely even see) can't lanekeep (as in, not intrude on the bike lane) to save their lives.

It still gets people killed when the bike lane empties onto the road for that reason, too; the "everything needs to be high up because people who are bad enough drivers to get into rollovers deserve to die less than the pedestrians" safety standards don't help (you can't see out of modern cars unless you make the effort; that and modern hyper-bright eye-level [if you're in a normal car] headlights are why everyone loves tall SUVs simply because tallness gives you [the illusion of] better visibility, and I'd argue that if you screw up so bad you end up on the roof you deserve to die more than the people someone else is going to run over because they can't even see them when pulling out of the drive-thru or making a right turn across the bike lane).

This is why the meta is "put things in between the cars and the bikes at the expense of road usability", because it takes away the road's ability to support reasonable speeds by putting things in the way while at the same time functionally getting a grade separation between cars and bikes. Even those fucking texters still have self-preservation instincts and you can trigger them by making the lanes so narrow that they're more scared of the F-350s and the collapsible-yet-still-capable-of-damaging-the-front-end separation pipes/rails boxing them in than they are missing the latest Facebook post for 5 more minutes.

They're also a way to put the bikers in a place where drivers are expecting, or can learn to expect, them to be.

Wouldn't you normally expect them to be in the road, like right in front of you in the easiest possible place to see? Not shunted off to the side, into their perepheral vision, in a place where you can 99% ignore them until it's time to make a turn and then "oops, I never saw him." But ok, maybe you're right that drivers are just so phone-addled these days that the periphery is the only place they can actually see. Too bad modern car designs (like you mentioned) make it exceedingly difficult to see the blind spots.

Wouldn't you normally expect them to be in the road, like right in front of you in the easiest possible place to see?

Yeah, this is a fairly significant component of practical vehicular cycling advice.

Make a "slow car lane" and force her to drive exclusively in that lane so that the rest of us can drive as fast as we want!

We sort of already have this. Many states reserve the far left lane for passing only, and cops will absolutely pull you over and ticket you for driving too slowly in it. Speeders get a pass; those following the speed limit get a fine.

Sure, but that's different because it's temporary. You wait for a safe chance to pass, gun it, then move back to the normal lane and speed once you're clear. You're not supposed to just continuously barrel along the left lane at twice the speed of the right lane, which is the equivalent of cars vs a bike lane. Of course, people do that anyway...

This is true, but enforcement in the US is quite a bit more notional than real, ime. I wonder what the equilibrium effects of a stricter norm around this would be--maybe slower traffic would be less disruptive if the left lane was consistently open for passing.

I think he’s fundamentally wrong. Like many things, it’s not about equality (which has increasingly been used to deny outcomes people don’t like) but about the physics of bicycles. Very few cyclists could hope to maintain a constant speed much above 25 mph, and to do that you’d need to be in pretty good shape. That’s about the minimum speed a car can possibly do without constantly braking. Add in the visibility issue (a small bicycle is pretty hard to spot, especially if the rider isn’t wearing hi-visibility clothing — which rarely happens) and the extreme vulnerability of the cyclist (F=MA, you’re in for a serious injury if a car hits you), and anyone looking at this from a pure safety perspective would absolutely not want cyclists “sharing the road” because it’s not possible for a small human-powered vehicle and a 2000 pound vehicle doing 45mph to “share” safely.

And yet I bicycle on roads often and have for years, certainly cannot maintain 25mph, and the only serious injuries I have suffered involved no cars but rather a 0 mph hole in the ground.

Of course, if you're looking at it from a "pure safety perspective" you shouldn't be bicycling. Nor driving. You should probably just stay home .

if you're looking at it from a "pure safety perspective" you ... should probably just stay home.

I thought an alarmingly large percentage of accidents happen in or near the home....

And if everyone just stays home that will rise to 100%!!!

2000 pound vehicle

The jacked-up station wagons everyone drives and EV sedans are 4000 pounds, not 2000. Larger SUVs and smaller trucks get to 5000, larger trucks are 6000, and the Hummer EV is over 9000.

Compact cars from 20 years ago were pushing 3000, and even a Miata from 30 years ago was still slightly more than a ton.

That’s about the minimum speed a car can possibly do without constantly braking.

In addition to what everyone else has said, this is clearly not so. Idling in D is under 5mph in everything I've ever driven, same with giving it just enough gas to not stall in 1st in a manual (I can actually idle in 1st in my truck, which has a torquey diesel and a low first gear, but generally not in passenger cars).

F=MA, you’re in for a serious injury if a car hits you

I hate to be pedantic about what is kind of a minor point, but F=MA is almost totally irrelevant here. What matters in a collision is (to a first approximation) the kinetic energy of the two participants, which is given by 1/2mv^2.

Coming from the perspective of someone who learned vehicular cycling techniques in order to use my bike as a practical form of transport in a place (Cambridge UK) where this made sense, there is an underlying assumption that you are cycling on city streets (reasonable - rural distances are too far to cycle) with a design speed of 30mph or less (true almost everywhere where the street plan was laid out pre-WW2). This is consistent with speed limits in towns which are 30mph in the UK and 50km/h in the EU and Canada. (The US has a 25mph speed limit in neighbourhoods in most states, but critically the street plan is designed to force through traffic onto arterial roads with higher speed limits).

From an urbanist perspective, if the traffic is moving faster than 30mph then either you are in a rural area (in which case biking is a slightly weird recreational activity, not a form of transport), on a freeway (where biking should be banned anyway and alternatives exist), or the cars are dangerously too fast.

Vehicular cycling makes a lot of sense for sober, competent, adult cyclists who are trying to get somewhere in a hurry cycling on city streets where the actual speed of traffic is 30mph or lower. In my experience, this is the only use case where cycling makes sense anyway, but I am aware that my views on urban transport (best articulated by this guy) are considered weird by both sides of the culture war.

Vehicular cycling is a local optimum. Dutch-style dedicated cycling infrastructure is better, but you have to survive a decade or two of painted-on lanes, disconnected infrastructure, endless complaints from the drivers and other trials and tribulations until a sufficient part of the city is rebuilt to have protected lanes, protected crossings and ample parking for bikes.

The main thrust of his cycling-related advocacy was that "bicycles should be operated like any other vehicle — ridden in the same lanes and manner as cars and trucks rather than in bike lanes or separated infrastructure"

Sure, and the special needs kids should be in the same classes as any other student, not segregated into their own classes, but free to completely shit up ordinary high school math by eating the exercise papers and wailing at maximum volume.

Holding everyone else back to accommodate the slowest is morally monstrous and more importantly, just wasting a ton of people's time for no good reason.

Holding everyone else back to accommodate the slowest is morally monstrous and more importantly, just wasting a ton of people's time for no good reason.

This may be different elsewhere, but the number of pants-on-head idiotic drivers who waste my time is... at least 1, but more probably 2 orders of magnitude greater than the number of cyclists I encounter on a day-to-day basis.

We tolerate cars that are falling apart, weaving between lanes, stopping abruptly, and just fucking around far under the speed limit whenever they want.

As a driver first and foremost I'm sympathetic to your point that slowing others down is a moral problem. Do you contend that cyclists, as a group, are more responsible for this than drivers?

If so (and I'd love to know where in the world this could be the case), is the moral problem caused by cyclists worthy of the murder and maiming visited upon them by vehicles when they use the roads?

Do you contend that cyclists, as a group, are more responsible for this than drivers?

Yes, probably. One hundred percent of encounters I have with cyclists result in me having to slow down. Single digit percent of encounters with other drivers.

If so (and I'd love to know where in the world this could be the case), is the moral problem caused by cyclists worthy of the murder and maiming visited upon them by vehicles when they use the roads?

No, and as such, they should get off the roads.

I understand on a per-capita basis that cyclists are going to slow you down more, but that's not the point I'm making. To inconvenience you, a traveler needs to be:

  • Biking (Already exceedingly rare)
  • On a road with no infrastructure (Common)
  • On a busy road that blocks passing (Uncommon - anyone cycling already gravitates towards less busy roads)
  • On a fast enough road to slow you down (Probably average - an urban cyclist is going to be faster than fellow cars)

I can count on one hand the number of times I've been slown down by a cyclist in like, 2 years. The places I drive aren't particularly cycling friendly which is part of it, but I just don't see this as a problem to eliminate in any meaningful way.

It happens to me roughly half the time I drive. Just some lone cyclist holding up a queue of 5 or 6 cars. This is an old town, and the roads here aren't very wide, so even when they aren't being deliberately annoying by sitting in the middle of the lane, it's hard to pass them. They will happily skip up onto the pavement to avoid stopping at a crossing or a red light at a junction, but not to show any consideration to the line of people they're holding up by choosing to ride a child's toy on a real grown-up road.

choosing to ride a child's toy on a real grown-up road

I can't take this barb very seriously. Using your body and a simple machine to travel self-sufficiently is "childish", but cocooning yourself in a 4,000 pound air-conditioned couch for even the most trivial trip is "adulting"? It doesn't line up, and it's pretty lowbrow discourse.

Yes. Adults have better ways of doing things than children. You might as well be pogo-ing or roller blading to work.


What is this place?

This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.

The weekly Culture War threads host the most controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy; if in doubt, post!

Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts. You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.


Why are you called The Motte?

A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently, it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey", originally identified by philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."

On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.


New post guidelines

If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it. A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).

Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.

If in doubt, please post it!


Rules


Recommended Posts And Communities

Recommended Realtime Chats