site banner
PaperclipPerfector  5mo ago (text post)   32394 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of June 2, 2025

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.

4
Top Bottom New Old Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Resurfacing another old comment from @functor about Conservatism as anti-ideology. I think it's interesting to reflect back on now that we're in Trump 2.0:

Keith woods says it better than me

Conservatism as Anti-Ideology

There was much debate online recently over the political beliefs of country music singer Oliver Anthony. Anthony captured the hearts of conservatives with his “Rich Men North of Richmond”, which took aim at out of touch fatcat Yankees who have abandoned people like him. At first there was no question to conservatives, Anthony was definitely one of them. After all, he railed against welfare queens, taxes, and complained about elites not relating to regular folk. Anthony did alienate some of his newfound following when an interview of him appeared where he affirmed the “diversity is our strength” mantra. Then the first question at the first of this years Republican Party primary debates was the hosts asking the field for their interpretation of Athony’s masterpiece, to which an indignant Mr. Anthony then responded with derision for the entire field, reminding Republican partisans that these politicians were actually part of the elite he was singing about.

Still, most conservatives are not in any doubt that Oliver Anthony is one of them, and I think they’re correct. The fact that he is almost indistinguishable in his rhetoric from a Berniebro Democrat is a feature, not a bug. Neither is it a problem that the message in his song seemed inconsistent - targeting rich capitalists as the source of his problems in the same song that he complained about taxation and welfare spending. Conservatism in recent years has lost any positive content, it is now best understood as an anti-ideology, a vague, paranoid and inconsistent critique of a nebulous “elite”, the only point of which is to spread a general mistrust in whoever happens to be in power. ... Modern conservatism in the English speaking world developed out of the cadre of conservatives who formed the National Review in 1955, led by William F. Buckley. Buckley believed he had found a program to unite the two camps who dominated the right, but had been up to that point adversarial: the Burkean conservatives, led by figureheads like Russell Kirk, and the increasingly expanding camp of libertarians, who had been influenced by works like Friedrich Hayeks The Road to Serfdom. The program that would unite them was the “fusionism” of Frank Meyer, a German-Jewish immigrant to the United States who himself abandoned communism after reading Hayek’s work while serving in the US Army. Frank S. Meyer: The Fusionist as Libertarian | Mises Institute .... Since at least the 2000s, the conservatism of Reagan and Thatcher has been in retreat, while it found a resurgence with the Tea Party program during the Obama administration, this trend was swept aside by the muscular populism of Donald Trump. Since then, conservatism has lost any vestiges of whatever positive content it had remaining. Free market economics are still central to the establishment GOP politicians, but many conservatives now sound like economic populists, seeing rich capitalists as part of the same elite class as liberal politicians. While many conservatives still stand firm on abortion, there is little else in the way of the social conservatism that used to define the right: Trump was the most pro-gay US President in history, and modern conservatives are all too happy to embrace their own, based versions of “trans women” like Blair White if they affirm them back. Alex Jones asks Blaire White if "the chemicals" made her trans | Media Matters for America -... So what’s left? Well, there’s definitely a strong belief that the elites are evil - ridiculously, cartoonishly evil, to the point that they poison the water and the skies, intentionally derail trains, and start wars just to make common people suffer. There is also a strong cynicism about politics and idealism generally, not only is the conservative anti-ideological, but they are convinced everyone else is too, and that people that profess to believe in leftist ideals like egalitarianism are just cynics who don’t really believe it. As saimleuch, conservatives will often critique leftists for being inconsistent anti-racists or say things like their affirmation of trans rights is rooted in a hatred of women. Oliver Anthony engaged in some of this on his recent appearance on Joe Rogan. Rogan pointed out that Democrats in the early 90s “sounded like Nazis”, Oliver Anthony recognised the argument and immediately pointed out that Democrats like Hillary and Obama didn’t even support gay marriage in the 2000s! .. It is of course an eternal source of frustration to people on the radical right that conservatives attack the left by holding them to the moral standard the left itself has established, thus enforcing the leftist moral framework on the whole political spectrum. This seems obviously counter-productive, until you realise there is no alternative program the conservatives are advancing anyway - all that matters is getting people to share the same sense of cynicism and mistrust of power, so an accusation of racism or homophobia works as well as anything else.

https://keithwoodspub.substack.com/p/conservatism-as-anti-ideology

Conservatism lacks ideology, vision and a moral compass. At this point it is just angry ranting against cartoon vilians who are satanically evil. There is little systemic analysis instead there is an over emphasis of conspiracies. If the populist conservatives took power, they would be incapable of wielding it since their policies lack depth beyond SJWs bad but trans people with MAGA hats good. Conservatives are too negative, their entire focus is on what they dislike. Rich people bad, welfare queens bad, Klaus Schwab bad but what is good?

My life sucks, boo out group isn't really lyrics that inspire or offer novel insights. It isn't surprising that the anglosphere right has greater problems attracting young people than the right in the rest of the west. AfD, Sweden democrats and national rally do fairly well among young voters. The rather aimless right in the anglosphere fails at attracting young people and successful people. A young highly educated person is simply going to find the aesthetics and the values of mainstream conservatism boring and unappealing. It isn't a uniting message, it is a message with no vision that is anti PMC. I simply struggle to see a well travelled, highly educated person fitting in to the conservative movement at all. The right is making itself culturally toxic defenders of boomer rights.

I'll say from my perspective, this view actually seems validated after what we've seen from Trump so far. With the exception of tariffs, which are already being struck down, there's much more of an emphasis on destroying than actually building anything.

That being said, I'm generally conservative myself and weakly pro-Trump, so I'm not trying to just take cheap potshots. I genuinely think this is a huge problem the right needs to face in order to create a more compelling and useful platform for the future.

Nobody gives a darn about that musician. He's a one hit wonder and now he's gone. Google trends says his popularity lasted a few months at most.

Conservatism does have an ideology. Clean safe streets lined with trees, single family homes, and white picket fences. Young people working starter jobs around town in stores and businesses knstead of shitskins.

Conservatism does have an ideology. Clean safe streets lined with trees, single family homes, and white picket fences. Young people working starter jobs around town in stores and businesses knstead of shitskins.

Nah, it's gotten to a point where someone ranting against "suburbs" is as likely to be on the Right as on the Left. You're going to see even more of this after the 2026 midterms.

Young people working starter jobs around town in stores and businesses knstead of shitskins.

Unemployment rate is close to zero, anyone who looks for a job can get one. And it will shock you to learn that white people have higher incomes and higher employment rate than non-whites.

Note also how pathetic the message is. Woke black tells his people "I'll get you jobs as doctors, lawyers, politicians, and CEOs." This guy tells whites "I'll get you the job standing behind the counter at 7/11." THAT'S all you can realistically aspire to.

Nobody can "get" you a job as a doctor or a lawyer or a CEO (well, unless it's a CEO of a scam) without walking a long way there (I omit politicians because it's not a job like any others). You can't just "become" a doctor without studying hard for years, and if you're already capable of that, the wokes would just slow you down. The only thing the wokes can offer you is to pressure the system into devaluing your work by lowering the criteria. They still won't be able to make you a doctor overnight, but they will make people wonder whether your training had been as rigorous as the other folks'.

And I don't really see any way to get into the job market but beginner-level jobs (unless you win the birth lottery and your family is rich, at which cases again you don't need the wokes already). Maybe the message of "if you want to succeed, try working hard" is "pathetic" compared to "scream victimhood hard with me and get all the stuff for free" but the latter - unless you become a con artist and join the grifter class, which is not for everyone - is a lie.

And the labor force participation rate is...? Unemployment rate is only part of the picture.

People who aren't looking for jobs won't get them, yes.

Nearly every group with light skin has high incomes and low unemployment in America, including nonhajnali groups like Maronites, Russians, Jews, etc.

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

Young people working starter jobs around town in stores and businesses knstead of shitskins.

You are allowed to express racist sentiments here, but we do ask for more effort than slurs as punctuation. Your log is a bunch of warnings and a tempban, and this post indicates that those warnings are not penetrating. I'm banning you for three days this time; other mods feel free to lengthen if it seems appropriate.

National Order Through Self-Sufficient Economic Empowerment

1. National Unity

All American citizens unite under a shared commitment to the United States, rooted in the principle of self-determination as enshrined in the U.S. Constitution. Strong families form the foundation of national unity, with policies supporting marriage and child-rearing as patriotic duties.

2. International Equality

The United States receives equal treatment in its dealings with other nations, with international agreements that undermine American sovereignty or economic interests renegotiated or abolished. Trade policies prioritize domestic family-supporting industries.

3. Economic Self-Sufficiency

Policies ensure access to resources, infrastructure, and opportunities to sustain the American people and provide for future generations, including investment in domestic industries and infrastructure. Family wage standards ensure single-income households can support multiple children, with minimum wage calculations accounting for family size.

4. Citizenship and Civic Duty

Citizenship is reserved exclusively for individuals born in the United States to parents who are U.S. citizens or legally present on an immigrant-class visa at the time of birth, and individuals naturalized in accordance with U.S. immigration laws. Citizens from larger families receive priority consideration for civic honors and appointments.

5. Exclusive Voting Rights and Public Service

Voting rights for federal, state, and local elections are reserved exclusively for U.S. citizens. All public offices and public employment positions are held exclusively by U.S. citizens. Public service positions offer enhanced family benefits and flexible arrangements for parents.

6. Economic Opportunity for Citizens

The government ensures economic opportunities and a decent standard of living for all U.S. citizens, prioritizing citizens over non-citizens when resources are insufficient. Married couples with children receive preferential hiring and advancement opportunities in government positions.

7. Immigration Reform

Immigration laws are strictly enforced, with a merit-based system prioritizing the economic and cultural interests of U.S. citizens. Illegal immigration is prevented through robust border security and enforcement of existing laws. Immigration preferences given to intact families with children who demonstrate alignment with American family values.

8. Equal Rights and Responsibilities

All citizens have equal rights and obligations under the law, as guaranteed by the Constitution. Tax obligations are adjusted based on family size, with substantial credits for married couples with children:

  • Child Tax Credits: $5,000 for first child, $7,500 for second, $10,000 for third and subsequent children (married couples only)

9. Productive Work

Every citizen contributes to society through productive work, with individual pursuits aligning with the broader interests of the nation. Raising children is recognized as productive work, with Social Security credits awarded for each child raised to adulthood. Flexible work arrangements and career re-entry programs support parents.

10. Economic Justice

Unearned income through monopolistic practices is eliminated, and debt systems that burden citizens are reformed. Excessive financial speculation and profiteering are curbed. Student loan forgiveness programs for married couples based on number of children born within marriage.

11. War Profiteering

Personal enrichment from war or national crises is prohibited, with strict penalties for profiteering during times of conflict or economic hardship. Military families with children receive additional housing allowances and educational benefits.

12. Nationalization of Key Industries

Critical industries are nationalized or strictly regulated to ensure they serve the public interest over corporate profits. Family-supporting industries receive priority status and protection.

13. Profit Sharing

Profits from large-scale commerce are equitably distributed, ensuring fair wages and economic stability for workers. Additional profit-sharing bonuses for employees with dependent children.

14. Social Security Expansion

Social Security is strengthened and expanded to provide robust support for retirees and the elderly. Parents receive additional Social Security credits based on number of children raised to adulthood. Retirement benefits increase by 10% per child for married couples.

15. Support for Small Businesses

Policies bolster the middle class by supporting small businesses, including tax incentives, low-cost leasing of commercial spaces, and preferential treatment in government contracts. Family-owned businesses receive additional tax advantages and preferential lending, with succession benefits for businesses passed to children.

16. Land and Housing Reform

Housing and land reforms ensure affordability, prevent speculative real estate practices, and provide access to property for public benefit. Pro-natal policies include:

  • Married couples receive progressive homeownership subsidies based on number of children born within the marriage (10% down payment assistance for first child, 15% for second, 20% for third)
  • Property tax reductions of 25% per child for married couples with children born of the marriage
  • Priority access to family-sized public housing for married couples with children
  • Zero-interest home improvement loans for married couples expanding homes due to children
  • "Family Formation Zones" with expedited permitting for larger single-family homes
  • Inheritance tax exemptions for family homes passed to children born within the marriage
  • Zoning laws prioritizing single-family homes, playgrounds, and community centers
  • Subsidized family vehicle programs for families with 3+ children
  • Energy and utility subsidies scaling with family size

17. Justice Against Harmful Actors

Strong measures are taken against individuals or entities whose actions harm the public good, with penalties reflecting the severity of the offense. Enhanced protections for families and children against predatory practices.

18. Legal Reform

The legal system is rooted in American constitutional principles, prioritizing justice and fairness over bureaucratic or elitist frameworks. Family courts reformed to support intact marriages and shared parenting. Marriage incentives include tax benefits increasing with marriage duration.

19. Education Reform

Quality education is accessible to all capable citizens, emphasizing practical skills, civic responsibility, and critical thinking. Funding is provided for gifted students from low-income families to pursue higher education. Pro-natal education benefits include:

  • Merit-based "Family Formation Scholarships" for top 10% performing female high school graduates who choose marriage and motherhood over immediate university enrollment, providing $50,000 grants for first child born within marriage before age 25, with additional $25,000 per subsequent child
  • Deferred university admission with full scholarships for these women after child-rearing years
  • "Motherhood Excellence Awards" providing annual stipends of $30,000 for 10 years to academically gifted women who marry and have 3+ children before age 30
  • Tuition reductions at public universities based on family size for children from intact marriages
  • Priority enrollment in quality public schools for children from larger families
  • Educational savings account contributions from the government for each child born within a marriage
  • Homeschooling support grants for married couples educating multiple children

20. Public Health and Wellness

Public health is protected by supporting families, ensuring maternal and child welfare, eliminating exploitative labor practices, and promoting physical fitness through community programs and sports initiatives. Enhanced pro-natal health policies include:

  • Comprehensive prenatal and postnatal care coverage for married couples
  • Paid parental leave extended based on number of children (12 weeks base, +4 weeks per additional child)
  • Annual health savings account contributions for each child in intact marriages
  • Free pediatric care through age 18 for families with 3+ children
  • Maternal nutrition programs and family wellness centers

21. National Defense

A strong, citizen-based national military protects U.S. sovereignty, replacing privatized military forces. Military families with children receive additional housing allowances, educational benefits, and priority base housing. Service members from larger families receive advancement preferences.

22. Media Integrity

Media outlets prioritize factual reporting and align with American interests. Foreign-owned media outlets require government approval to operate in the U.S., and content harmful to national unity or public welfare faces legal consequences. Media promoting strong family values receives tax incentives.

23. Religious Freedom

Freedom of religion is upheld for all denominations, provided they do not undermine national security or public morals. Materialistic ideologies that erode American values are rejected, emphasizing the common good over individual gain. Religious institutions supporting marriage and family formation receive enhanced tax benefits.

24. Centralized Governance with Accountability

A strong federal government enacts these principles, balanced by accountability to the people through transparent institutions and elected representatives. State and local governments align with federal laws to ensure national unity. Family impact assessments required for all new legislation.

25. Commitment to the Nation

Leaders uphold these principles, prioritizing the interests of the American people above all else, even at personal sacrifice. Political leaders with intact marriages and children receive public recognition. Government support for genealogical research and family history preservation strengthens national identity. Federal funding for local family-oriented festivals and community gatherings reinforces cultural traditions that celebrate family life.

This reminds me of the National Justice Party "25-point platform" (yeah, I get the reference) that ended with the party imploding. The Trump masses aren't much interested in this stuff, they love Trump even when he said he'd cut rich people's taxes. And that's a good thing since these ideas are mostly bad. "Minimum wage calculations accounting for family size" is just going to mean employers don't want to hire people with large families.

mostly bad

It's a 25 point plan, you can't expect all of them to be winners. You'd have to not allow employers to a ask about family size.

I’ll commend you for cleverness, inasmuch as you added enough new material/adaptation to the modern American context to the 25 points of the NSDAP to prevent them from being immediately recognizable to people who weren’t already in on the joke.

It is worth noting that the change to the first post is large, and load-bearing. The 25 points began with the union of all Germans, not all German citizens - it was a specific pledge to incorporate Austria, the Czech Sudetenland, the Polish Corridor etc. into the Reich. @AvocadoPanic could have said "All Americans" instead with the implied dog-whistle that Albertans are included, and it would have been closer to the original and still relevant to MAGA policy.

I suspect were you to ask someone, "What is an American?", you'd get worse answers than the people who don't know what a woman is.

I'd be happier with language nearer the original, a pledge based on attributes more immutable than nationality. I don't have the language to express this sentiment while also keeping with the current year America context.

I'm not clear how 'All Americans' would imply Albertans are included. I'd be happy to include many people, unfortunately more and more nationality is useless as a descriptor. Some sort of Ahnenpass would be necessary to only include Albertans with 7/8 Albertan great-grandparents.

The title was a bit of a giveaway.

The NOTSEE acronym is kind of obvious, so I suspected it was cribbed even though I've never studied the original.

You'd like a 25 point plan that outlines a positive vision for a unified nation under conservative principles?

Define the terms please. There's a version of this I might agree with, if for example by Conservatism you mean it's Boomer implementation, but that's not a problem of Conservatism qua Conservatism, that's a problem of Liberalism writ-large.

My life sucks, boo out group isn't really lyrics that inspire or offer novel insights.

What? There may have been a time that political thinkers would sell you dreams of a shining future, but currently the entire political spectrum is based on "my life sucks, boo out group".

It isn't surprising that the anglosphere right has greater problems attracting young people than the right in the rest of the west.

Isn't this completely false? Last I've seen they had trouble attracting young women, with young men flocking to the in droves.

but currently the entire political spectrum is based on "my life sucks, boo out group".

You don’t actually believe that’s true, do you? Like, clearly there are many people — people well within the mainstream Overton window of the two major American political parties, and certainly those within the mainstream of other Anglosphere countries — who do not fit this description at all. One could point to the “Abundance Democrats” and the “Tech Right” as two ascendant factions made up very largely of successful, optimistic, non-resentful individuals.

One could point to the “Abundance Democrats” and the “Tech Right” as two ascendant factions made up very largely of successful, optimistic, non-resentful individuals.

I haven't observed either to be a coherent concept. Someone recently gave Elon as an example of the "Tech Right", and he's pretty quick to complain about he's outgroup the last time I checked. As for "Abundance Democrats", are they the ones constantly blaming "NIMBY's" for everything? Also, neither one of them is particularly credible in their promises of a brighter future, though I suppose that's another topic.

You claimed that

currently the entire political spectrum is based on "my life sucks, boo out group".

Even if you can find example of the people I’m pointing to saying their outgroup sucks, you’re still missing the “my life sucks” part. Elon Musk’s life manifestly does not suck, nor does he appear to be under any illusions that it does. To the extent that he criticizes his enemies (political or otherwise) it is because he believes they’re making America worse, or making the world worse; he definitely doesn’t seem to be claiming that they’re making his own life worse. (Except for maybe on the trans issue specifically, given the way it has impacted his family life.)

Similarly, the main figures in the “Abundance Democrats” — assuming such a faction does indeed exist — focus their criticism on “NIMBYs” — again, let’s assume for the sake of argument that such people exist and are reliably identifiable — because they believe that such people are actively preventing American society from addressing a major issue that is negatively impacting the lives of many people. Notably, though, the Abundance Democrats are largely financially successful people who can currently afford housing without too much difficulty. (Or who live in subsidized housing, as students, academic faculty, etc.) The housing crisis isn’t wrecking their lives, and they’re not motivated by personal grievance. They do genuinely appear to want to fix a problem, even if that problem isn’t a problem for them specifically.

Even if you can find example of the people I’m pointing to saying their outgroup sucks, you’re still missing the “my life sucks” part.

What, "my cars are not selling because of vandalism and smears against my company triggered by my political activity" does not count?

Elon Musk’s life manifestly does not suck,

Does Trump's, or Vance's?

Similarly, the main figures in the “Abundance Democrats” — assuming such a faction does indeed exist

You're the one that posited their existence!

because they believe that such people are actively preventing American society from addressing a major issue that is negatively impacting the lives of many people.

Yes, that's what "my life sucks" meant in TheDag's reductive summary.

You're the one that posited their existence!

Correct, I was asking you to accept that position as well, at least for the sake of argument.

What, "my cars are not selling because of vandalism and smears against my company triggered by my political activity" does not count?

Correct, that definitely does not count as “my life sucks” in anywhere near the same way as Oliver Anthony style “I’m personally oppressed and downtrodden, and it’s my outgroup’s fault” populism.

Yes, that's what "my life sucks" meant in TheDag's reductive summary.

I don’t think so. I think there’s an important qualitative difference between populist “rage and vengeance” grievance on the one hand — which is what the OP is attributing to Anglophone conservatism — and the technocratic/futurist “we’ve identified the problems, and it’s time to let smart and successful elites determine how to fix those problems” institutionalism of the factions I identified.

Correct, that definitely does not count as “my life sucks” in anywhere near the same way as Oliver Anthony style “I’m personally oppressed and downtrodden, and it’s my outgroup’s fault” populism.

I wish I knew who the hell that was. Anyway, since we agree it's not about Trump, looks like w agree OP's thesis can be dismissed.

I don’t think so. I think there’s an important qualitative difference between populist “rage and vengeance” grievance on the one hand — which is what the OP is attributing to Anglophone conservatism — and the technocratic/futurist “we’ve identified the problems, and it’s time to let smart and successful elites determine how to fix those problems” institutionalism of the factions I identified.

How can I determine that this is, in fact, the case, rather than it being a Russell's conjugation?

I wish I knew who the hell that was.

Literally the guy the OP was mostly about. You know, the guy referenced several times by name in the post you replied to.

More comments

Isn't this completely false? Last I've seen they had trouble attracting young women, with young men flocking to the in droves.

"Droves" is an exaggeration - Trump won 18-29 men 49-48 per the 2024 exit poll, which is about the same margin he won the electorate as a whole by. He does better with the middle-aged than the young among white men and women, though not among ethnic minorities. The gender gap is only marginally higher for the young than the middle-aged and only marginally higher in 2024 than 2020 - the massive youth gender gap reported e.g. here didn't show up at the ballot box. What did happen is that Trump lost the youth vote (of both sexes) less badly than the Republicans normally do in a close election.

The place where right populism really is an old man's game is the UK. Reform's vote is younger than the Conservatives, but not by much.

My read is that the MAGA is in the middle of the pack in terms of right-populist movements ability to appeal to young men. Looking at the exit polls for the 1st round of the Polish presidential election, the total right-populist vote (PiS+Confederation+Crown) is flat by age but the young voted for the kekkier right-populist parties whereas the old voted for the more traditionalist PiS. The 2024 French legislative elections showed the Left winning the youth, RN winning the middle-aged, and Macron's party winning the old. The same picture applies to the 2025 German elections.

"Droves" is an exaggeration - Trump won 18-29 men 49-48 per the 2024 exit poll

SSCReader said it was 56%?

My read is that the MAGA is in the middle of the pack in terms of right-populist movements ability to appeal to young men.

That's fine. I just have issues with calling that "greater problems attracting young people".

SSCReader said it was 56%?

My source is the CNN exit poll as reported on Wikipedia. I'm happy to defer to someone with a better data source.

The Catalist report has a reputation for being more accurate than exit polls, but the free online version doesn't include the sex/age crosstabs. Matt Yglesias did a Substack post based on what is presumably the paid version of the report and says that the big picture was a mostly-uniform swing apart from the big swing to Trump among Hispanics and (to a lesser extent) Asians.

That's fine. I just have issues with calling that "greater problems attracting young people".

I don't think we disagree here.

Depends on the exit poll. You can find 56% (Guardian), 52% or 49% depending on where you look. I took the high end because if that doesn't count as droves then neither does any lesser number. You could split it and say it is roughly 52% plus or minus 3 maybe.

Really we'd have to define the terms of what does greater problems and droves mean before any of the numbers can tell us anything. For me "droves" would have to be over 60% at least and consistently getting under 50% would be greater problems attracting X. But that's really just squinting at it and going off vibes. One could make reasonable arguments for very different numbers I am sure.

Isn't this completely false? Last I've seen they had trouble attracting young women, with young men flocking to the in droves.

Trump got about 56% of men under 30, while Harris got about 59% of women under 30 (55% Harris to 42% Trump overall for 18-29, because more women vote than men). But the young men were most concerned about the economy, so it's hard to tell how many are going to the right vs how many were just voting against the current party because the economy sucked. Presumably some of those 56% will shift back if the economy sucks again in 2028, but we can at least say that they are willing to vote for Trump/the right, even if some of them weren't specifically flocking to the banner. Trump was up from 36% in 2020 to 42% of 18-29 in 2024, so there was certainly a swing.

However as I pointed out previously Bush got between 45% to 49% of the 18-29 vote when he won in 2000 and 2004, so Trump hasn't got back to where conservatives were a couple of decades ago. How that vote shakes out in 2028 is probably going to determine if we can see a long term swing rather than a single election cycle swing.

That's all fair enough,but given those numbers I think it's also fair to dismiss the claim that they're having trouble attracting young people (men in particular), unless some kind of supporting argument is provided.

I would say it's fair to say they are still having trouble attracting young people overall. Even Bush at his best with the post 2001 bump couldn't break 50%, (I think Reagan was the last conservative to do so in 1984). It's also fair to say they aren't having trouble attracting young men specifically and that Trump appears to have reversed that trend somewhat.

I suppose it depends what you mean as "trouble attracting". Not being able to get a majority of a group for 50 years, maybe qualifies? I'd suggest the claim Democrats are having trouble attracting men is true for similar reasons. They haven't got 50% of men (though Obama in 2008 got close), since Jimmy Carter in 1976.

The rather aimless right in the anglosphere fails at attracting young people and successful people. A young highly educated person is simply going to find the aesthetics and the values of mainstream conservatism boring and unappealing.

True, consider the Tories in the UK and Liberals in Australia. Both are ostensibly conservative parties, both are fully committed to mass migration, the energy transition and so on. If there's one thing the Tories are 'for', it's Universal Boomer Income, the triple-lock on pensions subsidizing senescence. They promised to take control of migration, won an election victory and then raised it significantly. And they let the NGO-deep state blob run the rest of society. Hopefully the Tories dissolve entirely, nothing of value would be lost.

I think the problem with Trump is that he needs to be destructive in order to break the power of the NGO-deep state blob, in this case the judges. I was at lunch with an American law professor some time ago who was wistfully imagining a world where the Democrats decided to run on a platform so popular they'd just dare the judges to block them and if so... expand the court! Break them! He told us that he often asked his students about the consequences of their marvellous plans to use state power to achieve some goal, what if the other side got in power and used the power to their ends? Students used to realise this and come out with a renewed perspective on compromise. About a decade ago they started coming to a different conclusion: 'it'll be tough but we'll fight back and win eventually'. Restraint is for suckers. Even the professor seemed to have changed his mind on this.

The same logic applies for Trump. Deporting illegal immigrants is his big thing, he did win the election, he should probably have devoted his efforts to that rather than schizo tariff wars. Break the will of the courts on the most advantageous battlefield you can find, don't fight on unfavourable battlefields.

But as usual with Trump, his destructive energies are not tightly focused on the right targets in order of priority.

You absolutely can have a positive vision of 'safe streets', 'cheap energy' 'nation-state not economic zone' 'peace through strength' and that would be pretty popular. But without the confidence to pursue it, they're just words.

critique of a nebulous “elite”, the only point of which is to spread a general mistrust in whoever happens to be in power

But enough about their wise and desirable traits.

My main complaint about the other side is their unthinking reflexive trust and support for their favorite elites. Seemingly changing their opinions and values on a dime when "the science" or some cabal of would-be technocrats sends out new positions for right-thinking people to hold.

There's a level of distrustful contrarianism that is maladaptive. The opposite of stupidity is not necessarily wisdom. But conservatives are onto something vaguely distrusting our self-appointed elites. Correctly recognizing that taking orders from the vanguard of the opposition is not a good idea.

Conservatism lacks ideology, vision and a moral compass. At this point it is just angry ranting against cartoon vilians who are satanically evil.

Im sorry, but i dont see how anyone could reasonably engage with the work of current conservative thought leaders like Victor Davis Hansen or Thomas Sowell, past leaders like Limbaugh, Brietbart, and Buckley, or old lions like CS Lewis, GK Chesterton, Rudyard Kipling, Douglas, Burke, Smith, Et Al. and come away with the impression they lack "ideology, vision and a moral compass"

Thier vision may be unreasonable in your eyes, or totally at odds with core liberal beliefs, but that's not the same thing as not having one.

Ditto for current conservative-coded posters like @FCfromSSC and @Dean or past posters from the reddit/SSC/lesswrong days like Hlinka, Diesach, BarnabyCajones, Jason, or LetsStayCivilized.

Say what you will about them, but what they were not lacking in is/was ideology.

Im sorry, but i dont see how anyone could reasonably engage with the work of current conservative thought leaders like Victor Davis Hansen or Thomas Sowell, past leaders like Limbaugh, Brietbart, and Buckley, or old lions like CS Lewis, GK Chesterton, Rudyard Kipling, Douglas, Burke, Smith, Et Al. and come away with the impression they lack "ideology, vision and a moral compass"

Those people do, certainly, but none of those people seem remotely represented by what currently calls itself the conservative movement in the United States. Limbaugh, maybe.

But if I compare MAGA to, well, Lewis, Chesterton, Kipling, Burke, or even old Adam Smith, I doubt you will find much ideological overlap, if any at all.

If I compare any political movement in it's entirety to it's top thought leaders, I get the same result.

I question to what extent those people even are thought leaders in the context of MAGA or the modern Republican base. It's hard to see Burke or Chesterton approving of the kind of reckless destabilisation that you get with Trump, no matter how far you stretch the analogy.

To my mind they're just totally different ideologies. There are always some differences between the way a movement's elite conceives of its mission and the way the masses do, but I think this is far enough that it's fair to say there is no meaningful resemblance.

Show Burke or Chesterton the system being destabilized, and I'm skeptical their conclusion would go the way you claim.

They did see that, though? I'm not sure what world you live in if you think Chesterton wasn't living through the decline and destabilisation of the systems that he thought were essential for civilised society. He explicitly thinks English society is increasingly run by a cabal of vicious, anti-human elites and is therefore sinking back into barbarism.

So I am pretty confident that he wouldn't end up like MAGA.

He did get desperate a few times - I believe he once visited Italy and said nice things about Mussolini - but on the whole, I don't see the resemblance.

So I am pretty confident that he wouldn't end up like MAGA.

Could you elaborate on the specific features of MAGA that that you believe would preclude his approval?

Chesterton was a localist and a distributist - his political views strongly tend towards small government. He criticises both capitalists and socialists for concentrating property in the hands of the few who can then wield arbitrary power over individual citizens. As an ethical matter, I think Chesterton is also conspicuously opposed to bullies. He presents himself as a champion of the ordinary, no-longer-free Englishman who craves a return to ancient liberties.

I would say that MAGA involves a centralisation of power in a single office, or more properly a single man, and that man is grossly intemperate and vengeful. I'd guess that Chesterton would see Trump as akin to one of the more demagogic kings of England, vicious in his lusts, but nonetheless opposed to the suffocating bureaucratic-parliamentary class that the common man sees as a more direct enemy.

In his Short History of England, Chesterton writes that "the case for despotism is democratic". I suspect he would see Trump as a 'democratic despot' along these lines, and Chesterton's observation that "[despotism's] cruelty to the strong is kindness to the weak" might enable him to regard some of Trump's excesses with a measure of sympathy, even if the man himself remains a despot. Thus, still in Short History:

This conviction, as brilliantly expounded by Bolingbroke, had many aspects; perhaps the most practical was the point that one of the virtues of a despot is distance. It is "the little tyrant of the fields" that poisons human life. The thesis involved the truism that a good king is not only a good thing, but perhaps the best thing. But it also involved the paradox that even a bad king is a good king, for his oppression weakens the nobility and relieves the pressure on the populace. If he is a tyrant he chiefly tortures the torturers; and though Nero's murder of his own mother was hardly perhaps a gain to his soul, it was no great loss to his empire.

Naturally I do not think Chesterton would be at all sympathetic to the American left, especially as that left has become increasingly institutionalised and regulatory. I am sure he would see that as a thicket of weeds choking the natural liberty of the people. That is simple an instance of The Servile State.

So I can see Chesterton having a kind of, if not affection precisely, at least understanding of Trump, as a kind of poetic expression of the American genius. So perhaps Trump is a Nero figure - someone whose own soul is perhaps contemptible, but whose effect, insofar as it weakens America's de facto 'nobility', is good.

I am not sure how far he'd go with that in practical terms, though, because Chesterton's distributism was very much concerned with the real distribution of property, and as much as Trump has symbolically offended an elite class, he has done very little to remedy the actual concentration of property in America.

I offered via Chesterton a kind of qualified defense of despotism, but I am bound also to mention his description of the same in Heretics:

Next to a genuine republic, the most democratic thing in the world is a hereditary despotism. I mean a despotism in which there is absolutely no trace whatever of any nonsense about intellect or special fitness for the post. Rational despotism—that is, selective despotism—is always a curse to mankind, because with that you have the ordinary man misunderstood and misgoverned by some prig who has no brotherly respect for him at all. But irrational despotism is always democratic, because it is the ordinary man enthroned. The worst form of slavery is that which is called Caesarism, or the choice of some bold or brilliant man as despot because he is suitable. For that means that men choose a representative, not because he represents them, but because he does not. Men trust an ordinary man like George III or William IV. because they are themselves ordinary men and understand him. Men trust an ordinary man because they trust themselves. But men trust a great man because they do not trust themselves. And hence the worship of great men always appears in times of weakness and cowardice; we never hear of great men until the time when all other men are small.

(This leads him on to a defense of 'hereditary despotism', i.e. monarchy.)

If we interpret MAGA as a type of Caesarism, which I think is about as reasonable a comparison as is available to us, I think this gives us a look at some of Chesterton's attitudes towards that. The worship of great men always appears in times of weakness and cowardice.

If you'll pardon a long quote, one of the next passages of Heretics strikes me as particularly apposite:

Everything in our age has, when carefully examined, this fundamentally undemocratic quality. In religion and morals we should admit, in the abstract, that the sins of the educated classes were as great as, or perhaps greater than, the sins of the poor and ignorant. But in practice the great difference between the mediaeval ethics and ours is that ours concentrate attention on the sins which are the sins of the ignorant, and practically deny that the sins which are the sins of the educated are sins at all. We are always talking about the sin of intemperate drinking, because it is quite obvious that the poor have it more than the rich. But we are always denying that there is any such thing as the sin of pride, because it would be quite obvious that the rich have it more than the poor. We are always ready to make a saint or prophet of the educated man who goes into cottages to give a little kindly advice to the uneducated. But the medieval idea of a saint or prophet was something quite different. The mediaeval saint or prophet was an uneducated man who walked into grand houses to give a little kindly advice to the educated. The old tyrants had enough insolence to despoil the poor, but they had not enough insolence to preach to them. It was the gentleman who oppressed the slums; but it was the slums that admonished the gentleman. And just as we are undemocratic in faith and morals, so we are, by the very nature of our attitude in such matters, undemocratic in the tone of our practical politics. It is a sufficient proof that we are not an essentially democratic state that we are always wondering what we shall do with the poor. If we were democrats, we should be wondering what the poor will do with us. With us the governing class is always saying to itself, “What laws shall we make?” In a purely democratic state it would be always saying, “What laws can we obey?” A purely democratic state perhaps there has never been. But even the feudal ages were in practice thus far democratic, that every feudal potentate knew that any laws which he made would in all probability return upon himself. His feathers might be cut off for breaking a sumptuary law. His head might be cut off for high treason. But the modern laws are almost always laws made to affect the governed class, but not the governing. We have public-house licensing laws, but not sumptuary laws. That is to say, we have laws against the festivity and hospitality of the poor, but no laws against the festivity and hospitality of the rich. We have laws against blasphemy—that is, against a kind of coarse and offensive speaking in which nobody but a rough and obscure man would be likely to indulge. But we have no laws against heresy—that is, against the intellectual poisoning of the whole people, in which only a prosperous and prominent man would be likely to be successful. The evil of aristocracy is not that it necessarily leads to the infliction of bad things or the suffering of sad ones; the evil of aristocracy is that it places everything in the hands of a class of people who can always inflict what they can never suffer. Whether what they inflict is, in their intention, good or bad, they become equally frivolous. The case against the governing class of modern England is not in the least that it is selfish; if you like, you may call the English oligarchs too fantastically unselfish. The case against them simply is that when they legislate for all men, they always omit themselves.

I think you can trace from this the Chestertonian criticism of the academic left and the bureaucratic state, and insofar as MAGA is opposed to that, they and Chesterton have a common enemy.

But Chesterton was never good at biting his tongue and making common cause against a common enemy - to H. G. Wells' great frustration - and I can't see him joining or supporting a movement that, by his own lights, is weak and cowardly.

He explicitly thinks English society is increasingly run by a cabal of vicious, anti-human elites and is therefore sinking back into barbarism.

When you write it out like that you make Chesterton sound positivly Trumpian.

That our institutions have been captured by a cabal of anti-human elites actively working to turn the US into a 3rd World country is arguably one of the core premises of the MAGA-right.

Say what you will about them, but what they were not lacking in is/was ideology.

I note you conspicuous avoid attesting to any of us having 'morality' here.

(Wink / nudge / laughing at self in good humor.)

American conservatives do not excel as defenders of boomer rights, though. Literally, democrats are better at that. Home valuations are consistently much less ridiculous in red states, Trump doesn’t want to cut social security but democrats are the ones wanting to drive down the cost of labor(which retirees consume) and expand Medicare.

Well, there’s definitely a strong belief that the elites are evil - ridiculously, cartoonishly evil, to the point that they poison the water and the skies, intentionally derail trains, and start wars just to make common people suffer.

That’s not just a modern American phenomenon. If you screw people over long enough they will eventually think you’re doing it on purpose. In the the few years before the French Revolution there was a persistent conspiracy theory among the poor residents of Paris that the food shortages were an intentional plot to starve the French people. In Russia in 1916 there were endemic rumors that the Tzarina was a German spy who was intentionally sabotaging the war effort.

Conservatism is not an ideology. It's an orientation. Moreover, it's an orientation against a reference point, (which is why today's conservative is yesterday's liberal etc.)

People confuse this because contrast the term with liberalism, which can mean two things.

  1. Is just the opposite orientation of conservatism, and
  2. is an actual ideology - prioritization of safeguarding individual freedom and equal rights through rule-of-law and representative government

Most of the useless polticial showerthoughting is downstream of the confusion caused by the fact that the word liberal can refer to either, which conservative can't.

Both the complaints of liberals not being liberal, or conservatives not being ideological, or of assuming conservatives are ideologically illiberal etc.

At the end of the day, both American Conservativism and Liberalism are big tents each containing both liberals and illiberals.

Conservatism is not an ideology. It's an orientation. Moreover, it's an orientation against a reference point.

One thing I love about the 1991 August Coup in the Soviet Union is that it’s about the only time and place in history where you could be a Conservative Communist.

Most of what makes modern politics/political actors difficult to understand these days is not understanding that classical liberalism is [now] a "conservative" position, and taking what groups call themselves at face value rather than thinking about it for 5 seconds and figuring out that yes, actually, progressives are the most conservative movement today (in the "develop nothing ever, be safety-obsessed all the time, impose nonsensical social controls out the ass, sanction sex, hate the young, old women > young men" senses that popularly characterize conservatism).

Not that we haven't tried- "right is the new left" was nearly 10 years ago now (and people still just don't get it)- but ultimately the failure to understand who and what the groups are (and the groups themselves don't help either, to be fair, and this is mostly an advantage to progressives/the media's faction) will destroy anyone's ability to think logically about politics.

Haidt's 6 Foundations apply just as well (or even more) to the average progressive than they do to the average traditionalist, but as soon as you say the C-word, people start thinking they only apply to Boomercons and they shut right down.

It isn't surprising that the anglosphere right has greater problems attracting young people than the right in the rest of the west. AfD, Sweden democrats and national rally do fairly well among young voters. The rather aimless right in the anglosphere fails at attracting young people and successful people. A young highly educated person is simply going to find the aesthetics and the values of mainstream conservatism boring and unappealing.

Why the anti-immigration right tends to do better in non-anglosphere than anglosphere countries has a lot to do with the differing electoral systems. The main center-right party in Sweden, the Moderates, isn't much sexier than the UK Conservatives but because Sweden uses proportional representation (as opposed to FPTP) a vote for SD isn't going to risk feeling wasted like a vote for Reform in the UK might.

Progressivism's promise is that if it is provided with power and control, it will deliver a better life for society generally. It has been provided with increasing amounts of power and control for decades, to a point where it has visibly approached total sociopolitical closure for the forseeable future, and what it has delivered is stagnation at best and more often a steadily-growing avalanche of crises. Given its track record, it becomes extremely important for Progressivism to silence any attempt to establish common knowledge and chain-of-accountability for its monstrous failures. One obvious method is to claim that its critics only destroy, only tear down, only criticize, without offering any constructive alternative of their own.

It seems to me that critics of Progressivism have no shortage of constructive alternatives to Progressive doctrine. When we have spent seven decades concentrating every scrap of social, political and economic power into the hands of Progressivism, though, almost all of those constructive alternatives are either going to involve demolishing things Progressives have built or routing around them entirely. This is the nature of misallocation: you either have to re-allocate, or simply eat the sunk-cost loss. Progressives have built an unworkable system and then condemn us for not offering an explanation of how to make it work, but there is no reason to entertain this chicanery. I cannot tell you how to operate America's current educational system through tinkering at the margins, but that does not mean I do not have a pretty good plan for how to educate my children, or ideas that I think are positive-sum on how to build a new general education system from scratch. "The current system has to come down" is the fault of the system and its designers, not my abilities as a critic. I can explain at some length how serious engagement with Christianity builds community, personal development, support networks, family formation, long-termer preferences, all the necessary building blocks of durable community that more than a half-century of liquid modernity has destroyed in most other contexts, but there is no way to integrate these insights into a sociopolitical system whose designers explicitly see total exclusion and eventual elimination of Christianity as a foundational part of their social program.

Likewise for economics, rule of law, foreign policy and most other questions of governance. The problem is not a lack of constructive alternatives. The problem is that, at a certain point along the seizure-of-power gradient, all constructive alternatives reflect the common nature of the problem, which is that one faction has seized all the power and escaped all accountability for its wielding.

which is that one faction has seized all the power and escaped all accountability for its wielding.

Republicans have managed to get elected roughly half the time, so it seems like it's you who's trying to escape all accountability here. If you say they couldn't do anything because of progressive Republicans, well, maybe you should have won more elections.

And it's not like the Right has no successes. Desegregation busing was heavily limited. Welfare reform in the 1990s. You even managed to overturn Roe v Wade and ban abortion in many states, which did nothing to create the "community, personal development, support networks, family formation, long-termer preferences," etc. that Christian conservatives tell us their ideology brings, but you did do it.

Republicans have managed to get elected roughly half the time, so it seems like it's you who's trying to escape all accountability here. If you say they couldn't do anything because of progressive Republicans, well, maybe you should have won more elections.

These two sentences contradict one another.

In 1979, Playboy published a 15 page feature/interview with musician Wendy Carlos. Carlos had been a minor celebrity for a few years around 1970, known for being a pioneer of musical sound synthesis (she and collaborator Rachel Elkind recorded the "Switched-On Bach" series of albums and much of the soundtrack for Kubrick's film adaptation of "A Clockwork Orange" and Carlos had performed with the St. Louis Symphony, as well as doing a handful of televised demonstrations of sound synthesis), before becoming a recluse. The motivation for Carlos to sacrifice her privacy and Playboy to devote 15 pages to a relatively obscure musician was sharing Carlos's experience of gender dysphoria sexual transition, something few had previously done. (A transwoman named Christine Jorgensen had shared her experience with a magazine in 1953 and published an autobiography in 1967, but she did so after being involuntarily outed by the New York Daily News and having difficulty supporting herself. Playboy assumed their readers to be so unfamiliar with the topic that two of the introductory questions are "Let's start with a basic question: What is a transsexual?" and its followup question, "So transsexuals aren't necessarily former homosexuals?") I recommend reading it as a now-historical primary source.

Carlos is an interesting case, because she has traits that would trigger incredulity among critics of transgender medicine, if she were transitioning today (exemplifying many elements of the male nerd archetype), but she was born in 1939 and had transgender feelings as a child (page 4, though I strongly recommend reading the full interview). Historical cases aren't dispositive of present-day sociogenic gender dysphoria, but how do skeptics of "endogenous" transgender feelings explain historical cases? A "critical mass" of cases sufficient for self-sustaining sociogenesis may be possible, but how could it come to exist, absent any "genuine" cases?

(Here's a pdf of the book Carlos mentions on page 5, in case anyone is curious about it.)

1979 is pretty late in the game. If you want a historical case, I'd go with Christine Jorgensen, which was nearly 30 years prior. The thing is even that story contains a significant element of social contafion, as Jorgensen was widely profiled in the media, putting the idea in the American public's awareness, and leading Harry Benjamin (the prior namesake of WPATH) to say "Indeed, Christine, without you, probably none of this would have happened; the grant, my publications, lectures, etc."

but how do skeptics of "endogenous" transgender feelings explain historical cases? A "critical mass" of cases sufficient for self-sustaining sociogenesis may be possible, but how could it come to exist, absent any "genuine" cases?

I'm not sure there's anything to explain. There must have been "genuine" cases of Morgellons disease, in that the affected person formed the idea relatively independently, rather than copy-pasting a ready made one from the media, but I don't think it implies they had actual skin parasites.

Indeed, I included Jorgensen and a link to a free pdf of Benjamin's book. I chose Carlos, because I thought the interview was a good primary source and that her transition (long before the interview) was in something of a goldilocks date-range, preceding modern controversies by a healthy margin but sharing modern vocabulary and "conceptual framework." (You could equally choose someone from a generation before Jorgensen or a generation before that or...)

These cases have always existed, merely manifesting in different behaviors according to the current dominant memeplexes. It's entirely possible to have your brain affected differently by the hormone mixture in the womb. This would then predispose you to an altered behavior, but as with all things, our biology and behavior aren't binary things, and how we react to internal sensations and perceived bodily norms is highly culturally dependent.

Which is entirely consistent with an underlying neurological phenomenon? I'm not saying saying should be maximally encouraging of potentially maladaptive responses to gender or body dysphoria, I'm asking why some people are skeptical there are "genuine" or "endogenous" cases of transgender feelings.

Well, they are mostly skeptical because the "experts" have done everything in their power to tarnish their image, there is no trust anymore. For a good chunk of time we've been told people are perfect blank slates and completely fungible, a woman is actually indistinguishable from a man and evolution stops at the neck you bigot. That's why those less interested in the ACTUAL science are skeptical, that and the activist class has latched onto the Trans thing after their previous raison-d'etre was "won" with gay marriage.

My personal opinion is we should be working on ways to actually change or at least ameliorate these feelings of gender or body dysphoria with a mix of therapy, an altered memeplex and drugs at the chemical/neuroplastic level. But we're not, in fact if I laid out my full position IRL, I'm sure some trans activists will brand me the second coming of the devil and want to burn me at the stake for trying to erase their class from existence with medicalism.

Any number of real medical conditions don't prove that Munchausen Syndrome isn't also real.

There's always been a small number of LGB and what we nowadays call T. The social sanctions on these people used to be very strong. Despite those sanctions gay men, for example, would still go cruising public toilets looking for strangers to have sex with. They might get arrested, or they might get their teeth punched out, but that didn't stop them. I think we can credit them with sincerity. Likewise there were men who went into the theatre scene where many eccentricities were tolerated and entertained and given a route for expression, eccentricities like pretending you're a woman on stage and then not fully relinquishing the role off stage. Outside of the theatre scene such a man might push and test the boundaries by exhibiting feminine behaviours, but the explicit claim of wanting to be a (or indeed already "being" an as-yet-unrealised) woman would have been met with disapprobation.

Skip forward and we have seen practically every major avenue of cultural publishing pumping out the message that being trans is something to be proud of, that being anti-trans is something to be ashamed of, and that the diagnosis of trans amounts to whether you've ever felt like you're not totally 100% sure that you fulfill all the expectations of your normal gender role.

It's late here so in short: sometimes you get things despite the disincentives (I'm here posting an ant-trans message right now!), you can reasonably expect to get much more of something if you remove disincentives and increase the incentives, and if people perceive the incentives are strong enough they will adopt an insincere position to acquire an advantage.

how do skeptics of "endogenous" transgender feelings explain historical cases?

It's not that hard really, flipping any binary identity is a pretty natural operation. It's not that far away in mind space. One can imagine what it's like to be the opposite sex, idealize it and then fixate on it. Once something like that cements itself as an identity it's hard to shake. People convince themselves of all sorts of nonsense through this pathway. It's much much more likely to happen through social contagion than ex nilo but it's always the kind of thing that might happen.

how do skeptics of "endogenous" transgender feelings explain historical cases?

Do you have someone in mind, here? Like, I vaguely recall an essay by Alex Byrne suggesting that the notion of "feeling" a certain gender seems incoherent, under the rubric of socially constructed gender. But that kind of thinking, with gender distinct from sex, is very mid-20th century (Simone de Beauvoir) on. Historical cases don't really deal in gender differences without also addressing sex and sexuality; individual cases differ, but the text confirms my expectation that a 1979 Playboy reader would naturally assume transsexuals to also be homosexuals. Why imitate the dress and behavior of a sexually available woman if you were not trying to attract sexual attention from men (or, perhaps homosexual women)? The endogenous feeling there would be homosexuality, of which transsexuality would be a symptom. Autogynephilia would also qualify as endogenous without being a gender feeling. Historical examples aren't hard to explain with just-so stories either way. Noticing, say, the boom in rapid onset gender dysphoria in adolescent girls is not the same thing as committing oneself to the position that transsexuality is strictly a social contagion. So it seems like you need to be more specific about which argument you think you're undermining, here.

she was born in 1939 and had transgender feelings as a child

I have never heard anyone make a claim like this in a way that seemed really believable to me--much like my expectation that people who claim to have seen miracles are more likely to be either foolish or lying, than to have actually seen miracles, no matter how honest they seem to be. I find it far easier to believe that "I had trans feelings as a kid" is a retrospective gloss, or even deliberate self deception, than that a child has specifically "transgender" feelings. Children often reject the gender roles imposed upon them, but part of the problem here is--how do you know you "feel like a girl" if you've never been one? Wanting to fill a cultural role assigned to the opposite sex is something many, maybe most people experience on occasion. Cranking that all the way to "no, I just am fe/male" simply elevates such feelings to the level of an insistent delusion. The addition of social "support" for that kind of thinking probably makes it easier to sell the obvious lie to oneself, or to sort of emotionally sanitize homosexual or autogynephilic drives.

Not to put too fine a point on it, but sexual psychology is really screwy. Humans have sex with animals. Humans have sex with trees. Jeff Bezos, a human billionaire, left his attractive and long-suffering wife for sex with a second-rate journalist made mostly of plastic. Why wouldn't there be people out there who get off on cross-dressing or whatever; that may be one of the least weird things humans have done, sexually. The trans advocacy community works really hard to insist that gender isn't a sex thing, but I think that is ultimately just empirically false. Your brain does not contain separate wiring for sex and gender. It's all one big, thoroughly interconnected mess. That is how "trans" cases can come to exist even in the absence of social contagion: the same way every other psychosexual phenomenon comes to exist! Through the interaction of reproductive drives (normal, pathological, or otherwise), personal circumstances, and cultural norms.

The trans advocacy community works really hard to insist that gender isn't a sex thing, but I think that is ultimately just empirically false. Your brain does not contain separate wiring for sex and gender

How, then, do you explain the existence of large numbers of asexual trans people? (I mean, you could argue it's still a particular configuration of a single "sex-and-gender" neural knot in the brain, rather than two unrelated phenomena. But when people say "trans isn't a sex thing" they mean "it isn't a kink pursued for sexual gratification". Brain wiring isn't really the point.)

Do you mean asexual as in no sex with people, or no masturbation either?

Fucking with hormones does a number on sex drives.

I mean, you could argue it's still a particular configuration of a single "sex-and-gender" neural knot in the brain, rather than two unrelated phenomena.

Yes.

But when people say "trans isn't a sex thing" they mean "it isn't a kink pursued for sexual gratification".

I regard this as far too narrow a sense of "sexual gratification." The archetypal case for autogynephilia is something like "imagining yourself as a woman helps you achieve orgasm." But then stuff like penectomies or even HRT are known to make orgasm more difficult, or even impossible, to achieve, so you might expect autogynephiles to avoid those things, given that "achieve orgasm" was the whole point of the exercise. But there are other forms of "sexual gratification" than just orgasm; there is for example sexual gratification in simply being perceived as sexually desirable. For someone who is for whatever reason averse to sex, or indifferent to it, not being perceived as an object of sexual desire is a strictly sexual form of gratification.

All forms of sexuality, a-, trans-, homo-, hetero-, or otherwise, are by definition sexual in nature, and gratification does not refer exclusively to orgasm or even to specifically coital pleasure, but to gratification that is sexual in nature. If we accept the (questionable) move of separating them from "gender" and making that word refer only and exclusively to the sociological phenomena that supervene on sex, those phenomena still supervene on sex. Many 20th century feminists understood this, which is why they advocated for the abolition of gender distinctions, rather than merely the decoupling of gender from sex. By reifying traditional gender norms through dubious metaphysical claims about one's "real" gender, today's trans advocacy routinely operates directly against its own intellectual foundations.

Which ones do you mean? FtM asexuals are, in my experience, mostly very average women with feminine personalities, who first mistake the normal & expected unpleasantness of puberty as gender dysphoria, and then it's easy to further mistake the normal low feminine sex drive as anomalous, both due to being consistently misinformed about the nature of sex and sexual development.

MtFs, similar to furry asexuals, posting habits and behaviour clearly seem to imply them deriving sexual pleasure from their interactions, it's merely that they don't like the act of sex itself. Which is not unusual for strong fetishes, think findom or other variants of the more elaborate sub-dom relationships. Excluding the cases that simply lie about or downplay their impulses, of course, which also isn't particularly rare.

Edit: Also, there additionally is the increasingly large number of people who treat their LGBT+ identity as a social club offering them a safe space, affirmation and simple slogans to live by in a world that only gets more complicated. From this PoV, it just means they want to belong to both these social clubs instead of only one.

FtM asexuals are, in my experience, mostly very average women with feminine personalities, who first mistake the normal & expected unpleasantness of puberty as gender dysphoria, and then it's easy to further mistake the normal low feminine sex drive as anomalous, both due to being consistently misinformed about the nature of sex and sexual development.

What is your experience?

Short story is, me and my wife are both PhDs (me applied math, her psychology), so we have both met quite a few different varieties of nonbinary and trans individuals. Even back when studying we noticed that it's my spaces and in particular Computer Science that has several MtFs (and I've made the same observation in ultra-male online spaces such as mech-themed games or esoteric linux open source projects; they may be 10% female, but it's all G.I.R.L.s), while FtMs are mostly in her circles, particularly the social sciences. Standard gender theory would predict the opposite; And further, my wife (who is, ironically, one of the least feminine woman personality-wise I know) noticed in her interactions in her circle of friends that the majority of FtMs and nonbinaries have virtually no male hobbies, no masculine behaviour patterns, nothing.

When asked how they knew, they talk about how they disliked their growing breasts and how cumbersome they are (my wife does as well), how unpleasant the period is (duh), how scary the thought of pregnancy is (again, duh) how they don't want to be pressured into caring for kids and having to abandon their career (my wife, too), sometimes even how cismen are dirty and gross and they don't want to have sex with them (literally every women ever). It's basically a laundry list of all realisations and fears that many if not all girls get during puberty or slightly later, but instead of having to come to terms with it, they took the easy way out: Just reject it all. Their male identity, meanwhile, consists of superficialities, such as literally wearing lumberjack shirts, or even doing female-coded hobbies but with a male twist, such as really liking to cook, but they cook steaks. They're basically what women think men should be like, not what real men are actually like. Not rarely, they downright detest almost everything about real men as "toxic masculinity", such as competitiveness, dominance, playful insults, not talking about feelings, hierarchies, etc.

The same goes for students I'm teaching now, although it's obviously more distanced so I'm less confident here, but as far as I can see there is virtually no connection between their outward presentation of male-ness and actual masculine behaviour (or vice versa for MtFs).

Do you have someone in mind, here?

I was motivated by this comment, but I don't want to target a specific user with a question.

I have never heard anyone make a claim like this in a way that seemed really believable to me--much like my expectation that people who claim to have seen miracles are more likely to be either foolish or lying, than to have actually seen miracles, no matter how honest they seem to be...

How confident are you that you're not falling into a typical mind trap? (Scott references phantom sensations and "body maps," and phantom limb syndrome researchers found ~60% of transmen reported experiencing phantom penis sensations, when surveyed. I can't comment on brain scan interpretations, but there's a fair amount of evidence there's something neurological going on.) I can't relate to the experience described, but I disagree that it's more worthy of disbelief than any other internal experience.

The trans advocacy community works really hard to insist that gender isn't a sex thing, but I think that is ultimately just empirically false. Your brain does not contain separate wiring for sex and gender. It's all one big, thoroughly interconnected mess.

How was it empirically disproven?

How confident are you that you're not falling into a typical mind trap? (Scott references phantom sensations and "body maps," and phantom limb syndrome researchers found ~60% of transmen reported experiencing phantom penis sensations, when surveyed.

After more than a decade of masturbating to exclusively trans-porn, I did sometimes experience a "phantom vulva" sensation while masturbating, cross-dressing, and getting high on weed and whippets. But the power of repeated fantasy is probably enough to do the job on its own for a number of people. Autosuggestion is a hell of a drug.

Personally, I view the trans phenomenon as more of a disorder of desire than identity. The dominant social script confuses desire for identity

Nowadays I don't even masturbate. I just have sex with my wife and I never get any sensations or desires anywhere in the ballpark of this.

What anatomy and sex acts are you describing as "trans-porn" and how did the "phantom vulva sensation" manifest? I'm doubtful we should take your n=1 experience while "masturbating, cross-dressing, and getting high on weed and whippets," which have not persisted after you discontinued those behaviors, as applicable to others' lifelong experiences of gender identity and body incongruity, but I'm not too squeamish to continue the conversation...

phantom limb syndrome researchers found ~60% of transmen reported experiencing phantom penis sensations, when surveyed.

And why would you think that these self-reports prove anything to someone sceptical of gender self-reports? Do you think trans people dont understand that such phantom sensations would make them sound more "valid"?

I don't consider any one piece of data "proof," but the more evidence there is that's consistent with a claim, the greater the probability you should assign to the claim being true. I'm underwhelmed by that study, but transmen reporting phantom penis sensations in roughly the same proportion as post-penectomy cismales (as opposed to an overwhelming majority or small minority) is noteworthy, and could only be explained away as trans people fabricating evidence too sound more valid, if you thought the survey respondents coordinated to figure out which questions in the survey were testing the hypothesis, what would be a "positive" finding, and answer in the correct proportion.

You didnt mention the matching, I agree that is some evidence. Though they also find that 30% of mtf have phantom penises after bottom surgery, what do you think is happening here? If the phantom penis is caused by a body image where it should be there, then shouldnt the mtf be at ~0? They dont report any other results, but in my experience these things get a lot more complicated.

Though they also find that 30% of mtf have phantom penises after bottom surgery, what do you think is happening here? If the phantom penis is caused by a body image where it should be there, then shouldnt the mtf be at 0?

Again, I'm underwhelmed by the study/paper (which is a shame, because it's an interesting topic, which hasn't gotten much systematic study), but A) one also wonders why phantom limb or cismale phantom penis sensation rates aren't either 0% or 100% and B) I'm guessing that stumbling blocks in the brain "remapping" nerve endings after anatomy is transformed is different than the brain's response to amputation, making post-vaginoplasty phantom penis sensation worthy of study, but not dispositive of some sort of "latent female internal body image." (After all, the claimed rate is half that of cismen.) Low rates of transmale post-mastectomy phantom breast sensation (10% of transmen the study, vs 1/3 or more in ciswomen) would be more significant.

For another perspective on vaginoplasty and phantom penis sensations, here's a case report from the same year (pdf - includes surgical photos), in which Japanese vaginoplasty surgeons claim phantom penis sensations are sometimes experienced in the first few weeks after surgery, but one patient needed a revision surgery to remove excess erectile tissue. Ramachandran and McGeoch didn't include how long their MTF survey responders experienced phantom penis sensations, increasing the possibility of that finding being a red herring.

Im not sure I understand the things remaining after strikethrough, or at least the justification for it. "one also wonders why phantom limb or cismale phantom penis sensation rates aren't either 0% or... half that of cismen." Why is the half expected? "Low rates of transmale post-mastectomy phantom breast sensation (1/3 or more in ciswomen) would be more significant." Was that number supposed to have a cite?

Ramachandran and McGeoch didn't include how long their MTF survey responders experienced phantom penis sensations

We also dont know how long cis males getting penectomy experience them - if it fades over time, then its presumably a different phenomenon from the pre-op trans version, and the similar number just coincidence.

The strike-through is unintentional, due to me using the "approximately" symbol.

I don't know, but I'd default to guessing that post-penectomy phantom penis sensations are as persistent as any other post-amputation phantom sensation, absent a reason to think otherwise.

there's a fair amount of evidence there's something neurological going on

No, there isn't.

I'd be happy to know of any evidence that hasn't been discredited, if only because it'd be a first lead as to the cause of GD, but as far as I know there is no such thing. Brain scan studies cannot be used because there simply isn't enough datapoints available to produce anything but noise.

No, there isn't.

Thanks for the paper.

I can't comment on brain scan interpretations, but there's a fair amount of evidence there's something neurological going on.

At least one of these much-touted studies was hopelessly confounded by the fact that it was examining the brains of deceased trans women postmortem, all of whom had been on HRT for years if not decades prior to their deaths. Ergo, impossible to determine if genetics or hormones was the cause of their atypical brain structures (if indeed they had them, given that the study in question failed to replicate).

How was it empirically disproven?

I don't put much trust in brain scan studies so I never bookmarked it, but there's a regular conversation between trans/anti-trans that goes something like:

- Here's a study that shows trans people's brains are literally more similar to the average of the gender they identify with.
- That study has failed to account for sexuality. A follow up that included it as a variable found that cis gay people also have brains more similar to the opposite sex, and that "trans brains" are indistinguishable from "cis gay brains".

How confident are you that you're not falling into a typical mind trap?

Pretty confident, because I'm not asserting something about my own experiences as any kind of baseline. I'm making a claim about the trustworthiness of internal claims for which there is overwhelming external counterevidence ("I feel like I really am a man" -> "This is not the body of a man").

~60% of transmen reported experiencing phantom penis sensations, when surveyed

This would be a more interesting result to me if scientists and society proceeded to then tell the other 40% of transmen "it would appear you are not actually trans." If "phantom penis sensations" are neither necessary nor sufficient to the definition of transsexuality in females, what's the difference? Trans identity is doubly vague, with both "gender" and "trans" subject to constant motte-and-baileying. To give a different example, if essentially all AIS-afflicted genetic males experienced serious gender dysphoria prior to receiving AIS diagnosis, that would weigh heavily, I think, in favor of the brain being "in tune" with sex and gender. But such results do not appear extant; AIS diagnosis often comes as a complete shock.

I disagree that it's more worthy of disbelief than any other internal experience.

Returning to this, then: I'm the one asserting that we should treat such claims the same as any other report of internal experience. You believe yourself to be Abraham Lincoln, or to be wolfkin, or to be talking to God? Okay, let's see some external evidence of that. Even our emotional states, which philosophers often treat as incorrigible and original, are often subjected to doubt: have you ever been told by someone, "I'm fine," when you could see on their face that they were definitely not "fine?" Psychology makes a nod to this in many diagnostic processes, look for words like "persistent" and "insistent" and "recurrent" in discussions of when to approve physician-assisted suicide, for example. See also: chronic pain! How can we know you are or are not hurting, when you come seeking drugs? "Internal experience" is very hard on medical practice! But we do at least somewhat insist on interrogating it in almost every context--in theory, even this one, though the weight of social pressure against that interrogation seems to only continue to grow.

Ultimately, I can think of ways you could, say, convince me that you're Abraham Lincoln, actually. But even if you walked me into your time machine and gave me a tour of history, it would be a goodly while into that tour before I accepted that I wasn't being fooled, somehow. Trans advocacy, meanwhile, seems entirely committed to the idea that proof is neither necessary nor sufficient for valid gender claims, even as they cherry-pick those studies which seem conveniently aligned. I have seen similarly cherry-picked studies proving the existence of miracles. In both cases, it's entirely possible that I'm wrong to doubt!

But I doubt it.

This would be a more interesting result to me if scientists and society proceeded to then tell the other 40% of transmen "it would appear you are not actually trans." If "phantom penis sensations" are neither necessary nor sufficient to the definition of transsexuality in females, what's the difference?

According to the paper's authors, 60-40 is also the approximate rate of cismale post-penectomy phantom penis sensation. Would you tell a penis-less cismale without phantom penis sensation "it appears you are not actually male?"

I don't claim there's definitive proof an individual claiming to be transgender can be proven to have the neurologic features of their self-identified gender (bailey), but rather that the known-unknowns of neurology don't allow us to disregard their claims (motte).

I'm the one asserting that we should treat such claims the same as any other report of internal experience. You believe yourself to be Abraham Lincoln, or to be wolfkin, or to be talking to God? Okay, let's see some external evidence of that.

External evidence of an internal experience seems impossible, unless you accept the subject's behavior as evidence, but getting sexual reassignment surgery seems like compelling evidence of a sincere belief.

Would you tell a penis-less cismale without phantom penis sensation "it appears you are not actually male?"

This is a non-sequitur. My point is that phantom sensations do not appear to tell us anything about the way the world is, and so cannot tell us anything about someone's "real" gender, which is what you appeared to be offering the example to do.

I don't claim there's definitive proof an individual claiming to be transgender can be proven to have the neurologic features of their self-identified gender (bailey), but rather that the known-unknowns of neurology don't allow us to disregard their claims (motte).

Yes, so far it does appear that your actual claim is "well they're self-reporting their feelings, who are we to disregard their internal experiences?" And my answer has been, and continues to be, that we make reasonable judgments about people's internal experiences all the time. You are just holding transsexuals to a lower standard on this metric than you appear willing to hold, well, apparently everyone else.

getting sexual reassignment surgery seems like compelling evidence of a sincere belief

So does murdering your children because God told you to do so. Delusional people are generally excruciatingly sincere in their beliefs.

Returning to this, then: I'm the one asserting that we should treat such claims the same as any other report of internal experience. You believe yourself to be Abraham Lincoln...

I think youre arguing that its not true, against sockpuppets claim that they really feel it is.

I think the rest of your comment deserves a full response, but for now:

Why wouldn't there be people out there who get off on cross-dressing or whatever;

Okay, but are there enough of them? If most trans people are crossdressing fetishists, then the prevalence of the latter should be a rough ceiling prevalence of trans people.

The first study I found with numbers on crossdressing prevalence was this one. 2.8% of men, 0.4% of women. Here is my choice for trans people, which suggests something like 0.2% of the population. Alright, there’s roughly 16x as many crossdressers as trans people. Sounds compatible with your model.

Except the gender ratios are pretty screwed up. This source talks about a 2:1 ratio. If being transgender is the extreme end of an incredibly skewed paraphilia, why does it show less of that skew?

(wait, this had better not be a regression-to-the-mean thing. I’ll check the math tomorrow.)

More importantly, the trend in that paper became less skewed over the last couple decades. Unless crossdressing has also become more egalitarian, that suggests something else is going on.

I don't think naraburns meant to say that transgender is the hot new thing for crossdressing enthusiasts, just that crossdressing is one of many sexuality related reasons for doing it. If you're a woman who got abused and doesn't want to be seen as a woman anymore, transitioning into a man is one way to do it, and that's still related to sexuality.

Point taken.

But “related to sexuality” isn’t really load-bearing. A big chunk of the politics leans on comparison to paraphilias. If being trans looks statistically different from crossdressing, or BDSM, or whatever else has gotten more popular since 2000, then it makes less sense to assert that it should be treated like those things.

It makes sense to me that different things framed differently can get more or less popular at different rates. With the amount of media coverage being dedicated to transgenders, it is likely more normie-coded than wearing assless leather out in public, giving cover to anyone undertaking the transgender path. I'd argue a huge part of the discourse is in trying to present an obviously sexual thing as not sexual at all. The way it's presented is "transgenders are just normal people like you and me trying to navigate their mental illness (even though dysphoria isn't actually a requirement in the public eye anymore), so most restrictions are hateful." I think that kind of framing would have a big impact on uptake of any paraphilia, or any trend at all, like T-shirt wearing or membership in a gun club or motorcycling.

I find it far easier to believe that "I had trans feelings as a kid" is a retrospective gloss, or even deliberate self deception, than that a child has specifically "transgender" feelings.

I definitely wanted to be a girl in some capacity as a child. But that's a desire, not an identity. I didn't "feel like a girl". That would be an incorrect interpretation of the feeling. I agree, someone of one sex cannot have any idea of what it feels like to be the other one.

The Trump-Musk friendship had already crumbled, but now it seems like it's actively imploding.

Musk went nuclear against Trump's "Big Beautiful Bill", calling it a "disgusting abomination". In response, the White House is "very disappointed" in the criticism. In other words, they're probably saying "fuck you, Elon" behind closed doors. Trump had previously been anomalously deferential to Musk, but if you read between the lines you could see there was trouble in paradise. Musk feuded with other members of the administration and Trump didn't back him up. Musk was causing enough chaos that he was starting to be seen as a political liability, and so Musk was somewhat gently pushed out of his role. People like Hanania who claimed the bromance would last have been proven incorrect, at least on this point.

Trump's budget is broadly awful, exploding the deficit to pay for regressive tax cuts, so I hope it dies.

What did Musk expect? Trump ran on eliminating the SALT cap, no tax on tips or overtime, and spending more money on the military for some reason. He's a sleazy politician who makes promises he thinks will sound good with no plan to pay for them.

My biggest disappointment has been in how MAGA more broadly has just rolled over and accepted this foolishness. Punishing politicians after they're elected is hard, but MAGA did this to at least some extent when Trump + Elon said we need tons of Indian immigration back at the start of the year. But besides that, they've just held a competition to see who can do the most goofy mental gymnastics to claim Trump is actually doing 7D Chess. Tariff flip flops, egregious corruption, exploding the deficit, incompetence, buffoonery, etc.

Tesla is Musk's biggest source of capital, and it's sales, at least in Europe, were fueled by virtue signalling. Now imagine the look on the face of the exact type of person, that wants to be seen as saving the planet, suddenly being seen as a Nazi instead. Tesla's sales are tanking accordingly, so I consider Elon to be a dead man walking, if he loses political backing. The drama being about the budget, I wonder if he wasn't hoping for some bailout to be included there, which didn't materialize.

Anyway, if being cut loose is a foregone conclusion, he might figure that he might as well drag everyone else down with him.

Trump's budget is broadly awful, exploding the deficit to pay for regressive tax cuts, so I hope it dies.

That's an interesting play, since a fair amount of Trump's base isn't so hot on exploding budgets, so maybe he'll manage to stir the pot this way. But these days it feels like the budget can only explode, and if anyone tried doing something crazy, like balancing it, the whole system would collapse.

If you want a top tier electric car these days, get a BYD, not a Tesla. Tesla only has the best self driving these days and if that's not important to you or you don't think regulations will permit it in your jurisdiction any time soon there's no reason to go Tesla anymore. It has nothing to do with virtue signalling.

It has nothing to do with virtue signalling.

I don't know what to tell you man, from my neighbors to coworkers, it's a very specific type of person that even thinks of buying an EV.

Interesting. From my neighbours and coworkers the only people even looking at ICE cars these days are petrolheads who like the vroom vroom. If you're not one of those in my circles if you're buying a new car nobody even considers anything not electric. Used cars sure people still care about petrol models but that too is a declining portion.

I don't know if you include hybrids in that but I see plenty of people getting hybrids. Its a combination of lack of charging infrastructure and perhaps a Sweden specific issue (in the context of Europe) of people genuinely driving longer distances relatively regularly, leading to range issues. This is not at all a question of cost, seeing as hybrids are as or even more expensive than pure electric.

Its about 50/50 with electric and hybrids sales.

Aren't you some London finance quant? The only way to get less representative of the average European from that is if you married into literal aristocracy.

Sure, I fully admit that my circles are not representative of the general population, but trends like these generally percolate down over like a decade to the common man. And btw, I'm personally looking at getting a BYD Sealion (which btw, at 522 bhp has an engine basically as powerful as a Jaguar XJ220 for the petrolheads,) at some point, which can hardly be called a luxury car.

ICE cars make noise and little else. Electric cars are like your very own quiet and dependable yet extremely powerful vahana.

Percolation will depend on how cost effective the tech gets. It might happen at some point, but until then EV's will mostly be a matter of virtue signalling.

And even if it does happen, it's a separate question if Tesla pulls it off, or gets outpaced by competitors.

Evs are already superior than gas vehicles for a small but growing proportion of use cases. Fully 2/3rds of my trips happen by electric unicycle these days, and once i hit that my mileage goal (2000 miles, enough to pay for the uni by counting avoided gas spending and depreciation on my car) I'll upgrade to a faster suspension wheel and interested that proportion even further.

For a single person (or pair of adults) in an urban area, EVs and PEVs are great and getting better.

More comments

Sure, but we're talking about the average person who buys an EV, which is already a very small portion of the population in the first place.

If the circles he's describing were the majority of EV owners, why would car companies bother making anything other than luxury car EVs, and gas powered cars for the middle class?

Absolutely this. Firstly the choice to want an EV in the first place is purely virtue signalling - nobody I know ever justified it with anything other than highfalutin saving-the-planet rethoric - and secondly the choice to not pick a Tesla might have been justified by practicality, but let's be frank: it isn't. What it is is "Musk man bad". EVs are like anything related to the whole "carbon is killing the planet" narrative and its associated Ablaßhandel (Indulgence/Pardon Industry) - 100% virtue signalling.

It's so very obvious that as far as I'm concerned, any claim to the contrary will need thorough justification. I'd have to contort myself into a pretzel of charity to pretend otherwise.

I broadly agree. For a certain subset of owners, they've literally labeled themselves as virtue signalers.

I have now seen Tesla's with bumper stickers that read "I bought this before Elon was a Nazi" or something to that effect.

Publicly broadcasting that you feel the need to qualify your previous purchase with a political semi-re-(un?)-justification is a sign of deep commitment to virtue signalling above all other considerations. I have zero tolerance for such people.

Regarding EVs in general, while I am not categorically against them, they still fail a very simply problem for me that gas 100% solves (and has for sometime).

Say that I am in the mountains (because I am!) I want to drive around to some various trails and fishing spots and whatnot. Uh-oh, running low on gas, and I'm 30 miles from a gas station. Thankfully, I've got a 5 gallon gas can on the outside of my truck.

With an EV, I don't believe a "pony battery" is possible? Correct me if I'm wrong. Even more to the point, with US infrastructure construction permitting being what it is, how long would it realistically take to get EV supercharger stations in all of the same rural locations that currently have well functioning gas stations?

This points to another issue with EVs but Tesla's specifically. The people who are really into them are inherently bought in to the idea of complex system dependency. It's hilarious to me that, in Teslas, if your car needs a software update - you can't drive it. If your main dashboard panel breaks for whatever reason, you can't roll your windows down. When planning a road trip, the Tesla software cannot simply plot the fastest route from A to B, but it must factor in recharging stations and battery life. Because of how battery recharging works, you will also likely be driving at between 20 - 50% charge for much of the time. Hilarious. How do we use this complex system we've created? Well, we hack it so that it kind of works in a counter-intuitive way. Also, don't deviate from your pre-planned course to much.

This is the very definition of over-engineered. But, I believe, for many Tesla owners, that is also the very point.

I broadly agree. For a certain subset of owners, they've literally labeled themselves as virtue signalers.

I have now seen Tesla's with bumper stickers that read "I bought this before Elon was a Nazi" or something to that effect.

They are showing themselves to be virtue signalers, but that doesn't mean they bought an EV to signal how much they cared about the environment. It just means they claim they wouldn't buy a Tesla in 2025, which is just being sensitive to social stigma; perhaps it also means engaging in political boycotts.

Firstly the choice to want an EV in the first place is purely virtue signalling - nobody I know ever justified it with anything other than highfalutin saving-the-planet rhetoric

This really is way out of date. For a lot of people in cities and suburbs, 99% of driving tasks are within a hundred miles or so of home and an EV provides lower TCO, the more so the more miles you drive. It especially makes sense for a family that already has an ICE car to use for road trips. I am even aware of militia-adjacent preppers that are high on EVs due to being able to fully sustain them off the grid.

I personally will probably want to replace my 2012 Fusion at some point in the next few years and am waffling between EV or ICE. I don't tend to drive a lot of miles so TCO is probably a wash unless gas prices go way up, but the raw performance of electric and idea of being able to "refuel" in my own garage is really appealing. Having to charge on road trips is the biggest downside.

Firstly the choice to want an EV in the first place is purely virtue signalling - nobody I know ever justified it with anything other than highfalutin saving-the-planet rethoric

I do not think that climate change is an x-risk. I do not even believe that climate change will necessarily flood big parts of the landmasses, likely we can handle a few meters of sea level rise the Netherlands way.

However, this is not the same as saying that it is not a big deal. The amount of population regions can feed will definitely change, and often for the worse.

Besides CO2, there are a few other arguments against ICEs. First, as long as fossil fuels are the lifeblood of transportation, the world will always be beholden to the few countries which are blessed with that resource. GWB's misadventure in Iraq was a consequence of that region having oil and thus being of strategic importance to the US and his buddies.

Then there are regional health effects of minor combustion products. I will totally grant you that ICEs have improved tremendously since the 1970s in that regard. Still, depending on where you live, my gut feeling is that these products might still make up a good fraction of a QALY for you. Even if you don't care personally, it should be apparent that society is caring more and more for these things over time. If you by a fancy new ICE car today, there is perhaps a 10% chance that you will not be allowed to drive it withing some European cities without retrofitting more exhaust cleaning in a decade.

Then you might believe that the gas prices will increase more than the electricity prices in the long run.

Also, while modern ICEs are marvels of technology which evolved to be very reliably over a century, the fact remains that fundamentally, they are complex machines. In principle, an EV could be a lot simpler. In practice, we don't know yet (apart from the battery requiring replacement at some point).

and secondly the choice to not pick a Tesla might have been justified by practicality, but let's be frank: it isn't. What it is is "Musk man bad".

Personally, I would not have bought either a Tesla or a high end German EV because I don't care for the status symbol aspect and want a car where I do not have to freak out about every minor dent. Other than that, of course people pick brands based on politics. If Apple's CEO made a statement defending Nethanyahu's operations in Gaza, of course Apple sales would plummet. If a fast-food chain sponsored a campaign to lower the age of consent to five years, they would find that most of their customers would take their business elsewhere. When Putin attacked Ukraine, Europe became a lot less interested in buying his gas, even though the gas had not changed at all.

Most tech CEOs know better than to get openly involved in partisan politics. Musk made the business decision that the goodwill of a Trump administration he had loudly backed before would be worth the hit to his brands, or at least better for him than a Harris administration he had stayed neutral about.

Just this past week my wife and I have been discussing replacing a ten year old ICE car with an EV. The main motivations are simpler maintenance and charging from our solar panels.

Firstly the choice to want an EV in the first place is purely virtue signalling - nobody I know ever justified it with anything other than highfalutin saving-the-planet rethoric

This could very well be true in the US, but at least in Western Europe, governments subsidise the hell out of EVs through either direct subsidies to the manufacturers and distributers or indirect tax subsidies, and some cities (London, Paris, I assume others) explicitly discourage or even disallow non-EVs from certain areas.

Because of this, if you are in Europe and are:

  1. A company purchasing a fleet of cars,
  2. An urban professional,

It's probably in your best interest financially to buy an EV, or at the very least a hybrid.

You could argue this is second-hand virtue signalling, but the end purchaser who will make the decision as to what they buy is probably thinking mostly of practicality. I currently drive a hybrid purely for financial reasons (and since having owned it, I am far more partial to EVs and would consider them in future), and most of the people I know who drive EVs do so either for tax purposes or because they live in an urban area.

And both of these purchasers would be particularly attuned to the inverse-virtue-signalling presently associated with purchasing a Tesla (e.g. I am aware of a European company that has this year taken every Tesla off of its 'approved vehicles' list for company cars, and when pressed on why, they said they didn't want the brand "associated with any political direction"). This means that even if the initial purchase was primarily a financial decision rather than virtue signaling, you can still then be swayed by "Musk man bad".

and some cities (London, Paris, I assume others) explicitly discourage or even disallow non-EVs from certain areas.

I've lived in cities with emission norms, and even diesels are allowed in as long as they're relatively new. London and Paris might have gone literally zero emission, though I've never had to drive in either so can't confirm, and they'd be an exception.

Subsidies don't seem to be enough to sway any normie I've met, and the type of person I've met that has an EV still very much fits into the profile we were discussing with Southkraut.

I've lived in cities with emission norms, and even diesels are allowed in as long as they're relatively new. London and Paris might have gone literally zero emission, though I've never had to drive in either so can't confirm, and they'd be an exception.

EVs are exempt from the London Congestion Charge (to be replaced with a 50% discount from next year) and get discounts on residents' parking permits in most boroughs. But there isn't anywhere EVs can go where petrol or diesel cars can't. But the direct subsidies to EVs are lower in Europe than in the US - the big difference is that the running cost advantage of an EV is larger because petrol is more expensive here.

Essentially all minicabs on London streets (including Ubers) are hybrids - a quick check of the stats suggests that EVs are about 20% of the UK new car market and hybrids about 25%. Note that fleet purchases are (unusually by global standards) 60% of the market in the UK - this is part of why Tesla's market share is so low - they don't put much effort into fleet sales.

Fair points. I live in the countryside, so urban concerns are somewhat invisible to me.

That makes sense and in itself reflects a much larger problem: often, policies regarding EV mandates are made with urban areas in mind, where the infrastructure is in the process of being entirely revamped to suit them at the expense of ICE vehicles, whereas once you drive five minutes outside the capital, you can't find a charger, you can't find an EV dealer, and your income drops below the required amount to purchase one in the first place.

Even though my preference is towards EVs for a multitude of reasons, if I lived rural there's no chance in hell I'd use one. Getting off-topic here but it's one of the major reasons I feel EVs have found less uptake in the USA, Canada, and Australia when compared to Europe, which then gets retrofitted to more sensationalist cultural/political lines.

I'll bite. I have an EV, and it had nothing to do with virtue signalling (and being "green" was little more than an afterthought). I bought an EV because when I was looking for new cars, I tried them out and loved them. The torque, the smooth ride, the lack of vibrations, noise, or smell. I will probably never go back to ICE. The convenience of never having to go to a gas station or get an oil change again really is awesome.

It does of course come with some caveats: I was able to put a charger in my garage. Charging at home is the real game-changer for EVs. And I mostly only drive locally. @100ProofTollBooth is right that I wouldn't choose it for a "go explore remote mountain trails" car. (That said, modern EVs have a 300+ mile range, so it's not that easy to run out of battery without very poor planning.)

Also, I did not buy a Tesla, and again, not because I have Musk Derangement Syndrome. Teslas have the best software, generally, but other than that, a lot of EV makers beat them on comfort and performance (and I just don't like having everything be controlled by a tablet).

Weird, I realize we're playing dueling anecdotes but I can't remember a single person I know talking about the environmental aspects of their Tesla. The comments they make generally included some mix of:

-- SEE HOW FUCKING FAST IT IS, 0-60 under 4 seconds, it has power instantly, etc...

-- I never have to get gas, sometimes justly limited to convenience but often with fuzzy math about costs

-- It's cool looking

-- It's an amazing feat of engineering

But never anything about the environment. Of course, I live in a much more rural area, so maybe people who live in more urban areas are making "excuses" for owning a car at all, where my compatriots are assuming that any functional middle class man must own a car? They might well have made the choice for environmental reasons privately and choose not to say so to me, but I know a lot of prius owners who talked about environmental reasons for their choices.

Certainly the idea that Tesla can only sell cars through left wing virtue signaling is belied by the number of cybertrucks on the road.

Weird, I realize we're playing dueling anecdotes but I can't remember a single person I know talking about the environmental aspects of their Tesla.

Where are you from, roughly?

Europe can be very weird about this sort of stuff. My wife got an e-bike figuring it'll be a bit healthier to get off her ass, even if assisted by electricity, and the whole office was oohing and aahing over her "social awareness" for weeks.

belied by the number of cybertrucks on the road.

Oh, must be America, I think they're illegal here.

Ha. Me and my wife are one of the few people in our circle of acquantainces who don't own a car, and quite a few of them (themselves owning cars!) instantly started treating us like green compatriots. Led to a few awkward moments when they became aware that we're not only doing it out of money concerns (work, daycare and shopping is all easily reachable by bike in less than 10 minutes for us, and we don't travel that much) but that we are ideologically most aligned with pragmatist center-libertarian views. And that's despite hiding our power levels.

I'm right where the northeast boswash megalopolis gives way to farm country, the last highway exit on the east coast. Twenty minutes east I'm at a small city LGBT center, twenty minutes west I'm at an Amish farm stand.

Wawa nationalist

Yeah, that checks out.

Soon brother, soon.

It's a gag, obviously, but also... I really do, when I think about it, feel most at home in the geographic territory of Wawa, so roughly between I-80 and the Outer Banks, and east of the Appalachians. That's basically my homeland.

More comments

I am now nearly certain we live within 100 miles of one another.

We must never meet. My mental image of you is as a 7'9" Ajax hurling kettlebells at random passers-by a la Donkey Kong. I cannot support the dismantling of that fiction.

If you ever wanna grab a Yuengling, just slide into my DMs I'm buying.

You'll have to go to good ol' @WhiningCoil for the great kettlebell exploits, though.

The genius of Musk was not to invent the electric car, there were EVs on the market before Tesla was a thing. The difference was that these cars were very clearly not performing as well as ICE cars given and more expensive.

By contrast, a Tesla is (I think) on par with high-end ICE cars in how much fun it is to drive. For example, if you wanted a car to impress women in 2014, I think you could do worse than a Tesla: not only is is as good a status symbol as a fancy German car, but you will also get bonus points with any woman worrying about climate change.

The fact that fancy German car makers now produce electric vehicles is mostly due to Tesla's success.

But these days it feels like the budget can only explode, and if anyone tried doing something crazy, like balancing it, the whole system would collapse.

If we wanted to reduce healthcare spending's share of the economy back to where it was in 2000 under Bill Clinton (Most of the increase occurred under George W. Bush. Obamacare just froze it in place.), we'd have to cut it by 25%. This would cause a drop in GDP roughly equivalent to the 2008 recession.

Health spending is especially troublesome because it blows up government budgets and private spending largely draws from the same middle to upper-middle class taxpayers (If we wanted to be elegant, take the SALT caucus as avatars of this.) whose taxes would need to increase to balance the budget.

Even otherwise decent red state GOP governments have done nothing to address health spending in their locales.

Tesla is Musk's biggest source of capital

Not anymore, surprisingly. Musk owns about an eighth of Tesla, for about $125B of market cap (if he could sell it all without tanking the stock, which he can't, but that applies to all his equities), but he's got over 40% of SpaceX, which at its latest valuation gives him more like $135B capital there.

Tesla's sales are tanking accordingly

Nah, but they've been flat for 2 years after skyrocketing for the previous 2, which is nearly as bad a change for anyone holding stock at a P/E justified by future growth.

a fair amount of Trump's base isn't so hot on exploding budgets

That's true, but it's not the budget that'll explode (except for the military, by like 25%?), it's just the deficit, via tax cuts. And nearly all Trump's base (like most other Republicans and probably most Democrats, to be fair) are fine taking lower taxes now at the cost of larger but more complicated fiscal and monetary problems at some uncertain future date.

but he's got over 40% of SpaceX, which at its latest valuation gives him more like $135B capital there.

Was it actually sold to anyone at that price? Even stonk market valuations are often nothing more than memes, but at least they have an advantage of being an actual market price.

Nah, but they've been flat for 2 years after skyrocketing for the previous 2.

-13% worldwide sounds like declining, especially with the rest of the EV market growing. -50% in Europe does indeed sound like "tanking".

Was it actually sold to anyone at that price?

$1.25B of it, to "SpaceX, as well as investors" - it was partially a stock buyback.

-13% worldwide sounds like declining, especially with the rest of the EV market growing. -50% in Europe does indeed sound like "tanking".

Yeah, that's all fair. I was looking at total revenue trailing 12 months, but was misled by both the "total" (declining auto revenue is partly offset by rising energy production+storage revenue) and "12 months" (the last released quarter specifically looks awful; I guess people weren't expecting Trump to win and really focus the anti-Elon hate?) parts of that.

He does still have an uncontested dominance of spaceflight... Pretty far from dead man walking IMO!

Plus Tesla is by far the largest electric car producer in America, it's not like they'll allow Chinese competition in America. They have one of the world's biggest markets locked down. Europe has always favoured European vehicles, it's understandable that Volkswagen is in the lead there.

He does still have an uncontested dominance of spaceflight... Pretty far from dead man walking IMO!

The competition is catching up, and Starship has so far been nothing but a money furnace. Unless you show me how much money he's making from it, clean, I stand by my words.

Plus Tesla is by far the largest electric car producer in America,

Where sales are also declining, and there's no product on the horizon to reverse the trend. The money was thrown into gimmicks that are either proven abortions like the CyberTruck, or ones that are likely to follow it's fate, like Semi, Robotaxi/Cybercab, or Optimus. No sign of Roadster, that a bunch of people are actually waiting for.

Having the market locked down means nothing. Blues will sooner return to gasoline cars before supporting Musk, and Reds weren't ever that hot on EVs to begin with. He Budweiser'd himself.

Europe has always favoured European vehicles, it's understandable that Volkswagen is in the lead there.

This wasn't the case until very recently. Most EV's I see on the road that I see are still Teslas.

SpaceX has a hell of a lot of long-term government and military contracts. Blue Origin is about the only other company that might end up being major competition, eventually, but only in the long term. Blue Origin currently has its own major problems and dysfunctions and doesn’t have much actual developed capability yet. SpaceX’s only actual peer competitor, Roscosmos, is now unavailable in the Western market for security reasons, due to being owned by the government of a now-hostile state.

Starship is just the flashy sports car to create brand awareness, and potentially develop future capabilities. It’s not the bread and butter. The cost of the Starship project is quite small compared to the SpaceX bottom line and even if it flames out completely it’s not going to even get close to tanking the whole company.

SpaceX has a hell of a lot of long-term government and military contracts.

Yes, some of them are even nearly overdue, and are fixed priced, no matter how many Starships get blown up!

Starship is just the flashy sports car to create brand awareness, and potentially develop future capabilities.

His Artemis contract depends on it working, and even then I have huge doubts about their galaxy-brained plan of a dozen refuels per trip to the moon.

The cost of the Starship project is quite small compared to the SpaceX bottom line

1-2 billion per year according to Musk himself. What's their bottom line?

SpaceX has a hell of a lot of long-term government and military contracts.

Yeah, and those are getting to be less important. SpaceX used to have relatively equal revenues from government vs private launches, and nothing else; today they have larger but still relatively equal revenues from government vs private launches, but the sum is being dwarfed by Starlink subscriptions. Even when they get a peer competitor for launch provision, that competitor is going to need some time to launch a competitor to SpaceX's several-thousand-satellite constellation.

Blue Origin currently has its own major problems and dysfunctions and doesn’t have much actual developed capability yet.

Well, they've had one successful launch (albeit with an unsuccessful booster recovery) of a rocket that's aiming at roughly twice the payload of Falcon 9 for the same price. Their development's been extremely slow but it's likely to start ramping up soon and they've got incredibly deep pockets to keep trying.

SpaceX’s only actual peer competitor, Roscosmos

If you mean present peer competitor, Roscosmos doesn't make the cut. Dozens of launches a year is nice, but it's not hundreds. SpaceX has no present peer competitors.

If you mean future peer competitor, there's a pretty wide field of relatively near-term possibilities. China's got a half dozen space startups working on Falcon 9 class vehicles; none are at SpaceX's level yet but like 4 of them have at least reached orbit. Rocket Lab has put Electron in orbit dozens of times now and Neutron should be a decent Falcon 9 competitor. Firefly has made orbit a few times, and (after launching on a Falcon 9, admittedly) was the first commercial company to successfully soft-land on the moon. Relativity Space and Stoke are long shots right now, but Stoke is an interesting long shot working on full reusability.

Starship is just the flashy sports car to create brand awareness, and potentially develop future capabilities. It’s not the bread and butter. The cost of the Starship project is quite small compared to the SpaceX bottom line and even if it flames out completely it’s not going to even get close to tanking the whole company.

Yeah, but SpaceX needs the future capabilities to continue being SpaceX. Mass delivery of remote high-speed internet is a sweet cash cow, but it's not The Dream that got a bunch of high talent to work for them for super-long hours at barely-competitive salaries. Falcon rockets won't take anybody to Mars, and SpaceX without the driving goal of putting humanity on Mars would just turn into another decaying Boeing.

Also, the Starship program is also pretty significant a cost still. They've spent like $5B over the project lifetime, and are ramping up hard now, probably nearly $2B this year out of revenues of maybe $15B. It makes sense, since they're probably also spending like $2B this year on Starlink launches and are salivating at the prospect of cutting that by an order of magnitude while increasing capacity, but it only makes sense if it eventually works. Everybody used to say that the R&D to make Falcon 9 reusable was a waste, that it would never pay for itself, and they were so wrong about that that nobody thoughtful seems to dare to suggest the same for Starship, but it's still not impossible that they just can't get cheap second stage reuse working and the pessimism will turn out to be right this time.

China's got a half dozen space startups working on Falcon 9 class vehicles; none are at SpaceX's level yet but like 4 of them have at least reached orbit.

Alright so which one of those half dozen Chinese start-ups will the US government trust to launch its incredibly classified spy satellites?

Spy satellites contribute so little to the total mass to orbit that you never even needed SpaceX for that (i don't consider Starlink a primarily national security project, because it's not).

For delivering payloads, including probably international ones, China will begin catching up next year. I do not assume that Americans will be contracting them, no, so in that sense SpaceX is poised to maintain its near-monopoly.

It is believed that the crop of reusable rocket startups is attributable to Robin Li, the founder of Baidu, getting into National People's Congress, and advocating for legalization of private space businesses in 2010s. So far, there have been three Chinese entities that have conducted VTOL tests for reusable rockets.

  1. China Aerospace Science and Technology Corporation (CASC), June 23, 2024
  2. LandSpace, September 11, 2024
  3. Space Epoch, May 29, 2025

There are others which are further behind.

Technologically, they are several iterations behind, but strategically I'd say they save significant advantages over the current SpaceX (a usual feature of Chinese fast-following). For example Space Epoch Yuanxingzhe-1 is basically a small Starship (or a better, thicker Falcon-9, if Falcon-9 were designed today). Stainless steel, metholox, will naturally plug into the existing and state-subsidized logistics, including military facilities that currently produce aviation parts (as a small point, Falcon's extreme height-to-width ratio is obviously suboptimal and downstream of American highway standards, but China had no problem building dedicated roads). LandSpace Zhuque-3 VTVL-1 is similar (they can boast of the first metholox engine to make it to orbit).

But as you rightfully notice, it's not clear if this will have much effect on the SpaceX bottom line, since Americans can saturate their cadence anyway. In all likelihood it will only unnerve some people in Washington as a symbolic thing.

Well if you assume that all Musk's projects will fail, then yes I would agree that he's a dead man warning.

Sometimes Musk succeeds and other times he fails. His attempt to make his own Dojo AI chip failed. But he's doing pretty well on AI with Nvidia chips, Grok 3 is better than anything Facebook, Microsoft or Amazon has come up with.

Maybe Starship fails, maybe it succeeds. If there was no Starship wouldn't you say something like 'oh the competition is catching up, how is he going to stay ahead, there's no product on the horizon'? Developing new products isn't easy, rockets have been known to fail. Who even is the competition? The entire Chinese state and private sector? Bezos who just got into orbit in 2025? ULA? ESA? SpaceX makes them all look puny.

What are the odds that all Musk's upcoming products fail? Robotaxis and Optimus will fail? Well then Tesla would be in a bad place. But how do you know that?

What is the track record of 'everything Musk does fails' in the grand scheme of things? I'm pretty sure you don't fail your way into hundreds of billions of dollars. The media has a skewed perspective on Musk. Whenever Tesla stock goes down we get a morality tale of 'evil never prospers' where you can just sense their glee, yet when Tesla stock goes up (up by 50% since March) there's a mysterious silence.

What is the track record of 'everything Musk does fails' in the grand scheme of things?

The issue is that the relevant reference class is arguably "everything Musk does since he became a druggie". Until Grok, the last thing a Musk company did that didn't suck was the Tesla Model Y launch in 2019, and that was a minor variant on the 3 - the last difficult thing was the Falcon Heavy in 2018. Since they we have seen the Cybertruck (yuck), the 2nd-gen Roadster (not), the Semi (kinda), the 25,000 USD Tesla (just cancelled), FSD (based on non-standard meanings of "full" and "self" and about 5 years behind Waymo), Starship (subject to rapid unscheduled dissassembly), a deeply underwhelming Boring Company, and Twitter ending up bailed out with XAI's VC money. Oh - and DOGE breaking things without actually cutting spending.

So the case for "Musk has lost the secret sauce" is quite strong. The case for "Musk still has it" is being made by people who are already calling Starship and FSD as successes. The case for "Musk has mostly lost it, but is investable anyway" is that one Grok makes up for a lot of flops.

The bull case for Tesla is based on a pivot to a new AI/robotics business that doesn't exist yet. (Even Tesla bulls don't think the core automotive business is worth more than about 5x10^11 USD), so enough people still believe that Musk can do it again to keep buying the shares.

As the ancient saying goes: post shorts.

I'm still skeptical of 'Musk cooked his brain with drugs' as a narrative. Have any of these commentators actually met the guy? Or are they familiar with him through media only? If we believed the media on Putin, he was supposed to have died of Alzheimer's, Parkinson's, cancer and maybe another dozen things by now. But this isn't so. Just because journalists don't like him, he isn't necessarily in ill health.

Plus you're forgetting the brain implants that let a guy play games while completely disabled, Neuralink is state-of-the-art albeit not a revolutionary breakthrough. What about the satellite network that kept Ukraine in the fight? What about nuking Kamala's election chances?

Roughly 1 major development per year is still pretty impressive! At the risk of sounding like a redditor 10 years ago, how is he not the modern Tony Stark? Ridiculously wealthy, unrealistically multi-domain, extremely controversial womanizer with outrageously grandiose dreams, extremely petty and lacking in wisdom, highly idealistic, plus significant but not obviously debilitating drug issues.

What kind of unrealistic standard requires one not to ever fail, or not fail several times in succession? Facebook's AI and VR programs have been failures yet they're successful. Google's past is littered with failures, they're infamous for making and abandoning products. But they're still successful. If the media was constantly constructing a 'Google is really fucked this time' narrative, then lots of people would believe it.

The competition is catching up, and Starship has so far been nothing but a money furnace. Unless you show me how much money he's making from it, clean, I stand by my words.

Lol, lmao even. The competition is quite literally being left on the ground while SpaceX is by far the most advanced launch company on (and leaving) Earth. This (pdf warning) is a handy little summary of 2024 launch activities. There were 263 total orbital launch attempts last year, of which 134 were SpaceX Falcon 9s (132 standards, 2 heavies). 133 of those attempts were successful, for a demonstrated reliability rate over 99%. So more than half of all launches last year were SpaceX, and they are more reliable than anyone else. But even this number vastly understates the actual capabilities gap. While numerically having 50% of the launches, the Falcon family put more than 90% of the total mass into orbit because they can carry substantially larger payloads than any of their competitors (the Falcon heavy in particular can roughly double anything else's mass to LEO). Putting the very large cherry on top is the fact that no one else is remotely close to cost-competitive with Falcon 9 below $3k per kg and Heavy below $2k per kg, while everyone else including the Chinese who use ICBM boosters and drop their rockets into populated villages all north of $5k per kg.

So the current state of play is that the SpaceX workhorse, the Falcon 9, is at a minimum twice as capable in cost and capacity metrics compared to all of the competition, while being substantially more technically advanced. Its the only rocket currently active that incorporates re-use in any meaningful fashion, its the only rocket currently flying with engine-out capability, and its the only rocket currently flying that can do school-bus style launches where customers can buy a small chunk of the total launch mass and get their payloads inserted into independent orbits.

Everyone else is just playing catch-up with the Falcon 9 at this point, and having a hard time with it. Its fair to say SpaceX is at least a generstion ahead on the general launch vehicle front. But the hell of it is the Falcon 9 is going to be made obsolete by Starship, which will be even cheaper and have vastly more payload capacity. Are there problems currently? Yes, absolutely, the block 2 second stage seems to have some very big problems. But the whole "catching the booster" thing seems to be fairly well solved, which is mind boggling. No one else has any true first-gen re-use capability for even their boosters, and SpaceX has a fairly well developed second gen platform. The second stage needs some work clearly, but you get optimized platforms by experimenting, and thats what they're doing.

I guess this all seems like fanboying, but it is wild to me that one of the most technically complex and expensive markets ever developed by humanity is so wildly skewed towards one participant based purely on execution and not things like massive government intervention/control (Long March, Arienne).

While numerically having 50% of the launches, the Falcon family put more than 90% of the total mass into orbit

Yes, I've heard all that. Most of these are in-house for Starlink, and Musk is on record screaming at his employees that without Starship they won't be making much (any? He just said "poor financials") money with it.

Just please, won't someone show the actual profit the company is making. Literally none of this "dominance" matters if it can't bail out his failing endeavors.

Just please, won't someone show the actual profit the company is making.

You are asking for non-public numbers that being a non-public company SpaceX is under no obligation to provide. The current best guess is that Starlink (and its defense version Starshield) account for roughly 2/3rds of the company's revenue, and since most of that is for actual services rather than hardware it probably has a decent profit margin, but everyone has their own assumptions.

I know Musk is one of the richest people on Earth, but even he doesn't have unlimited cash to throw at a failing endevour. Jeff Bezos is also one of the richest people on Earth, and his rocket company Blue Origin is actually older, but has done far, far less in that same timeframe. If I get to invest my own cash, I'd put it 100% with SpaceX.

You are asking for non-public numbers that being a non-public company SpaceX is under no obligation to provide

I know, that's my point. My entire argument is that he's setting money on fire for gimmicks, and that if said gimmicks won't provide an actual return on investment, the parts of his companies that are bringing in revenue won't be enough to cover for the losses. To that I'm met with an endless stream of "but look at all the launches" arguments, that never actually show said launches are bringing enough profit to bailout projects like Starship, let alone the decline of Tesla.

account for roughly 2/3rds of the company's revenue, and since most of that is for actual services rather than hardware it probably has a decent profit margin, but everyone has their own assumptions.

Even though they're not selling a lot of hardware, they still need to make a lot of it to maintain the service. Starlink satelites have a 5 year lifespan. They need to keep making, and putting them into orbit. If launching them with Falcon was enough to justify the company's existence, I doubt he'd be trying to make Starship the Next Big Thing so quickly.

I know Musk is one of the richest people on Earth, but even he doesn't have unlimited cash to throw at a failing endevour.

Correct, this is why I called him "a dead man walking".

Okay, but let me turn the argument around- prove that the launches are not making a profit. You say they are just setting money on fire. I say that is a ridiculously high number of launches to just burn piles of money on, it's an order of magnitude more than their nearest commercial competitor, and if they were not making money there is no way that even Musk could bankroll it. A handful of launches to prove concepts? Sure, its an investment. But you need paying customers within about your first 5 or 10 rockets, and you need to be making money not too long after that.

We have examples of what vanity space companies funded by billionaires look like- Virgin Galactic is one, Blue Origin another. SpaceX does not look very much like these companies. It does look a lot more like actually profitable commercial space launch entities like ULA and ATK, except with what appears to be far superior design and operations.

I professionally walk in aerospace circles, and while I dont work for SpaceX, I've worked with them on some stuff, and they by and large come off as an incredibly serious, cost-focused entity. Far more so than even "legacy space" they are beating the pants off of at the moment.

But the whole "catching the booster" thing seems to be fairly well solved, which is mind boggling.

I literally thought they were joking the first time I heard the "catch the rockets in giant robot arms" proposal. Under careful consideration it makes a ton of sense to keep as much mass and complexity as you can on the ground rather than attached to the rocket, but come on. Giant robot arms.

No one else has any true first-gen re-use capability for even their boosters, and SpaceX has a fairly well developed second gen platform.

New Glenn might be there soon: they successfully reached orbit using a booster that could in theory be landed and reused, even if that first attempt didn't survive reentry.

Maybe Electron too: they've recovered at least half a dozen orbital boosters (albeit via splashdown, not landing), and they've reflown an engine. I'd bet against them reflying a whole booster this year (splashdown is rough, and it sounds like their recovered boosters have only recently started passing any requalification tests), but I wouldn't bet a lot.

It is embarrassing for everyone else who thinks of themselves as a launch provider, though, isn't it? The first reflight of a new orbital booster design was done by SpaceX, and the second was again by SpaceX, now with a design ten times bigger.

based purely on execution and not things like massive government intervention/control (Long March, Arienne).

You say "massive government intervention/control" like it was a benefit rather than an obstacle. Government space used cost-plus contracts, tried to create as many jobs as possible with as many subcontractors as possible, considered commercial applications to be an afterthought to money-is-no-object military use cases, and ended up captured by contractors to the point where Senators wouldn't even allow NASA to talk about any ideas like orbital refueling that might undercut the most expensive contracts' justifications. The only way that kind of behavior can lead to market capture is by making the market look so unattractive that nobody with enough money to enter it would be insane enough to try.

The US space program started out as a massive government push, and during the heyday of the Apollo program NASA's budget went as high as 4.4% of the entire federal budget. It definitely got results, and its the reason any space program exists at all. Lots of bad behavior has definitely snuck in since those days, but without the whole Space Race thing there is zero chance we have anything like the industry we have today.

Looking at the rest of the globe there is a strong correlation between "has an actual space industry" and current or prior national level "Space Race"-tier efforts. I.e. Russia and China have actual launch capabilities, their direct geopolitical adversaries in Japan and India have developed fledgling capabilities in response (as has Israel due to similar threats), and then you get giant blocks of highly educated, wealthy, sophisticated nations that have somehow managed to produce what is recognized in official policy documents as more of a jobs handout than actual space program, mostly due to a complete lack of any initial kick in the butt.

Trump's budget is broadly awful, exploding the deficit to pay for regressive tax cuts, so I hope it dies.

We will never have a not-awful budget again(we’ll have awful budgets that explode the deficit for ‘insert stupid bs here’ which get extended by continuing resolutions), so focus on the positives- silencers getting deregulated and codifying some immigration enforcement.

There's degrees to this. IIRC no President has decreased the US debt in nominal terms in a century, but as long as the debt:GDP ratio is stable then that's OK to some degree at least. But this bill would be a quite massive increase in those terms, when the economy is doing generally well (minus whatever comes of the self-inflicted tariff nonsense).

The immigration appropriations are decent. They're a far cry from the kind of sweeping reform I want, but they're better than nothing, I guess. I'm also a fan of the expanded Defense budget. My main issue is the regressive tax cuts, which are really going to be fiscally damaging.

Really...Hanania said that? Another reason to dismiss him as a fool. It should have been obvious from the start the bromance would sour over time. Had it been a prediction market (I was aware of...) I would have definitely taken that bet, though I must admit the honeymoon laster longer than I expected.

I wish I could read the full article though, I really want to read his special insight into "the power of Musk, the nature of their relationship, and the psychology of these two men".

Really...Hanania said that? Another reason to dismiss him as a fool.

It's paywalled, so I can't read his reasoning (i.e., know if he was wrong for the right reason, not that I can think of many good reasons to think the partnership would be durable...), but Hanania's written a lot about how wrong he was about the trajectory of a second Trump administration, which (even if you think it's just anti-Trump-yest-rightist posturing) fools wouldn't do.

Are you saying a fool would never admit they were wrong? Why not? Fools do all kinds of things some of which might not be foolish. Hannaia's problem is that he's wrong all the time. Maybe he's a terminal fool and should sit down for a while. Just admitting one was wrong isn't enough of a reason to consider him a meaningful intellect. There are many public intellects I disagree with but still have valuable analysis. Hannania is not one of them.

Are you saying a fool would never admit they were wrong?

Literally, no. In rhetorical response to you calling someone a fool, yes.

Someone here predicted that the Elon-Trump alliance would fracture. Was it 2rafa?

Since other people are bragging, I also called this one.

The interesting point is what happened at DOGE. Musk didn't have to call out Trump over the budget and may pay a price for doing so, so we can reasonably conclude that he is genuinely worried about spending. But he didn't run DOGE like a man who is genuinely worried about spending - he ran DOGE like a caricature of someone who wants to look like they are cutting spending without actually doing so. (In particular, he never went after the waste/fraud/abuse in Medicare or military procurement.)

My candidate theories:

  • Conspiracy. DOGE was never meant to be about cutting spending - it was always about purging wokists from the civil service and defunding the pro-establishment left NGOsphere.
  • Cock-up. Musk was in effect high on his own supply as a result of spending too much time on MAGA Twitter and had actually convinced himself that the right-idiotarian theory of the budget was correct. He expected to find an order of magnitude more easy cuts (wokestupid, fraud, obvious waste and inefficiency etc.) than he did.
  • Kayfabe. DOGE was meant to produce the impression of big cuts that could provide political cover for the big giveaways in the BBB without actually cutting the big popular programmes,

In the conspiracy and kayfabe theories, Musk is willing to play ball when Trump tells him that he isn't actually going to be cutting spending because his businesses benefit more than most from a friendly government. Ramaswamy doesn't because he is now an asset manager, not a CEO of an operating business.

Agreed. Any serious plan to cut the US deficit has to tackle head on the three headed hydra: Medicare, Social Security and Military spending. Any plan that ignores all three of these is laughable on the face of it.

... a more charitable option is that Musk doesn't believe that entitlement cuts are possible while (even if relatively small) discretionary wasteful spending is highly visible.

Focussing the budget conversation on highly visible wasteful spending (as the late, great PJ O'Rourke called it, "balancing the budget by cutting Helium funds") has become pathognomic for saying you want to make large cuts when you don't actually plan to.

There is waste in the non-defense discretionary budget, because there is waste in everything. There may even be marginally more waste in the non-defense discretionary budget than in the average large private-sector organisation. But the idea that America is 30 trillion dollars in debt because of waste in the non-defense discretionary budget is simply false, and the man who says otherwise is either a moron or a liar.

I originally beleived that DOGE was about systems not goals, and was a way to create a pipeline of influence for Musk side of techbro elites and government power.

From the look at what he was cutting, I can believe it was something more like an attempt at a hype-snowball. If they found quick and obvious and indefensible waste/fraud, while also turning over norms of 'you can just do that?!' slashing, the hope was that there's be snowball momentum to tackle bigger things.

In other words, you come in and start trying to follow all the polite beurocratic processes around suggesting entitlement cuts from an advisory capacity, you will never even get off the ground. Alternatively, you come in and shake shit up by highly publicisizing obvious waste, in efforts of getting populist support and visibility.

I think he actually almost reached escape velocity here, or got as close to a successful system as possible.

I would guess a lot of people predicted it. They were two big egos, which tend to not get along super well.

Edit: Here's my take from a few months ago. I over-indexed on Hanania's arguments and should have stuck with my gut that two egos that large couldn't get along for more than a few months. I was otherwise correct that Doge wouldn't be able to cut much as a % of government spending, and that it wouldn't be able to touch the bloated elder care subsidies the US has.

I think almost everyone has, but predicting that any [Person]-Trump alliance will fracture is like predicting that the sun will rise in the east. Trump is known for his tendency to fall out with prominent allies and advisers on a pretty regular basis.

A number of people did, but DOGE being bounded and only able to work in a department with the consent of the department secretary was the thrust of a couple of AAQCs in February / March.

"Big Beautiful Bill"

Does anyone know why they named it to have the same acronym as Biden's "Build Back Better" plan? It feels like a deliberate choice, but I'm not sure why.

I know Musk has in the past been accused of tweeting keywords in other contexts to maybe confuse search terms, but I can't think of any good other reasons.

The acronym is actually OBBB- one big beautiful bill. Presumably this is just the way Trump talks.

Does anyone know why they named it to have the same acronym as Biden's "Build Back Better" plan? It feels like a deliberate choice, but I'm not sure why.

Trump calls lots of things Big and Beautiful. In his 2016 campaign the border wall was "big, beautiful." He's called the U.S. a "big beautiful department store"; an EO dedicated to eliminating information siloing in the government promised to build "one big, beautiful dataset", the various diplomatic initiatives his administrations have undertaken have promised "big, beautiful deals," etc.

The Trump-Musk friendship had already crumbled, but now it seems like it's actively imploding.

Do you predict Trump will turn government power against Musk's commercial enterprises?

Do you predict Musk will campaign openly against Trump himself?

Good questions, I think it's unclear at the moment. The main cleavage point here is whether this is the opening salvo in a huge rift between the two, or if Musk will get his nose bashed in and think it better to just generally refrain from politics (or go back to mainly bashing Dems). If it's the former, which I might peg at about 60% chance of occurring, then yeah, we could see the two really go to bat against each other.

Okay, here's my prediction: Of the ire Musk directs at the GOP, he focuses it primarily on the MAGA-reluctant or unreliable elements, which will likely be a benefit to the MAGA wing. Likewise, Trump does not use government power to retaliate against Musk, and in fact Musk's companies continue to enjoy government protection and largesse.

This isn't an unreasonable take, but it goes against what Musk is doing now. Trump's Big Beautiful Bill has had a rocky road that has required Trump to help it along, something Trump generally doesn't like doing for legislation. Musk is giving ammo and support to opponents of the bill, and if it fails then Trump will have a lot of egg on his face.

What will lead the GOP?

I think trumpist campaigning plays out pretty differently when there are multiple people doing it. Im not totally happy with the following explanation of such campaigning, and expect people to dispute some things, but I feel I have to at least attempt one, and I think the conclusion that theres some void to be filled here is relatively clear from just considering the question.

The way the politics game is played traditionally, candidates talk about their policies, are probed for gaffes and flipflops, lose some points for not aswering questions, etc. This gives voters some basis for making decisions, but it can also lead to an "emperor with no clothes" situation with politicians trying to comply with thing voters actively dislike. Trumps strategy exploited a big, interconnected bunch of such issues by rejecting this sort of accountability entirely. This includes saying the populist things, but also not caring how offensive or contradictory you are doing it, never apologising for that, etc. The goal is to trigger a preference cascade towards not judging by those standards. This obviously worked pretty well for him, but it also gives a drastically lower-resolution picture than the conventional strategy. Thats fine if youre far away from all the other candidates anyway, but what if youre not? Now youll need something to distinguish yourself, and I think the great question of the next few republican primaries will be what that should be. Here are the options as I see them:

Inertia-based

Trump won the '20 and '24 primaries because he is the Trump, noone was gonna out-trump him and so noone seriously tried. The path of least resistance going forward is propably that Trump remains in charge of trumpism, continues to voice himself prominently in the media and xitter/truth social, and expects the candidate and later president to dance by his fiddle. I expect this not to go well: People propably arent excited to vote for a president who is outshone even as a figurehead. A falling out at some point is also likely, especially since Trump will likely be more erratic when the role thats naturally the center of attention is filled by someone else. The best case scenario is propably that this goes well once, and then either Trump is too old to stay relevant, or the new guy falls out with him and manages to "win" the internal conflict before his time is up, and then the next election is something else.

The "better" version of inertia is propably some kind of "the party decides". There are plenty of countries that manage without primaries, and while occasional upsets propably cant be prevented entirely if primaries are mandatory, something more like that seems possible. However, the republicans are specifically not set up for this. The democrats have "the groups", and a kind of permanent party leadership - meanwhile, you never really hear about the RNC, except in the fixed phrase "RNC convention". They long where much more of an extension of the current president(ial cnadidate). So the somewhat-possible version of this is that Trump anoints Vance his successor, and Vance some else, they remain supportive of the new guy but in the background, and afer a few times of this you have a more substantial party leadership - but leadership at any time deciding to separate from the previous ones would likely break this, so it takes a long streak indeed.

Return of the media

Candidates go back to conventional campaigning, with a somewhat shifted overton window. This could happen if it seems like political wins were big enough that shielding yourself from the media is no longer necessary, and its also the default option if trumpism has become too unpopular for another go. If it hasnt, there will be significant hesitation before adopting this option, as rejecting it was one of the central ideas of trumpism. Those dont die easily, and its not even clear if the problems of that system where just inerta or an attractor.

There is also the question of the trumpist media. Its been 10 years of Trump on the right, new media outlets have been founded and older ones reconstructed to supporting him. Theyre not really set up to evaluate politicians in a meaningful way, and follow his lead instead. What direction they will take once there is no longer an obvious leader of trumpism is in many ways a similar question to the one Im asking here. If they just try to pivot to evaluation without any kind of more systematic ideological program, that will be one huge slapfight that propably eventually ends in one, but it sure is going to be rough until then. Writing them all off leaves only people who are in significant part not even republicans in name anymore, and propably means a collapse of the right.

Full bore

Candidates engage in an epic rap battle, whoever has the greatest stage presence, the most charismatic voice, and the best alliterative insults wins. This is theoretically the closest thing to multiple people running the original campaign unmodified. I think its unlikely to happen in a pure form, but the the problem of trumpist campaigning that I outlined is with too many candidates running like this. If noone is trying that anymore, it could be viable again. So there could be a mixed equilibrium here, where theres one candidate trying full bore in addition to whatever else ends up happening, with either winning the candidacy sometimes. And since theres no reliable way to have exactly one guy like that, sometimes candidates like that will have to face each other, and it would have to go like that.

Anything you think Ive missed?

Anything you think Ive missed?

The Octavian strategy. Run Donald Junior. People wouldn’t care that much about Donald Junior’s personal qualifications because they know Trump Senior will be backseat driving. Vance is Marcus Agrippa.

Trump Senior will be backseat driving

Trump senior is not fully in the driver seat right now. Let's not pretend that there will be much of his mind left in 4 or 8 years. And his mind is terrible at driving anyway. Good at winning elections. But at best mediocre at governing.

Let's not pretend that there will be much of his mind left in 4 or 8 years.

You’ve already had the last four years of solid practice gaslighting yourself that the President isn’t a drooling dementia patient. You’ll be fine. And in any case, he wouldn’t need to run the day-to-day operations, just make sure that Don Jr. and Vance are broadly ideologically correct.

I am probably the biggest Trumpist here. Just to calibrate your priors.

I've lurked the Motte in its various incarnations over the past however many years and have felt strongly about many of the things posted, however, I have never felt any strong enough need to post that I thought it necessary to make an account - until your description of 'The Octavian Strategy'.

What would this strategy have to do with Octavian? Octavian was a complete nobody politically until Caesar died, at which point, Caesar certainly wasn't "backseat driving", because Caesar was dead. There was absolutely no sense that people 'didn't care' about Octavian because they thought Caesar was in control, since, as mentioned, he was dead, and many of the key Caesarians had either taken part in the assassination conspiracy or ended up as Octavian's opponents, so they also weren't in control.

Or are you saying that it's the 'Octavian strategy' just because Donald Junior bears his father's name, in the same way Octavian was given Caesar's name by virtue of his adoption? Sure, I guess, but it's far more accurate to describe this strategy as literally any other political dynasty that isn't Caesar's, given that "son takes power after his father dies / exits the scene" is an incredibly common historical occurrence, and again, your primary point is that the father is still in the driver's seat, which definitely doesn't apply to Octavian.

And that's not even getting onto the Marcus Agrippa comparison. Agrippa had very little to do with Caesar, and was incredibly close to Octavian throughout his life. That does not map whatsoever onto Vance and Don Junior. I don't even understand what you're trying to imply with that.

I know some might view this as nitpicky or irrelevant but I honestly can't think of a less apt historical comparison I've seen here, ever, and I've seen some bad ones. Trying to just hamfistedly map scenarios onto what you think happened in Rome just leads to very bad conclusions, since you're evaluating strategy based on outcomes that never happened.

My first thought was the “Putin-Medvedev strategy” but I didn’t want to sidetrack the thread into a 500 reply tangent about the war.

I have never felt any strong enough need to post that I thought it necessary to make an account

Read: “I made an alt so I can drop a pissy comment without repercussions”

I obviously have no means of demonstrating this, but this isn’t an alt, I just genuinely got that baited by your bizarre analogy.

That also doesn’t really explain what you meant, either. What is Vance doing in this situation? How is he Agrippa? You’ve just put names to figures without any actual connection.

The Putin-Medvedev analogy makes far more sense, but Medvedev worked as a patsy precisely because he was seen as “responsible” and “conciliatory” towards the West as opposed to Putin, which gave Putin time and space to breathe while cementing his power. Don Jnr. ain’t that. In that situation someone other than Don Jnr., perhaps Ivanka if you want to keep it in the family, would be the pick. Rubio would be the obvious choice though, and in fact, Rubio seems to be getting Trump’s blessing as a successor. (https://tass.com/world/1952703)

This is why getting your analogies right actually helps - it lets you consider what strategy worked or failed in the past.

Read: “I made an alt so I can drop a pissy comment without repercussions”

Don't be pissy yourself.

Medvedev was keeping the seat warm because Putin was constitutionally barred from a third consecutive term, not because he was aging out and his son was too young to take over. Everyone knew that Putin, who was only 56, would be back.

I would call it the Goh Chok Tong strategy after the man who was de jure PM of Singapore from 1990-2004. His political opponents (notably including The Economist newspaper, which was having a pissing contest with the Singapore authorities over censorship at the time) said that the country was actually run by Lee Kuan Yew (nominally retired, but still attending cabinet) and his son Lee Hsien Loon (as deputy prime minister and heir apparent). The joke was that Singapore was run by a Trinity of Father, Son and Holy Goh. Teaching a heretical position on whether the power of the Holy Goh proceeded from the Father alone or the Father filioque was punishable by career-ending cancellation and crippling lawfare.

The difference was that LKY was 67 when he retired the first time, and only 81 when he retired for real and Lee Jr replaced Goh as Prime Minister. Trump will already be 81 when his second term ends.

Medvedev was keeping the seat warm because Putin was constitutionally barred from a third consecutive term

Yes, exactly like Trump who I have no doubt would at least try to run for a third term if he wasn’t constitutionally prohibited from doing that.

What a coincidence: I just read John Williams' "Augustus" and I was also scratching my head over what "the Octavian strategy" meant here.

I am also currently rereading Caesar’s ‘The Civil War’ so suppose I was particularly primed to react, however, if that dated meme is anything to go by, we’re all only a few hours gone from thinking about Rome anyway.

I think it will be 'full bore' taken to its conclusion: the candidates will go warlord and start assembling personal armies and killing each other, with the candidacy going to the survivor, who once nominated will fall into line with democratic norms, participate politely in the debates with a centrist economic platform, and lose narrowly to Gavin Newsom.

BTW sorry for mentioning it but you're using the idiosyncratic typo 'propably' throughout this post.

How did you come to this conclusion?

I just suspect they need to be gladiatorial in Trump's image to win Trump's approval, and then when they're the candidate and perhaps need him a bit less, they will pivot a bit.

Literally?

It will briefly be glorious as the velociraptor-mounted troops square off against each other but yeah it ends with the winner declaring that America first was always open borders.

Jeremy Howard, who wrote ULMFiT (one of the most important papers in NLP according to many, so much so that transfer learning for ChatGPT was inspired by it), simply laughs at statements about AI taking away all jobs, publicly claiming that we are as far away from ASI or AGI now as we were 20 years ago.

I looked at the clip where he says this, he says there's no more reason to think ASI is close than there was 15 years ago. He says people are fooled by the interface changing from computer-friendly to human friendly, our brains think it's qualitatively different.

The man is fundamentally unserious. I don't care what papers he's written or what expertise he has. It doesn't matter if Major-General Augustus Smythe fought against the whirling dervishes of Sudan with distinction, if he thinks a bayonet charge is going to beat a machinegun, he's a fool. Augustus Smythe doesn't really think this, it's more that he looks down upon all this low-class and crass engineering taking the limelight from his glorious, romantic cavalry regiments. He's not going to actually charge a machine-gun nest with his saber, he's not really confident in what he's saying. Jeremy Howard is no different, he admits the progress on benchmarks and the progress of recent years albeit in an understated way. What benchmarks of AI coding were there 15 years I wonder? He doesn't truly believe the nonsense he's saying, he wants to express a sober, mature, classy, balanced position like Yann LeCun and the others. It's a reaction to style and taste rather than anything substantial. Gary Marcus does the same thing and is infamously wrong in so many of his predictions.

It's perfectly understandable to oppose the nerdy, icky AI doomers or eager non-technical singularitarians or the slick, snake-oil-seeming marketers. It's very seductive to be 'the adult in the room'. But you can't let that get the better of you and mislead people on a very serious matter.

There is a qualitative difference, a stark and obvious qualitative difference to asking a question and getting an immediate answer from an AI, not just in a single domain but in so many domains, at considerable depth where the 'question' might be laying out the setting for a fictional universe and the 'answer' could be a thousand words of a story. It is obvious that huge strides towards superintelligence have been made since 2010. Coding, vision, reasoning, plotting, extended pursuit of abstract tasks... ASI is much, much closer than in 2010, where all there was was IBM Watson and Siri.

After all, LLMs have in fact slowed down in terms of progress.

No they haven't. The shift to reasoning models happened 6-9 months ago. The new R1 came out a matter of days ago. It's super cheap and a massive leap up in writing, I haven't even tried it on code since Claude is so good. 'Progress is slowing' is ironically enough a real mental illusion as old benchmarks are saturated. There's been next to no progress on MMLU because we've moved on from that to new challenges.

they will come up with ways to automate away research or engineering tasks

This is already happening. Papers have been published on it! This is partly why the AI safety people start to sound so deranged, because people are confusing reality with science fiction, not the other way around.

Research and engineering is being automated, piece by piece. R1 can write helpful attention kernels: https://developer.nvidia.com/blog/automating-gpu-kernel-generation-with-deepseek-r1-and-inference-time-scaling/

Also consider this paper:

Many promising-looking ideas in AI research fail to deliver, but their validation takes substantial human labor and compute. Predicting an idea's chance of success is thus crucial for accelerating empirical AI research, a skill that even expert researchers can only acquire through substantial experience. We build the first benchmark for this task and compare LMs with human experts. Concretely, given two research ideas (e.g., two jailbreaking methods), we aim to predict which will perform better on a set of benchmarks. We scrape ideas and experimental results from conference papers, yielding 1,585 human-verified idea pairs published after our base model's cut-off date for testing, and 6,000 pairs for training. We then develop a system that combines a fine-tuned GPT-4.1 with a paper retrieval agent, and we recruit 25 human experts to compare with. In the NLP domain, our system beats human experts by a large margin (64.4% v.s. 48.9%). On the full test set, our system achieves 77% accuracy, while off-the-shelf frontier LMs like o3 perform no better than random guessing, even with the same retrieval augmentation. We verify that our system does not exploit superficial features like idea complexity through extensive human-written and LM-designed robustness tests. Finally, we evaluate our system on unpublished novel ideas, including ideas generated by an AI ideation agent. Our system achieves 63.6% accuracy, demonstrating its potential as a reward model for improving idea generation models. Altogether, our results outline a promising new direction for LMs to accelerate empirical AI research.

Are there caveats on this? Yes. But are AIs running AI research hilarious? No. Nothing about this is funny or deserving of casual dismissal.

I have two datapoints about AI and programming recently.

  1. I asked it about an unknown PRNG function I've reverse engineered which I had previously tried googling to see if it was based on a standard function. It was able to find functions that were similar that I had not previously been able to find googling. I then asked it to come up with a known plaintext attack when part of the seed was known and it spat out something that looked correct.

  2. Another developer was looking at reverse engineering a function that was protected with a weak form of control flow obfuscation. The control flow obfuscation was just replacing function call instructions with a call to a shared global dispatch function that would end up calling the target function. The global dispatch function would execute approximately 200 instructions. There is an obvious attack against this obfuscation and it can be stripped off with ~100 lines of python in ghidra. They were using LLMs to try and investigate this function but didn't make much progress. But maybe with better prompting and allowing more access to tools it would have been possible for the LLM to make progress.

I think that likening the rationalists treatment of AI to the anti-finasteride crowd is a bit unfair to the former.

Now, AI has been a theme with rationalists from the very beginning. It would not be totally unfair to say that our prophet wrote the sequences (e.g. A Human's Guide to Words) as an instrumental goal to be able to discuss AI without getting bogged down in pointless definitional arguments. That was almost two decades ago, in the depth of the AI winter.

Scott Alexander wrote about GPT when it was still GPT-2, it was the first time I heard about it. It is fair to say that AI is the favorite topic on LessWrong, with Zvi minutely tracking the progress with the same dedication previously allocated to COVID. Generally, the rationalists are bullish on capabilities and bearish on alignment. But I feel that Eliezer's "dying with dignity strategy" haha-only-serious April's fool is overconfident in a way which is not typical of LW. In practical terms, it does not matter much if you think that p(ASI) is 0.15 and p(doom) is 0.1 or if you think they are 0.95 and 0.9 respectively.

We do not have a comprehensive theory of intelligence. We have noticed the skulls of the once who have predicted that AI would never beat a chess master, succeed at go, write a readable text, create a painting which most people can not distinguish from a human work of art and so on. This does not mean that AI will reach every relevant goalpost, reverse stupidity is not intelligence, after all.

We are in the situation where we observe a rocket launch without the benefits of any knowledge of rocketry or physics. Some people claimed the rocket would never reach an altitude of more than twice its own length, and they were very much proven wrong. Others are claiming that it would never reach 1km, and they were likewise proven wrong. From this, we can not conclude that it will obviously accelerate until it reaches Andromeda, nor can we conclude that it will not reach Andromeda.

Wrt the AI 2027, the vibes I remember getting from browsing through it is that it mostly Simulacrum level two, and came across as the least honest things which Scott ever co-authored. The whole national security angle is very much not what keeps LW up at night -- if China builds aligned ASI, they have a whole light cone to settle. What will happen to the US will just be a minor footnote in history. But the authors recognized that their target audience -- policymakers in DC -- will likely be alienated by their real arguments about x-risk. By contrast, national security is a topic which has been on the mind of the DC crowd for a century, so natsec was recruited as an argument-as-a-soldier.

My unpopular opinion on anything ai safety or alignment aligns with a top level comment a few weeks ago and the general skepticism some have worded out very well here.

Well, I am rather sure that there is a great rebuttal to these arguments somewhere on Less Wrong, so I remain unconvinced.

The religious fervor around this seems pretty irrational with Scott getting people over at slatestarcodex calling him names for this.

Well, the version of Pascal's wager offered by the AI safety people is that (1) the current AI boom might lead to AGI which is much smarter than humans are, and (2) that aligning such AI systems will be hard. You assign a probability to both of these, then multiply this by the QALY cost of killing all humans (or an even higher cost if you care about humanity's far future, which many do), and you get a number how seriously you should take AI x-risk.

Of course, you can simply pick your AGI probability to be 1e-50, but then I might claim that you are overconfident, and ask what other past correct predictions you have made which might make me rely on your predictions instead of everyone else's.

If you pick 1% for both numbers, then a one-in-10k chance to wipe out humanity still seems like a big fucking deal.

In Scott's last 24 non-OT posts on ACX, I have counted four AI stories (2x geoguesser, which is more "AI as a curiosity" and 2x AI 2027, which is more doom and gloom). While I am sure that some of the ACX grants go to AI safety, he is also funding plenty of other projects, which would be totally irresponsible if his p(doom) was 0.9. If this is him showing religious fervor, it is not very convincing.

I never read Yudkowsky till a few days ago, a lot of what he's said and his arc in the past two decades makes me not take him seriously.

I will concede that AI alignment is his pet thing much more than it is Scott's, and as of late he has been very bullish on p(doom). Still, I have found him to be a smart, engaging writer. Most of the ideas from the sequences could also be picked up elsewhere, but he did do a great job of communicating all these ideas and putting them in one place. For some light reading of his, see if you like HPMoR.

By and large, the ratsphere does not share his high confidence on p(doom), I think, because they were trained by their prophet to update based on the strength of arguments, not to blindly follow their prophet.

In the case of rationalists, it's not even a point as major as seed oil disrespect among the "bronze age warriors,"

I think youre off on that. Both groups have people who are really into that thing, but those people are much more central to rationalism. I remember a compatriot who would drink pumpkin seed oil (its a thing in styria) neat as countersignalling and he never had problems.

Also, I think going bald is actually not the end of the world. I would on balance advice not messing with your hormones over it, unless youre 20 or something.

Going bald isn't the end of the world but it's pretty traumatic. People get hair transplants that look terrible or wear a hair systems to cope with it.

And some people accept their fate and choose to get jacked. Because fat and bald sucks. Fit and bald is a definite look though. All in all I'm pretty happy with my choice.

Most of these guys are alternative media and make their living at least partially from their online writing. As such, it’s not surprising that they’re adopting the opinions of their audience, at least publicly. If my audience is full of gymbros, I can’t keep them reading if I’m going against their long-standing belief that seed oils are poison. So I might choose to be silent, but it’s in my interests to let it be known that I think seed oils are bad.

have the hair of a 70 year old

Wanting to keep all your hair is perfectly fair, as much as dyeing your hair, shaving, or any other aesthetic change to how you choose to style your hair. But I dislike this framing/phrase. Male pattern baldness is natural, and not a sign of aging or decrepitude - if anything it's a sign of virility and maturity.

How's it a sign of virility?

In the most literal sense: it's associated with high levels of male hormones ("Men with androgenic alopecia typically have higher 5α-reductase, higher total testosterone, higher unbound/free testosterone, and higher free androgens, including DHT"). TMU it's a completely different phenomenon from hair loss in the elderly. In many young men's case, balding at the apex of the skull occurs concurrently with facial hair and body hair growth - in a very real sense it's another side of the same coin. The fact that we've come to associate it with old age and feebleness is just one of those things where cultural beauty standards have diverged from the biological reality of the human phenotype, like women having body hair, and I just think it's a bit silly in principle.


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