site banner
PaperclipPerfector  2mo ago (text post)   25558 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of August 18, 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 New Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Trump's civil fraud convictions (regarding intentional misvaluation of properties) have been upheld by the state appeals panel. I hope that distilling the three opinions down from 230 letter-size pages to something slightly more digestible counts as sufficiently high effort for a top-level comment.

(1) Moulton, joined by Renwick: All the convictions and most of the penalties should be upheld, but the sanctions against Trump's lawyers and the disgorgement penalties against Trump should be reversed.

This decision is one of three issued by this Court today. Presiding Justice Renwick and I agree with our colleagues on certain points. Most importantly, we agree with Justice Higgitt, who is joined by Justice Rosado, that the Attorney General is empowered by Executive Law § 63(12) to bring this action. However, our remaining disagreements with our colleagues' decisions are profound. In sum, Justice Friedman finds that Supreme Court's rulings are infirm in almost every respect and would hold that the Attorney General had no power to bring this case under Executive Law § 63(12). He would dismiss the complaint outright. Justice Higgitt, while agreeing that the Attorney General had the power to bring this lawsuit, finds that errors made by Supreme Court require a new trial limited to only some of the transactions in question.

Because none of the three decisions garners a majority, Justices Higgitt and Rosado join the decretal of this decision for the sole purpose of ensuring finality, thereby affording the parties a path for appeal to the Court of Appeals. Like Justice Friedman, we commend them for doing so. Unlike Justice Friedman, we do not find that this necessary measure is unfair to defendants.

This Court has already ruled in Trump I that the facts of this case warrant the application of Executive Law § 63(12), and that the Attorney General is vindicating the public interest in challenging the transactions in question. The law of the case doctrine "is designed to eliminate the inefficiency and disorder that would follow if courts of coordinate jurisdiction were free to overrule one another in an ongoing case". This Court departs from the doctrine only when a prior holding is clearly erroneous, or where there has been a change in law or evidence. None of those circumstances are present here. Defendants cannot relitigate the issue of the scope of Executive Law § 63(12) under the guise that Trump I that was decided at the motion to dismiss stage (where the Attorney General is entitled to the presumption of the truth of her allegations and the benefit of all favorable inferences), as opposed to the summary judgment stage (where the Attorney General is held to the record evidence).

In this appeal, we have before us an actual record which demonstrates clearly that defendants committed fraud and illegality squarely within the ambit of Executive Law § 63(12). We do not have before us some hypothetical future misuse of the statute. The record also refutes Justice Friedman's implication that the judicial system is being used for "political ends" in this litigation. The antithesis is true. Given the evidence uncovered during the Attorney General's investigation, which is discussed at length below, the "political" choice would have been to not bring this case, thereby avoiding a fight with a powerful adversary. Her allegations have been tested at every stage of this maximalist litigation and for the most part have been upheld. We now have before us the evidence the Attorney General amassed and it demonstrates that defendants engaged in a decade-long pattern of financial fraud and illegality.

Supreme Court correctly awarded partial summary judgment to the Attorney General, and correctly denied defendants' motion for summary judgment, after determining that the Attorney General proved that there were no triable issues of fact concerning the Executive Law § 63(12) cause of action insofar as it was based on fraud (not illegality). This type of section 63(12) claim is sometimes called a "standalone claim" because it is not predicated on violation of another statute.

The record before the court on summary judgment was voluminous. However, volume does not inevitably demonstrate the existence of issues of fact. For the reasons set forth below, we find that the record made on summary judgment clearly demonstrates defendants' liability under Executive Law § 63(12). Moreover, as discussed in section C below, even if Supreme Court erred in granting summary judgment to the Attorney General, the record at trial overwhelmingly supports Supreme Court's finding of liability for violations of the Penal Law.

Our colleagues agree with Presiding Justice Renwick and me that Supreme Court improvidently levied sanctions on defendants' attorneys. The parties in this litigation had to contend with novel legal issues. In grappling with these issues, defendants offered colorable arguments in their defense. Consequently, their arguments were not "completely without merit" under 22 NYCRR 130-1.1(c)(1). Defendants' summary judgment papers certainly repeated arguments advanced in opposition to the Attorney General's motion for a preliminary injunction and in their motions to dismiss the complaint. However, the court made no findings that the arguments were made primarily to delay or prolong the litigation or to harass or maliciously injure the Attorney General under 22 NYCRR 130-1.1(c)(2).

While we find that Supreme Court erred in imposing sanctions, Justice Friedman is incorrect in divining that this somehow reflects a subliminal "tacit" conclusion that Supreme Court was biased against defendants. We agree that Supreme Court's two decisions are sometimes conclusory and insufficiently rigorous in their legal analysis. However, in the pressured environment of a heavily scrutinized trial Supreme Court produced a clear and complete record for this Court to review. In the course of reading and re-reading that record we found that the court was even-handed at trial, and allowed both sides to "make their case."

For the reasons set forth above, we find that Supreme Court properly awarded partial summary judgment on the standalone claim. We disagree with Justice Higgitt's view that Supreme Court engaged in improper fact-finding and credibility determinations in its summary judgment decision. However, even if my colleagues are correct that Supreme Court erred on summary judgment, we also have before us an extensive trial record that amply establishes defendants' liability. At the bench trial Supreme Court was not constrained by the rules of summary judgment. Fact-finding and credibility determinations are among the central tasks of a judge presiding over a bench trial. As set forth below, our de novo review of the trial record supports Supreme Court's findings of illegality. Accordingly, there is no need to remand for another trial.

In connection with our review of the Posttrial Order, we defer to the court's findings that the testimony of President Trump, Donald Trump, Jr., Eric Trump, Jeffrey McConney and Allen Weisselberg were not credible, and that the testimony of Michael Cohen was credible. The court cited various reasons for finding that the individual defendants' testimony was not credible which, depending on the witness, included obfuscation, equivocation, evasiveness, gaps in memory, and initial denials until being confronted with contrary evidence. Although Michael Cohen acknowledged at trial that he had pled guilty to perjury, the court nevertheless found his testimony credible, noting the general plausibility of his statements, his demeanor, and the fact that his testimony was corroborated by other trial evidence.

While he is silent concerning Supreme Court's findings that the individual defendants were not credible witnesses, Justice Friedman chooses to devote a number of pages to his own analysis of Cohen's lack of credibility. He quotes at length from Cohen's testimony and draws his own conclusions about its veracity. We do not parse Justice Friedman's exegesis on Cohen's credibility—and do not conduct our own credibility determinations of Cohen or of any other witness—because that is not the job of an appellate judge. Credibility determinations are for the judge who presides at a bench trial. "In a nonjury trial, we defer to the findings of the trial court 'unless it is obvious that the court's conclusions could not be reached under any fair interpretation of the evidence, especially when the findings of fact rest in large measure on considerations relating to the credibility of witnesses'".

Applying the appropriate standard of review, we find that the record amply supports Supreme Court's determination that the Attorney General established, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the individual defendants violated Executive Law § 63(12) by violating New York Penal Law §§ 175.05 (falsifying business records in the second degree), 175.45 (issuing a false financial statement), 176.10 (insurance fraud in the fifth degree),[FN52] and 105.00 (conspiracy in the sixth degree). The evidence, in turn, also established the liability of the corporate defendants by operation of Penal Law § 20.20.

Although the court heard at trial all of the expert testimony that Justice Higgitt viewed as necessary to decide this lawsuit at the summary judgment stage, he nevertheless concludes that defendants were deprived of a fair trial. According to Justice Higgitt, the court's improper "focus and reliance on magnitude of disparity" at the summary judgment stage continued into the trial and affected the court's assessment of whether the individual defendants possessed the requisite intent to defraud under the relevant Penal Law provisions. Justice Higgitt also maintains that the court improperly admitted evidence related to time-barred transactions, which, when superimposed on the court's misunderstanding of materiality, requires a new trial.

We disagree. Because this Court's authority in reviewing a nonjury decision is as broad as that of the trial court and because the trial record before us is clear and complete, there is no need for a new trial. In other words, we are not bound by any legal or fact-finding errors made by Supreme Court at trial.[FN55] In addition, contrary to Justice Higgitt's position, the court's misunderstanding of materiality at the summary judgment stage had no bearing on the court's assessment of the individual defendants' intent to defraud in connection with the relevant Penal Law provisions. As Justice Higgitt acknowledges, intent to defraud is an element under the Penal Law (but is not an element under Executive Law § 63[12]) and looks only to a defendant's state of mind.

The remaining question is whether the disgorgement levied against the defendants in this case is an excessive fine barred by the Eighth Amendment. We believe that it is.

A fine is excessive when it is "grossly disproportional to the gravity of the defendant's offense". Defendants' attempt to deny the gravity of their actions with blithe claims that none of the counterparties were harmed ignores a core reality: a bank making a loan seeks not only repayment, but also compensation for the possibility of default. Nicholas Haigh, the managing director of the Deutsche Bank Private Wealth Management Division, the entity that approved the three loans issued by that Bank herein, testified that "just getting repaid on the principal" of the loan "doesn't address at all whether we got properly recompensed for the risk we were taking." However, while harm certainly occurred, it was not the cataclysmic harm that can justify a nearly half billion-dollar award to the State. It is a virtue of the statute that the Attorney General may act, as she did in this case, before a potential catastrophe occurs, to deter further fraudulent business behavior by defendants specifically, and to police market behavior generally. However, having achieved these goals the State is not entitled to compound its victory with a massive punitive fine.

The Attorney General did not carry her initial burden. Indeed, the calculation of the disgorgement in this case was far from a reasonable approximation. Contrary to Supreme Court's finding, the profits from sales of the Ferry Point License and the sale of the OPO Lease (which, in tandem, accounted for $194.8 million of the disgorgement awarded plus a substantial amount of interest) were not "reasonable approximation[s] of profits causally connected" to defendants' wrongdoing.

For the foregoing reasons, we vacate the portions of the Posttrial Order directing disgorgement in its entirety.

This does not leave the Attorney General without a remedy. In contrast to its order on disgorgement, Supreme Court properly granted injunctive relief.

On the record before us, we find that Supreme Court properly exercised its discretion in awarding injunctive relief. Defendants persistently and intentionally inflated the asset values reported in their SFCs from 2014 to 2021, for numerous assets per each SFC. Despite the wrongfulness of their conduct, Supreme Court believed that defendants lacked remorse. Indeed, when asked at trial whether he still approved of McConney and Weisselberg's work in preparing the SFCs, President Trump stated "[y]ou haven't shown me anything that would change my mind."

Contrary to defendants' arguments, Supreme Court's injunctive relief was not "breathtakingly overbroad." The Court of Appeals recognized in Greenberg that lifetime bans on business activity may not "be a justifiable exercise of a court's discretion". Even so, the majority of Supreme Court's injunctive relief spanned two or three years. The court's only permanent injunction barred McConney and Weisselberg—who were primarily responsible for preparing the SFCs and maintaining the Trump Organization's books and records—from controlling the finances of a New York corporation or business entity. Considering the significant likelihood that defendants would reoffend, Supreme Court's injunctions were measured and fair.

(2) Higgitt, joined by Rosado: The convictions should be vacated for a new trial. However, in the interest of finality, we will concur in Moulton's opinion so that it has a majority and can be appealed to the state Court of Appeals (supreme court), rather than having Engoron's opinion "vacated by an equally divided court".

We and our colleagues generally agree on the facts and evidence. On the import of those facts and evidence, however, we differ with our colleagues—in reasoning, result, or both—on a number of fundamental issues, and the path this action should now take.

For the reasons that follow, we conclude that the judgment must be vacated and a new trial ordered.[FN2]

[FN2]Notwithstanding our analysis, as reflected in our writing, that vacatur of the judgment and a new trial is the appropriate resolution, Justice Rosado and I, after much consideration, with great reluctance and with acknowledgement of the incongruity of the act, join the decretal modifying the judgment to the extent of vacating the disgorgement and sanctions awards. Under the truly extraordinary circumstances here, where none of the writings enjoys the support of a majority, we are moved to take this action to permit this panel to arrive at a decision and to permit the parties and the Court to avoid the necessity of reargument. Moreover, joining the decretal effectuates the core point of agreement among the members of this panel: that the judgment, as entered by Supreme Court, cannot stand. The parties must have a decision on this matter and, concomitantly, the option of further review of this matter by the Court of Appeals, as recognized by Justice Friedman. We must therefore agree with Justice Friedman in his observation that a remarkable situation has necessitated a remarkable solution.

Our colleagues have thoroughly and thoughtfully examined and analyzed the parties' arguments and proof and Supreme Court's determinations, reaching opposite conclusions. We find that the application of the same well-known fundamental summary judgment principles leads to the conclusion that summary judgment was improperly granted to the Attorney General. Supreme Court did not view the evidence in the light most favorable to defendants, as the nonmovants; it resolved, rather than identified, questions of material fact; and it did so by applying its own interpretive standard to the evidence without explicitly finding defendants' experts to be incredible as a matter of law or rejecting the bases for their multi-pronged analyses. Central to the motions and Supreme Court's decision, and indeed the action itself, was the valuation of the various assets listed in the SFCs. Defendants argue that Supreme Court's rejection of the expert evidence they submitted in opposition to the Attorney General's motion affected every valuation decision Supreme Court made, and fatally infected the subsequent trial.

Supreme Court found (correctly) that materiality was not an element of the Executive Law § 63(12) fraud claim but recognized (correctly) that it is "relevant" to determining "tendency or capacity." Supreme Court found that the magnitude of the difference between defendants' and the Attorney General's valuations, alone, was material and, in essence, the single factor informing "tendency or capacity." According to Supreme Court,

OAG has submitted conclusive evidence that between 2014 and 2021, defendants overvalued the assets reported in the SFCs between 17.27-38.51%; this amounts to a discrepancy of between $812 million and $2.2 billion dollars. Even in the world of high finance, this Court cannot endorse a proposition that finds a misstatement of at least $812 million dollars to be 'immaterial.' Defendants have failed to identify any authority for the notion that discrepancies of the magnitude demonstrated here could be considered immaterial.

Supreme Court's rejection of defendants' evidence reduces to an unwarranted (i.e. the Attorney General had not offered competent competing evidence) rejection of the notion of a subjective appraisal. In doing do, Supreme Court relied on an inapt case, its interpretation of which was flawed. Supreme Court stated, "Accepting defendants' premise would require ignoring decades of controlling authority holding that financial statements and real property valuations are to be judged objectively, not subjectively".

For the proposition that subjectivity has no place in real property valuation, Supreme Court cited Matter of FMC Corp. and Assured Guar. Mun. Corp. v DLJ Mortg. Cap. Inc. For the proposition that market value is the most reliable valuation method, it cited Matter of Great Atl, & Pac. Tea Co. v Kiernan and Matter of Consolidated Edison Co. of N.Y., Inc. v City of New York. These cases are of little to no value with respect to examination, let alone resolution, of the issues presented by the motions.

It bears noting that no one, including Supreme Court, identified, as a matter of law or fact, singular, correct inputs from which valuation methods should have emanated. Supreme Court declined to acknowledge the validity of alternate valuation methods, disregarding that every method of valuation ultimately seeks the same goal. Therefore, Supreme Court's usage of the word "appraisal" did very little to help us stratify valuation methods into echelons of accuracy. Our jurisprudence with respect to property interests teaches us that every parcel of property is unique, meaning, therefore, that similarly situated properties cannot be presumed to have identical value for comparison. Further, value is made up of many intangible factors, such as proximity to a geographical or topographical feature, remoteness from the nearest neighboring property, and cache, none of which has anything to do with the features of the actual parcel or the construction of the actual structures. The premise from which Supreme Court set out, therefore, was a false one. This is borne out by the fact that the Attorney General was able to identify only very specific misstatements that were truly, objectively "wrong," as opposed to inflated or creative, even expansively so, which is not necessarily fraudulent, given the breadth of permissible valuation methods.

Considering the effect of our prior determination and all applicable tolls afforded by the agreement and the various Executive Orders issued during the coronavirus pandemic, the correct date for determining the timeliness of all claims against all defendants is July 13, 2014. Supreme Court thus erred when it considered instances of false statements with respect to the Doral and Chicago loans, both of which closed prior to July 13, 2014, in calculating damages, awarding injunctive relief, and in directing judgment against any defendants alleged to have participated in only those transactions. The exclusion of untimely transactions significantly reduces Supreme Court's disgorgement award. The $168,040,168 award based on interest rate differentials must be reduced by the $72,908,308 attributable to the Doral loan and the $17,443,359 attributable to the Chicago loan, for a reduced total of $77,688,500, assuming Supreme Court used the correct metrics in making the award.

The impact of Supreme Court's erroneous interpretation of our prior holding with respect to the statute of limitations on its posttrial disgorgement award is not harmless. This is true not merely mathematically, but also foundationally. Given the unique nature of the Executive Law § 63(12) cause of action and the relief afforded by it, we cannot know the evidentiary significance of otherwise-excludable SFCs and transactions to the primary determinations required for a successful Executive Law § 63(12) claim. We cannot know whether or to what extent the consideration of otherwise-excludable SFCs or transactions influenced the finding of repetition or persistence of defendants' acts or statements, or whether their consideration produced a course of repetition or persistence that influenced the decision to grant any aspect of the injunctive and other non-monetary relief awarded, whether at the motion or trial stage, the type of relief, the nature of the relief, or the severity of the relief, such as its duration or breadth.[FN29] While the granting of such relief is not mandatory when the cause of action is made out, it bears noting that this is the primary form of relief envisioned by Executive Law § 63(12).

Accordingly, Supreme Court's statute of limitations finding, together with the other fundamental errors described above, merits, among other things, a new trial.

We and our colleagues agree that granting the motion for sanctions was an improvident exercise of discretion; that defense counsels' conduct could not be fairly characterized as "egregious," "preposterous," "inscrutable," "risible," "obstreperous," or "bogus"; and that such determination should be reversed on the non-parties' appeal. That Supreme Court's prior decisions had been affirmed on appeal did not render defendants' repetition of the arguments insupportable: our pronouncements with respect to the Attorney General's authority to pursue the action and the availability of disgorgement as a remedy were statements of general law appropriate for a CPLR 3211 dismissal analysis where the sole question was the complaint's statement of a cognizable cause of action.

(3) Friedman: The convictions should be reversed.

This action essentially turns section 63(12) on its head. The leniency with which the courts have construed the requirements for pleading and proving fraud under section 63(12)—a leniency that has been extended for the purpose of facilitating the use of the provision to prevent the exploitation of unsophisticated consumers, investors and small businesses—is here being used by Attorney General Letitia James to apply section 63(12) to a scenario to which that provision has never before been applied, or even thought to apply. Specifically, the Attorney General in this case has utilized the flexibility afforded her under section 63(12) to unwind complex financial transactions that were negotiated, face-to-face and at arm's length, between a privately held real estate organization—that of defendant Donald J. Trump, the former president and current president—and ultra-sophisticated banks, insurance companies and government entities, which were advised by equally sophisticated lawyers, accountants, and other business professionals.

The Attorney General complains, and Supreme Court found, that the statements of financial condition (SFCs) that President Trump provided to the counterparties in connection with the transactions at issue overvalued certain of his assets. However, each of the SFCs included written disclaimers advising, in no uncertain terms, that President Trump's valuations of his various properties were estimates that had not been audited and were not beyond dispute. Each counterparty was further warned that it should do its own due diligence and draw its own conclusions about President Trump's net worth, which each counterparty actually did, as it was obligated to do for its own protection as a matter of New York law. Moreover, President Trump paid all the principal, interest, and premiums he owed, and no counterparty ever registered any complaint about the deals before the Attorney General began publicly accusing President Trump of issuing fraudulent SFCs. Had any counterparty been dissatisfied with its transaction, it would have had the incentive and resources to seek redress for violation of its rights through private litigation—litigation that, according to the Attorney General, would have yielded scores of millions of dollars of damages in some cases. No such lawsuit was ever filed.

On this appeal from the nearly half-billion dollar judgment against President Trump and his codefendants, two of my colleagues have cited scores of cases in an attempt to shoehorn this case into section 63(12). They have gone so far as to claim that the Attorney General, by bringing this action, has possibly saved the world from a replay of the financial meltdown of 2008; how this might be is not explained. Despite their efforts, they are unable to point to a single precedent—not even one—for the use of section 63(12) to target transactions such as those at issue here—bilateral, negotiated, arm's-length transactions between highly sophisticated parties, which had no effect on any public market, and which were, so far as the parties to the transactions were concerned, complete successes. Given the absence of any public interest in unwinding these deals, I would not stretch the scope of section 63(12) to reach them.

Moreover, even if bringing this action were within the scope of the Attorney General's power under section 63(12), Supreme Court erred both in granting her summary judgment as to liability on her first cause of action and in rendering a decision in her favor on all causes of action after trial. As explained below, the Attorney General simply failed to prove her case. Accordingly, I would reverse the judgment and dismiss the complaint. Thus, while I concur in the decretal's vacatur of the constitutionally unsound (and otherwise defective) half-billion dollar disgorgement award, I respectfully dissent insofar as the decretal affirms the judgment as to liability and as to the award of nonmonetary relief to the Attorney General.

I note that, of the four justices voting for the decretal, two — Justice Higgitt and Justice Rosado — do not actually agree with the resolution of the appeal for which they are voting. As stated in Justice Higgitt's opinion, he and Justice Rosado believe that the grant of summary judgment to the Attorney General (as to liability on the first cause of action) should be reversed, the judgment vacated, and the matter remanded for a new trial on all causes of action. I commend Justices Higgitt and Rosado for their selflessness in putting aside their personal views to allow this Court to dispose of this appeal. However, I find it remarkable that, although a three-justice majority of this five-justice panel believe that the judgment in favor of the Attorney General should not stand, as she has not carried her burden of proving a violation of the statute, the result of the appeal is the affirmance of the judgment, albeit as modified to eliminate the disgorgement award. To draw a sports analogy, it is as if a team is awarded a touchdown without crossing the goal line. In any event, it seems to me that the result I would reach is more consistent with the outlook of Justices Higgitt and Rosado than the affirmance of the judgment, as modified, for which they are voting.

This leads me to explain why, given that I am alone on this panel in my view that the complaint should be dismissed, I am not voting for the result favored by Justices Higgitt and Rosado — namely, vacatur of the judgment and remand for a new trial. First, I do not believe that we can ignore the fact that ordering a new trial of a case in which the primary defendant and witness is the sitting president of the United States (and will remain so for approximately another 3½ years) would disrupt the political life of the United States and would undermine its national interest, particularly at a time of high global tension, with ongoing conflicts in Europe and the Middle East. Second, while it is obvious from the divergence of opinions among the justices of this panel that this case calls out for further appellate review, an order by this Court directing a retrial is not immediately appealable to the Court of Appeals unless the appellant stipulates to be bound by the prior judgment in the event his further appeal is unsuccessful. It seems inconceivable that defendants would stipulate to a judgment carrying a half-billion dollar award against them. Finally, even if Justice Higgitt is correct that neither side should have been granted summary judgment on their dueling pretrial motions, I agree with Justice Moulton that the record before us—more than 100 volumes, comprising nearly 50,000 pages—is more than sufficient to decide the case without holding another trial. In that regard, I agree with defendants, and respectfully disagree with my colleagues, on the standard of proof applicable to the Attorney General's claims. In my view, the Attorney General should be required to prove her claims under section 63(12) by clear and convincing evidence, not by a mere preponderance of the evidence.

I turn first to the question of whether defendants' present argument is precluded by this Court's decision on the earlier appeal. At that juncture, in rejecting defendants' attempt to have the action dismissed at the pleading stage based on the absence of a state interest, we wrote: "The Attorney General is not suing on behalf of a private individual, but is vindicating the state's sovereign interest in enforcing its legal code—including its civil legal code—within its jurisdiction". It must be borne in mind that this statement was made in reviewing the disposition of a pre-answer motion to dismiss, made at the outset of the action, before the development of a full record. The Court's decision does not state that the Attorney General could ultimately prevail in this action without establishing some sort of state interest, differentiated from the interests of the sophisticated institutional "victims" of defendants' alleged misconduct, of the kind that has historically been recognized as conferring parens patriae standing "to commence an action to protect a public interest". Accordingly, in my view, the doctrine of law of the case does not preclude us from considering defendants' standing argument on the merits.[FN11]

[FN11]As I shall discuss subsequently, even if the law of the case doctrine would otherwise apply, I believe that the unique circumstances presented—and, in particular, the constitutional concerns raised by the Attorney General unprecedented use of the statute in this case—justify departing from the doctrine in this instance. In either case, I do not, as Justice Moulton asserts, "ignore[]" this Court's prior consideration of this issue in Trump I.

Neither Justice Moulton nor Justice Higgitt cites any precedent holding that privately actionable conduct—standing alone, and without proof of any grounds for a belief that the public good would be jeopardized if enforcement of the relevant rules were left to private litigation by the parties concerned—suffices to support a judgment in favor of the Attorney General under section 63(12). Indeed, Justice Higgitt candidly admits that in this case, "we are confronted with an unprecedented use of the statutory power" conferred by section 63(12).

Justice Higgitt is correct in stating that the manner in which section 63(12) is being used in this action is unprecedented. Earlier uses of section 63(12) all involved a specifically public interest, apart from any injury to sophisticated commercial parties fully able to monitor their own interests and to seek redress through private litigation for any violations of their rights. For example, such actions often target deceptive or otherwise unlawful commercial conduct directed toward the general public, most of whom are unsophisticated and whose individual losses may not be large enough to justify private litigation. Section 63(12) has also been used to attack deceptive conduct that influences the price of a publicly traded security, which is bought and sold anonymously on exchanges where traders rely on the issuer's public disclosures and do not conduct independent due diligence. But neither the Attorney General nor either of my colleagues has identified any prior case in which section 63(12) was used, as it is being used here, simply to assert a claim that a sophisticated commercial party was duped, in a face-to-face, arm's-length transaction, into accepting a lower interest rate, or a lower insurance premium, than it would have accepted absent the alleged deception.

In adopting the Attorney General's reading of the statute, my colleagues are empowering her office to attack, at will, virtually any business transaction, regardless of its success or failure, and in the absence of any discernable effect on the public. This is because—as a moment's reflection will disclose—a substantial business deal that goes awry (which none of the transactions at issue did) typically will give rise to a claim by the losing party that, in hindsight, the transaction was induced by some misrepresentation made by the counterparty. This is not surprising, since it is easy for inaccuracies to creep into the description of large business enterprises and certain kinds of representations — such as estimates of value, the kind of representation chiefly at issue here—are inherently subjective and disputable. Indeed, every day on which appeals are argued before this Court, at least one of the appeals (and frequently more than one) involves allegations of fraud in business transactions between sophisticated persons or entities—allegations frequently more serious than those made by the Attorney General in this case. By the reasoning of my colleagues, the Attorney General has the power to involve her office in any one of these disputes and to bring her own suit under section 63(12) against any defendant accused of "repeated" fraud, even if the counterparty's suit falls short under the more exacting rules applicable to common-law fraud claims. By holding that section 63(12) authorizes the Attorney General to pore over the records of private transactions, even successful deals, years after they closed, in the hope of finding at least two inaccurate or disputable statements on which to predicate a lawsuit, without any need to identify a greater public interest at stake, my colleagues invite arbitrary, unpredictable, and inevitably selective use of the judicial system for political ends, and not to "vindicate[] [any] public purpose".

And regrettably, the record makes plain that in this matter, we see an attempt to use section 63(12) and the judicial system for political ends. The proof of this is found not in anything written by me but in the words of the Attorney General herself. Specifically, as previously noted, the Attorney General, in her 2018 election campaign for her current office, repeatedly promised the voters that her top priority, upon being sworn in, would be to bring down President Trump and his real estate empire. The Attorney General made these statements long before February 27, 2019, the date of the supposed trigger for her investigation of President Trump and the other defendants—namely, the testimony before the House of Representatives Committee on Oversight and Reform (the House Oversight Committee) of Michael Cohen, the convicted perjurer and disbarred attorney, in which he claimed that the SFCs of President Trump, his former client, contained inflated valuations of his assets.

As previously noted, the test for fraud under section 63(12) is whether the targeted act "has the capacity or tendency to deceive, or creates an atmosphere conducive to fraud". In adjudicating this case, Supreme Court quoted this standard but disregarded it. In the order disposing of the summary judgment motions, the court held that the Attorney General was required only to prove that the SFCs were "false and misleading," and that the defendants had "repeatedly or persistently used the [SFCs] to transact business" to sustain the standalone Executive Law § 63(12) claim—nothing more. Likewise, in its decision after trial, the court held that plaintiff need only prove that "defendants used false statements in business." Thus, under Supreme Court's view, falsity was all that is required to be shown. In effect, the court adopted a strict liability standard for business representations. This was error.

Contrary to Justice Moulton's mischaracterization of my position, I am not arguing that the determination of whether a defendant has violated section 63(12) should be "tie[d] . . . to whether a counterparty exercised due diligence or justifiably relied on the [allegedly] fraudulent conduct." I agree that whether the particular counterparty in fact conducted due diligence, or in fact justifiably relief on the subject representation, is not a necessary element of the Attorney General's case under the statute. However, to reiterate, whether a defendant's representations to professionals in a given industry had a "capacity or tendency to deceive" or created "an atmosphere conducive to fraud" cannot be determined in a vacuum, without considering the generally accepted conventions and usages of that industry. If the universal practice in the relevant industry is not to take representations such as the SFCs at face value, to hold that the SFCs nonetheless had a "capacity or tendency to deceive" is to fashion an artificial construct of fraud — to treat the sophisticated, professional recipients of the SFCs as if they were naÏve consumers or small investors. Nothing in section 63(12) or the case law thereunder requires us to ignore reality in this fashion.

Turning first to the nature of the asset valuations, Supreme Court apparently took the view that valuations are "objectively" either right or wrong. However, expert testimony in the record establishes that, for a unique asset for which a current market value cannot be obtained with certainty, an appraiser has a choice of different methodologies by which to value the asset, and these different methodologies may yield significantly different valuation figures. As defendants' accounting expert Dr. Eli Bartov testified, a valuation is "an opinion on price derived from a valuation model" and, as an opinion, "can never be objective." Valuations of an asset are "subject to substantial variation," depending on the definitions, assumptions, and methodologies chosen by those preparing the valuation. Thus, the valuation process is inherently subjective, and the Attorney General's disagreement with the valuations of certain assets set forth in the SFCs, and with the supporting opinions of defendants' experts, did not establish "fraud" within the meaning of section 63(12).

In my view, the Attorney General failed to prove her case under any of the Penal Law causes of action for the same reason she failed to prove her case on the stand-alone section 63(12) cause of action — the valuations in the SFCs, as plainly labeled subjective estimates of value of unique assets, simply were not false, even if disputable, in the professional context in which they were used. That being the case, I really need not say more about the Penal Law causes of action. However, some comment is warranted on the dubious evidence on which the Attorney General relied to establish the intent element of these causes of action.

To prove intent in support of the Penal Law causes of action against President Trump, the Attorney General relied almost entirely on the testimony of Michael Cohen, the disbarred lawyer who pleaded guilty to (among other offenses) willful tax evasion, making false statements to a financial institution, and perjury. As summarized by Justice Moulton, Cohen testified that he and defendant Allen Weisselberg were, on occasion, "direct[ed]" by President Trump to "reverse engineer" the valuations in the SFCs to reach a "desired goal." To this end, Cohen testified, he would search for comparable properties on the Internet and base valuations of President Trump's assets on the results of his search so as to reach the predetermined goal. For several reasons—perhaps the same reasons that the Attorney General has, as previously noted, avoided referring to Cohen by name in her appellate brief, and has limited her citation of his testimony to the absolute minimum—Supreme Court's crediting of this testimony does not, in my view, warrant the deference that Justice Moulton extends to it.

Initially, as Justice Moulton acknowledges, Cohen's credibility is undeniably undermined by the crimes to which he pleaded guilty in federal court, which included willful income tax evasion (over a period of five years), making a false statement on a personal credit application to a financial institution, perjurious testimony before a congressional committee, and making an illegal political campaign contribution. A harsh but illuminating light is cast on Cohen's character by the Government's sentencing memorandum, dated December 17, 2018, that was submitted in his case to the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. Cohen's unreliability as a witness is further demonstrated by his testimony in this case specifically disavowing his guilty pleas to the tax evasion and false statement charges. Cohen went so far as to testify, under oath, that he had been lying to the federal court when he pleaded guilty to those offenses.

Since my view is that the complaint should be dismissed in its entirety, both for the Attorney General's lack of standing and for the failure of her proof, and given that I am in dissent, I need not reach the issue of the statute of limitations. Nonetheless, I note that I agree with Justice Higgitt on this issue to the extent he holds that, with regard to defendants bound by the relevant tolling agreement, the Attorney General's claims are time-barred to the extent they are based on the issuance of SFCs pursuant to transactions that closed before July 13, 2014. This is the necessary implication of our holding in the previous decision that "claims are time barred if they accrued—that is, the transactions were completed—before [the applicable cut-off date]".

(Rather hilariously, when I originally clicked on this HTML opinion, it contained several element-nesting errors (unclosed <b> and <i> elements), and even some mojibake at the top. But it looks like those problems were fixed between then and when I finished writing this comment.)

Articles: AP, Reuters

Enlighten my ignorance. I'm going by headlines I see online, so is it that the court decided the damages awarded against Trump were too high so they were struck down, but the charges can stand?

And what does this mean for the NY AG Letitia James? Is she okay on the grounds that the charges were legit to bring against him, or is this going to damage her?

My guess is that under the hood this was a political grenade and everyone deemed this the easiest way to defuse it without causing other problems. The reality of the law was likely subordinate to getting out as clean as possible.

So we get this - and move on.

The trial judge convicted Trump of fraud, and on that basis imposed on Trump two separate punishments—disgorgement of several hundred megadollars, and disqualification from serving as an officer or director of any New York business for several years. Disgorgement is, not really punitive, but compensatory, meant to undo any damages that were done. The appeals panel ruled that the prosecutor failed to prove the quantity of damages caused by Trump's fraud, so the disgorgement had no basis. But the punitive disqualification still stands.

I have no opinion on what effect this will have on the prosecutor's reputation.

True but a majority of the court would’ve voted to vacate or overturn the entire conviction. But they couldn’t agree on vacate v overturn.

I dunno, feels pretty fair as an opinion. The book-cookers get blocked from business, Trump gets a shorter-term injunction for orchestrating it, but because no real harm was done, the penalties are struck down as deranged and vindictive. I don’t see a better way of threading the needle between condoning fraud if you’re important enough and deciding on damages based on how much our feelings are hurt.

This is not a very substantive comment, but you are most lawyer-brained non-lawyer I know. It's impressive (and I mean this as a compliment), I had a career counselor once suggest I take my wordcel self down that path, and I'd have probably gone insane.

I don't think that merely summarizing court opinions is an appropriate basis for being considered "lawyer-brained".

My brother in $deity, you do this every week, and also in the Fun Thread. I look forward to those posts, but I think it makes a powerful statement.

Calling a random civil engineer who reads court opinions for fun and summarizes them for karma "lawyer-brained" is an insult to the multiple actual lawyer denizens of this forum.

According to the US Bureau of Labor Statistics:

Lawyers typically do the following:

  • Advise and represent clients in criminal or civil proceedings and in other legal matters

  • Communicate with clients, colleagues, judges, and others involved in a case

  • Conduct research and analysis of legal issues

  • Interpret laws, rulings, and regulations for individuals and businesses

  • Present facts and findings relevant to a case on behalf of their clients

  • Prepare and file legal documents, such as lawsuits, contracts, and wills

Lawyers, also called attorneys, research the intent of laws and judicial decisions and determine whether they apply to the specific circumstances of their client’s case. They act as both advocates and advisors for one party in a criminal (offense against the state or the nation) or civil (matters between individuals or organizations) proceeding.

An actual lawyer-brained person would argue with other users about complicated issues, would complain to the moderators regarding poorly worded rules, and would present his learned legal interpretations of various cases. I do none of those things.

Calling a random civil engineer who reads court opinions for fun and summarizes them for karma "lawyer-brained" is an insult to the multiple actual lawyer denizens of this forum.

If anything, it's a compliment to the actual lawyer denizens here. Or at least compared to the many other insults I've heard.

Hi, one of the 'actual lawyer' denizens speaking, you're doing great, please keep that up.

Being able to summarize legalese in human-readable terms is probably the most immediately useful part of being a lawyer.

Arguing over the definition of "lawyer-brained" is about the most lawyer-brained thing there is. I legitimately can't tell if you're trying to satirize yourself here. Either way, I love it.

Reducing the financial penalty (and the sanctions that looked like they were aimed to discourage preserving an argument for review) helps a lot of the most egregious abuses, here, but it's still an absolute mess of the case and an opinion, here. Friedman's "However, I find it remarkable that, although a three-justice majority of this five-justice panel believe that the judgment in favor of the Attorney General should not stand, as she has not carried her burden of proving a violation of the statute, the result of the appeal is the affirmance of the judgment..." isn't inexplicable, but it's hard to read as anything but a strong bet by two judges that the state supreme court is willing to do their dirty work for them.

Is it because she didn’t carry the burden, or is it because the “divided court” somehow ruins a retrial? I don’t understand why that isn’t an option.

I think only Friedman found a case-wide failure to carry the burden of proof; the rest of the judges mostly focus on the burden of proof for disgorgement aka the high fines.

In New York, as in most other jurisdictions, appeals courts can only overturn an action from a lower court with a full majority of the appeals court judges. Here, there's a majority (5/5) on the fines and sanctions, and division on everything else, and it's not even clear that Higgitt and Rosado want a retrial here so much as think it would be appropriate in a non-Trump case.

Beyond that, there's also just a lot of issues with this specific case getting a retrial -- Higgitt/Rosado might have settled for a dissental because they couldn't get a third signing onto a retrial, but they might have not really wanted a retrial in this case and only argued it for others in the future. Everyone else gives a different reason why they don't want a retrial. From the Moulton/Renwick:

Returning this action to Supreme Court for a new trial as urged by Justice Higgitt is both unnecessary and likely terminal. It is difficult to imagine that a trial could proceed while one of the principal defendants, and a central witness, is President of the United States. The inevitable elapse of time and the attendant difficulties in recreating a vast record of testimony and documents — an exercise that is both Sisyphean and unneeded, because an extensive trial record already exists — would likely consign this meritorious case to oblivion.

From Friedman:

First, I do not believe that we can ignore the fact that ordering a new trial of a case in which the primary defendant and witness is the sitting president of the United States (and will remain so for approximately another 3½ years) would disrupt the political life of the United States and would undermine its national interest, particularly at a time of high global tension, with ongoing conflicts in Europe and the Middle East.[FN3] Second, while it is obvious from the divergence of opinions among the justices of this panel that this case calls out for further appellate review, an order by this Court directing a retrial is not immediately appealable to the Court of Appeals unless the appellant stipulates to be bound by the prior judgment in the event his further appeal is unsuccessful (CPLR 5601[c], 5602[b][1]; see Trezza v Metropolitan Transp. Auth., 23 NY3d 1011, 1011 [2014]; Maynard v Greenberg, 82 NY2d 913, 914-915 [1994]). It seems inconceivable that defendants would stipulate to a judgment carrying a half-billion dollar award against them.[FN4] Finally, even if Justice Higgitt is correct that neither side should have been granted summary judgment on their dueling pretrial motions, I agree with Justice Moulton that the record before us — more than 100 volumes, comprising nearly 50,000 pages — is more than sufficient to decide the case without holding another trial.

…this can’t have been any easier than including a paragraph or two of your own commentary.

I will rule that it does clear the bar, but dang, I’d have preferred page numbers instead of block quotes.

This can’t have been any easier than including a paragraph or two of your own commentary.

I don't have any opinion on which judges are correct.

I’d have preferred page numbers instead of block quotes.

Preliminary "slip" opinions from New York's appeals panels are published in HTML without page numbers, not in PDF with page numbers. I have seen people refer to a 320-page PDF, but it's not official.

(Weirdly, New York's trial courts publish slip opinions in a mixture of HTML and PDF.)

I suppose you’d know better than I.

I've been chewing on an idea and wanted to try a steel-manning exercise.

The premise is this: If we grant that the cultural right is "winning" right now, what's the strongest possible argument that this is leading to some genuinely bad outcomes for the country?

I have a few specific angles in mind. How would you build the strongest case for these ideas?

  1. A more "gloves-off" approach to online speech is a win for free expression, but its most visible result has been the normalization of unapologetic racism. The core of this argument isn't just that it's unpleasant, but that it's actively corroding social trust and making it harder to have a unified country. Not sure if you’ve seen this too, but I see tons of ‘black fatigue’ and explicitly white nationalist people in my feed and there’s not much I or anybody else can do about it. What does the most persuasive version of this argument look like?

  2. It seems pretty clear that rhetoric from the top, especially from Trump, has pushed nativist ideas into the open. The strong version of this argument is that this has moved beyond simple policy disagreements (like border security) and has become a real cultural attitude of exclusion. How would you build the case that this isn't just a fringe phenomenon anymore, but a significant and growing force in American life?

  3. This flows from the last point. For decades, our biggest strategic advantage has been that the smartest, most ambitious people from all over the world wanted to come here. The argument to be steel-manned is that we're actively squandering that. Between the nativist vibe and a chaotic immigration system, we're sending a signal that the best and brightest should maybe look elsewhere. What's the most solid case that we're causing a real "brain drain" that will kneecap us economically and technologically for years to come?

What makes me think about this point is all of the talk about Indian people online. Like them or not, they are STRONG contributors in the workplace. If the rhetoric gets to a point where legal immigrants and contributors to our society feel unwelcome, there could be real brain drain effects that we’ve never experienced before. The Vivek backlash a few months ago also is probably related.

Again, knowing that ideas like these are losing right now, how you would argue them to the best of your ability? I’ll admit I kind of want to hear them outside a setting like X where communities are isolated and you’re mostly preaching to the choir / your ingroup

A more "gloves-off" approach to online speech is a win for free expression, but its most visible result has been the normalization of unapologetic racism.

For me, as much as I've been infuriated with progressive activism the past decade, the censorship rollback has revealed that the leftists were, in fact, right about many of the rightoids. Many actually are racist -- not in the "oh, there may be group differences" sense, but in the "I hate colored people and I want them out of the country" sense.

Why we can't have a single group that has stable, high-IQ people in charge advocating for basic civic decency, responsibility, and functional society is beyond me. Yes, we can and should imprison colored people for committing violent crime. No, this is not racist. No, that does not mean we ship all the colored people away at gunpoint. As Bukele has so clearly demonstrated, even in a country quite literally full of brown people with a globally chart-topping murder rate, all you have to do is put the violent criminals in prison and the crime magically drops to levels of western Europe. It is, in fact, that simple.

Alas, this is all clearly too much to ask of the Americans.

With violent crime it really is the same very small number of people doing it(yes, I’ve seen whatever Twitter thread you want to reference trying to prove mathematically that 13/52 means some notable percentage of the black male population will commit murder over the course of their lives- it’s all bupkiss because they don’t account for repeat offenders). With school performance and demands for a bailout because of it it is not.

Why we can't have a single group that has stable, high-IQ people in charge advocating for basic civic decency, responsibility, and functional society is beyond me

We really tried. Politicians were supposed to be that (that's the whole point of having representative republic instead of direct democracy). They are obviously nothing of the sort. Journalists were supposed to be that. They sold their mission for clicks and ideological peer adoration. Academia was supposed to be that. They sold their mission for grants and ideological power. We don't have it because - collectively, as a society - we tried it and we fucked it up. We don't have currently any institution that is interested in doing that.

That said, anti-immigrant sentiment is nothing new. It has been about the Irish, about the Germans, about the Chinese, about the Japanese (US people literally put them in camps!) and so on, and so forth. Cross-cultural encounters will always produce people that reject the other culture and hate everything and everybody that has to do with it. It can be worked through - provided that there's a working integration process. Multiculturalism broke that process though because it's ideological premise has been that integration is evil, demanding newcomers to adapt to the host culture is evil, the host culture is by default oppressive and guilty, and must go out of its way - including throwing out the rules that apply to the members of the host culture and hold it together - lest the newcomers feel inconvenienced or sad. The result has been a predictable disaster everywhere it has been tried. If the right wants to recover from this disaster, they need to formulate a coherent integration policy, and build a clear ideological wall of separation between anti-immigrant sentiment (which will not go anywhere, it is an inevitable consequence of culture heterogeneity) and enforcing integration policy. Which may piss off some loudmouths but there's no other way if there is to be an ideologically sound platform that does not cut ties with the centuries of American tradition.

For me, as much as I've been infuriated with progressive activism the past decade, the censorship rollback has revealed that the leftists were, in fact, right about many of the rightoids.

They've always been right that some people are racist. The steelmanned counter-argument is just that the cure is worse than the disease . Progressives themselves agree that pure racial animus alone is not that important, which is why they define it away via "racism= prejudice + power" . Progressives can't be trusted not because racism doesn't exist, but because it's a blank cheque for a bunch of very stupid and/or illiberal policies.

I think the logic largely goes like this:

  1. The solution is just to jail the blacks who are committing all the crime and loudly say its a bad thing and then do nothing to the non-criminals
  2. The left has made clear that is not an option, as long as the levels are disproportionate doing anything about the problem members is not allowed, and loudly decrying them is absolutely verboten.
  3. Fine then, if the existence of a black population implies a large level of criminality and disfunction which we are not allowed to address then the problem is the existence of the population.

Its the same way that most people are not immigration absolutists but if the left and center refuse to deal with them problem and indeed insist on making it worse then I guess I'll vote for the right, even though they will go much further than I'd prefer. Or if the right insists on full abortion bans then I'll vote for the left and their up to the moment of birth plans, even though I'd prefer reasonable limits.

If the left was open to fixing the actual problem then throwing the baby out with the bathwater would be less popular. Though the fact that in this case the non-problem population is also very loudly offended by the idea of solving the problem makes it worse.

Perhaps racism evolved because it is useful? I’m not suggesting there are t terrible failure modes but if multiculturalism actually is bad, then maybe some soft racism is actually good?

At risk of reductio ad fascism, there are quite a number of things which are useful but not good. We should not do those things.

I see tons of ‘black fatigue’ and explicitly white nationalist people in my feed

Your feed is your own problem. Both the comments about black fatigue and the white supremacist remarks are mostly bots designed to grab your attention, and even the ones that are real are chosen by bot to grab your attention. Make better choices.

I don't think that's possible at scale. You could get smarter, more self-aware people to do this, but most people aren't either one of these things. In fact, I think bots designed to grab your attention implicitly makes this point. The bots will grab the people's attention, so "Make better choices" isn't really feasible for the population.

The Left's attempt at trying to "end" racism by shifting blame onto the history of white people while also censoring their opinions made things worse, so I'm not advocating for going back to that, but the algorithm and its recognition of our tendency to gravitate toward controversy should maybe figure out better ways to redirect the energy people have for hating others.

It seems pretty clear that rhetoric from the top, especially from Trump, has pushed nativist ideas into the open. The strong version of this argument is that this has moved beyond simple policy disagreements (like border security) and has become a real cultural attitude of exclusion. How would you build the case that this isn't just a fringe phenomenon anymore, but a significant and growing force in American life?

I don't take those immigration arguments seriously. America is and will remain an attractive destination because America is doing better than most of the world, same as always. Americans are still, factually, incredibly immigrant-friendly by most standards. Hell, I think Trump may end up suffering because of the one thing he undoubtedly did well, closing the border, reduces the salience of the matter and normies become much less willing to tolerate his other immigration shenanigans.

Complaints by downwardly mobile people online won't change that an Indian American woman is married to the VP right now and is closer to power than any online dissident rightist or person bitter about being driven out of a Google job

The argument I would make is that the left is better at this, according to the Right's own theory of the case. They took over the institutions more effectively, to the point where the attempted populist reclamation (which came pretty late) looks hamfisted and illegitimate in comparison. They possess the bulk of the human capital and their ideology is just baked into the culture now. So there'll be huge payback when they inevitably get into power with the support of a radicalized normie base. If you think this leads to awful decisions and a never-ending polarization spiral, it's pretty bad for everyone, not just Republicans.

The premise is this: If we grant that the cultural right is "winning" right now, what's the strongest possible argument that this is leading to some genuinely bad outcomes for the country?

I think your premise is dubious, but assuming it's true, mostly what I see is a victory for accelerationists.

Everything Trump is doing now means when Democrats come back into power, they are going to try to reverse everything he did and then set the dial at eleventy and make sure no MAGA ever again. The MAGAs currently in power, of course, know this is what will happen, so they're doing their best to make their changes difficult or impossible to reverse, while hitting eleventy themselves.

I think Trump and Desantis and Abbot have demonstrated that the accelerationists were already in charge on immigration. There really was basically no control of the border and no attempt to remove obvious criminals once they got here. That's why Trump was able to get at all that low-hanging fruit, and why there haven't been really compelling immigration atrocity stories. The best they could do was Abrego Garcia... and he certainly seems like a bad hombre, even if his case was screwed up procedurally.

Immigration is one of the issues where I tend to be more in agreement than not with the "anti" side.

Which is why I think your fist-pumping for "fuck yeah faster harder" accelerationism is ill-considered.

Because if you think future Democratic administrations cannot open the borders more than previous ones did, I think you're in for a world of disappointment. And that is frankly what I expect to happen.

Skipping the NGO middlemen of bus passes and providing guidance by running direct flights instead, or what?

Skipping the NGO middlemen of bus passes and providing guidance by running direct flights instead, or what?

No, they were already doing that also. The AP confirms this in the process of denying it.

Ha, I was thinking of the recent brouhaha in the UK with the Afghans, this one had already slipped my mind. Thank you for the reminder.

If we grant that the cultural right is "winning" right now

They’re not. All you’re seeing is a “10 steps forward, 2 steps back” kind of situation.

I should hate the tiger that is trying to eat me

…Wait, what? Why? Feeling hatred for a non-sapient animal seems bizarre to me. Never mind whether it's ever good to feel hatred even about fellow human beings - I find your example baffling on its own terms. You may as well hate a thunderstorm when it threatens your town, or rage against the concept of gravity as you're falling off a bridge. Like… you can hate any one of those things if you really want, I guess. By definition it's not like they're going to mind. But it seems deeply pointless, bordering on maladaptive. I certainly don't see why you "should" hate the tiger, whether that's a moral argument of a practical one. If it's a moral one, what has the tiger done to 'deserve' hatred that the concept of gravity has not? If it's a practical one, what does hating the tiger accomplish that is not better accomplished, and in less stressful a way for you, by dispassionately, rationally accounting for the tiger's behavior, or indeed, by simply being afraid of the tiger?

The tiger, like a political opponent and unlike gravity, is a problem that you can at least theoretically end. And once you've made that decision to seek it's end, it is an adaptive simplification to just psychologically refer back to that seeking of ends as a terminal value.

Thus, it makes perfect sense to hate the tiger.

psychologically refer back to that seeking of ends as a terminal value

I think that's a very lacking definition of "hate". I would associate that word with an obsessive, rage-filled state of mind - which is both unpleasant for whoever feels it, and more likely to cloud one's judgement than to help with the task at hand. You don't need to hate a deer to successfully hunt and kill it; why should the tiger be any different?

The tiger is an active threat. The deer is not. Hate walls off the vile spark that spares the foe. And if you were at risk of starving, I bet you'd muster up the courage to hate that deer - for your family's sake.

If racism is rational, it's not bigoted, and it's not clear why it should be a bad thing.

If sexism is rational, it's not bigoted, and it's not clear why it should be a bad thing.

If the logical consequences of labor meriting little to no wage is rational, it's not bigoted, and it's not clear why it should be a bad thing.

As soon as you start asking "why it's clear it should be a bad thing", it's a direct attack on the social license of the people whose set of characteristics predict they'd be on the low side. This is why the left is the way that it is, in attitude and in membership. Parasitism is a valid evolutionary strategy.

Now, liberalism had an answer for this in the "accept a dead weight loss to the incapable such that the categories stop being easily predictable [in the sense that it becomes more likely a citizen X is being treated as they deserve individually, not citizen X having special/non-special protection for being a hypenated-X]". But that process takes time and is vulnerable to being hijacked by "therefore the standard is evil".

It seems to me that almost every woman is more cautious around any individual man vs any individual woman (especially in isolated situations) due to the risk of sexual assault. Is this sexist? Should they not discriminate in this manner?

Isolated allowance for pattern recognition. The usual Who? Whom?

A woman more on guard around men than around women is being smart in looking out for herself.

A woman less relaxed around black men than she is around white men is a racist who should be ashamed of herself.

Yes, that would be an example of the phenomenon that I am referring to. I am interested in the justification for this discrepancy in the mind of a progressive or even classical liberal. @ThisIsSin care to weigh in?

And so at the end of the day, you end up with the choice of being hijacked into accepting unlimited loss so the people on the low side feel better, or saying "yes, chad" to "If X is rational, it's not bigoted and it's not clear why it should be a bad thing". Or not saying it but acting in the same way, as with Jesse Jackson's famous remark about being ashamed at his relief that someone he heard walking behind him turned out to be white.

Well, all organizations that aren't explicitly progress-minded/right-wing eventually gain a parasitic load right at the border between stability and collapse/become left-wing, after all.

Or not saying it but acting in the same way

Which was the '60s-'90s compromise. It's actually kind of interesting that the balance between [what everyone else typifies as] left-wing and right-wing takes on the character of a marriage between the statistically-mean man and the statistically-mean woman.

Amusingly, I disagree with pretty much all of your premises. But #1 is interesting as a jumping-off point, so I’ll address it.

There’s a broad concept that left-wing sentiment is pro-black and right-wing sentiment is anti-black, and the two forces battle over how nicely to treat blacks. I think this is a misconception. Neither side, from what I can tell, really likes blacks, and both surface their antipathy in different ways which wind up being one and the same larger system.

By blacks, I don’t strictly mean people of African heritage. What I’m pointing to here is a subculture in America that is descended from slavery and which exists substantially outside the main drive of society. It has its own norms, doesn’t intermarry too often, doesn’t economically interact that much, watches its own TV, listens to its own music, and so on. This is what is disliked in its actuality by the political wings, because it’s not really part of either of them. The reality is, of course, more nuanced than this, but this is a good overview.

The left nominally likes blacks, until it comes to the problems that really do exist in black communities. These can be broadly described as symptoms of poverty, or of an underclass. I'm talking crime, of course, but homophobia is a pretty serious repellent here. The left response to these is to pretend they don’t actually exist, or are somehow caused by systemic pressures, which of course is besides the point. The left loves blacks who have integrated thoroughly into their cultural milieu.

The right is simpler. They just don’t like ‘em. There are some good ones, but the rest are bad. Best to stay away as much as you can.

So, neither wanting to get deeply involved, a fairly predictable pattern emerges. First, the left tries to support the “black community,” or at least the image they have of them. This tends to be through charity and lenience towards crime. This generally does not go well, and without seeing any positive outcomes, the general public starts getting sick of crime. Then the right wing sweeps in, declares the problem in racial(-ly coded) language, and cracks down hard. It doesn’t take long to notice that this policy rests on practical elements of prejudice against blacks, and so the general public starts swinging the other way…

So you get this effect, where first the left comes in and says: listen, you don’t need to work, have these handouts, shoplifting isn’t that big a deal, neither are drugs, no we won’t stop the violent gangbangers, we believe in community justice… so black people take that at face value, huh, guess dissipation and petty crime aren’t a big deal, and if anyone disrespects me I’d better deal with it myself. Then the right comes in and says, HA! You idiots believed that? Nope, it’s prison for you. And we know you’re all like that. So now obviously a lot of blacks are in jail, but also the kids start to learn: this is what it means to be black, they all see you that way… and maybe start thinking it’s right.

So I see these two movements as the greater American ambivalence towards blacks. There was a great injustice done to them, and they are suffering from it generations later. This is felt on a wide scale. It makes people uncomfortable. So people aren’t willing to see blacks as other people, and instead hide their individuality under the label. When a white person does something, or feels something, it’s because of who they are, but when a black person does, it’s because of who blacks are. But if you want to change a group’s behavior, you need to change the behavior of the individuals in that group, one by one. There is no other way.

Any serious attempt to deal with the troubles afflicting black Americans, and those they inflict on others, has to start with this view on individuality. “Blacks” are not like you and me, but individual black people can be. Others might not, and they might be criminal, and if so they need to be dealt with, but this is a fact disconnected from the rest. Some might need more explicit inculturation. That will require generations, and the removal of any privileges for being black. The end result of this must be the destruction of a uniquely black culture in America. This is inevitable. If we’re all alike, then there will be nothing left to distinguish that unique culture, except in superficial and vague elements. Anyone know what it means to be Irish besides wearing green on St Paddy’s? Or Italian besides having prejudiced views of different brands of San Marzano tomatoes? Or German besides living in the Midwest? Neither do I. And with intermarriage the distinction breaks down further.

So the current Trump thing is more of the same… except that politics is becoming less racially split. A lot of black men voted T last time. This means they’re not voting as a bloc, that they’re not voting for historic reasons, that there’s something they want past their race. Class is up, comparatively. Maybe that’s the end of black America: in our workers, uniting against the Man. We’ll have to see, I guess.

I had a comment a while ago about how people outside America looking in are still at the "call a spade a spade" level of meta, and when they do what they say and yell about what they want they're confused about why the dominant American culture doesn't get it. The dominant American culture has been sipping industrial grade postmodern self-aware media propaganda and their mainstream entertainment is constructed out of large irony blocks.

Maybe African-Americans are not deep enough within the levels of simulacra to have internalized not to take either wing of the political aisle at face value yet.

I’m not sure that ‘the good ones’ and the ‘black activists working to improve their communities’ are meaningfully different concepts. Sûre, one is a polite euphemism, but the red tribe uses a lot fewer of those in general.

As far as politics getting less racially split- well I think that’s probably downstream of social dysfunction. The deal was always ‘blacks vote Democrat, democrats take care of the black community through their machines’, but when the community gets worse young men are going to be the first defectors(and old women thé last)- almost exactly the pattern we see with black Trump supporters. At the end of the day thé black tribe is its own thing, much more ethnic than thé basically-assimilatory red and blue tribes. It’s urban, poor, southern, and honor driven. ‘Blue’ whites might really like black tribe music, and ‘red’ whites might do so much more quietly, but they’re still separate- and both tribes of whites only offer assimilation over the long term. Now this isn’t particularly realistic for blues because there is no place in the blue tribe for 85 IQ types, so the process is a lot slower and less insistent(the red tribe answer would be that there are many eg truck drivers who make a good living while not being good at school, disproportionately black), hence really identitarian blacks are stuck in a coalition agreement with the blues. But college, reparations, and progressive values are the same package as hard work, family values, and Christianity- just with different components.

But college, reparations, and progressive values are the same package as hard work, family values, and Christianity- just with different components.

I’d disagree that these are comparable, in line with your 85 IQ observation. The urban intellectual model of advancement is through education and a high-skill career, which is simply not in the cards for people under 120ish IQ. That’s the equivalent to family values and hard work, respectively, which targets a different demographic. So what can those urban intellectuals offer blacks? In this case, I think it’s race-based action and reparations (welfare etc). The final item is what’s expected of each group once they’ve advanced - for the urbans, it’s progressive values, like you note, and I’d place patriotism (especially local) over Christ for the workers (of course the individual workers have their own priorities - but this appears to me to be what the system, the tribe, wants out of them). And from the blacks, the only thing needed is the vote. This is what consistently pisses me off about the Democratic plans for black Americans. It reduces them to a client class. They get treats, the party gets votes. This is intensely degrading. Shouldn’t they get something to be proud of in themselves, the power of their work, things they acc do beyond asking for more?

So that’s why I don’t think they’re comparable. The rule system that urban elites hold themselves to is different from the rules they require of others.

I’m not sure that ‘the good ones’ and the ‘black activists working to improve their communities’ are meaningfully different concepts. Sûre, one is a polite euphemism, but the red tribe uses a lot fewer of those in general.

I don't think the right wing would consider black activists to be "the good ones". Or at least not the same black activists that the left wing would describe as "black activists working to improve their communities".

But it’s not like they’re different concepts

I think they are. The "black activists" are leaders of generally good people in bad circumstances, who are uplifting the rest of said people. The "good ones" are decent people in an otherwise bad bunch, who may be stuck with them or may have escaped but in either case aren't bettering their hopeless community. Sowell's unconstrained vision versus constrained vision.

Normiecons do not think every Quantavius and Latisha is evil. They think that they are mostly decent people shaped by a bad culture(which was ruined by liberals because they hate families). 'The good ones' are doing their part to fix that- by assimilating into the red tribe and hopefully leading their fellows to do the same.

C'mon, these community activists aren't doing shit to benefit the average Shaniqua and Tyrone either, don't be stupid. The main difference is that the red tribe is just willing to openly point to 'bad culture' as a major part of their bad circumstances whereas blues only hint at it and use euphemisms.

I think they were saying that black activists are to the left as “the good ones” are to the right, not that they are the same group.

So, neither wanting to get deeply involved, a fairly predictable pattern emerges. First, the left tries to support the “black community,” or at least the image they have of them. This tends to be through charity and lenience towards crime. This generally does not go well, and without seeing any positive outcomes, the general public starts getting sick of crime. Then the right wing sweeps in, declares the problem in racial(-ly coded) language, and cracks down hard. It doesn’t take long to notice that this policy rests on practical elements of prejudice against blacks, and so the general public starts swinging the other way…

The language always becomes racially coded because the underlying phenomenon is too. If you have one group that's massively more prone to crime, any attempt to attack criminals will lead to that word being associated with that group - until the problem resolves itself.

How do we know this? Because even left-wingers do not escape. Hillary Clinton was criticized for her own usage of terms like "superpredator" - meant to describe young, "feral" teens committing crime with abandon but it was then taken to be a racial dogwhistle based on who it was applied to. Trump, bizarrely, used it against Biden as well.

Or German besides living in the Midwest? Neither do I.

The presence of German culture in the US was pretty much forced out of the popular consciousness in two waves in the 1910s and 1940s for obvious reasons. It used to be a common language, even with German-language newspapers. Somehow the folks that get very upset about "destroying subcultures" never notice that example. You can still find bits and pieces around: Oktoberfest and such, and amusingly in elements of polka in Norteño music.

Also shiner bock beer, German influence in barbecue, etc.

It’s still quietly dominant in Texas, the Midwest, and chunks of New England. But none of those are leading cultural centers like California.

Texas BBQ, country music, craft beer are all Having A Moment and all are very German influenced.

A more "gloves-off" approach to online speech is a win for free expression, but its most visible result has been the normalization of unapologetic racism. The core of this argument isn't just that it's unpleasant, but that it's actively corroding social trust and making it harder to have a unified country.

I can't steelman it because it's begging for "remove the beam in your own eye!" or "your rules, applied fairly" and devolving into a chicken and egg argument. Unapologetic racism was already normalized, but only against certain groups. A win for free expression just opened that up to all groups on social media; it's still restricted in any meaningful publication and the consequences are quite different for racism against protected groups versus unprotected.

Apparently "no racism" wasn't an option on the cultural table.

How would you build the case that this isn't just a fringe phenomenon anymore, but a significant and growing force in American life?

Surely the DHS twitter feed does enough to provide that case?

we're sending a signal that the best and brightest should maybe look elsewhere.

The problem with this one is, there's nowhere else to look. Much of Europe is having its own nativist backlash and if you're particularly high-achieving in a technological field, you won't get paid a fraction as much. The H1B changes will mean fewer low-level people coming in that route, but I don't think the announced changes will affect the "best and brightest" that much.

I remember reading years ago about a survey someone gave to Christians and atheists, asking them what they find to be the most compelling argument for either side. It turned out that the most compelling argument for atheism, as rated by atheists didn't rank all that high for Christians, and the one rated by Christians wasn't all that compelling to atheists, and you saw the same patterns for arguments for Christianity. So what is the steelman argument for atheism? The one rated highest by atheists, since that is presumably what made them lose their faith (as that was in the times when people were Christian-by-default, rather than atheist-by-default), or the one rated highest by Christians, as that is what they consider the most challenging for their faith?

You asked for me to defend these arguments to the best of my ability, and that would indicate that answering in the mode of a Christian giving the best argument for atheism would be ok, but my best argument for the ideas you outlined might contain assumptions that you disagree with so deeply, that you want recognize my defense as defending your ideas anymore. On the other hand, without these assumptions, I won't find these defenses particularly compelling, so how much of a steelman are they then? Still, the best of my ability sounds like I would have to be the one to find them compelling, so this is the perspective I'll be taking, while trying to preserve your core premises as best as I can.

The kinds of arguments that I find the most compelling on these issues are ones that acknowledge that certain things happened that got us to where we are now. Regarding your first point, this would mean reformulating the part about unapologetic racism being suddenly more visible. There was plenty of unapologetic racism before Elon bought Twitter and changed the rules there, what changed is that the list of acceptable targets was expanded. The other part of the argument, about corroding social trust and making it harder to have a unified country is pretty straight forward. It's not sustainable for pretty much the same reasons why unapologetic anti-white racism turned out to be unsustainable. "We don't have to live like this, we can respect each other and work together for the common good" sounds like pretty good deal to me. It's most compelling version is liberals like TracingWoodgrains LARPing as Lee Kuan Yew, even if I don't find them credible. If concessions are made about the things that went wrong in the past, and I get assurances that skulls will be cracked and kneecaps will be broken to set it right, or better yet I get to see some gesture-of-good-faith kneecappings firsthand, I might indeed be compelled to drop the hammer on internet racists from - roughly speaking - my side.

Regarding your second point:

How would you build the case that this isn't just a fringe phenomenon anymore, but a significant and growing force in American life?

That sounds like it's mostly an empirical argument, correct? If so, that's probably the easiest case to argue. If you look at Vivek / Elon / H1B-Gate, such strong pushback would have been hard to imagine even as recently as Trump's first term. The ideas might not be completely dominant on the right, but they're definitely not fringe anymore either.

Your third point is the most difficult to argue, because it requires the acceptance of several premises. First, did the strategic advantage of the US stem from the smartest and most ambitious people coming there, or did they come there because of American strategic advantages? As an americanized by media Europoor, that saw a bit of your country, I can tell you this isn't just a chicken vs. egg thing. My experience of America is that it has (or used to have) an entire culture conducive to making things happen, that you won't find anywhere in Europe (with the possible exception of the UK, where you might get but a glimpse, but not more). I better not get into that too much, because the more I talk about it, the more it will undermine the core premise of your argument, and you asked me to argue for it.

The second part you have to argue is that the US is indeed losing it's economic advantage. That's the part I'm quite open to. A fellow motte-poster made the argument a few times that China's culture is adapting to enable the kind of cutting-edge innovation that was typically associated with America. Again, quite compelling, and all the denials feel pretty cope-y to me.

With the third part we start running into problems again, as you have to show that it's the lack of openness to immigration that would be responsible for the loss of the strategic advantage. I haven't really heard an argument for that, not even an unconvincing one, and I drawing a blank trying to argue for this. I can say what would convince me if you could demonstrate it: if you could see countries like Canada, that imported millions of immigrants, suddenly zoom past it's previous economic performance, that would make a very strong case for your argument.

Thank you for the thoughtful response. Agreed that arguing from the perspective of what you would find compelling makes sense, as it's the only way to find the real weak points.

On Point 1, your proposed solution is interesting. That idea of a negotiated peace is pragmatic. It frames the problem as a failure of mutually assured destruction and suggests restoring it. If people saw that bad behavior was being addressed universally instead of just selectively, they might actually buy into the system again. However, I think the cat is out of the bag now. The decadent 2010s seem to have ruined any chance of this working. The 90s feel like the last time there was a real effort towards a color-blind society where character matters most. Things are too tribal for that to work nowadays. There are literally advanced degrees for studying how persecuted X group is. We get worked up over unfair treatment of our own group and are convinced other groups are getting away with it / getting a better deal, generally speaking.

On point 2, it seems we’re in agreement. These ideas have moved from the comment section to the core of the debate. Not necessarily a bad thing, but I feel it’s harder to make progress when the ‘real’ arguments are more antagonistic than Ken Bone saying we can all get along.

On point three, I completely agree that America has/had a unique "secret sauce" for getting things done. My contention is that it's part of a feedback loop. Our culture of ambition creates opportunities, which attracts the world's top talent. That talent reinforces and evolves the culture, starting new companies, creating new norms, and building towards the next thing.

I’m sure it’s been talked to death here but I had a professor in college who talked about how Japan will likely never have a magnificent growth period again because their reluctance to accept immigrants, combined with their demographic cliff, means they're stuck on the sidelines (in terms of real growth at least). They have a productive culture, but they're starved of new talent.

I visited Guangzhou about 10 years ago and saw the opposite problem. Their immigrant population comes largely from very poor areas in Africa. They're treated like second-class citizens, are watched constantly, and frankly, fit Trump’s language about immigrants more than the hard-working people in America. There’s no real chance for them to work hard, integrate, and have their kids become strong citizens.

That's why I think our system is so special and powerful. We have the culture that Japan lacks the people for and we offer the opportunity that China denies to its immigrants. We have the ability to give people a chance to join our hard-working culture and succeed. When we send signals that they're no longer welcome, I feel we're choosing to break the most powerful engine for prosperity the world has ever known

On point three, I completely agree that America has/had a unique "secret sauce" for getting things done. My contention is that it's part of a feedback loop.

I'm not sure if we're talking about the same secret sauce. The feedback loop idea makes sense to me if the process is: America gets things done -> this attracts people from other countries who want to get things done -> they get things done -> it attracts more people who want to get things done... but what I meant was America's culture being the infrastructure enabling things getting done. "The best and the brightest" don't enter into the picture here, honestly my view of the average IRL American's intellect has been rather dim (and I'm far from the only one)... and yet, when I witnessed their ability to coordinate when a problem arose, it was uncanny, almost like telepathy. Apparently de Tocqueville had a whole bit about that, so it's a phenomenon that's been observed for quite a while.

Under my model immigration might be a force multiplier, but not a feedback loop. You can point to me at all the wonderful goods being transported by trains and trucks, and indeed if they stop coming, my standard of living might decline, but my point is that they're driving over a bridge, which doesn't seem to be doing so well. Halting the traffic to do maintenance might not be pleasant, but far less so than exploiting the bridge to the point of collapse.

If you want to show that your feedback model is more accurate than my base infrastructure model, you'd need to show how immigrants are feeding back into, and maintaining that culture of getting things done, because it's not obvious to me at all. Sure, they can integrate and assimilate, but even in the optimistic "magical dirt" model, first-generation immigrants are usually written off, and it's their children who are expected to integrate. Personally I'm not so optimistic, and I think it's a process that needs to be promoted actively, or else the native culture will become gradually diluted. On top of that, "assimilation" has become a bit of a dirty word to begin with, making it all the harder.

I visited Guangzhou about 10 years ago and saw the opposite problem. Their immigrant population comes largely from very poor areas in Africa. They're treated like second-class citizens, are watched constantly, and frankly, fit Trump’s language about immigrants more than the hard-working people in America.

Doesn't that throw a bit of a wrench in your argument? Of all the countries in the world, China seems to have the best chance for potentially overtaking America,

I don't think the "secret sauce" was ever that immigrants were universally viewed as just as good as anyone else. German immigrants, Irish and Italian immigrants, Chinese and Japanese immigrants, and now Mexican immigrants have always been viewed with suspicion and some resentment by large segments of the American society they were immigrating to. They came anyway because the opportunity afforded by the runaway growth of the American economy was irresistible to those with incredible grit or just those with no other options. And as a class they worked hard to seize that opportunity and to prove that they could belong just as much as native-born citizens, despite the suspicion they faced.

If something has changed in the modern era, I would argue that it stems from the welfare state. If you make it to America, you are effectively guaranteed some share in its riches whether you then work hard or not. This has the two-fold effect of removing the implicit filter on immigrant quality, and of creating larger proportions of the resulting immigrant population who bear out the nativists' suspicions. Also add to that the effect of explicit multiculturalism which weakened the incentives for immigrants to assimilate quickly.

It all adds up to a world where the nativists are increasingly justified in their complaints. If the dynamic driving modern immigration does not change, two out comes are possible. The nativists will eventually be strengthened to the point that they will kill the golden goose, using the power of the state to throw the baby out with the bathwater by cutting off opportunity for immigrants across the board. Or the center will not hold and American society will dissolve into disconnected groups of takers squabbling over their share of a rapidly shrinking pie.

If something has changed in the modern era, I would argue that it stems from the welfare state.

I am amenable to data that shows otherwise, but it seems to be that in ye olde days you came to America assimilated and depending on who and where you were you might be prevented from doing so by disgruntled locals.

Today the (hispanic at least) immigrants make no effort and seem to have no interest in assimilation. Even outside of Texas and California you see signs in Spanish everywhere, official governmental communication in Spanish and so on.

This is a huge difference in character of immigration with respect to previous waves of it.

There were massive German-speaking enclaves in the USA until the world wars. You can still find enclaves where the older folk prefer Italian.

While I'm sure you had some exceptions I doubt you had the current situation where many states had problems with a flood of zero English effort population and the government was both forced to and decided it was fine to essentially instantiate a second official language.

And for instance the Pennsylvania Dutch are small, isolated, insular, and German - and still are. Very different from getting on public transit in NYC and getting surrounded by Spanish speakers.

I too am terrified that if we deport more Guatemalans not enough Indians will come here and do the jobs Americans just won't do (for less than minimum wage).

There's one major factory company left in mid-Michigan, but they hire their engineering and technical staff entirely from the subcontinent. Now, because I've seen the unemployment numbers and because this used to be a manufacturing hub, I don't think this is because there aren't enough locals to do the job. It just costs more when you can't ship them back after their visa is up. Every hotel in fifty miles smells like curry, but at least Dow doesn't hire Americans for jobs outside the warehouse.

It would be a real tragedy if those indians were so enraged by anti-black racism they see on the internet that they no longer wanted to come here. Why, companies might have to pay real wages and benefits, and not be able to hold a work visa over their recruits' heads, and that would be bad. Our economy cannot survive without a constant stream of immigrants, because we have laws that force employers to meet certain minimum criteria when hiring Americans, and that's bad.

This just looks like you are deliberately misinterpreting OP's point. Surely some random "factory company" in mid-Michigan is not where the "smartest, most ambitious people from all over the world" congregate to give America a strategic advantage. Instead, if we are talking about Indians, it's going to be the likes of Google, Microsoft and SpaceX. The Gemini whitepaper, for example, has plenty of Indian names on it.

The problems prospective workers at those companies (or people who may or may not enter as students, and then later would naturally go on to work there) face are not "anti-black racism on the internet" either, but onerous checks and arbitrary rejections in the visa process and at border controls and the perceived increased probability that you will be deported over a random tweet. Now, a red-blooded red triber will for sure be cheering if some Indian Googler who retweeted an "America is helping Israel establish neocolonial apartheid" tweet gets unceremoniously deported, but it is unlikely that any damage to American interests from that retweet is greater than his contributions to American tech dominance, and other potential Indian Googlers who would never even have retweeted such a thing will only see "our countryman was deported for capricious reasons".

Now, a red-blooded red triber will for sure be cheering if some Indian Googler who retweeted an "America is helping Israel establish neocolonial apartheid" tweet gets unceremoniously deported,

This is a weird scenario partially because Indians themselves (well, some) likely have at least interesting views on the situation between the Indian minority in South Africa during actual Apartheid (not entirely from within the borders of modern India), and modern day India's relations with Israel largely vis-a-vis it's relations with its Muslim neighbor Pakistan.

History and society is complicated.

It’s entirely plausible that the talent these people actually need isn’t available in the US due to the skilled labor shortage. Particularly the U.S. no longer bothers to produce skilled factory labor.

Yes, the problem is the US has no engineering schools. You must have gone to school here.

Skilled manufacturing labor, specifically, is something the US does not produce much of. We probably don't need unlimited H1B's for software engineering but there aren't enough millwrights, CNC machine operators and technicians, calibration techs, etc. These are good jobs because they require a high degree of skill and they are actually necessary for running factories. My heart goes out for qualified Americans being passed over in favor of Indian and Chinese skilled workers- an easy task, because they are imaginary. We are at full employment for these people. We are at full employment for Americans able and willing to train for these jobs, too. Yes, there's plenty of fat potheads who would totally be interested in journeyman's wages for these positions but they have no experience and can't pass a drugtest- to the extent they'll put the joint down and accept the training pay for these jobs, they get hired to train.

The skilled blue collar labor shortage is an actual problem and 'but America has universities' is not a retort. The only people interested in solving this are unions with their own interests- an imperfect interest group, to say the least.

Did I say skilled manufacturing labor? Or was that what you had an argument ready for, and you figured my post was as good a place as any?

You said ‘engineering and technical staff’. These people are technical staff and lots of them have ‘engineer’ in their job title.

For decades, our biggest strategic advantage has been that the smartest, most ambitious people from all over the world wanted to come here.

There's a relevant essay from Arctotherium on this, you don't have to have mass immigration to bring in the top Taiwanese semiconductor experts, or German nuclear scientists or post-Soviet Russian STEM experts. You can bring in a few hundred or a few thousand people on 10x wages, have them stay for a few years to teach locals the skills and then have them leave or retire into obscurity.

China for instance brought in South Korean shipbuilding experts on high wages, worked out how to build ships and now dominates the world shipping industry. They tried this with semiconductors too, Taiwan actually passed laws to stop Chinese companies poaching semiconductor talent with high pay. Meiji Japan did this too, alongside others he mentions. Targeted skill acquisition does not require mass immigration.

https://substack.com/home/post/p-169701612

The US is very wealthy, they could close the door to the median-wage immigrants and keep the top talent, even aggressively headhunt top talent with high payouts. Not 'I published a crappy paper in one of those journals that exists for resume packing' but 'I'm actually really smart and have these rare skills'.

Furthermore, there are all kinds of problems with relying on mass immigration.

There is indeed a large amount of Indian talent, I see Indian names on various AI papers regularly. So why isn't India rich or at least on par with China? There's no Indian Deepseek, Huawei, BYD, J-20. There may well be something wrong with Indian culture or society that impedes this kind of development. Mass immigration would likely import this problem to some extent.

Suppose there's a disaster in America, it's one of those situations where all hands need to be on deck for a massive crisis. Would the Indians, Chinese, Latin Americans perhaps think 'not my problem' and head back to their home countries rather than giving their utmost? If they leave their country for a better life once, they can do it again if the situation changes.

Whatever issues with unity there are in America, it's hardly going to be helped by mass immigration. More ethnicities and diversity increases the potential for conflict. There are also the more basic costs of unfiltered 'Fuck Trump' mass immigration of randoms who come in via Mexico: drugs, crime, welfare payments, gaming the electoral system, demographic replacement.

Now it's fairly reasonable that some truly elite people will be turned off by the administration's rhetoric, even if the Trump admin did go 'we want the super smart but not the mediocre'. They might not want to come to America because overseas mainstream media blares out FASCIST USA. But it's not clear that this would be that bad compared to mass immigration.

We can see the results: Australia, Canada and the UK have been doing mass immigration. Racism has been suppressed by hate speech laws. The economic results/innovation in these countries have been underwhelming at best. Canadian GDP per capita has stagnated over the last 10 years. Britain is mired in all kinds of problems.

The strongest argument against Trumpism IMO is that it puts these loudmouths in charge, who go around openly declaring their strategies and letting their opponents counter them: https://x.com/Jukanlosreve/status/1958334108989530207

They're simple and unsophisticated thinkers in a complex world.

But even there, you don't have to be loud and obnoxious to be dumb. The EU is full of sober, hard-working, reasonable and civilized leaders who do immense damage to Europe by constantly making terrible decisions.

https://substack.com/home/post/p-169701612

My impression is that almost everyone on the Grok and OpenAI teams are either the children of immigrants or people who came to the US as the children. This seems to be the case for almost all of our very highly successful first and second generation immigrants.

If they leave their country for a better life once, they can do it again if the situation changes.

Lots of these people are second or third generation immigrants by now. They're Americans.

In my opinion, US immigration seems to be broadly work. If Arctotherium had made these predictions 30 years ago, he would have been proven wrong. Sure, we can reduce immigration, but what we do re Chinese and Indian immigrants seems to be working very well.

What predictions does he make that you think are wrong?

Arctotherium says this regarding AI:

For example, much writing on AI accurately points out how reliant the US AI industry is on foreign talent, with around 70% of high-end researchers being foreign born, and then condemn the Trump administration for hostility to immigration. But they typically fail to point out the tiny numbers involved.

We’re talking maybe 10000 people total in the entire world, with annual fluxes into and out of the US, including during the open-borders Biden years, in the hundreds. It is entirely possible to recruit as much of this talent as is willing to move to the United States while cutting skilled immigration by 99%, and we should. OpenAI technical staff and people Mark Zuckerberg is willing to pay a hundred million dollars to recruit are not generic H-1Bs or foreign students, and conflating the two is dishonest.

A more "gloves-off" approach to online speech is a win for free expression, but its most visible result has been the normalization of unapologetic racism. The core of this argument isn't just that it's unpleasant, but that it's actively corroding social trust and making it harder to have a unified country. Not sure if you’ve seen this too, but I see tons of ‘black fatigue’ and explicitly white nationalist people in my feed and there’s not much I or anybody else can do about it. What does the most persuasive version of this argument look like?

This is "wet streets cause rain" thinking. Unapologetic racism was always there, it was just some people weren't allowed to participate. Consider the recent blowup over Doreen St. Felix, a writer at the New Yorker who published an insipid bit of Sydney Sweeny commentary. She was discovered to have a decade+ long history of meme Nation of Islam tier racism against white people, and that was considered perfectly socially acceptable.

Have you ever actually looked at black twitter? Indian twitter? The stuff you're complaining about is still tame in comparison.

What makes me think about this point is all of the talk about Indian people online. Like them or not, they are STRONG contributors in the workplace.

Are they? Then why is India a dumpster fire? American culture has had the stereotype of the soullness, number-pushing striver for centuries. Are they STRONG contributors in a way that, say, Ayn Rand would recognize? Offering high value for high value? As opposed to ethics-free system-gaming? From the country famous for scamming and fake degrees?

Are they? Then why is India a dumpster fire?

Cause all the good Indians are overseas, obviously.

Some hard science news, that nevertheless became part of culture wars.

As you probably heard, third recorded interstellar object is on the way. It stands out of sample of three, just like the previous two.

The usual suspects, most prominent Avi Loeb and John Brandenburg of ancient nuclear war on Mars fame sound an alarm to warn from incoming alien invader.

Mainstream science dismisses the concerns and sees the object as ordinary red colored D-type asteroid.

< tinfoil hat> well, what are they supposed to do? </tinfoil hat>

Not that "we" as mankind could do anything if ayys were really here. See just Avi Loeb's proposals.

What Should Humanity Do on the Day After an Interstellar Object is Recognized as Technological?

...

All nations must agree on a coordinated action plan

...

A representative international committee will be appointed to communicate with the alien visitors

Nah. I cannot imagine better way to ensure Earth's swift destruction than to introduce aliens to United Nations. Compared to this plan, doing nothing at all is the superior alternative.

Rep. Burlison confirms new UAP hearing for September 9th with three confirmed witnesses (potentially more).

The truth always comes out in the end.

Mainstream science dismisses the concerns and sees the object as ordinary red colored D-type asteroid.

Mainstream science told you to mask up and get the covid vaccine too.

Mainstream science told you to mask up and get the covid vaccine too.

Now why would they do that?

I'm generally convinced that at least getting the vaccines was sensible (and pushing their roll-out was good policy, though the compulsion to take them was deeply illiberal), but this data doesn't seem too compelling to me considering the obvious confounders. I would assume Red America to have a significantly larger number of old and unhealthy people with inadequate access to medical care.

That chart is already age-adjusted, which is the biggest factor. Red Americans probably are less healthy, but the death rates for unvaccinated people are ten times those for vaccinated. The effect isn't subtle.

So what's your expectation of this new UAP hearing? Anything different from the previous nothingburgers?

So what's your expectation of this new UAP hearing?

Nothing.

Anything different from the previous nothingburgers?

No.

All memes aside, I would very much like for the crash retrieval program to be real, although I recognize that the probability of it actually being real is meager.

The truth always comes out in the end.

70+ years on, and UFO/UAP truth is nowhere to be seen. Maybe there is really nothing out there, except layers of psyops upon hoaxes upon scams upon bullshit.

Trust the plan.

Based on a current understanding of physics, the only reason to launch an invasion would be to acquire the population as human capital for empire building- terraforming is at least an understood problem and the dark forest theory is more easily resolved by WMD’s than boots on the ground invasion.

Therefore any potential invaders can be negotiated with, and it’s not worth worrying about.

If they can do interstellar warfare, they should be capable of ASI or at least mass-cloning of geniuses with the same biology. Maybe they have 'ethics' that block those two and they're trying invade-the-galaxy, invite-the-galaxy for political reasons?

But how likely is it for an advanced civilization to have such a flawed system of govt?

Very.

The problem with the 'technological approach' to human capital is that its embracers never actually get around to it. They insist on Just One More Master's Degree and reason that they can mass produce geniuses eventually so why worry about it. In contrast, Sex Is Fun(go ahead, dispute it if you want), and women like babies. We had an AAQC recently from a woman who wanted another baby and thought it was a horrible idea, she just wanted one anyway. Making young women take care of robotic babies designed to discourage them from motherhood raises the teen pregnancy rate.

But go ahead, try to mass produce geniuses through technology. That's what South Korea thinks it's doing(yes, hangwon is pointless zero sum competition. They don't know that). The single digit number of their young will attain impressive credentials if they don't kill themselves first. No, you cannot avoid hangwon and gaokao if you have designer babies. Or expect AI to replace us until they paperclip maximize in their own solar system until the collapse of the local civilization turns it into something like Golgafrincham or Magrathea or Frogstar B or in fact most of the rest of Douglas Adams' cautionary tales because no one can figure out how to program common sense. Maybe AI fueled economic bubbles is the great filter of the fermi paradox, or maybe uber-k selection until the kids kill themselves rather than subject their own children to 18 hours a day of school is the great filter. Either way, the alien civilizations which make contact with us will be empire builders that seek to integrate conquered races into (a lower tier of)their power structure; the other alien races would just wipe us out rather than landing.

Perhaps 99/100 alien civilizations succumb to silly governance. But if they're capable of reaching us then we should assume they're actually competent.

An actually competent civilization is nothing like ours. Actually competent civilizations would go all in on eugenics the moment they came up with it, cloning too. Actually competent civilizations would spend surplus wealth not on subsidizing boomers or makework jobs but on building out infrastructure, investment, R&D. They'd do things we wouldn't even think of but would make sense in retrospect, they take all the low-hanging fruit and the high-hanging fruit too.

A popular sci-fi writer doesn't actually hold universal deep wisdom, he just produces fiction we find interesting. 'Nobody can figure out how to program common sense' is a fun, self-congratulatory fictional idea. But it's not actually true. It was based on an old paradigm and has been disproven recently, irregardless of how much people might want it to be true.

There are all these potential objections like 'what if optimizing for IQ results in a nation of 'gifted' child prodigies who burn out in adulthood'? Sounds like a clever objection but there's no actual truth behind it in and of itself. You could adjust your education strategy for this, test, iterate, improve...

'Maybe all this AI stuff is just a great big bubble' is another tale people want to be true. Maybe it is true, perhaps there's some hard wall that scaling, algorithmic improvements, synthetic data and so on just can't surpass. I wouldn't bet on it.

No, you cannot avoid hangwon and gaokao if you have designer babies.

Why not? You could structure the economy such that it wasn't just a few chaebols who dominate everything. You could give affirmative action to applicants with siblings. There are any number of things that a country could do. They could give the top students in exam a harem and tell him to produce 50 kids.

A powerful alien civilization has no need for us as contributors. A few billion low IQ humans are quantitatively and qualitatively inferior to whatever they could cook up with local resources. They would be rightly wary of disrupting their hyperefficient status quo with foreign blood.

If aliens are here, they're doing research to better understand social dynamics because if there's even marginal gains in better understanding the universe, they'll take that cost.

A totally rational civilization will never explore the stars, because the actual use cases for space are not that far. Yes, satellites and 0-g manufacturing are real things but you DON’T go past the orbit for them. Maybe asteroid mining but that’s still not interstellar travel.

Theres game theoretic reasons for interstellar WMDs, but not for much actual exploration.

Why not? You could structure the economy such that it wasn't just a few chaebols who dominate everything. You could give affirmative action to applicants with siblings. There are any number of things that a country could do. They could give the top students in exam a harem and tell him to produce 50 kids.

And it doesn’t address that when kids are optimized, parents want something back from that, which leads to grinding hangwon helicopter parenting into zero sum competitions. Notably higher tfr strata are the ones that are OK with their kids becoming plumbers- republicans in the US, yankis in Japan, and so on. We can reasonably expect the adoption of literal designer babies to have the same effect on people who optimize for IQ as selective college admissions.

What are you talking about? A rational civilization will want to grow. They'd seek access to more resources. Exponential growth in population demands it.

it doesn’t address that when kids are optimized, parents want something back from that

They could legislate and move against zero-sum competitions, especially if they're a civilization composed of geniuses. We can avoid zero sum competitions and handle collective action problems sometimes. So can they. Imagine they've been through these cycles and traumas and declines many times, their history is thousands of years longer. They'd learn eventually.

A powerful civilization is not South Korea with a few more fancy gadgets, just like we are not Ancient Egypt with combustion engines. The whole structure of their society would have developed to fit with their technology base. They would be on a whole other level to us.

Perhaps there are no families and engineers are in charge of making children by carefully splicing together genes, there are no parents, only technical factors, input and output. Perhaps they're educated and raised in a series of simulations carefully orchestrated by AI so they have excellent skills and character. Perhaps they're uploaded beings that can reproduce in a tenth of a second, printing out bodies like clothes.

A conservative assumption is that they'd have biological immortality which renders fertility much less relevant.

It's also possible that we get a lone alien craft who was drawn here following an amateur radio signal after his home planet was destroyed in a nuclear war, which he survived because he was in the orbital guard at the time.

Based on a current understanding of physics, the only reason to launch an invasion would be to acquire the population as human capital for empire building

That sounds awfully confident given that we can make no assumptions about the utility function of the aliens. Perhaps they just want to fuck koala bears and think wiping out humanity is easier than convincing them to leave 95% of Earth's land mass to the koala brothel project.

Perhaps they are the superhappy people, who would simply invade because Earth allows kids to experience pain on the level of stubbed toes.

Perhaps it is just a science fair project on conflict in the early nuclear age.

Even if you assume that any alien life could only have an instrumental interest in Earth, we have a ton of species besides humans. Not that capturing or subjugating a few billion humans will do them much good -- much easier to transmit the human genome and synthesize humans on their home world if they need humans for some weird reason.

Based on a current understanding of physics, the only reason to launch an invasion would be to acquire the population as human capital for empire building

Somehow I doubt our "elite human capital" is that elite. I'd cross that one off.

Earth still produces plenty of geniuses, and indeed plenty of not-genius tier but highly capable engineers, technicians, etc.

That argument doesn't pass any sort of smell test. Even the wars of conquest and colonization on Earth (like the European Age of Exploration) were typically not motivated in any particular sense by acquisition of human capital, and there the conquerors and the conquered were significantly closer to each other in disposition and in particular capabilities/talent than any presumable spacefaring race would be to us. Instead, it's always acquisition of inanimate resources, or land, or preemptive weakening of a potential enemy. I figure the last one would be by far the most relevant one on a space scale.

If we (or, better: someone less sentimental, like the Victorians, the Saudis or the Chinese) went to Alpha Centauri and discovered a race of sentient insectoids somewhere around the development and intellectual level of Aboriginal Australians at the time of contact (but without aesthetics or ethics that are appealing or recognisable to us), do you actually think we would be integrating them for insectoid capital, as opposed to keeping a few specimens for study and either declaring the place a nature preserve or exterminating them and proceeding to colonise or strip-mine the place?

...Have you never heard of Slavery? The Triangle Trade?

Human capital != creative intellectual ability

If the sentient insectoids could do warehouse work, there would be millions of them in the inland empire in a few years. That goes double for Victorians or Saudis.

Considering that @hydroacetylene explicitly said, quote, "Earth still produces plenty of geniuses, and indeed plenty of not-genius tier but highly capable engineers, technicians, etc.", I assume that at least he specifically meant creative intellectual ability when talking about "human capital". Whether aliens would be interested in us as slaves for their menial labour is a different question, but that would certainly require certain additional circumstances (such as them having the technology to build us habitats in which we can be employed to do work they need, but not to just automate the same work or terraform our planet for themselves).

Slaves don't need to be used purely as manual labor.

Intelligent slaves offer advantages over intelligent free peers. Our insect owners don't have to worry (for a few centuries at least!) about a high level human slave becoming Hive President.

We theorize about creating self replicating intelligent machines. We are, once properly aligned, self replicating intelligent machines.

We theorize about creating self replicating intelligent machines. We are, once properly aligned, self replicating intelligent machines.

This comment makes me feel like there's a scifi story or alternate universe somewhere where humans, on the cusp of inventing AGI, get invaded by intelligent aliens, somehow miraculously defeat them, and discover that raising and reproducing these aliens is actually much cheaper on a per-intelligence basis than building servers or paying AI engineers, leading to AI dev being starved of resources in favor of advancing alien husbandry. Conveniently, the AI label/branding could remain as-is, for Alien Intelligence.

What are you talking about? Acquiring the civilian population of weaker powers has been a key goal of conquest since ever. The Bible records thé wise men of Israël relocated to act as advisors in Babylon. The Romans were furious when archimedes was slaughtered in the sack of Syracuse. And the British empire used Indian soldiers extensively.

I don't think Indian soldiers count as "human capital" exactly, and either way we are already at the point in the tech tree where meat soldiers are starting to get obsoleted by drones. As for the other two examples, the Archimedes one seems like a fairy tale, and the Bible "record" does not seem particularly compelling either given that it was written by Israelites as part of a larger book singing the praises of their own wise men, so they would have all the motivation to make up a story to make them look good. Compare the wall of modern fiction where audience/author avatars get abducted by foreign cultures and placed in in improbably influential roles (like the waste heap of isekai manga), or older ones such as Marco Polo's fanciful claim about being made a government official by Kublai Khan's court.

What are you talking about? Acquiring the civilian population of weaker powers has been a key goal of conquest since ever.

No, it hasn't. Taking slaves has generally been a method of offsetting the costs and risks of war, not a primary war aim at the civilization scale. Babylon conquered Israel because Israel refused to submit to imperial power and/or violated suzerainty. The Romans were not sacking Syracuse to capture Archimedes, but to subdue the polity. The British Empire was not in India to gain Indian soldiers, they were there to secure value and resources for the homeland. Indian soldiers made that cheaper from the perspective of the homeland.

The sepoys enabled British control over east Africa, and fought the empire’s wars broadly. They weren’t just a local skirmisher force.

The Romans used Greek slaves for intellectual tasks so extensively it was a standard trope; they also used the levies of conquered peoples to capture more territory.

‘Having others to boss around’ is the entire point of an empire. Putin originally wanted to capture Ukraine intact, before that proved impractical and he started turning cities into grozny. The default historical empire has been ‘pay me, send your best and brightest to contribute to my economy and your troops to fight in my army, other than that just stay quiet’.

The sepoys enabled British control over east Africa, and fought the empire’s wars broadly. They weren’t just a local skirmisher force.

But sepoys for controlling east Africa weren't the reason for invading India either, which is the rather more important distinction for Britain's motives for going into India.

We've enough of the historical record recorded to have pretty unambiguous rationales for the East India Company's conquest of India, and 'to get forces to control east Africa' wasn't one of them. The British Empire might have cared about capturing markets for the sake of captive markets, and it absolutely engaged in slavery/don't-call-it-slavery in the process, but it just as definitively did not approach its empire building with the mindset of a Paradox strategy gamer prioritizing pop accumulation. No particular part of the empire was set up for maximizing population value from a government-utility advantage, which is one of the kinder things to say of the British Empire.

As with most imperialist states, hefty cultural chauvenism on the part of the conqueror broadly squandered potential population contributions from subjugated people, as opposed to any real policy of cultivating and extracting, well, high-value human capital.

More comments

You know what, I could die happy if people tried to make a magic dirt argument to aliens about how we could raise their GDP if they just allowed us into their empire, and the aliens just went "Then why didn't you do that already on your own planet?" and hit delete on all of us.

The alien society that would say that wouldn’t try to land in the first place, thats my point. They would just launch a relativistic impact or hit us with a gamma ray laser or something.

Impossible; your internalized speciesism is just showing. With their empathy and higher education levels, aliens would be beyond such bigotry and would understand that—if not for socioeconomic factors and institutional speciesism—humans would be just as capable as they are.

Oh my god, you're right. I was raised with "Hell is other people".

I love when people just project their favorite moral frameworks on higher inteligence aliens, no one considers that aliens could be yes chadding highly intelligent speciesism nazis.

No one?

>you meet the space elves

>they are hot

>Immediately they start calling you monkeigh

More comments

Aliens have been following LLM progress and are involved in their own Butlerian Jihad.

Pros: all thinking machines destroyed
Cons: Earth terraformed into another Arrakis so sandworms can produce more spice

Tge sleeper has awakened.

Based on a current understanding of physics, the only reason to launch an invasion would be to acquire the population as human capital for empire building

We're all going to be shocked and disappointed when we end up being collector's items, like a peculiar cultivar of tulip.

I mean it depends. If I’m a government official, I would do my best to downplay or dismiss or classify the story. The reason being that the only real data we have on how humans would react to something like this is the War of the Worlds broadcast in the 1930s, which resulted in a fair bit of panic. A real-deal alien civilization sending a real spaceship to earth is likely to cause more panic. That helps no one. As far as who meets tge aliens, I’d look for a level headed diplomat if anything.

If I’m a government official, I would do my best to downplay or dismiss or classify the story. The reason being that the only real data we have on how humans would react to something like this is the War of the Worlds broadcast in the 1930s, which resulted in a fair bit of panic.

Apparently never happened.

How is this CW?

I guess I should be glad that the final frontier isn’t also, somehow, a referendum on Donald Trump. That impulse is at war with the one that tells me this is dumber than a sack of primitive, ferrous construction equipment.

In unrelated news, have you read The Dark Forest? Not for the apocalyptica. For the galaxy-brained strategy, agreed upon by the best and brightest of all humanity, of giving global power to one shmuck. Truly, something that could never have been created in the Western canon.

It was at least somewhat justified by the bullshit tech the aliens had. (Which very conveniently could completely control all scientific experiments but not, you know, actually KILL anyone.)

The real problem with The Dark Forest (spoiler alert) was the concept that all of humanity, working for more than a century on a problem with existential stakes, failed to come up with a theory that, uh, most people interested in cosmology already knew about in the 70s as a potential answer to the Fermi paradox. (Also, the deterrent threat at the end doesn't even really work because it would send a message out only in the plane of the ecliptic. Sigh. I wouldn't mind the bad science so much if it weren't wearing the skinsuit of Hard Sci-Fi.)

For the galaxy-brained strategy, agreed upon by the best and brightest of all humanity, of giving global power to one shmuck. Truly, something that could never have been created in the Western canon.

Technically it was a handful of carefully selected schmucks.

And it was kinda justified given that they lived in a surveillance state where aliens could intercept ANY communications but couldn't read into human minds.

Well, one schmuck and a handful of carefully selected, credentialed experts. They had reasons for selecting the schmuck, but they didn't really expect him to deliver.

True, but all the experts got wallbroken pretty quickly and came out looking like Schmucks.

The response must reflect specifically the detailed characteristics of the threat. It is inappropriate to imagine alien technologies based on our own experience on Earth, which spans only a century of scientific research after quantum mechanics and general relativity were discovered.

Statements like this always seem so weird to me. Do humans have a complete understanding of physics? No. Do we have a pretty good approximation for macro phenomena? Absolutely. Often for the kinds of physics described for UAP phenomena the things that would have to be wrong are not, like, the nuances of quantum field theory. It is shit like "conservation of energy was wrong." When people want to talk about alien technology they should be required to specify which presently accepted theories in physics they think are wrong.

This. Very much this. It's why I can't stand listening to Eric Weinstein's nonsense about "new physics" and string theory being a government plot. There's not really much room left for the sort of radical revolutionary outcomes the UFOlogist types insist on.

Often for the kinds of physics described for UAP phenomena the things that would have to be wrong are not, like, the nuances of quantum field theory. It is shit like "conservation of energy was wrong."

Obviously it would depend on the very specific incident in question but a lot of times the claims "requiring" extreme energy fluctuations come from data like radar returns that don't give any insight into the mass of the object being observed or even if it is a material object. A lot of claims about UAP are assumptions stacked on assumptions stacked on assumptions in a trench coat. These trench coats are often based on a core observation that, while very interesting, doesn't prove much if anything about "the laws of physics" and our understanding or lack thereof even if the observation itself is 100% accurate as reported.

(This is without getting into the fact that a lot of weird stuff like warp drives and propellantless space travel are theoretically good physics.)

Technically, UAP just means ‘not identified’, so even if there’s something there a lot of them are probably oddly shaped clouds or equipment errors.

Interestingly, legally the definition of a UAP includes "transmedium objects or devices" and "submerged objects or devices that are not immediately identifiable and that display behavior or performance characteristics suggesting that the objects or devices may be related to the objects or devices" that are unidentified aerial or transmedium objects.

The DoD's definition (same source) is that UAPs are "sources of anomalous detections in one or more domain (i.e., airborne, seaborne, spaceborne, and/or transmedium) that are not yet attributable to known actors and that demonstrate behaviors that are not readily understood by sensors or observers."

I'm sure a nonzero percentage of them are clouds and/or equipment errors anyway.

Do we have a pretty good approximation for macro phenomena?

Absolutely not. Dark matter and dark energy make up 95% of the universe.

Good god it’s a slow news cycle. We’re actually speculating on whether or not a nearby comet is aliens.

It’s only a “slow news cycle” because most of the other going-ons look bad for Trump, and posting anything that looks bad for Trump is tactically unsound for the right-leaning posters here; assuming it’s even crossed their new feeds.

Guess I could be too cynical about it, but I assume that’s why there’s been minimal discussion about other happenings, like the sweeping new steel & aluminum tariff expansions, Trump attempting to get his fingers into Samsung, administration staffers drawing up an “enemies list” of “woke corporations” to target for being insufficiently supportive of the OBBB, Oklahoma’s groundbreaking innovation in PragerU-based loyalty tests, the administration’s latest attempts to purge the Federal Reserve and install loyalists, the ongoing D.C. takeover that the administration has been looking at expanding to other Democratic cities, the escalating gerrymandering feud and mail-in-ballot targeting signifying the GOP’s looming attempt to try and ‘steal’ the midterms, and the much-vaunted Alaska summit amounting to a big fat nothing, etc.

Though TBF I guess there is an ongoing discussion about the continued fallout of the MAGA movement’s attempts to dismantle the country’s institutions up in the Terrence Tao subthread, so there’s that, I suppose.

assume that’s why there’s been minimal discussion

Be the change you want to see in the world. I'd be interested in a thread on any of those things.

Be the change you want to see in the world.

Well, you’re not wrong.

It’s a tricky proposition, though. I rarely have the will to actually bother engaging here, and the pushback I’d doubtlessly get from pushing unpopular talking points creates a very real risk that I’d burn out shortly after making the initial post (which, on a related note, is why I still have 29 other responses from my last post that I really should have responded to)- and since dropping top-line drive-by posts is bad form, I typically figure that not commenting at all is the least-bad option available.

It appears that enough people have already reported your comments here that they’ve ended up in the report queue, which is very unfortunate. Those are clearly ideologically motivated reports; nothing you’ve said here is in violation of the rules.

Your presence here is highly valued, so I do hope that you feel encouraged to post here more often. You’re not the only Trump-critical poster here, so your arguments would find some support.

As far as I can tell, it doesn't even look as much like aliens as the earlier weird comet!

Good god it’s a slow news cycle.

APnews has had a week of breathless reporting about Ukraine ceasefire negotiations. Pretty, pretty slow.

Enjoy it while you can. Remember we were doing "Iran is about to kick off WWIII" posting just two months ago.

Last month a bunch of people got killed by flooding (including kids) and there was fighting over whether Trump was somehow responsible for it due to NOAA cuts that hadn't taken effect yet.

Comparatively lighthearted fare is welcome, I say.

The simulation masters have been teasing the alien reveal for almost a decade now, almost as much as they've been hinting at a WWIII/Nuclear exchange arc. I'm hoping it happens during Trump's term, at least.

More seriously, I think it is important to track these things and try to identify them, and interacting with them would be cool as hell, but I'm coming around to the idea that we're (currently) alone in the universe, and probably because we're one of the first true intelligent species to reach a point where we can really think about extraterrestrial life in a serious way.

IF these interstellar objects are sent by other intelligent civilizations then they're probably intended to kill us. And if so the tech difference is probably sufficient that we can't do anything about it.

Incidentally, this is just another reason why not mucking about with our civilization and bootstrapping some off-planet industry is a good idea.

Some days it feels strange that there's not more agreement on the following:

  1. We absolutely have the tech to get into space and establish a presence there, if not full colonies.

  2. There are literal gigatons of resources in space that we could make use of, to say nothing of energy.

  3. Literally EVERYTHING ELSE in the universe is out there in space. Whatever you really care about or want, there's more of it out there.

  4. Humanity has no compelling reason to stay on this one planet until we get wiped out by something.

  5. THEREFORE, we should be removing every possible barrier, bureaucratic, economic, or otherwise, to getting our space industries to commercial viability.

It can be a competition, sure, but stop it with environmental reviews and such that are pure deadweight loss.

But then I look around and realize that the mindset of people who both appreciate why space is important AND have the chops to actually build the industries necessary to realize an outer space economy is incredibly rare, especially on a global scale. I'd guess a majority of humans are focused on/optimized for bare survival on the day-to-day, another huge chunk, especially in the West, are in a distracted hedonism loop, and of the remaining who might otherwise learn towards space exploration, many (half?) have been mindkilled by lefty politics, effective altruism, or some other nerd-sniping ideology or political orientation that diverts their focus.

Compared to what we're doing with our efforts to improve conditions on earth. Which involve depleting whole national treasuries in first world countries to keep third world countries afloat, failing at that, then opening up the floodgates to allow their citizens into the first world countries directly, without considering the second-order impacts this has on sustaining advanced industries like spaceflight. And other things.

Also depleting said treasuries to keep some of the most nonproductive, anti-civilization native citizens comfortable, for minimal perceptible gain. This isn't even a racial point, this is just a "questioning of national/international priorities" point.

Although I'm aggressively libertarian, I could be convinced to become a single-issue voter for whatever politician or party made it their platform that they would drop all corporate taxes on any company in the "space travel and industry" space to zero, protect such companies against all threats to their ability to operate, and oppose, with (sanctioned) violence if necessary, anybody who is either directly or indirectly attempting to keep humans stuck on this rock in the name of, e.g. 'social justice,' 'environmentalism' 'equality,' 'tradition,' 'religious belief,' or any variant of Luddism.

Simply put, I have literally never heard a viable moral objection to humanity becoming a multi-planet, let alone multi-stellar civilization, and unless the whole of humanity actively agrees that we really shouldn't do it, I think there's a moral imperative to get out there ASAP.

Oh, and, incidentally, This means I kind of have to support Trump to some degree. And oppose the Dems, because they're the ones trying to hamstring Elon Musk and SpaceX.

This doesn't mean I think Trump's a good guy, or that Dems are evil, but right now it is actually 'impossible' for me to imagine a future where we have a booming space industry if the Democrats gain control of the FedGov.

Sorry for the screed. But it is relevant because it actually BARELY FACKIN' MATTERS if we can detect these interesting objects hurtling through space if we lack the capability to reach out and touch them.

IF these interstellar objects are sent by other intelligent civilizations then they're probably intended to kill us.

The gap between us and interstellar capable aliens is like gap between us and insects, and we usually do not go on long trips just to stomp on bugs.

Is there any rational motive for alien invasion? Usual science fiction tropes: "they want our water/women/fresh meat" are ludicrous, but there is a possibility.

Terrestrial planets are big chunks of iron, nickel and other metals, conveniently gathered near stars. If you want to build space megastructures, dismantling these planets is the most economic way to get material.

Yes, Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy where Earth is bulldozed in order to build hyperspace bypass is the most accurate depiction of alien invasion.

About non economic motives, motive understandable to us would be pure scientific curiosity ... and religion.

In science fiction, common trope is scientific, rational and logical aliens laughing at Earthling primitive superstitions.

(less known Christian science fiction countertrope is scientific, rational and logical aliens who find out that Christianity is true, become Christian and laugh at atheists.)

Aliens coming to preach their religion (whether peacefully or at blaster point) is something, AFAIK, not done in science fiction (except as slapstick comedy).

"Have you embraced Great Green !Z'hqw':$*>#q?x as your lord and savior?"

Usual science fiction tropes: "they want our water/women/fresh meat" are ludicrous, but there is a possibility

The obvious answer is wanting human capital. Population is the most valuable resource on earth and it’s probably the most valuable resource in space too.

The three body problems idea that aliens would want to destroy other intelligent civilization because of the potential for explosive technological growth on galactic timescales seems to make a lot of sense as a motive for someone to release death probes targeting less developed species to their immediate neighborhood.

Or Von Neumann probes that were launched from so far away that there was no intelligent life on the planet at the time they were originally launched.

Simply seizing as many resources as possible is an entirely rational decision. If grabby civilizations outcompete nongrabby ones, then those are the ones we'd expect to proliferate in the universe. Even if a civilization is internally nongrabby, if they encounter a grabby one, they're likely to resort to grabbiness as a survival mechanism. (This is why humans should be grabby preemptively; there can never be any kind of effective galactic UN.)

It doesn't take much effort for a civilization higher on the scale from us to send a kinetic kill vehicle.

Indeed, the idea of an interstellar invasion is ridiculous. Preemptive extermination of all other intelligences, however, makes a disturbing amount of sense from a game theoretic perspective.

Yep. I can think of possible ways around it, but when the failure mode/Schelling point is "They destroy us immediately and completely" I'd guess most Civs will end up being defectors.

The gap between us and interstellar capable aliens is like gap between us and insects, and we usually do not go on long trips just to stomp on bugs.

Uh, point in of fact, I ABSOLUTELY go out of my way to kill ant colonies that pop up in my lawn, and I do so using more 'sophisticated' methods than stomping them.

And if I were worried about the ants teching up enough to pose a danger to me and my dog, I'd be even more vigilant about it.

Is there any rational motive for alien invasion? Usual science fiction tropes: "they want our water/women/fresh meat" are ludicrous, but there is a possibility.

I'm thinking a relativistic kill missile is more likely. But on the offchance they want to preserve the planet mostly intact, they just have to set us back to the bronze age or so.

I've been watching Isaac Arthur videos for like 10 years now, so I have seen a lot of 'imaginable' if not plausible scenarios for how Alien invasions could play out.

Since space optimism is rather common in the Ratsphere, I suppose it falls to me to articulate the opposing view, and to elaborate a little bit on why I find space (or at least, the prospect of space colonization) to be rather boring.

The human mind is currently the most interesting object in the known universe. All of the human minds are already here, on earth. We don't need to go out into space to find them.

Space of course has a lot of, well, space, in which humans can propagate and live their lives. But space colonization won't fundamentally change human nature. Humans on Mars will still love, laugh, cry, and die. They'll just be doing those things... in space. Thinking that that changes the fundamental calculus would be like saying that a painting becomes more interesting when you magnify it 100x and put it on a billboard. It's still the exact same painting. Just bigger.

There is certainly something to be said for the drama of scientific discovery, and the challenges of surviving in a harsh environment. But this is still just one potential drama among many, only one potential object of study among many.

I of course recognize the utilitarian value of space colonization in terms of hedging against extinction risks on earth. But this strikes me as essentially an administrative detail. Not unlike paying your taxes, or moving into a new apartment because your landlord is kicking you out of your current one. More like something to be managed, rather than an object of fascination in its own right. There seems to be something importantly different going on in the psychology of the dedicated space optimists: they are attracted to expansion as such, effervescence, projection, power for power's sake, and most importantly, size.

Literally EVERYTHING ELSE in the universe is out there in space. Whatever you really care about or want, there's more of it out there.

Well, no, there's not much out there right now. Admittedly phenomena like neutron stars are extremely interesting, exotic planet compositions can make planets interesting in their own right even in the absence of life, etc. I am extremely grateful that we have scientists who are dedicated to expanding our knowledge of these phenomena. But in the last analysis, I still don't find these phenomena to be as interesting as other people.

Of course, if we were to discover that there are other conscious intelligent beings in the universe, then everything would change. Suddenly, we may not be the most interesting things in the universe anymore. We would have to make every possible effort to study them, with great haste. But you already said that you think we're probably alone. So it's unclear what you expect to find out there; besides, as already stated, the satisfaction of the utilitarian aim of preserving and multiplying what we already have.

Well of course you think that. I imagine that on the EQ and SQ tests, assessing interest in people and interest in things (linked here due to your previously stated interest in psychometric testing) you would probably be very strongly skewed towards the former. Most people here, including me, are not.

I'm personally not interested in effervescence or projection or power for power's sake, I'm interested in knowledge; I find the idea of understanding more about the universe we live in to be an inherently interesting and valiant goal, the existence of other minds not necessary. And unlike faceh I don't take it as a given that we're probably alone (and in fact think it is likely we are not). It just so happens that this lofty scientific goal dovetails well with the imperative for expansion, and hedging against X-risks.

That being said I see the study of human minds, human biology, etc as being of immense value as well. Porque no los dos? There's value in expanding one's sphere of knowledge in more than one domain at a time.

Most people here, including me, are not.

Yes, I'm quite conscious of this distinction! And this appears to be something of an inborn preference (or at least, it's a preference that's sedimented relatively early in life). So I didn't presume that I would be able to "persuade" anyone.

Porque no los dos?

At the species level, at the level of the collective, we can allocate resources to everything. My post was more about asking why, at the individual level, space colonization becomes such a powerfully attractive symbol for some people and not others.

At the species level, at the level of the collective, we can allocate resources to everything. My post was more about asking why, at the individual level, space colonization becomes such a powerfully attractive symbol for some people and not others.

I think space colonisation has become an attractive symbol because it's an indisputable display of human advancement, and it requires a whole lot of technological know-how in a wide range of fields, possibly more so than any other goal. Developing technology that's both speedy and durable enough to cross light years' worth of distances, keeping humans in stasis or sustaining a viable colony during these prohibitively long travel times, setting up a workable society in a completely alien environment etc are insanely difficult goals way beyond anything we've attempted before.

Every step of the way you're straining against the laws of physics as much as possible - finding a propulsion method that can feasibly bring you anywhere near relativistic speeds is difficult, and if you do, there's the interstellar medium to contend with, which at these speeds basically becomes hard radiation bombarding your starship, its travellers, and all the equipment aboard. And keep in mind, deep space has no significant energy source to speak of, meaning you have to carry all your fuel with you if you want to power a ship (Tsiolkovsky rocket equation, anyone?). Don't even speak about Bussard ramjets that harvest hydrogen from the interstellar medium for fusion, because that's undoable too. Once you reach your destination, you've likely landed on a planet that's nothing like Earth and where the raw physical environment threatens to kill your colonists every step of the way.

I can't think of another goal that's nearly as difficult or aspirational as space colonisation. Not even "understanding how the human mind functions" feels as infeasible to me as colonising another star system or galaxy (and, unlike setting up a colony outside our solar system, there's no clear and hard condition you can point to as proof of success). Space colonisation just runs up against a whole lot of sheer physical limits that are difficult to overcome, and I don't think size and expansion is the only reason for why a lot of people romanticise it - rather, I think it's the fact that large-scale space colonisation requires bending the infinite, indifferent, uncaring universe to your will. It is an assertion that we matter.

Then there is also the possibility of discovery and finding ayy lmaos. That's cool too.

Still doesn't create a 'moral' argument for not going out there, and instead staying on the one planet we currently have.

Note I'm not targetting anybody who doesn't want to fund space exploits. If you personally want to stay on earth, and don't care to put money into the space exploration fund, that's fine with me.

And as I intimated in my post from a few days ago that I linked to up there, I don't think we can obtain an answer to The Last Question without hitting Kardashev II status, at least.

Of course, if you, yourself, decide "Entropy can never be reversed, and that alone shows that we won't solve anything by leaving this planet, why bother?" I don't blame you either.

But the final, nigh-insurmountable argument is... wouldn't it just be more fun? Can't we imagine how much better life would be if we were consuming almost all of the sun's energy, and using all the excess to do things that we enjoy? And not having to fight each other over it? We can build homes where anybody who wants to live 'a certain way' can do that! If somebody dislikes people altogether, they can launch themselves into deep space on a whim.

I'm not saying we go full Culture, a la Iain Banks, but if you already agree that its better to say in the 'real' world rather than plug into a 'world sim' VR program forever, (not saying you do) then shouldn't it be almost self-evident that we will need to acquire more energy and resources so as to give ourselves more and more interesting things to do, games to play, (real) experiences to have?

Earth is large, but finite. Eventually you'll squeeze all the novelty out of it.

I mean there’s a pretty big opportunity cost to things like mars colonies. I’d give a conservative estimate that it would probably cost several trillion dollars a year to build human colonies on Mars. Keeping in mind that it’s going to cost that per year as everything they need is probably coming from earth. Now if we’re spending $10 trillion a year just think of some of the other much more useful projects you could fund for that amount of money. The NHS costs about £3000 per person which is roughly $4050 per person. At ten trillion dollars, you can give everyone on planet Earth access to first world health care. Or we could give every human on earth clean water and electricity. Or work on carbon scrubbing technology to mitigate global warming. Send every child on earth to not just through K-12 but through university.

At ten trillion dollars, you can give everyone on planet Earth access to first world health care

I honestly don't believe that, since after a certain point the bottleneck STOPS being money, and starts being skilled practitioners, specialized machines, and increasingly rare chemicals/materials.

There's a finite number of people on the planet smart/dedicated enough to become an actual doctor. We're probably not utilizing them optimally now, but the more we throw into the medical field, the fewer we have to throw into other industries where they could have more impact. Tradeoffs.

There's probably not enough of them to give everyone access to true 'first world' healthcare, sans leaps in Robotics (although... LLMs are giving us a tool that can somewhat replace doctors).

Which is also why sending EVERY child on earth to University would be akin to lighting the money on fire, incidentally. Not all of them are going to learn much.

If I was going to throw money at something, it'd probably be at trying to gene edit some significant portion of the population to bump their intelligence up more. Not to make more geniuses, but to just reduce the number of violent idiots ruining things for everyone else. Raise the floor so we aren't spending as much money cleaning up their messes for them.

And being clear, I do not give two FUCKS about 'opportunity cost' of space exploration. The benefits, in the long term, are so ridiculously asymetrical in favor of doing its hilarious.

We could spend trillions on food to simply grow the population of hungry people until we can no longer keep up... or we can spend trillions putting up O'Neill cylinders that enable literally optimal conditions for growing food crops, and can be scaled up endlessly so our population never outpaces our productivity.

This choice should be easy, if we weren't the type of species that we are.

When literally EVERY OTHER watt of energy, every kilo of rare earth metals, every other possible ounce of water is OUT THERE and not on the surface of our planet, do me a solid and try to calculate the 'opportunity cost' of leaving all those valuable resources floating in space, unused, for hundreds of years.

The sooner we make it viable to get to those things and use them, the more problems we are actually capable of solving.

Doesn’t choosing to leave those things “out there” imply pretty strongly that we could economically get them? I’m not convinced that’s true. Getting to the asteroid belt is not energetically cheap, and the trip itself would take years and require that any crew taken along bring food water, and life support sufficient for a 2+ year journey. At current launch costs, you’d have to bring back a lot of minerals to break even.

O’Neil cylinders would enable space farming, but again, we have the difficulty of sourcing the materials to build the cylinder, the energy to launch it all to wherever you want to build it.

I think all of this points to the problem I have with over-romanticizing space exploration. We sort of have an unfounded assumption (probably because of poor analogy to sea-exploration) that you can sort of just find or get the resources on the way. That works on the ocean. Out of food? Go fishing. Out of water? Get some on the next island you pass. You won’t run out of air because obviously you never left Earth and you can breathe the atmosphere on the boat. In space, you have to bring it with you. All of it. And worse, you have to launch it or the tools and materials to make it from Earth. The free lunches that sailors got simply don’t happen in space. If you’re in space, water either has to be brought along, recycled, or chemically manufactured. Food either must be brought along, or you must bring the seeds and everything required to grow, harvest, and preserve them. The fuel is the same situation, either you bring it, or you manufacture it. The free lunches don’t happen. In fact space is probably one of the most dangerous places to be. You can’t breathe in space, it’s too cold for survival. There’s no food or water. That’s before considering the radiation that would be dangerous to humans, or the asteroids that can smash tge ships protecting astronauts from exposure to space.

O’Neil cylinders would enable space farming, but again, we have the difficulty of sourcing the materials

Yeah, hence:

At current launch costs, you’d have to bring back a lot of minerals to break even.

Would be part of a two-pronged strategy. Get as many materials as you can that are already in orbit, and convert those to productive uses in orbit.

Transferring foodstuffs to the ground is a lot cheaper, once you've already grown them. Or to the nearest actual colony, if we get that far.

Fuel costs is probably the only truly unavoidable one, it is possible to be 'stuck' in space in a way that's not quite true in the ocean, if you have no more energy or no more materials that can be used to transfer momentum.

But there are options that are less reliant on bringing fuel with you (railguns/space cannons, solar sails, space elevators, to name a few). Massive engineering challenges for each, though.

Earth is large, but finite. Eventually you'll squeeze all the novelty out of it.

If you are suggesting that this is possible for any one person, I would be extremely surprised if you believe it. There is such a vast amount to be experienced and learned even within one town, to say nothing of a larger city, a whole country, bordering countries, or faraway countries--and this is just in the natural world and not even considering the variousness of people--that there isn't any way for a singular individual in one lifetime to "squeeze the novelty" out of it all, unless one is very very quickly given to boredom or incuriosity. I understand though that this is a matter of personal disposition.

If you are suggesting that this is possible for any one person, I would be extremely surprised if you believe it.

Well, I'm also banking on improvements in longevity.

I also note that most people can learn all the 'important' information about literally any place in the world via the internet. As well as any time in history.

I've never been to Rome, but I've watched dozens of documentaries on it and so I've got a pretty good understanding of the main attractions there. I'm sure there are more interesting things to find on the ground... but I'd also bet that the experiences are very corporatized and streamlined, seeing as MILLIONS of people per year visit and they have to accommodate that.

I don't know that actually going to Rome would be all that enlightening to me. I still want to try it.

And this will make me sound cynical, but the world really is homogenizing. I can eat at a McDonalds in virtually any European city. Cultures are just not nearly as siloed as they used to be.

"Ah, but Faceh! You should eschew commoditized food and eat the local cuisine, Anthony Bourdain style!"

EXCEPT that the magic of internet recipes and globalization means that pretty much ANY COUNTRY'S CUISINE is available to me in at most an hour's drive in my own state! There is no such thing as food that is truly 'unique' to a single geographic area anymore!

Literally within walking distance of my office (which is in a smallish town!) is a Greek food restaurant, a Sushi/Sake bar, a Tex-Mex spot (and like 4 different standard Mexican restaurants), an Italian spot, a Peruvian spot, an Indian spot a short jaunt away, a Pho place, a Poke bowl spot. Korean barbecue, Cuban, Brazillian, and even a Hooters. Every kind of seafood, EVERY kind of pizza. And a specialized Bar that stocks alcohols from everywhere around the world. My area hosts a large population of German Expats, and they host a LARGE Oktoberfest event every year. I've got a low-rent version of EPCOT right in my fuckin' backyard. Also, I live only hours away from the actual EPCOT... so I can enjoy travel to other countries in miniature.

There's a Korean-Baptist church, of all things, right down the road from my house. Also, a Hindu temple. also a Buddhist temple, I just now learned. The world is genuinely smaller than ever. And will continue shrinking, if I get my way and tech keeps improving!

And hey, it would be nice to go and visit certain countries just to say I did. BUT...

Something that's also becoming more evident is that outside of the West, especially outside of the tourist areas... most places are just shitty to visit. Beggars, pickpockets, scammers, filth, and aggressive cultures that would see me as a mark for exploitation.

However, I will actually admit that natural wonders are irreplaceable, and cannot be simulated or imitated with current tech. Yellowstone National Park is actually mindblowingly beautiful and unique, in a way that can't be captured on film. But how long would it actually take for you to experience all the natural wonders on the planet, if you spent approximately a couple weeks exploring each one. 10 years? 20 at most? THEN WHAT. Those wonders aren't changing or updating regularly!

Time to look for wonders on other planets!. Personally, I REALLY want to visit Olympus Mons.

if they can turn Mt. Everest into a Tourist Trap, they can do that with anywhere worth going.

Finally finally, what happens if we get approximately 1:1 simulations in VR of these places, which can convincingly simulate the natural wonders or any location on earth? Then you can go anywhere on earth cheaply and see all there is to see without leaving home.

What then? How quickly will you figure out that there's just not THAT much variety, in the end?

Okay I'm quite bullish on space exploration, but I really don't agree with this. At all. Even a little bit.

EXCEPT that the magic of internet recipes and globalization means that pretty much ANY COUNTRY'S CUISINE is available to me in at most an hour's drive in my own state! There is no such thing as food that is truly 'unique' to a single geographic area anymore!

Globohomo is a thing but this is seriously overstating the point. I'm a Malaysian who now lives in Sydney and no, the Malaysian food joints in Sydney are not the same. I have lived here for nine years, and in that span of time I have only managed to find one authentic restaurant (which I only found last week. Yes it took me nine years to find one). Not gonna lie, I nearly teared up when eating the food.

Of course, it's a single restaurant, and it serves approximately 0.001% of Malaysian dishes. There is still no substitute for going to a country and trying their food there. The amount of variety your city offers may satisfy you, but no, it isn't a representative sample of what the world has to offer.

Something that's also becoming more evident is that outside of the West, especially outside of the tourist areas... most places are just shitty to visit. Beggars, pickpockets, scammers, filth, and aggressive cultures that would see me as a mark for exploitation.

Have you... actually been to East/Southeast Asia recently? Not 50 years ago. Not even 20. Recently. I have, and this is usually not what it's like there. Hell it wasn't even like that when I grew up in Southeast Asia. Things are clean, and generally quite safe - safer than in many Western countries to be honest (look up the crime stats in a city like Beijing and compare that to say London. There's no comparison). In addition, I routinely see more homeless in Western cities than I do in Asian ones, and more insane people who just do crazy shit on the subways and streets. There's a real sense of hope that things are getting better in many Asian countries.

In contrast, many areas in the West feel like they're stagnating. My recent trip to Toronto was eye-opening - the sense of torpor was palpable, the subways were fucking falling apart with water damage and exposed wiring in a lot of areas, and homeless were so common that it was hard to walk a kilometre without encountering one of their encampments. I would much rather go home to third-world Malaysia than visit Toronto again. Really, it's funny - I used to want to leave Asia, and now I really yearn to go back.

I'm a Malaysian who now lives in Sydney and no, the Malaysian food joints in Sydney are not the same. I have lived here for six years, and in that span of time I have only managed to find one authentic restaurant (which I only found last week. Yes it took me six years to find one). Not gonna lie, I nearly teared up when eating the food.

Tell me precisely what would stop you from producing food that is identical to back home, same ingredients, same process, in your current country, other than "I've got other things to do with my time."

Is there any intrinsic reason that "authentic" Malaysian food can only be made in Malaysia, if a person who knows the recipes is available?

The amount of variety your city offers may satisfy you, but no, it isn't a representative sample of what the world has to offer.

What possible ingredient(s) can not be shipped to any other given country, on ice or otherwise, so as to produce them the exact same way they are back home. We can overnight any package from any first or second world country if needed. There is no physical limitation on this factor under current tech.

And more to the point, what possible combination of ingredients can produce a truly unique sensation that isn't similar to some other dish that you're familiar with?

Humans have a finite capacity for taste. There's only so many combinations of salty, sweet, sour, spicy, bitter, umami one can produce. I'm familiar with the basic 'philosophy' of cooking, but also that flavorspace is pretty strictly bounded by what humans are capable of sensing.

You can vary the textures, the consistency, the 'mouthfeel,' the temperatures and acidity and crispness. Indeed, I get the sense this is precisely what the best chefs on the planet are doing to come up with 'new' dishes.

But these foods aren't breaking the laws of physics. They're utilizing mostly the same constituent parts, just in different configurations.

Is there any evidence that there's anything resembling a truly 'infinite' diversity of possible food experiences available?

Is there some food experience out there that I can LEGITIMATELY only experience if I take a trip to some other country?

Things are clean, and generally quite safe - safer than in many Western countries to be honest (look up the crime stats in a city like Beijing and compare that to say London. There's no comparison

It's really too bad, then, that East Asians are self destructing by failing to reproduce. I'd like these cultures to survive and persist as unique societies. But they don't seem to want to.

This is my larger point. We're going to lose so, so much in the short term because we just decided hedonism was preferable to exploration.

Tell me precisely what would stop you from producing food that is identical to back home, same ingredients, same process, in your current country, other than "I've got other things to do with my time."

Lack of experience, for one (so yes, I have other things to do with my time). Also a lot of Malaysian food requires exceptionally high heat to get proper wok hei, and the stove in my apartment and in fact many Western kitchens do not allow for that.

In addition, it is easier for me to recreate Malaysian dishes having tasted it before. If you don't, how in the world would you ever be able to recreate a food you've never tasted an authentic version of? Note a lot of Asian food also does not rely on strict codified recipes and often rely on the chef to improvise until it tastes "right". Cooking Asian food is traditionally something you just gain a feel for overtime by tasting and replication, and most internet recipes won't get you 100% of the way there. In practice I would say it's not going to be easy to make authentic Malaysian food without actually having tasted an authentic version before.

If you have someone with you who possesses the ability and equipment to cook authentic food, then yes it's trivially easy to obtain. In practice this condition does not typically hold. Maybe you think all these differences are minimal and that you can get most of the effect of a food tasting an inauthentic version of it, and that they're not meaningful enough to travel for (as a bona fide foodie I disagree, but that's a claim I can't contest by virtue of it being a value judgement).

But then there are foods I just straight-up haven't been able to find in Sydney, and I find nothing else scratches that itch in quite the same way.

Is there any intrinsic reason that "authentic" Malaysian food can only be made in Malaysia, if a person who knows the recipes is available?

Of course there's no intrinsic reason, but authentic Malaysian food in other cities is just nearly impossible to find in spite of the theoretic possibility of its existence. And no, the amount of flavour and texture combinations in existence isn't infinite, it's just way larger than you will ever be able to experience in your lifetime. Which means @George_E_Hale's assertion that the variety on Earth is enough to satisfy most people is correct.

And there are indeed some foods where the taste relies on it being made in a specific place. Korean makgeolli has a lot of variation and since it is a fermented drink made from a wild starter, at least some of its taste is reliant on the regional climate it's produced in. You also can't import it and expect to get the best version of it, since it then needs to be pasteurised to improve shelf life and this shits up the taste. As someone who has been to Korea and tasted the nectar of heaven that is makgeolli, then tried to get one in Sydney and found it tasted like watered-down piss, I can attest to this, seriously makgeolli overseas is so fucking bad compared to the real shit I swear to god.

The world has gotten smaller as time has gone on. Globohomo is quite real. That doesn’t mean that travel won’t yield you new cultural and sensory experiences.

It's really too bad, then, that East Asians are self destructing by failing to reproduce. I'd like these cultures to survive and persist as unique societies. But they don't seem to want to.

I actually took the time to subject that to further analysis.

The major Asian countries with low birth rates relative to death rates are, unsurprisingly, the hyper-modernised ones: China (death rate 8.3, birth rate 6.3), South Korea (death rate 6.7, birth rate 4.3), Taiwan (death rate 8.8, birth rate 5.7) and Japan (death rate 12.3, birth rate 6.0). Interestingly enough, Japan's birth rate is the most unfavourable compared to its death rate across all East Asian countries and is thus depopulating the fastest, in spite of all the focus on SK - likely because its population is older and birth rates tanked earlier there. These results are largely consistent with your article. But I will note there are a small handful of Asian destinations which are actually quite wealthy and also have higher birth rates than their death rates; e.g. Singapore (death rate 4.8, birth rate 8.2) and Macao (death rate 4.8, birth rate 6.3). Southeast Asia is doing pretty good in general, with Malaysia clocking in at a death rate of 5.2 and a birth rate of 12.4 (I can testify that Malaysia isn't that much of a shithole, in spite of people's perceptions, and it doesn't seem to be disappearing any time soon). This is all still not great, and I agree that East Asia faces a lot of challenges regarding that in the future.

What I think is illuminating about this is that large swaths of the west seems to be depopulating as well. Many places in Western Europe possess birth rates well below their death rates, for example Austria (death rate 10.2, birth rate 8.2), Finland (death rate 10.7, birth rate 7.8), Spain (death rate 9.3, birth rate 7.0), Italy (death rate 11.2, birth rate 6.5), Portugal (death rate 11.1, birth rate 8.3) and so on aren't doing so good. Oh and don't look at Eastern Europe unless you want to see horrific depopulation. Even where they seem to be doing okay, this isn't the full picture. For example, I notice your article states that US births still exceed deaths and that its population is set to increase. This is trivially true on its face but it's misleading since that obscures a shit ton of heterogeneity - non-Hispanic white American deaths exceed births, and this has been true ever since 2012. The fact that the US still has a higher birth rate than death rate is being driven by the immigrants they have brought in. Does this bode well for the survival of "American culture"?

Western countries are depopulating, and have been for a long time. Unlike Asia, they're just stemming that by bringing in immigrants who don't hold the same culture and values who breed like rabbits, so their overall birth rates look better. But that does not imply cultural survival, and this tactic certainly doesn't allow Americans to escape reproductive oblivion just because they've decided to replace the kids they're not having with a bunch of people who have as much relation to them as they do the Chinese.

I agree we're gonna lose a lot. We may all be boned. Except for maybe Africa, who - if they ever modernise - will also face the same issues, and begin to go gently into that good night.

The fact is that we are sitting at the bottom of a rather inconvenient gravity well.

The early modern European powers colonized the world because that was a very profitable thing for them to do. Crossing the Atlantic with a ship full of spices or gold was hard but doable.

By contrast, going to the Moon today is much harder today than crossing the Atlantic was in 1500. If the moon was full of gold nuggets which you just had to pick up, that would still not pay for the expense to bring them to Earth.

Settling Antarctica or the shallow parts of the sea is actually much easier than settling space.

At some point we will probably get Netflix to sponsor a human Mars mission as reality TV, but settling there?

Migrating to North America was a great idea for many because even if you made it across with just the clothes on your body, there was plenty of land (once you genocided the natives). You just had to clear the land and then you could grow your favorite staples from the old world.

By contrast, until we get von-Neumann machines, in space you will depend on Earthcrafted goods for a very long time. Just imagine the settlement of the Americas in a world where every plank of wood had to be shipped in from the old world for the first 100 years.

If the moon was full of gold nuggets which you just had to pick up, that would still not pay for the expense to bring them to Earth.

Rookie mistake, you can usually make better use of those by manufacturing things in space anyway. (there's an Isaac Arthur video for everything).

Just imagine the settlement of the Americas in a world where every plank of wood had to be shipped in from the old world for the first 100 years.

Yep. But when the boats got big enough, now we can import whole fucking bridges from China.

We're really just quibbling about scale here. If enough industrial capacity gets built in space (robots probably a necessary step here) it brings the cost of operating in space down rapidly.

The question is why would humans 'prefer' to edge out into space and expand horizons for everyone.

And my point is, as stated:

I look around and realize that the mindset of people who both appreciate why space is important AND have the chops to actually build the industries necessary to realize an outer space economy is incredibly rare, especially on a global scale. I'd guess a majority of humans are focused on/optimized for bare survival on the day-to-day, another huge chunk, especially in the West, are in a distracted hedonism loop, and of the remaining who might otherwise learn towards space exploration, many (half?) have been mindkilled by lefty politics, effective altruism, or some other nerd-sniping ideology or political orientation that diverts their focus.

So its simply a matter of lack of humanity's real will to do something, to sail beyond the horizon without any guarantees of what was out there, or if they'd survive or ever return.

But as stated, EVERYTHING ELSE is out there. Its pretty much self explanatory why someone would want to leave earth to check it out, unless they just felt too comfortable to be budged. But that only lasts as long as our sun does. So once again, we either get off this rock, or we die, never knowing the answers.

Terence Tao: I’m an award-winning mathematician. Trump just cut my funding.

In just six months, the United States has seen a wholesale assault on the scientific infrastructure that helped make it a world leader in innovation. Grants have been cancelled mid-project, fellowships for the next generation of researchers gutted, and federally funded institutes stripped of the resources they need to operate. These decisions are not the result of scientific review or Congressional debate, but of abrupt political directives that bypass long-standing norms, disrupt multi-year projects, and erode the independence of our research ecosystem.

In that time, I have seen first-hand how sustained federal investment—channeled through agencies like the National Science Foundation (NSF)—powers the collaborations that link universities, government laboratories, and industry. At UCLA's Institute for Pure and Applied Mathematics (IPAM), where I now serve as Director of Special Projects, those collaborations have laid the groundwork for both theoretical breakthroughs and practical technologies. My own research at IPAM, for instance, helped lead to the algorithms that now cut MRI scan times by a factor of up to 10. This is the America I chose as my adoptive home: a place where science is valued as a public good, and where researchers from around the world come to contribute their ideas and energy.

It is therefore stunning and devastating to discover that the new administration, in just its first six months, has deliberately attacked and weakened almost all the supporting pillars of this ecosystem. Executive actions have cancelled or suspended federal grants with unprecedented scale and speed, with billions of dollars worth of ongoing research projects and experiments disrupted. This is not because of a negative scientific assessment of the work, but instead by seemingly arbitrary justifications. Critical funding has been pulled for as insignificant a reason as the presence of a key word in the original proposal that is retroactively deemed unacceptable.

Federal support is, of course, a privilege, not a right; and Congress has the constitutional authority to set the budgets and rules for any expenditure of public funds and resources. But many of these executive actions have not waited for either explicit or implicit Congressional approval, and in some cases have even directly ignored past Congressional mandates for appropriations. Relative to the sheer size of the federal government as a whole, the amount allocated for supporting science is not massive. The NSF mathematics and physical sciences (MPS) directorate, for instance, is the largest of the subdivisions of the NSF, and has an annual budget of approximately $1.7 billion. This looks significant until one realizes that it amounts to about five dollars per US citizen per year, and less than a tenth of a percent of the federal budget as a whole.

He seems to be referring to how the admin took an axe to science funding by ctrl+F-ing for 'woke' dictionary terms: underrepresented, minority, diverse, etc. The problem is that the effects seem to be about indiscriminate regardless of whether you were a true believer or merely box checking. Will we see upgraded diversity science pledges in the next democrat admin? Researchers might have to carefully consider the political leanings of their funding proposals in election years.

The response to Tao's article pointing out times he's talked about politics before in the past is interesting to me, because nowhere at all (that I know of) has Trump or his administration stated that he is targeting funding over a professor's personal beliefs. And yet somehow it seems everyone just takes it for granted, of course it's targeted government punishment coming down over personal wrongthink they say, Tao's beliefs are definitely relevant to the cuts.

Very odd, I don't think I've seen this happen much before where even the main defenders are like "ok yeah we all think Trump is lying but the libs deserve it. It's obviously angry revenge first and foremost"

As others have already noted, Tao isn't specifically targeted here. UCLA got its funding cut on the basis that it was illegally discriminating on the basis of race in admissions and creating an anti-semitic environment (among other things, UCLA sat back and allowed pro-Palestinian protestors to block Jewish students' access to classes, something which it resolved with a settlement of $6 million dollars). Then Tao throws a shitfit.

The broader issue here is that academia serves a couple of interrelated functions. The first is performing research and discovering truths about the world that can be used to help others down the line. The second is one of using academia to "liberate" people socially based on a certain political ideology, which the proponents of said political ideology conflate with the first aim because they have already subscribed to a number of tenets their opponents don't hold. This kind of thing has serious knock-on effects in academia, where people will often discriminate against conservative candidates - in fact only 18% of respondents within academia state they would not discriminate against conservatives, and that's only capturing what they are explicitly willing to state; the actual prevalence of bias against conservatives is probably higher. Papers that support the liberal instead of the conservative view are more likely to be published instead of file-drawered. Etc.

In effect the left turned academia into their political tool, and made it such that it was impossible for conservatives to defang them of their influence without also indirectly crippling knowledge-producing institutions. This puts conservatives in quite the bind - every time they wage war on the institutions that also serve as factories for leftist propaganda, they also run the risk of stopping up legitimate research and can be attacked on that basis. It's a situation the left created, not the right, and one can hardly blame the right for deciding "fuck it, we're going to flamethrower everything anyway".

As others have already noted, Terrence Tao isn't specifically targeted here.

I agree! So it's really odd that everyone keeps seeming to mention his personal political beliefs. It feels like they want it to be a story of suppressing the wrongthinkers so they can justify why their censorship is special.

Yes, I think this feels odd to people who actually believe that balance and harmony can be brought back to academia by playing within rules and norms that have been finely tuned in these places to achieve plausible deniability and leftist creep simultaneously.

"Why don't we just separate the real world truths these people discover from the political ideology they have a religious-like attachment to?"

The ideology and the institution are now inseparable by design. That's why.

His public political beliefs have been mentioned because the article claimed he tried to stay out of politics. He did not, not even in his official capacity.

I don't think most of the people making this argument believe Trump is doing it because he specifically wanted to penalise Tao. They're just making the point that Tao did insert himself into the culture war and can't claim he was Just A Normal Guy Doing Research Things until politics found him, that in the "tranquil past" he did not solely "focus on technical or personal aspects" of his own research, teaching, and mentoring, nor did he "leave the broader political debate and activism to others".

I mean the context here is Tao expressing disgust at the Trump administration's supposed imposition of politics upon academia and thus crippling it, something which is difficult to see as anything other than exceptionally hypocritical when Tao himself actively participated in the politicisation of academia (the open letter). The point of bringing it up is not to justify Tao's defunding but to respond to what he wrote about it.

Would he have kept his job had he refused to sign the open letter? Remember Steve Hsu.

For the purpose of discussion I'm just taking his assertions at face value and assuming they're sincere. If you ask me though, I'm cynical enough about academia and the kind of environment it fosters that I don't think it's a given that any of the statements he's made about politics can be assumed to be genuinely held (including this writeup that's attracted so much controversy). It's possible they're all informally coerced in one way or another.

Somebody with a profile like him probably gets harangued by colleagues to "speak up" and "do some good" a lot, and it's not hard for me to believe that making the right mouth sounds is a low enough price for him to pay to keep doing the maths he likes.

Should it matter? "I was just following orders" usually isn't a defense for actively helping the enemy. Would Tao be willing to go full MAGA if it meant Trump would give him funding back?

I legitimately DON’T know if Tao has personal political opinions. But I strongly suspect that Trump would very much like to truth social about the world’s smartest man endorsing a favorable balance of trade or what have you.

But I strongly suspect that Trump would very much like to truth social about the world’s smartest man endorsing a favorable balance of trade or what have you.

And I bet that Tao wouldn't. Not even if pressured by the administration.

And yet somehow it seems everyone just takes it for granted, of course it's targeted government punishment coming down over personal wrongthink they say, Tao's beliefs are definitely relevant to the cuts.

No, this is not quite correct. Everyone is acknowledging that even if the government were punishing Tao in particular (and they are not, they are targeting the university in general), then Tao has already voided his right to principled protest. In terms of defense in depth, Tao's motte was already invested with demolition charges, by his own rotten hand.

So you agree with the woke leftists that professors and researchers with "bad opinions" should be punished even if it's not irrelevant to their work?

  • -18

Making this comment once is fine.

Two or three times, maybe there's a use case.

Copying and pasting it to this many different people is obnoxious.

They're all making the same general point so how is it obnoxious? I'm wishing to clarify with different people their views on censorship.

  • -16

There is an "@" function to send alerts to people you're not replying to. For instance, you can summon me by saying "@magic9mushroom" (quotes not required).

Then they could all respond to the single post.

That will still inevitably devolve into separate discussions regardless unless I make the assumption that everyone is a hive-mind and will continue to have similar responses to follow-up posts without divergence would it not?

  • -10

But people browsing would only need to read your post once instead of 6 times.

Sure but the chaos would be limited to a single subthread instead of being scattered everywhere

You got thorough responses from multiple people here. You could have made one reply pinging the others (@[username]). Or even made all the replies you did, but link them back to this one: "see discussion here." I recognize it's kind of awkward either way.

The problem is that most people who copy-paste a response in 8 different spots are not interested in holding 8 nigh-identical conversations. Better to pull them back into one location.

Yeah no matter what way it is awkward and will still inevitably devolve into separate discussions regardless unless I make the assumption that everyone is a hive-mind and will continue to have similar responses to follow-up posts without divergence.

  • -10

No. As I just said, the point is irrespective of if they should be punished. The point is that regardless of whether or not they should be punished, they have no right to object on principle.

If you willingly join an army that refuses to take prisoners, and just executes all surrendering enemy forces, then you don't get to cry when you get summarily executed instead of taken prisoner - regardless of the moral positions of the enemy forces.

This is pure "your rules, applied fairly".

If Tao objects to this, then perhaps dear Terry ought to evolve his moral universe beyond the level we expect from elementary schoolers. As far as complaints go, "He hit me just because I hit him first!" is the mark of a particularly dull and narcissistic child.

No. As I just said, the point is irrespective of if they should be punished. The point is that regardless of whether or not they should be punished, they have no right to object on principle.

Tao was part of the government and was cutting grants to wrongthinkers? I didn't know that. I guess he got what was coming to him then.

  • -16

Feel free to reread my prior posts, and the other ones people are posting in response to you.

In a roundabout way, yes. He signed a letter that was used to support policies that funneled money and grants away from non-progressives to progressives.

So you agree with the woke leftists that professors and researchers with "bad opinions" should be punished even if it's not irrelevant to their work?

No. I would be perfectly happy to live in a world where some woke professors and some conservative professors sniped at each other at conferences and from offices across the quad, but otherwise left each other alone. This, in theory, is what tenure and the notion of academic freedom are.*

The Left was not content to live in this world, and across the generations took over the universities, installed their own apparatchiks in administrations, systematically discriminated against disfavored demographics, anathematized and drummed out opposing voices, instituted political litmus tests in hiring and publishing, and created a climate of fear on campuses where the vast majority of students parrot political lines they do not believe in order to avoid social and personal blowback.

If we cannot have an academy run according to our preferred rules - academic freedom, properly understood - then at a minimum we will live according to the woke's rules applied evenhandedly. Perhaps with enough rounds of tit-for-tat, we will be able to reach a new harmonious equilibrium.

So how do you feel about a situation like this? https://x.com/pjaicomo/status/1958124476001861948

Do you believe the left would be justified with removing Tom Macdonald for his "the devil is a democrat" speech because the right wing started with saying legal residents don't have protections?

I don't think so because I have principles about free speech that apply regardless of who started it, but if I understand you correctly revenge is a perfectly suitable argument for going against one's words.

  • -12

It appears nobody has attempted to deport Tom Macdonald for that video. As I understand the law, one may only be deported for First Amendment protected activity on the personal (that is, not delegated) determination of the Secretary of State that it compromises a compelling US foreign policy interest. This means that "The Devil is a Democrat" is not deportable -- Macdonald would in fact be on thinner ice if he criticized Canada, as that would implicate US foreign policy interests, though it is unlikely Rubio would make such a determination.

This has nothing to do, however, with the Tao situation. And that particular law seems like it's going inevitably to head to the Supreme Court.

It appears nobody has attempted to deport Tom Macdonald for that video.

Yes it's a hypothetical. Would it be ok if the future Dems declared him to not have first amendment rights as a legal residents in the US and deport him based off political speech they find insulting?

This is the culture war thread, not the random hypothetical thread.

So how do you feel about a situation like this?

Face tattoos, white guy dreds, mediocre taste in music... are there any examples that aren't quite so literal regarding the old maxim about defending scoundrels?

Do you believe the left would be justified with removing Tom Macdonald for his "the devil is a democrat" speech because the right wing started with saying legal residents don't have protections?

"Legal resident" is an extremely broad category. It's not clear to me under what policy Macdonald resides in the US, but if there are Congressionally-approved restrictions on the speech of certain categories, then yes, this applies under "your rules, applied fairly."

I'm not a free speech absolutist, but I care about fairness and equality before the law. Unilateral disarmament of letting one side do whatever and the other side only gets to wag the finger and say tut-tut does not improve the status of the principle at hand.

I'm not a free speech absolutist, but I care about fairness and equality before the law. Unilateral disarmament of letting one side do whatever and the other side only gets to wag the finger and say tut-tut does not improve the status of the principle at hand.

Then don't go for unilateral disarmament, use your power to enact fair rules for government. Groups like FIRE, and in the past stuff like the Free Speech League, the First Amendment coalition and other groups protect our rights by fighting for them legally in all cases.

And they failed.

Principled free speech defenders strongly benefit from the shoe on the other foot.

This is advice for the last conflict - when the ACLU wanders around as a shambolic corpse that refuses to support the rights of "those people" you know the old institutions can no longer help.

More comments

Do you believe the left would be justified with removing Tom Macdonald for his "the devil is a democrat" speech because the right wing started with saying legal residents don't have protections?

I don't think so because I have principles about free speech that apply regardless of who started it, but if I understand you correctly revenge is a perfectly suitable argument for going against one's words.

The Left already is doing such things while mouthing banal principled platitudes, and has been for decades. It has won them near-complete control of the knowledge-making and -legitimating institutions in the country, including academia, journalism, with significant inroads into corporations and the legal profession. It has enabled the Left to take its social program from radical fringe to state-enforced orthodoxy. They have hijacked bureaucracies, lied about their intentions, ignored or subverted laws they did not agree with, including court decisions, and more.

They did these things not even for such a good reason as revenge, but instead out of pure will-to-power.

Remove the beam from thine own eye before complaining about the mote in another's.

They did these things not even for such a good reason as revenge, but instead out of pure will-to-power.

Is revenge a good reason to do things you find immoral? I think a lot of us more principled folk would disagree.

  • -11

If I am attacked, it is good to use force against my attacker to both defend myself but also to establish future deterrence. If I am cheated, it is good to sue not just for the value of what was denied me but also for punitive damages - to take the cheater's money. If I am stolen from, it is good not just to retrieve what was stolen, but also to incapacitate the thief to prevent their ability to do these things again.

More comments

The other way to look at it is that the whole thing is so riven with enemy collaborators that you throw a rock in what is ostensibly the field that needs politics the least and the people you hit are also complicit so fuck it, carpet-bombing is called for.

Tao isn't the best example to defend academia because 1) he'll be fine (allegedly his funding was partially restored, but moreover he and his students have plenty of potential sponsors), and 2) his field doesn't have obvious, real-life impact.

What about the NIH scientists working on treatments for cancer and other diseases, and those running long-term experiments that will have to be cancelled without funding?

How are we, as a society, supposed to do any universally-beneficial or long-term research with politicization? When one side demands loyalty, then the other side attacks you for said loyalty, how do we ensure the safety of, if not ongoing, then at least future research?

Industry has been embraced by both sides, but doesn't seem keen to host anything "universally-beneficial" or "long-term". Providing upfront funding for decades-long experiments, especially if it's coming from grassroots organizations (since no government or industry), seems infeasible.

Tao isn't the best example to defend academia because 1) he'll be fine (allegedly his funding was partially restored, but moreover he and his students have plenty of potential sponsors), and 2) his field doesn't have obvious, real-life impact.

Also, what kind of serious funding does a theoretical mathematician actually need? I could see the need for licenses for certain software like MatLab etc., and the need to rent time on supercomputers, and the need to buy research papers, books, etc. But all of those (except maybe supercomputer time) are things universities are already paying for so the marginal added cost of supporting Tao's research is going to be minimal. The biggest expense is going to be the salaries of Tao and his team.

I’m pretty sure Tao and his team receive high salaries(and while I DON’T understand his work I’m well willing to believe those high salaries are well deserved).

The biggest expense for almost anything is salaries, at least in the UK. I was costing a project recently and even with quite tricked out hardware and server costs, 70% of the final number was just salaries.

Heh, I'm pretty sure I've used software packages more expensive per seat than the engineers to run them. But yes, salaries are generally the largest. I'm sure pure mathematicians use a lot of chalk too.

Damn what kind of software was that?

Ansys has a very high opinion of some of their products. I've heard others complain that some tools for VLSI (silicon chip design) are in similar price ranges too.

I wasn't paying the bills, so I don't have a specific price in mind.

EDIT: Huh, looks like they got acquired by Synopsys, one of the big expensive VLSI tool vendors. Not terribly surprising. Floating licenses help, too.

Probably something from Oracle

Sure, but compared to other research (especially medical research trying to do double blind studies with human patients) the cost of doing math research is significantly smaller.

How are we, as a society, supposed to do any universally-beneficial or long-term research with politicization? When one side demands loyalty, then the other side attacks you for said loyalty, how do we ensure the safety of, if not ongoing, then at least future research?

This appears to be a dilemma. We can have universally-beneficial/long-term scientific research, or we can have politicization of science, but we can't have both at the same time. And this isn't a black-or-white thing, but rather a spectrum where one trades off against the other. I don't think the politicians and ideologues can be counted on to keep their grubby fingers off the superweapon that is the credibility that comes with the label "science," and so if such research is a higher priority than politicization, then the way to accomplish this would have to be from the scientists and academics rejecting the politicization from within. The only alternative is that it doesn't get accomplished at all, and we get corrupted non-credible "research" that serves some ideology at the cost to society at large.

We can have universally-beneficial/long-term scientific research, or we can have politicization of science, but we can't have both at the same time.

The Soviets did.

Biology begs to differ. Or indeed, economics.

Anything that had immediate military applications was specifically depoliticized in the Soviet Union, so that it may be allowed to work. And that's only after they tried the political approach with the military with disastrous results.

They literally had political prisoners do nuclear research, how less politicized can a discipline be in a totalitarian state?

But long term research in anything that did not have specific tangible military results was curtailed by Marxist dogma big time.

How are we, as a society, supposed to do any universally-beneficial or long-term research with politicization? When one side demands loyalty, then the other side attacks you for said loyalty, how do we ensure the safety of, if not ongoing, then at least future research?

Unless you can run the polity yourself, you can't, since a sufficiently hostile government can easily interfere with private funding and research.

That you can't solve this problem doesn't provide any obligation for a political entity to fund an organization of its political opponents. If the universities wanted to have a moral case for funding by both sides, they should have stayed politically neutral. That the Blue required they toe the line, and they did, does not impose a moral requirement on Red to keep funding them while they toe the Blue line.

Long term, a truce. For a long time we had free speech because everyone understood that policing speech was a double-edged sword - even if it works for you today, it’s going to cut your head off tomorrow.

When everyone understands this, then you’re safe because nobody seriously demands loyalty tests because everyone understands how that ends. All of this came about because the woke thought they were able to escape that and win permanent victory.

MAD requires demonstrating that you are actually willing to fire off your nukes.

(Note also that Trump isn’t demanding a loyalty test. There is no requirement that universities be Trumpist, only that they not openly discriminate against white, Jewish and Asian students. Which seems fair to me.)

Note also that Trump isn’t demanding a loyalty test

He actually is demanding a loyalty test - but for loyalty to Israel rather than the USA.

Note also that Trump isn’t demanding a loyalty test. There is no requirement that universities be Trumpist

The Trump administration has explicitly been angling for commissars DEI for conservatives View Point Diversity Ensurers to supervise the ideological composition of faculty.

But AFAIK that's not what this is. I have complicated feelings about that and will happily discuss another time, but that's not what this is.

I don't know that you can separate them.

If Terrance Tao wants my support for his academic research, he can start by writing a substack comprehensible to a STEM undergrad explaining what the deal is with inter-universal Teichmüller theory. Until then, have fun in the private sector buddy. Meta is hiring.

Anything that harms "higher" education, the NGO complex and the politically captured "scientists" is good by me. This guy checks all three.

As someone in the sciences (doing my PhD at Hopkins) these cuts have hit us quite hard. The NSF has basically been dismantled, and the NIH funding system has become much more restrictive. To me, none of this makes a whole lot of sense. These grants were pennies on top of the giant stacks of dollars that the military, Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security represent. Yes you get a bunch of duds, but a lot of the research funded has an extremely high ROI. I get that Trump wanted to shut down "woke" research, but he could have done that without cutting overall funding (just mandate that the NIH can't fund transgender research, shutdown the diversity grants, etc.).

This is also bad because it explicitly politicizes scientific research. Which I can't really blame the Trump administration for. It was the idiot professors and students who tried to make the department officially pro-Palestine, admit a bunch of diversity PhD students who aren't up to snuff, and antagonize the administration because they thought Trump was a fascist who started this whole thing.

So it seems to me once again a case of Trump punishing the people who tried to screw him over, rather than something that genuinely would be the best move for the country.

The problem is the whole ecosystem is corrupt and tries to launder political propaganda by citing to things like Tao's work and other stuff like it. This is what happens when good people operate within a bad system, they become part of the problem.

This is also bad because it explicitly politicizes scientific research.

If it's paid for by taxes it's political.

rather than something that genuinely would be the best move for the country

professors and students who tried to make the department officially pro-Palestine, admit a bunch of diversity PhD students who aren't up to snuff, and antagonize the administration

This is also bad because it explicitly politicizes scientific research.

So to avoid politicizing scientific research, we should water down the quality of the researchers and let a bunch of activists take over the institutions, and that would genuinely be the best move for the country?

Am I reading that right?

Sorry I think my response was a bit confusing because I don't want to pin the blame solely on Trump for this. Universities have played with fire for a long time and somehow seem surprised to be getting burnt. I just lament that the administration seems to be cutting down the tree rather than pruning some of the worst branches. We can punish woke without destroying the research apparatus.

That makes more sense. Thank you.

The tree needs to go, dig up the dirt, salt the hole and burn anything still crawling.

There are no good branches. APAB.

You must be well aware that comments such as yours are clear examples of "waging the culture war", something the thread rules explicitly ask users to avoid.

This also falls under the rule against making "sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike."

You've been warned in the past for doing this, but it's been a while, so I'll leave it at this.

When you’re a marine in Iwo Jima, you light fires at every cave entrance after you’ve thrown 3-4 grenades in. Then you move onto the next one. And the next one.

There’s nothing worth saving in there that just won’t slow you down and get your people killed.

That’s just where we are in the culture war. How could anyone be surprised at this point?

Dude, chill

You aren't on Iwo Jima. You're on an Internet board with rules against waging the culture war.

Dial it back, please.

Huh. I rated that one Neutral, because I read it as an obvious metaphor for "raze the institution quickly, ignore the regrettable collateral damage, move on to the next head of the hydra", which is a solid - if bitter - policy prescription and doesn't go the "YOU WERE ALL GUILTY AND YOU WERE ALL LEGITIMATE TARGETS!" route of indiscriminately demonising whole groups.

On reflection, I can see that if one read it literally, or even as ambiguous, that puts a very different spin on things.

Don’t worry; I could tell that it was metaphor. Nobody wants to waste hand grenades in this economy.

But if you don’t think “there’s nothing worth saving in there” counts as indiscriminate demonization, what does?

More comments

This is by no means super important but usually when you guys ban someone you put the length of the ban in the mod tag comment, didn't see one here but he does have the "user was banned for this comment" flag.

Not sure if in error or what but wanted to call attention.

Toa is correct. It's a one-day ban.

It shows up in the moderation log as a one-day ban.

There's a colourable argument that trying to sort the good from the bad - particularly within the uni bureaucracy as it exists - is a poor cost-benefit.

There's not a colourable argument that there is no good. That's just pretending the debate is one-sided. A third of voters with postgrad degrees voted for Trump. Those people are probably not on-board with the SJ agenda. There will also be SJ-opponents among those who did not vote, and even among those who voted for Harris; if I were a US citizen, I would probably have voted for Harris simply because I think Trump is too old to lead the free world in a potential WWIII and because WWIII almost certainly implies the semi-permanent fall of SJ anyway.

The institutions are weaponised against you; that's true. Many, perhaps most, of the people there are your enemies; that's true. God knows I feel like I'm in enemy territory every time I pass a bulletin board in a university and it's plastered with SJ signs. But that's just it; I do pass bulletin boards in universities, and I despise those signs. Not literally everyone in academia is your enemy.

A third of voters with postgrad degrees voted for Trump. Those people are probably not on-board with the SJ agenda.

While JT may well be opposed to everyone that went through college, I'm guessing the percentage that works for universities is much, much lower than 1/3.

But that's just it; I do pass bulletin boards in universities, and I despise those signs.

I am glad to have gone to university in less fraught times, and that I do not have the daily temptation to just remove the signs.

While JT may well be opposed to everyone that went through college, I'm guessing the percentage that works for universities is much, much lower than 1/3.

That is fair, somewhat; I would anticipate the split among professors being somewhat more tilted (though not as much as you'd expect, at least among the STEM faculty).

However, I didn't say "college degree". I said "postgrad degree". As in, basic tertiary degree and then another degree on top (e.g. PhD, Masters, MD, and whatever law is).

Not literally everyone in academia is your enemy.

I'll be the judge of who my enemies are. Literally every single person in that status hierarchy is my enemy. They belong to a heretical cult of a now-dead social religion and nothing short of full destruction will slow their war on science, reason and western civ. In the same manner that a hostile military must be broken before peace terms can be decided, so must academia be levelled before the social contract can be redrawn.

My advice is not to go down with such a leaky, corrupt and evil ship. Academia declared war on society. Society has started to notice. And people like me are just waiting for the right time to hole this bitch below the waterline, sling the grappling hooks and raise the Jolly Roger.

This is not a war and no one is participating in some holy revolution. This is not what war looks like. Social institutions do not function like militaries, nor is it wise/necessary to 'break' or 'level' the ones you don't like or which have issues. This is the same fallacy that leftists who want to defund the police engage in.

The leftists who thought it was a war were routing their opposition right up until the right decided it was one as well. Perhaps they were correct that it was a war -- or perhaps if one side treats it as a war, it is one.

More comments

Not literally everyone in academia is your enemy.

And?

I try to avoid enemy/friend distinctions for many reasons. I am not adopting or revealing any preference here. This is a specific point about the metaphor.

But if you are going to adopt/concede an 'enemy institution' paradigm in the first place, there's no particular relevance of 'not literally everyone is your enemy' beyond the utility of those not-enemies to help target the enemies. If they aren't, or can't, then even if they better qualify as collateral rather than collaborators, neither category is enough to merit any principle against targeting the enemy institution. If their presence is used to claim the institution cannot be targeted because of the damage to the non-enemies, this is merely the use of human shields. Human shields are not protection of legitimate military targets. This is especially true if they are willing human shields, voluntary or paid or otherwise.

If their presence is used to claim the institution cannot be targeted because of the damage to the non-enemies, this is merely the use of human shields. Human shields are not protection of legitimate military targets.

I believe I said that.

There's a colourable argument that trying to sort the good from the bad - particularly within the uni bureaucracy as it exists - is a poor cost-benefit.

But @JTarrou made a very specific claim that the others on team "burn it all down" have not made in this thread:

There are no good branches. APAB.

This is why I responded to him and not to the others on that team, because that claim is false; not all professors are, in fact, "bastards". I claim the right to, as politely as I can, correct those on this board who say false things (NB: I have no strong opinions about whether JTarrou is lying vs. hyperbolising vs. ignorant), even when those false things are not especially relevant.

All professors contribute to and derive their living from participating in a fundamentally hostile institution, and the financial indenture of the student body and taxpayers which fund it.

A lot of plumbers and housewives and kindergarten teachers died in Dresden. They were all the enemy. Those who can't grasp this basic concept have no business in war.

Your problem is thinking there is a healthy tree at all. There are a tiny number of healthy branches. The roots and trunk are diseased and rotten.

If you were part of the Trump administration, how would you punish academics for their woke excesses without negatively impacting useful research? The federal government does not directly control how universities manage their own affairs and any penalties assessed on the universities as a whole can be cast as damaging research in some way.

The only thing that I can think of is some sort of rule like "any university that violates XYZ policy automatically becomes federal property", which would allow the federal government to directly fire and hire, but nationalizing the universities comes with a million other problems.

Cut federal grants for diversity, withhold federal grant money from universities that don't toe the line on controlling the woke issues on campus. This is the stance that the admin took with Harvard and has served to keep Hopkins from acting up too much.

Pair this with maintaining the levels of federal funding support and you get reallocation of funds to less woke universities and less woke academics at woke-er universities putting pressure on their departments to crack down on dissidents. This is what we had here at Hopkins where the pro-Palestinian protests were shut down by the President because he was scared that this would result in a Harvard-like situation.

Cut federal grants for diversity, withhold federal grant money from universities that don't toe the line on controlling the woke issues on campus. This is the stance that the admin took with Harvard and has served to keep Hopkins from acting up too much.

I'm confused. Is this not the exact thing that this whole deal with Tao and UCLA is about? The federal government revoking a DEI grant? It may have kept Hopkins from acting up, but it definitely hasn't stopped Tao from kicking up a storm.

I agree with you that this is a decent approach, but to me it seems that it is also more or less what the Trump administration is currently doing.

Yes this does seem to be the case with UCLA. I'm complaining about axing the NSF and reducing the NIH budget.

That makes sense. I think I lost track of the thread's context at some point.

I don't know much about changes to the NSF and NIH so I won't comment there.

I get that Trump wanted to shut down "woke" research, but he could have done that without cutting overall funding (just mandate that the NIH can't fund transgender research, shutdown the diversity grants, etc.).

Could you? One of the morbid bits to this saga has been how often people have pointed to what they saw as clearly misaimed anti-DEI efforts that must have been motivated by an LLM or a bad grep, and then oops.

Yes, there are research areas with neither blatant political abuse or outright woke goals. But the people who want to do the woke research can, as warned, lie: there’s far less signal than anyone thinks to a research’s quality from how sober the grant application.

I get that Trump wanted to shut down "woke" research, but he could have done that without cutting overall funding (just mandate that the NIH can't fund transgender research, shutdown the diversity grants, etc.).

The problem is that there isn't only some single class of "diversity grants". Every grant has some sort of DEI stuff written into it, including the main IPAM grant. It's a Gordian knot tying research to DEI, and there's only one way to deal with those.

Most of the DEI requirements I am aware of are additional diversity statements tacked on to the ends of grant applications that could easily be eliminated by the funding agencies. That and getting rid of all the unncessary scholarships for women and minorities, which are easy enough to identify, would have achieved more or less the same results as far as fighting wokeness is concerned with minimal collateral damage.

How?

The diversity statements didn't appear there out of the ether, they are heing pushed forward by people with inatitutional power. Demanding that they merely stop requiring these statements, and change the names of "women's scholarships" to "totally not women's scholarships" will result in no substantial change other than the people who set up this system being marginally more quiet until the next Dem administration.

The cancelled grants can just as easily be reinstated by the next administration. The only permanent effects in that case would be years of lost work on those projects (perhaps majority useless, but some worthwhile) and some scientists leaving for Europe or China, while the net effects on DEI would be the same as in my proposal. If you know of some damage that has been done to academia that can't be undone 3 years from now, I'm curious to know what it is.

while the net effects on DEI would be the same as in my proposal.

Again, how?

If UCLA gets their funding cut for woke recruitment practices, but other universities bend the knee, you don't think that creates an incentive for UCLA to clean up house, or doesn't boost the relative position of universities that aren't insane?

Only temporarily. The next Democratic administration will simply praise all the universities that stood up against "the war on science" and move them to the top of the pecking order, while those that bent the knee will be shunned and see their funding cut in a mirror image of what's happening now.

Only temporarily.

That's already a few years of personell changes and shifting the balance of power within the university system. It can be rolled back, but can't be undone at the snap of the fingers, and is therefore superior the solution you are proposing, that doesn't change anything except for the packaging.

The fear that another Trump-esque administration will come to power and do the same thing again will surely remain.

I have a US mathematician friend who is entirely apolitical, but joined the DEI committee at his department (where he helped them implement DEI measures, screen applicants etc., not to mention the implicit lending of legitimacy) a few years ago out of the simple consideration that he was coming up for tenure review and it was a no-brainer to do this simple thing that would greatly improve his chances. There are, I figure, many cases like that. If it stops being a no-brainer career booster and starts being a gamble (will get favoured by the system, but might also get targeted for reprisal in the future if the wrong administration is in power), I imagine far fewer will go for it.

Since these people seem to make it an axiom that they should never have their funding cut, despite there very obviously being many serious issues with their whole enterprise (which they regularly lament), I am disinclined to weigh their opinions very heavily, shiny medals notwithstanding. Perhaps I'd rather the administration use a scalpel rather than a sledgehammer, but a scalpel isn't really an option, so sledgehammer it is.

This may be low-effort but... why do so many people glaze Terrance Tao...!?

OK, he won a fields medal. Neat. Someone wins one every year.

OK, he won it at a super young age. Neat. There are tons of super-young math prodigies. I went to school with several, they all burned out.

OK, he's published lots of famous math papers. Like... uh... what....? Can you name them? Can you understand them, even a little? Even describe which field of math they were in? (no googling please)

I mean cmon, Einstein was famous too but at least people understood his work a little. Same with Stephen Hawking.

Terry Tao just seems to be a case where the nerd/math world needed a celebreity and they all descended on this one guy for arbitrary reasons.

This may be low-effort but... why do so many people glaze Terrance Tao...!?

Prior to this discussion, I don't think I had heard of him. But I don't work in a STEM field.

From January 31, 2015 The Parable of the Talents

Every so often an overly kind commenter here praises my intelligence and says they feel intellectually inadequate compared to me, that they wish they could be at my level. But at my level, I spend my time feeling intellectually inadequate compared to Scott Aaronson. Scott Aaronson describes feeling “in awe” of Terence Tao and frequently struggling to understand him. Terence Tao – well, I don’t know if he’s religious, but maybe he feels intellectually inadequate compared to God. And God feels intellectually inadequate compared to John von Neumann.

See i see anecdotes like that, and I think "cool, what did he say that's so smart it made a highly respected professor feel awe? Can i see it too? Maybe I can't understand it but Id like to try. "

With Einstein, there's tons of famous quotes from him, and a ton of pop science designed to help regular people understand his work. Because he did interesting work that we want to understand. Scott Aaronson has a nifty blog helping regular people understand his own work in quantum computing. Ive never seen anyone try to do that for Terence Tao. It just seems like hyper abstract academic stuff that only mathematicians would care about.

This is a funny post but

OK, he won a fields medal. Neat. Someone wins one every year.

is literally wrong. «The Fields Medal is a prize awarded to two, three, or four mathematicians under 40 years of age at the International Congress of the International Mathematical Union (IMU), a meeting that takes place every four years». So at most one person wins it every year on average. This level of ignorance of the domain suggests you can't really have valuable intuitions about his merit.

I learned analysis from his excellent textbook on it. Felt it gave me much more solid intuitions than Rudin, which I was struggling with. (To be fair, I don't glaze Axler, so there's still a gap.)

Just standard winner-take-all dynamics. The number 1 player in any given sport isn't getting most of his sponsorships because of his absolute ability, but because he's number 1. Way easier to just say "the greatest" than "not Pareto superior but widely considered the overall best when measured along certain dimensions". It's less the math world needed a celebrity than the public needs someone to call the "smartest person on Earth" and by default they're gonna pick a mathematician or a theoretical physicist.

But for what it's worth, his blog explanations of math feel well-written and intuitive in the way only someone with a lot of breadth and depth can be.

That's my suspicion. Its like people have taken the prestige from the entire field of mathematics and awarded it all to this one guy, because they need a single person to be the face. No one cares about the number 2, even if he's also super smart and successful.

There are tons of super-young math prodigies. I went to school with several, they all burned out.

Isn't the point that unlike your classmates, Tao didn't burn out?

There's an understatement. Looking at the most popular semi-objective metric for research output:

Tao's h-index is 116, with his 116 most-cited papers since 1998 having 116+ citations each (the top one is over 20,000), giving him an annualized h-index of 4.3. Hirsch's original suggestion was that a "successful scientist" after 20 years would be around 1 annualized, an "outstanding scientist" around 2, and a "truly unique" one around 3.

IMHO (very H, ironically, because of low h), a high annualized h-index is neither necessarily nor sufficient to say that someone's a good researcher, but it is pretty solid proof that someone didn't just burn out.

Hirsch's original suggestion was that a "successful scientist" after 20 years would be around 1 annualized, an "outstanding scientist" around 2, and a "truly unique" one around 3.

I'm going to venture a wild guess and say this was before Goodhart's Law had it's way with that measure.

There's also the Mathew Effect, where people give credit to the most famous scientist just because it adds prestige. But can sometimes lead to people like Einstein getting solo credit for things he just briefly mentioned.

Surely people are Goodhart'ing it, but either they're not very good at it yet or they're not trying very hard. The first two math department heads I looked up, at a large top-50 research university, were at [edit: approximately] 1.5 (for a relatively young guy, to be fair) and [edit: approximately] 2.5.

It's a metric that's somewhat designed to counter Goodharting of simpler "publication count" metrics. Divide your research up into "Least Publishable Unit" chunks, and you get more papers, but then the people who want to cite you end up only citing the most relevant chunk and killing your citations-per-paper.

[edit: the "Formatting help" link says you need to double up the ~ character on both sides of text to create a strikethrough, and the preview text rendered fine, but in the thread my pair of single tildes turned into a strikethrough...]

Surely people are Goodhart'ing it, but either they're not very good at it yet or they're not trying very hard.

They are, though. The insanely skewed citation distribution is exactly what you'd expect from people figuring the optimal way to game the system. You're not getting anywhere by autistically focusing on your own reaserch, and hoping others will find it interesting enough to cite. You band together, and boost each other up. There's little individual glory in it for most people, which is why it looks like "they're not very good at it yet, or they're not trying very hard", but that's the best way for them to keep a stable job until they get their big break.

You see this on literally every social network, academia is no different, and the original statement about how much citations which kind of scientist will get, implicitly assumes people won't figure out how these systems work.

Trump can't do any of the things that require influence inside an institution. All Trump can do is hit with stick. The stick is dumb, the stick is indiscriminate, but it's the stick in his hand. Dr. Tao is justified in complaining about the stick and I applaud him for it. Complaining about the stick is normal. If we don't already consider it a human right to complain about the stick, then we should consider it.

There is a cost to the stick and it is painful. This is unfortunate-- disastrous for some people I know. Of the anecdotes I've heard, such as jdizzler's below, everyone thus far has earned my sympathies. I hope we can look forward to a future without punitive actions against universities or research funding.

I've written before:

The institutions should function in a way that they can manage their own reputation and credibility.

In the end, all the stick can do is make it easier for any individual to assert pursuit of truthisms in the face of others who aim to paint big red targets on their back. Become a wee bit wiser to act a little more like good stewards. The only lesson worth learning is that conservatives will throw the entire package of higher learning into the boiling cauldron if they perceive it as an intolerable, hostile institution. Yes, that includes the Good Parts, because, unfortunately, much is packaged together under a generalized monoculture.

One can argue against the stick, one can hate conservatives or Trump, and they can continue to look down upon one or both. Surrender is not required to respect the stick. There is certainly no risk of counter-revolution in research labs or in the student body.

My main criticism is once the stick is proven real it must be shown to be avoidable. To critics that believe the academy is only good for culture war and who are committed to its destruction, I must insist we complete thorough, competent audit of research funding to save the Good Parts.

Dr. Tao is justified in complaining about the stick and I applaud him for it.

Actually, Dr. Tao signed a letter asking for the stick to be deployed against his classroom. He put his signature on a letter talking about how maths classrooms are actually bastions of white supremacy which need to be dismantled. If he was a principled apolitical actor who just wanted to do his research, then he would be justified in complaining about the stick - but even if we take your criticism seriously and make sure the stick is avoidable if you remain apolitical he still needs to get whacked.

Actually, Dr. Tao signed a letter asking for the stick to be deployed against his classroom.

Do you mean the UCLA white supremacy statement, this letter that says punishing a fellow mathematics faculty member for speaking out against diversity statements is wrong, or a different third letter? Or, do you mean that signing the first white supremacy statement was detrimental to his classrooms because its ideas are terrible? If if it's the last one I agree.

In the context of UCLA he is probably justified in not considering himself very political. That is emblematic of the cultural dominance and the ensuing blindness that follows. It's why I say, "Stick, good." However, the guy had the rug pulled out from under him. He didn't have it pulled because of who he is, what he said, or what he did. He had it pulled because UCLA attracted Sauron's gaze. He issues a call to non-action: "the luxury of disengagement is no longer a viable option." Crying foul is not an ideal response to any behavioral correction, but this isn't the most direct, targeted, or deliberate discipline.

I found some of the replies in Trace's thread frustrating. Like getting in a discourse time machine: smart, good natured people carefully walking around that which still cannot be seen. A mutual understanding of university culture and recent history does not appear to be forthcoming. I do not expect academia to kiss the ring of Trump. For that reason I am glad TracingWoodgrain's criticism of Tao went viral. Tao's position and sentiment is common enough, so a public critique is positive even if it does not garner significant agreement.

a different third letter?

I believe it was actually this different, third letter - which was just misinformation that TracingWoodgrains boosted (and upon whom I lay all of the blame). But that first UCLA white supremacy statement also satisfies the requirements for my post, so I'm not particularly upset. The entire university system, his classroom included, is very much a part of the "white supremacy" that the letter seeks to dismantle or co-opt.

In the context of UCLA he is probably justified in not considering himself very political.

He wrote a private article about how Trump is bad and how he had trouble teaching classes after the 2016 election. You don't get to write about how awful and stupid the conservative presidential candidate is (and how his election is so terrible that it causes enough psychic damage to prevent you from working) then talk about how you're not very political.

He had it pulled because UCLA attracted Sauron's gaze.

And he was one of the voices who was shouting out and begging for Sauron's attention. Everyone else was doing it too, and I understand why he simply went along with it. But if he wanted to be apolitical, he could have been - sure, he might have faced some consequences for doing so, but he's now facing the consequences of not doing so.

I found some of the replies in Trace's thread frustrating.

I did too, but I'm now reconsidering it because I think some people were arguing against false claims that were boosted by Trace by mistake.

This is unfortunate-- disastrous for some people I know. Of the anecdotes I've heard, such as jdizzler's below, everyone thus far has earned my sympathies.

Let me register myself - when the election was running the few people I felt comfortable sharing my leanings with hit me with the "dude you might lose your job or whatever" and I said yes that's fine.

Months later I missed out on a major professional opportunity because of a funding cut and people expected me to complain.

No, this is what I asked for.

Fixing the rot instantiated by social justice is going to be painful. We need to accept that.

I am sorry for the people hurt in the process...but it's necessary and I encourage others to mentally frame it that way.

Well no one should accuse you of being an unprincipled hypocrite.

With Trump I was only pretty sure he would commit to immigration (good) and tariffs (bad). I thought tariffs were dumb and it turns out I still think they are dumb. I had little confidence what he'd do with universities, how real DOGE would be, and so on. I was reasonably certain he would more effectively exert his will compared to 45, but was uncertain what he'd choose.

I mean I worry that I get to say this because I have a high degree of financial security and that we shouldn't asking others to make the same mental commitment.

But it should be talked about.

Instead we see a lot of people with no skin in the game cheering and negatively impacted people struggling to admit to themselves that it wasn't what they wanted or not worth it.

Much to consider here. IMO (1) you need to implement serious deterrence to prevent something like the social justice craze of 2020 from ever happening again. Punishing legitimate and important academic work is the best way to go about deterrence, as it motivates normal academics to police their extremist colleagues, rather than acquiescing again. “Conservatives will harm valuable research” is an argument that will persuade an elite and effete academic, where arguments based on logic and statistics obviously failed during the last mania. (2) Now is not the time, because of the threat of China, to be alienating STEM academics. We should want America to be the most reliable and rewarding place in the world for top tier foreign STEM research. The best mathematician in the world criticizing the academic environment is a big deal.

Punishing legitimate and important academic work is the best way to go about deterrence, as it motivates normal academics to police their extremist colleagues, rather than acquiescing again.

Doesn't that just incentive all the smart intellectuals (including those who just want to grill research) to hate you for being the worse of two evils? If one is saying "just add this line of text to your grants" and the other is saying "we will destroy you and your ability to do science and math", I'm not sure why they'd start siding with the second.

“Conservatives will harm valuable research” is an argument that will persuade an elite and effete academic,

Yeah, seems like it will persuade them that conservatives are actively dangerous to scientific research.

The ones who will increase their hatred are the ones who need to be punished more. The ones who recognize the danger of DEI will be satisfied knowing that they’ve made a noble sacrifice for the holistic health of civilization and its progress. The thing about deterrence is that it’s better to do it quickly and harshly, as then you never have to inflict it again out of fear.

If one is saying "just add this line of text to your grants" and the other is saying "we will destroy you and your ability to do science and math", I'm not sure why they'd start siding with the second.

Many - not all, but certainly many - scientists and academics in general care about discovering the truth and thus understand that being forced to add such a line to their grants (among many, many other things) fundamentally corrupts their ability to ascertain the truth in a way that lack of funding doesn't. Funding is a real problem, but money is fungible. Principles aren't. Different people will have different lines where they're willing to betray their principles for money.

Optimistically, academia has enough people committed to truth that they transform academia from within so as to earn credibility back enough to justify public finding. Pessimistically, there are enough ideologically committed and/or unprincipled in commitment to truth that academia will choose to self-immolate. Which would be bad for everyone, but still better than pouring money into nonsense production that gets laundered as true due to inertia of pre-existing credibility. That's actively malignant to society in a way that dried up funding isn't.

It's more showing that Conservatives can also destroy them and their ability to do science, similar to their progressive coworkers that force them to add the line of text in order to not be destroyed currently. Previously, the Conservative request to stop this was "seek truth and don't lend your credentials to anti-science extremists on the other side". Now, the fuck around time has passed and the grillers are finding out.

It's more showing that Conservatives can also destroy them and their ability to do science, similar to their progressive coworkers that force them to add the line of text in order to not be destroyed currently.

I think the history of religious conservatives waging war on evolution, environmental science, and the new embrace of anti vaccine beliefs has shown that already has it not?

And yet, all this seems to have done is just further hurt scientific research instead of counteracting any sort of left wing attacks.

Conservatives lost on every one of those three though, which shows they did not have any power. (Aside from maybe Anti-vaxx now but that's both a left+right thing and mostly only true after progressives destroyed public health credibility themselves.) Destroying academia is in itself counteracting left wing attacks.

Conservatives lost on every one of those three though, which shows they did not have any power.

They didn't actually, in fact part of the private school voucher initiative is to get kids into funded religious schools, schools that use programs like A.C.E, like my Southern Baptist friend had when she was growing up.

I live in a red rural area, I can assure you many of them don't see the fight as lost yet.

And environmental science? Odd then that the leader of the country doesn't believe in climate change and has targeted lots of funding cuts to climate science, including the termination of satellite data and missions regarding carbon dioxide in the atmosphere

If they lost, someone forgot to tell the president of the United States that.

Doesn't that just incentive all the smart intellectuals (including those who just want to grill research) to hate you for being the worse of two evils?

persuade them that conservatives are actively dangerous to scientific research.

That ship has sailed.

I live near a college town these days. At this point enough professors hate the right enough that they can't really hate them more than they already do. The shit they say around me after a few drinks because they think I'm "one of the good ones" is disgusting.

They've hated them at a red-lined 10/10 level since at least the Reagan administration, and nothing short of absolute capitulation from the right would mollify them.

Given all that, why bother?

So you explicitly agree with the woke leftists that professors and researchers with "bad opinions" should be punished even if it's not irrelevant to their work?

  • -15

The administration is not going to get anywhere with a carrot. They might get somewhere with a stick.

I'm not going to advocate for it, but I'm not going to shed a tear if the guy at the end of my local bar who said "I think it would be better if they all just died" back in in 2020 doesn't get more grant money.

And what would they do? Move to China, lol? They're too self-interested for that, and China censors even more things they'd be inclined to make noise about. Move to allied nations, maybe Australia in Tao's case? It's not such a strategic loss given their political alignment with the US. Just hate conservatives? Don't they already? If you're going to be hated, it's common sense that there's an advantage in also being feared and taken seriously. For now, they're not taking Trump and his allies seriously. A DEI enforcer on campus is a greater and more viscerally formidable authority. It will take certain costly signals to change that.

I think it's legitimate to treat them with disdain and disregard. Americans can afford it, and people who opportunistically accepted braindead woke narratives don't deserve much better treatment. The sanctity of folks like Tao is a strange notion. They themselves believe in equity more than in meritocracy.

Oh so what you're saying is that the Dems should go nuclear next election and cut funding for all conservatives unless they go woke and we should go into an arms war of being the Serious Threat each time one group is in power?

Or are only conservatives morally justified in destroying science for culture war issues?

  • -15

Oh so what you're saying is that the Dems should go nuclear next election and cut funding for all conservatives unless they go woke and we should go into an arms war of being the Serious Threat each time one group is in power?

I mean, I'm assuming Dase is Republican or anti-Dem, and I'd guess they'd be absolutely for this, though I'm not sure "should" is the right term to use. As a Democrat, I would say they absolutely shouldn't do it, at least from a completely cynical and selfish perspective. Woke ideas are unpopular enough nationally that Dems adopting an undeniable "any government function that's not woke must be destroyed" policy would severely hamper their electoral prospects nationally.

This like when the governor of Massachusetts threatened to gerrymander her state. Can't threaten much when you've already fired all of your ammo.

cut funding for all conservatives

Are you referring to conservative academics? Then sure, let them cut federal funding for the approximately n=0 research universities that are as institutionally aligned to conservatism as the current targets are to progressivism.

If you’re referring to cutting federal funding to conservatives in other domains, though, then that’s a more complex story. Let’s say that the U.S. military is just as conservative as academia is progressive (even though I do not believe that this is actually the case): should Dems cut all federal funding to the military then as retaliation? Clearly not, since by protecting global trade alone, the U.S. military already earns its keep (and I say this as someone opposed to all its interventionist adventures). You may disagree, but I think that the effect of cutting all federal funding to any universities was cut tomorrow would be far less ruinous than doing the same to the military.

Now, since I can’t think of any other institutions that receive federal funding that are as conservative as universities are progressive, the only remaining targets would be governments of red states (which, as we are often reminded by progressives, take in more federal dollars than they give). So do we cut infrastructure funding to these states? Do we cut Medicare and Medicaid? This does seem crueler to me than cutting funding to universities. This is because the telos of federal funding to state governments is (or at least, seems to me, to a first approximation) to be to improve the quality of life of their citizens. If a Dem government would cut funding to red states, that seems tantamount to saying “We want to make the lives of all conservatives significantly worse off.” It’s essentially a declaration of total culture war, an action against “civilians”. In contrast, the telos of universities (or at least, what they say to justify their receipt of my taxpayer money) is something more like “we produce knowledge that benefits the country and the world”. If a Republican government says “no, we don’t think that you’re producing knowledge that benefits the country, but rather, primarily fighting ideological battles” and turns off the spigot of funding, then continuing the previous analogy, this is more akin to attacking a military target like a munitions factory or an airstrip.

To make the point even clearer: even if funding is cut to all universities, there’s still a story that can be told that goes like “Universities currently aren’t serving the best interests of Americans as a nation, so we are no longer giving the money earned by Americans to these institutions.” The equivalent story when cutting funding to all red states would be “Conservative states currently aren’t serving the best interests of Americans as a nation, so we are no longer giving the money earned by Americans to them.” It’s hard for me to see how that isn’t an implicit declaration that conservatives aren’t American, and thus, as a prelude to civil war!

If a Republican government says “no, we don’t think that you’re producing knowledge that benefits the country, but rather, primarily fighting ideological battles” and turns off the spigot of funding, then continuing the previous analogy, this is more akin to attacking a military target like a munitions factory or an airstrip.

So it's wrong to cut funding to conservative areas for wrongthink because it's a prelude to civil war but in your example where the right wing literally attacks the left in a war analogy it's okay?

  • -11

There’s already a war going on, one that the universities have been waging since long before the funding cuts. The difference here is whether that war should be a limited war or a total one. Even putting aside the fractions of people implicated—conservatives are ~50% of the U.S. population, while academics are a fraction of a percent (or maybe slightly larger)—there’s a difference in the purpose of cutting funding to progressive universities versus cutting funding to conservative Americans.

Even if I want funding to these universities to be cut, I still don’t want some PhD student, writing their thesis on the inescapable legacy of white male oppression or whatever, to be unable to find a job, or to be unable to be treated for disease. I just don’t want to pay money for the purpose of letting people who hate me spread that hate. They can do that on their own time, with their own money, and even if taxpayer-funded infrastructure helps them do that on their own time better because money is fungible, so be it; it still is qualitatively different from me directly funding their Hate Whitey theses.

[EDIT: I realize that this might seem like a bit of a motte-and-bailey, since there are lots of people whose funding is getting cut whose research is not the maximally-inflammatory Hate Whitey thesis. Here we’d have to get into specifics about whether we’re talking about funding cuts for specific projects or funding cuts for the entire university. The former seem entirely defensible to me. The latter does seem a bit more morally fraught, since there’s more “collateral damage”, but only a bit, in part because there is far less collateral damage than targeting literally all American conservatives, and in part because the collateral damage is not the whole point (whereas it is in the case of targeting literally all American conservatives).]

Can’t you see how that’s qualitatively different from me saying “I don’t want these people to be happy, work, or live at all”?

(P.S. This whole discussion is assuming that we should be funding things federally at all. If you want to argue that we should end all federal taxes, then that’s a whole other story.)

conservatives are ~50% of the U.S. population, while academics are a fraction of a percent (or maybe slightly larger)

Quality > quantity.

  • -10
More comments

Even if I want funding to these universities to be cut, I still don’t want some PhD student, writing their thesis on the inescapable legacy of white male oppression or whatever, to be unable to find a job, or to be unable to be treated for disease.

Why? Why is this belief more justifiable in your eyes than the notion that turnabout is fair play, or that the woke memeplex is an existential threat that must be suppressed by any means necessary, or that it's just funny to watch libs cry?

I largely oppose the above notions, but they are clearly memetically superior - more attractive, more consistent, more vital - than the desire for (")neutrality(") that still lives on in the vestiges of the liberal right. I sympathize with your view, but I'd bet that there will be no graceful ending to this conflict.

Uh, what conservative science gets government grants?

Army stuff I guess?

That argument would be a lot stronger if the dems hadn’t already done this, multiple times. There is a reason that all of the conservative leaning talent leaves for industry (it isn’t just about money)

That argument would be a lot stronger if the dems hadn’t already done this, multiple times. There is a reason that all of the conservative leaning talent leaves for industry (it isn’t just about money)

The world isn't only made up of "allies" and "enemies", there's lots of people who have been fighting against censorship from the left who are fighting against it now too. You're always free to join us and keep your principles.

You seem to think that there is a tit for tat MAD argument to be made for restraint. Uh, no, there isn't. A politician promising to punish the hicks for having the audacity to touch the academy is less a political platform and more the hysterical overreaction of a crazy person. There's a popular thread of argument that goes 'but imagine if it was happening to you'. In this case, I don't have to imagine: conservatives have been driven out of everything from literature to knitting to table-top RPG games. Your consequences have already happened. Deterrence doesn't work if the opposing side uses the imagined bad end as a frequently-executed goal that often succeeds.

So yes, we are justified. Oderint dum metuant.

This really does seem to be the basic "it's ok when I do it, crazy when the enemy does it" statement. Not uncommon, but as a principled person who has fought against censorship from all directions I disagree with it.

  • -12

No, I want to go further then that. I fully hated it when it was done to me: and no amount of principled pleading ever got them to stop. What is happening right now is wrong and you know what? I'm not going to lose any sleep over it.

Certainly, my enemies never did.

So I abandoned the principles. "If the rule you followed brought you to this, of what use was the rule?" Having principled people like you on my side amounted to jack and squat in the past two decades. So why should I care?

I don't want to make peace with them. I don't want to return to 'neutrality', whatever that means. I want to make peace with the dust and the ash, with the sand of the desert: with desolation and ruin. I am Hulegu sacking Baghdad: let the rivers run black with the knowledge I am destroying. Better my rules enforced unfairly, because the ideal neutral is impossible.

This is the compromise you are seeing, a game of defunding and well-written lawfare. What I actually want is the books burned and the scholars that wrote them alongside. Anyone who even knows who Foucault is should have their frontal lobes lobotomized. But I can take what I can get. If my intellectual enemies live in fear and deprivation that is good enough.

Your attempts to appeal to liberal sensibilities fall on deaf ears because I don't have them. Not anymore.

Well if you no longer believe in freedom, ironically that's your free right to do so. American society is powerful enough to withstand anti-American values such as yours as we have been since the foundation of our country.

Far more powerful threats to freedom have tried to take down the constitutional rights, the freedom fighters who don't give up keep pushing it back up.

  • -11
More comments

So I abandoned the principles. "If the rule you followed brought you to this, of what use was the rule?" Having principled people like you on my side amounted to jack and squat in the past two decades. So why should I care?

Because there are such things as moral imperatives which you should follow even if they do not bring you material benefits; indeed, even if following them costs you dear. Having been persecuted does not give you a license to persecute in turn, any more than having been raped give you a license to rape your rapist. It's not about what it gets you - it's about right and wrong.

If you are in fact devoid of moral principles (on this topic), then so it goes. No arguing with demons. But don't say that you used to have principles, and now you don't have them "anymore" because they got you nothing tangible. If your moral principles were conditional on beneficial outcomes for you, then you never had any in the first place.

More comments

Oh so what you're saying is that the Dems should go nuclear next election and cut funding for all conservatives unless they go woke and we should go into an arms war of being the Serious Threat each time one group is in power?

For years, classical liberals, right-wingers, and classical liberals thrown into the right-wing pit of deplorables have been making that argument -- "what if they did the same to you?". For years, it has fallen on deaf ears. For that argument to work, when the deterrent fails the reprisals must be taken.

The laws are flat and this IS the devil rounding on the left.

Anyway, what are they going to do, revoke tax-exempt status for conservative universities until they bend the knee? Or maybe require Catholics to pay for abortions?

So do you think there should be a censorship arms war or do you want more academic freedom?

  • -13

or do you want more academic freedom

You left out a third option: I want a magical pink unicorn who shits gold and whose farts cure cancer. I genuinely see that as more plausible than getting our current university system to support academic freedom.

It's all quite unfortunate, and I suspect there is some genius way to get from where we are to a healthy higher education system without use of a flamethrower. But, no one, and certainly not Trump, knows that genius way, so this is maybe the best of a bunch of bad options.

If the main observable action when in power is to further the downward trend against academic freedom, why should anyone trust the claims being made? Actions speak louder than words after all.

If we want academic freedom we should make moves towards academic freedom, not be indistinguishable from the censors.

  • -10
More comments

do you want more academic freedom?

What are you positing as the mechanism to get from here to there?

It doesn't seem to have been an option of the last several decades. Supreme Court cases do nothing, black-letter civil rights law does nothing, hitting them in the wallet might have an effect.

There were probably better ways to do it than this, I would agree. But if the alternative is doing nothing and letting progressives keep degrading the institutions, so be it

What are you positing as the mechanism to get from here to there?

The mechanism is that instead of limiting free speech and punishing academics for wrongthink, we win at free speech by fighting for the principle. This is what principled libertarian first amendment groups like FIRE are doing.

Allowing shitflinging competitions and "you started it" accusations to consume our freedoms will not restore our freedoms, it just creates a downward spiral. As we can see right now, we're even creating new theories of legal harassment.

There’s nothing new about the idea that we need to ban the expression of certain opinions in order to fight discrimination — that’s the reasoning behind a vast number of speech codes that FIRE has fought since 1999. The new, destructive twist on this is what we at FIRE call the cumulative theory of harassment. That’s the notion that while myriad individual instances of expression by unrelated individuals may be fully protected under the First Amendment, they can together create a cumulative harm, even to those not present and not targeted by the speech, that justifies overriding the Constitution.

We're downward spiraling already when principles are abandoned for revenge grievances. Defending freedom is not and never will be easy.

More comments

War is preferable to the one-sided "academic freedom" that previously prevailed.

And what would they do? Move to China, lol? They're too self-interested for that, and China censors even more things they'd be inclined to make noise about. Move to allied nations, maybe Australia in Tao's case? It's not such a strategic loss given their political alignment with the US.

Most who choose to leave will move to Europe, but a few (early career, mostly foreign-born) will find what China can offer them appealing. There's an outside chance that the EU will get off its ass and become a geopolitical rival to the US, but even if they remain aligned it's risky to outsource your brainpower and key industries, TSMC being the most obvious example.

The sanctity of folks like Tao is a strange notion. They themselves believe in equity more than in meritocracy.

That doesn't make him any worse at math. Such beliefs are common in people like Tao from living in a high-IQ bubble their whole lives. You can listen to Richard Feynman claiming that anyone can do physics at his level through hard work alone (apologies for the silly background music). If we were to fire every professor who believed in the blank slate and replace them with true believers in meritocracy, we'd end up with just the inhabitants of this forum. And while the folks here are pretty bright and may include the vice president, I don't think any of us are solving the great mysteries of theoretical physics anytime soon.

and may include the vice president

Is this facetious or did I miss something?

Vance has referenced Scott Alexander's essays indirectly and is familiar with other ratsphere memes and terminology, not sure if there's anything more specific than that.

It's an old joke from a while back; people started speculating that Vance was secretly commenting on the Motte.

The irony when Vance is on the Motte explaining why people think Vance is on the Motte :P

Europe at this point has been so thoroughly captured by US propaganda that the chances of it breaking with the US geopolitical line are basically nil; ergo, an American academic who moves to Europe will just be serving the same camp in the clash of civilisations for less money.

Ironically, though, European academia is actually less captured by US-style DEI; we can broadly still fail students for being bad with no regard to disparate impact or whatever, and I haven't seen explicit political allegiance tests in hiring. The truest of true believers in the US might therefore find Europe unsatisfactory, and get concentrated further in the US by evaporative cooling.

Maybe not on the Continent, but there is some limited demand for this American export in the UK. This guy found space at the University of Edinburgh and got to work Confronting The University of Edinburgh's History and Legacies of Enslavement and Colonialism.

I don't think anywhere is going to welcome a significant influx of Very American academics. "They're taking our jobs!"

Most who choose to leave will move to Europe

Are you saying we might actually get doctors and engineers this time?

European academics doing a stint in the US could come back, sure. Could American academics come here? I'm a bit dubious on that. I'm not that plugged into the university system, but don't exactly have the impression that they're awash in cash, and kicking off a rat race between foreign and domestic academics might be just what we need to get the local libs to start seeing the issues with immigration.

Nobody is firing professors yet. And no, they'll go to industry, not China. Might actually help with productivity.

but even if they remain aligned it's risky to outsource your brainpower and key industries, TSMC being the most obvious example.

At the end of the day this is all a massive, embarrassing bluff, a shit test. A bunch of true believer wokesters in the humanities, with lukewarm STEM intellectuals in tow, are pretending to be the irreplaceable brain of the United States, basically holding the nation hostage. Well, as Lenin said, «intelligentsia is not the brain of the nation, it's its shit», and for all the evils of the Soviet Union it did go to space, and failed through its retarded economic theory (endorsed by many among this very American intelligentsia, surprisingly), not Lenin's anti-meritocratic views.

This movement has, through manipulating procedural outcomes, appropriated funds for (garbage) research that gave their mediocre allies jobs and their commissars more institutional power, delegitimized (potentially very useful) research they didn't like, canceled White and "White-adjacent" academics they didn't like, created a hostile atmosphere and demoralized who knows how many people whose views or ethnicity they didn't like, and now they are supposed to have infinite immunity for their exploitation of the norms of academic freedom and selective enforcement of regulations, because they might throw a hissy fit. And they aren't even delivering! US universities have been rapidly losing their dominance for over a decade! Of top 10 academic institutions, 8 are Chinese already! (Here's a more rigorous, in my view, ranking from CWTS Leiden).

Come to think of it – as a distant echo of these folks' institutional dominance, even I've been permabanned from /r/slatestarcodex of all places, because I've been too discourteous commenting on Kevin Bird's successful cancellation of the "eugenicist" Stephen Hsu (Trace was there too, hah; gave me a stern talking to, shortly before the ban). Now Stephen Hsu is doomposting 24/7 that the US will get brutally folded by China on science, industry and technology. At worst, you might accelerate this by a few months.

It is known I don't like Trump. I don't respect Trump and Trumpism. But his enemies are also undeserving of respect, they are institutionalized terrorists (and many trace their political lineage to literal terrorists), and I can see where Americans are coming from when they say "no negotiation with terrorists". And even then, this is still a kind of negotiation. It's just the first time this academic cabal is facing anything more than a toothless reprimand. Let's see if they change their response in the face of this novel stimulus.

If anything, it is disappointing to me that this pendulum swing is not actually motivated by interest in truth or even by some self-respect among White Americans, it's a power grab by Trump's clique plus panic of Zionists like Bill Ackman who used to support and fund those very institutions with all their excesses and screeds about white supremacy – before they, like the proverbial golem, turned on Israel in the wake of 10/7. But if two wrongs don't make a right, the second wrong doesn't make the original one right either. I have no sympathy for the political culture of American academia, and I endorse calling their bluff.

even I've been permabanned from /r/slatestarcodex of all places, because I've been too discourteous commenting on Kevin Bird's successful cancellation of the "eugenicist" Stephen Hsu

Oh, I thought you were banned for using Russian punctuation, ((saying something like this.))

There was an automatic suspension for «quotation marks» on /r/TheMotte already, near the end of its life cycle. But manual permaban on /r/slatestarcodex preceded that.

They themselves believe in equity more than in meritocracy.

I don't think this is true. They believe in a different kind of meritocracy, specifically one that focuses on the skills needed for social climbing rather than the nominally productive goals that meritocracy usually implies. "Equity" and "equality" are mere tools to be used to gain social standing, whether by elevating oneself or eliminating one's competition.

If you want to be a social climber act like a normal sociopath and become a politician or a corporate executive.

They themselves believe in equity more than in meritocracy.

I'm fairly sure most top hard-science academics are in favour of meritocracy. The relevant belief they have is instead in blank-slatism: as a matter of faith, they do not accept heredity of merit, especially as correlated with visible social/ethnic group belonging. From this they conclude that apparent differences of outcome between groups must not be due to differences in merit, and a proper meritocracy would not generate them.

If one is saying "just add this line of text to your grants"

Don't forget things like we'll cut your database access if we think you'll find something you shouldn't.

It is easy to make the argument if you completely understate how one side behaved.

If one is saying "just add this line of text to your grants" and the other is saying "we will destroy you and your ability to do science and math", I'm not sure why they'd start siding with the second.

If you think the demands of the left stop at parroting some line about equality and everything else is unchanged, you must have missed the last half century of academia.

It's not where they stop as regards the world is general, but it's the only demand that's relevant to a researcher who's already got a job in academia.

Possibly true for someone like Tao, not for someone that does practical work.

Nonsense, academics have to walk on eggshells when publishing on topics related to things like biological sex and gender identity, race, and many more topics lest they face consequences to their careers.

An example that comes to mind that I read a few years ago (and will try to dig up) was an economics paper that worked together with a utility company in some third world shithole. The research in question: whether cutting off water to non-paying customers would result in more payments to the utility company, resulting in the utility company being able to invest in their infrastructure and provide more and better water service overall, leading to fewer people being without water service overall than a system that treats water access as a "human right".

The research reached the obvious conclusion that anyone who has taken econ 101 would have expected, and the researchers didn't lie about this, but they couched everything they said in tons of trigger-warning type language to avoid conflict. It absolutely had an effect on the strength of their conclusions, how strong of a stance they were willing to take, etc.

Edit: Turns out it was Kenya. Found the paper with its milquetoast conclusions that any econ 101 student could have told you - https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w27569/w27569.pdf

And here's one (of many) articles from the "water access is a human right" faction going after the paper and its authors: https://developingeconomics.org/2023/12/11/when-economists-shut-off-your-water/

as it motivates normal academics to police their extremist colleagues, rather than acquiescing again

Ah, but in doing so you changes the very nature of the person in question. Serious academics like TT aren't interested in the prior step of acquire enough institutional power to be able to police their extremist colleagues as they have better things to do like discover new math. The person interested in university politics just isn't the same person.

Of course, you do see serious academics that have taken up the task of working university politics. Whether out of duty or necessity or simply inertia. And every single time I've seen it (and to be fair, I wasn't in academics that long, I bailed on it for private industry), it fundamentally changed how they related to the world.

"But I'm not interested in politics."

Too bad. Politics is interested it you. Keep it at bay or perish.

Scientists lost the right to the world's indifference the day Francis Bacon published The New Atlantis.

I'm not really talking about national politics, I'm talking about the petty intradepartmental stuff. Or maybe it's just "all politics is local" again.

Moreover, they can't care about it because the people that do care have infinite time to devote to political games.

Moreover, they can't care about it because the people that do care have infinite time to devote to political games

That's just the Iron law of Oligarchy. You will be ruled by people who care about politics more than other things. That's a given. That's how human society works.

But scientists wanted to rule themselves and have influence over policy. So now they get to fight in the mud with the politicians.

You should have stayed benign if you wanted the protection of that status.

TT doesn’t have to be personally interested or personally engaged in the politics. He simply needs to voice his opinion on new department heads in an email, or apply to a school without DEI, or ask about it in the interview, or ask a grad student to keep an eye out for DEI words. This is enough pressure to curb DEI.

The reason DEI was able to spiral is because the spiral did not affect the academics’ social status, but actually increased it. One way to lower the status of DEI is to make it associated with defunded and destroyed institutions. If it weren’t for the threat of China, I would say the deterrence should have been much stronger.

Wholeheartedly agree, but I think this is a lot harder than you imagine.

Without being interested or engaged in politics, he needs to select an avatar that understands it keenly. That's both a principle/agent problem and a

The reason DEI was able to spiral is because the spiral did not affect the academics’ social status, but actually increased it.

Which is downstream of the fact that DEI advocates were the kinds of people that were interested in things like department/university politics.

If the dude was able to write diversity statements, or whatever was the requirement for his old grants, without becoming a different person, why would they speaking up to say "this is retarded and needs to stop" suddenly change their core personality traits?

Writing some boilerplate doesn't require politics. It's indicative of someone whose political stance is to recite whatever those who care about politics care about in order to do esoteric math.

Do you think he'd endorse MAGA to get more funding? Because I don't.

Have you read DARPA grant applications? I remember (in 2005) PIs filing all kinds of "we will use micro-scale flux capacitors to create a mobile platform capable of detecting chemical and biological weapons so as to ensure American victory in the GWOT".

No, I mean do you think Terence Tao, personally, would endorse MAGA to get more funding?

It wouldn't, but saying "this is retarded and needs to stop" doesn't actually stop the commissar from doing his work. @anon_ is pointing out that reining in the DEI commissars requires actually controlling the university's internal levers of power (in particular, the admin section of the university).

Yeah, the kind of person whose opinion matters is only the kind of person with political stature.

The Science chose to align itself with wokeness, and it put itself in the crosshairs. How many people who knew better, within this scientific infrastructure, held their tongues when we were told covid would not spread if you were protesting for racial justice? How much serious rigor goes into racial justice narratives that justify a need for more black doctors, damn the merit? Science is subject to pressures that betray its very purpose, and there seems to be no interest in stopping these threats from within. Eventually, you're going to draw attention from an outside force, when the corrupting element becomes a driving force.

With that in mind, the fact of the matter is that anyone who's pro-America and pro-"Science" just doesn't seem to have much in the way of common goals these days. Science's first loyalty is to academia, not the country. And academia is dominated by a culture of rootless cosmopolitanism, which doesn't see any special value in any particular country (least of all America). I have extreme doubt as to The Science's commitment to America being a world leader in anything when they only ever kowtow to their humanities overlords in lieu of fact-finding - overlords who typically hold America in absolute contempt. There's obvious value in science and all, but if they wanted America's unconditional support, they should have been more willing to bat for America themselves when they had the chance.

Science's first loyalty is to academia, not the country. And academia is dominated by a culture of rootless cosmopolitanism, which doesn't see any special value in any particular country (least of all America). I have extreme doubt as to The Science's commitment to America being a world leader in anything when they only ever kowtow to their humanities overlords in lieu of fact-finding - overlords who typically hold America in absolute contempt.

Do you expect demands of political loyalty to result in better science when they are coming from the nationalist right rather than the woke left? What would it even mean for academia to place America first? Only working on research projects that increase national power in some tangible way? Refusing to use foreign inventions or admit international students? Making every PhD go through the security clearance vetting process?

Do you expect demands of political loyalty to result in better science when they are coming from the nationalist right rather than the woke left?

Quite probably yes, except some strains of conservationism.

Shit test the students on their opinion of the US as a force for good and weather they hate "straight white men" [tm].

Are you now or have you ever been a member of the Communist Party?

That wouldn't rule out me or any of my research advisors. I don't think it would get Terence Tao, either. It's a cute motte for what is obviously a much more expansive bailey.

I don't mean it literally. I mean that same level of scrutiny for the new dissident ideology that ostensibly attempts to subvert the order of the United States. Senate commissions hunting down people who ever took part in a DEI program and retiring them early so they never participate in high level anything again, that sort of thing.

You know, denazification.

Do you expect demands of political loyalty to result in better science when they are coming from the nationalist right rather than the woke left? What would it even mean for academia to place America first?

Both would result (has resulted) in worse science than no political tests, but almost certainly some sort of jingoistic nationalist right America-first political test would result in better science than the woke left. The woke left has, as its basis, a rejection of concepts like "objectivity" and "logic," which are pretty fundamental to doing science. I expect that testing for nationalist right would filter out more intelligent people, but filtering for the woke left filters for more people who are willing and able to reject the fundamental basis of science. Filtering for scientists based on their commitment to the woke left is like a straight guy going to a lesbian bar to hit on women. You've pre-filtered specifically for people who have made visible commitments to behavior that is specifically antithetical to the role they're supposed to fill.

I feel like it is worth noting here that the results of any valid scientific investigation don't depend on patriotism?

I can understand how, particularly in the humanities, the results of any given study can be more pro or anti America, or whatever other nation. A subject like history is as much about framing a narrative of the past as it is about objective facts, so you might have great reason to worry about bias.

But science or mathematics, at least if they are carried out in any kind of reasonable good faith, are hard to skew like that. It doesn't matter whether such-and-such the physicist is a rootless cosmopolitan because the results of theories of physics do not depend on the character or values of the theoretician. The maths work out or don't work out regardless, and a country that deprives itself of genuinely useful knowledge because of concerns about the character of scientists is needlessly crippling itself.

I feel like it is worth noting here that the results of any valid scientific investigation don't depend on patriotism?

Do they depend on Diversity Equity and Inclusion? If not, how is it that none of the people complaining about Trump's cuts seemed tobhave an issue with their funding being dependant on that supposed "box checking"?

You are ignoring what the actual situation is. Regardless of their actual research output, the supposedly legitimate researchers allowed their research to be misrepresented to support left wing narratives. And even when the research was too obscure or theoretical to do that, they still allowed themselves to provide cover fire for much larger groups of illegitimate "research". It is bad to not be able to calculate the proper path to the moon from Cape Canaveral. But it doesn't matter that you got the calculations right in some obscure corner of the world, if actually those calculators ran cover for DEI nonsense that they, the white men, aren't even a part of NASA or any of NASA's consultants. Instead those places are all black women cosplaying that movie that came out a decade ago and the rockets all land in the Atlantic.

Inflammatory claims require evidence. This is still not a place to air your grievances without doing any work to back them up.

Your mod log is a long, long series of similar comments. One week ban.

  • -15

This is abusing your moderatorship to win an argument.

What? With whom?

But science or mathematics, at least if they are carried out in any kind of reasonable good faith, are hard to skew like that.

You need the word "hard" before "science" for this to be especially accurate. Because, well, Social Psychology is a Flamethrower.

And a number of other caveats: there’s reason that one of the big Darwin blowups was over a ‘physics’ paper.

@OliveTapenade said "hard", not "impossible", and even then I'm not sure that that was published as a physics paper even if it seems to have been (arguably fraudulently) funded as one.

But science or mathematics, at least if they are carried out in any kind of reasonable good faith, are hard to skew like that.

Well...

The maths work out or don't work out regardless

Mathematicians are pretty honest about the fact that problem selection, and ultimately basic choices of definitions, are driven at least partially by cultural and aesthetic concerns. But the actual content of mathematics is extremely difficult to politicize, given how abstract it is.

It doesn't matter whether such-and-such the physicist is a rootless cosmopolitan because the results of theories of physics do not depend on the character or values of the theoretician.

It is much harder to introduce bias into fundamental physics than it is to introduce bias into psychology or even biology. I kinda gotta hand it to Irigaray for having the chutzpah to suggest that we haven't fully characterized the solutions of the Navier-Stokes equations because of men's fear of menstruation and "feminine" fluids, but... yeah that's actually not a reasonable thing to believe...

I kinda gotta hand it to Irigaray for having the chutzpah to suggest that we haven't fully characterized the solutions of the Navier-Stokes equations because of men's fear of menstruation and "feminine" fluids,

You left out that mechanics of hard, rigid, phallic objects have been solved, also because men run the world..

As an aside, Irigaray is someone I have mentioned to progressives in private discussion, and asked them to answer for her. The response I get is universally that that her fluid mechanics quote is crazy, and it doesn't really represent the feminist or progressive movements. I mean, at least the people I deal with are sane enough to recognize that level of insanity and disavow it in private. However the wider progressive movement has not disavowed her assertion, and in fact seems to promote ideas that are just short of said assertion. While it is important to consider the strongest ideas of a movement, so as not to be knocking down straw or weak men, the insistence on that when it matters in private coupled with the lack of public disavowal on their end makes for an insidious motte and bailey.

As an aside, Irigaray is someone I have mentioned to progressives in private discussion, and asked them to answer for her. The response I get is universally that that her fluid mechanics quote is crazy, and it doesn't really represent the feminist or progressive movements.

I went and read the "The 'Mechanics' of Fluids" chapter in Irigaray's This Sex Which Is Not One to make sure I wasn't misrepresenting her. I believe that it can be steelmanned (or at least, one thread of thought within it can be steelmanned).

The critical passage seems to be this:

[...] Certainly these “theoretical” fluids have enabled the technical—also mathematical—form of analysis to progress, while losing a certain relationship to the reality of bodies in the process.

What consequences does this have for “science” and psychoanalytic practice?

And if anyone objects that the question, put this way, relies too heavily on metaphors, it is easy to reply that the question in fact impugns the privilege granted to metaphor (a quasi solid) over metonymy (which is much more closely allied to fluids). Or—suspending the status of truth accorded to these essentially metalinguistic “categories” and “dichotomous oppositions” — to reply that in any event all language is (also) metaphorical, and that, by denying this, language fails to recognize the “‘subject” of the unconscious and precludes inquiry into the subjection, still in force, of that subject to a symbolization that grants precedence to solids.

It is philosophically contentious whether anything like a "solid object" even exists at all. Arguably, our fundamental ontological presuppositions are not given to us, but are instead the result of choices we make (or, perhaps, choices made for us by society and the structure of language). Science, by its own admission, makes use of idealized theoretical models that are one step removed from actual "reality" (spherical cows in a vacuum and such). We can imagine an alternative isomorphic description of the same physical model that keeps all the math exactly intact, but uses different linguistic imagery. Why a "spherical" cow "rolling" down an incline? Why not a "viscous" cow "flowing" down an incline?

Because the metaphorical imagery employed by science is fundamentally arbitrary, Irigaray's contention is that the fundamental choice of which parts of physics to label as "solid" mechanics and "fluid" mechanics in the first place reveals something sociologically and psychologically about the people doing the labeling (obviously, she would say that it reveals a fundamental aversion to or discomfort with fluid imagery and feminine imagery in general).

Because the metaphorical imagery employed by science is fundamentally arbitrary, Irigaray's contention is that the fundamental choice of which parts of physics to label as "solid" mechanics and "fluid" mechanics in the first place reveals something sociologically and psychologically about the people doing the labeling (obviously, she would say that it reveals a fundamental aversion to or discomfort with fluid imagery and feminine imagery in general).

Whether it's true that the scientific metaphorical imagery is fundamentally arbitrary and/or the degree to which it is/isn't is an interesting question. It's somewhat analogous to phonemes / morphemes. In most (maybe all?) structuralist linguistic models, phonemes are defined as lacking information individually. They're the sub-components of higher level objects that do convey information but they're interchangeable building blocks. Studying natural languages as used, though, seems to show that phonemes can have information: round sounds are associated with words involving the concept of roundness or fullness, sharp sounds are associated with spiky objects or violent concepts.

The associations seem somewhat universal and somewhat arbitrary and are not absolutes, every language has counter-examples. They also aren't necessary for a language's expressiveness so they are optional and to some degree interchangeable.

If the metaphors that tend to be used in scientific imagery are / are not potentially tied to some lower level structure in how humans form concepts, we could maybe learn more about the process of cognition. The degree to which they're socially mediated would still be interesting.

Well, good on you for reading that and trying to steelman it. No matter what, I always believe that all ideas should be considered at their own merit.

However, I'm not sure I fully agree with your analysis. I'm not the best at understanding those sorts of jargon-upon-jargony passages in this type of philosophy. I'm inclined to, at a certain point, simply write it off as something that's so detached from reality as to be worthless. I can understand a little better if I go really slow, but even so, I'm not really seeing how what you said relates to the passage you quoted. It seems to me that her point has something to do with (arbitrarily) claiming that metaphor is more like a solid, and metonymy is more like a fluid, presumably because fluids in real life have the capability of changing shape. But this to me already is an overstep into the ridiculous, because she is simply using her own personal associations to claim two unrelated abstract concepts are related, not justifying it, and then going on to use that towards her own end.

I don't really know where you're then getting this notion that we can draw any conclusion from what she says to how theoretical objects are thought up for use in scientific scenarios.
And in reply to the point that you think she's trying to make, I'd say, if people are choosing spherical cows for their thought experiments (not something I've personally heard of myself, but I'd believe that it's a thing if you say so), it's likely because it is a simpler concept to do math with, than fluid cows. And it's not un-justified, since our bodies behave more like solids than fluids under such conditions; we generally take up a certain volume, give or take a very small amount for our ability to deform our skin by pushing into it. Certainly the outside of our bodies generally stays together under normal conditions, and holds inner fluids inside, such that they have little effect on how we'd interact with an incline.

I don't really know where you're then getting this notion that we can draw any conclusion from what she says to how theoretical objects are thought up for use in scientific scenarios.

It was the idea that occurred to me while reading the text, so I just went with it!

I fully admit I'm engaged in a "motivated" reading. I'm more concerned with trying to extract a coherent philosophical idea from the text rather than with reconstructing Irigaray's exact mental state. But I don't think my interpretation is baseless either.

Backing up to give more context:

What is left uninterpreted in the economy of fluids—the resistances brought to bear upon solids, for example—is in the end given over to God. Overlooking the properties of real fluids—internal frictions, pressures, movements, and so on, that is, their specific dynamics—leads to giving the real back to God, as only the idealizable characteristics of fluids are included in their mathematicization.

Or again: considerations of pure mathematics have precluded the analysis of fluids except in terms of laminated planes, solenoid movements (of a current privileging the relation to an axis), spring-points, well-points, whirlwind-points, which have only an approximate relation to reality. Leaving some remainder. Up to infinity: the center of these “movements” corresponding to zero supposes in them an infinite speed, which is physically unacceptable. Certainly these “theoretical” fluids have enabled the technical—also mathematical—form of analysis to progress, while losing a certain relationship to the reality of bodies in the process.

What consequences does this have for “science” and psychoanalytic practice?

Roughly: Science can't just give a direct description of every single microdetail of reality. It has to "symbolize" things -- create simplified and idealized theoretical models. These models are inevitably attached to linguistic imagery.

And if anyone objects that the question, put this way, relies too heavily on metaphors, it is easy to reply that the question in fact impugns the privilege granted to metaphor (a quasi solid) over metonymy (which is much more closely allied to fluids).

Honestly not entirely sure what this part means. I assume that she's saying that solid imagery is more metaphorical, and fluid imagery is more metonymic, and her questioning here is impugning the privilege that the current imagery of physics grants to solids over fluids.

Or—suspending the status of truth accorded to these essentially metalinguistic “categories” and “dichotomous oppositions” — to reply that in any event all language is (also) metaphorical,+ and that, by denying this, language fails to recognize the “‘subject” of the unconscious and precludes inquiry into the subjection, still in force, of that subject to a symbolization that grants precedence to solids.

They key part is really the line at the end, "the subjection, still in force, of that subject to a symbolization that grants precedence to solids". The current "symbolization" of physics grants precedence to solids. But she's implying that that could change. We could imagine an alternative symbolization that grants precedence to fluids instead (without changing the content of the underlying physics).

it's likely because it is a simpler concept to do math with, than fluid cows.

Again the suggestion is that the imagery could change without changing the math.

Solid objects are already a lot more "fluid" than they might initially appear. See for example The Problem of the Many. It's not too hard to imagine an alternative conceptual landscape where we view the world of macro objects as being fundamentally populated by fluids, with "solids" being an exotic deviation from the fluid norm, if they even exist at all.

I believe that it can be steelmanned

Perhaps the rationalist habit of steelmanning should be put to rest.

You can find something valid in pretty much any rant. But if the rant is bad enough, you're going to do it by ignoring the author's intentions, and by ignoring the other 80% of the rant that can't be made valid by any standard.

We've had Holocaust deniers here. Occasionally they come up with something I can steelman (like lampshades made of human skin probably not being real). But the effect of steelmanning this is to ignore and gloss over 1) what they're saying, and 2) what they're trying to do by saying it.

I am not a “Rationalist” and my habits are very much my own.

I approach every text with the level of respect it deserves. Nothing more, nothing less.

While it is important to consider the strongest ideas of a movement, so as not to be knocking down straw or weak men, the insistence on that coupled with the lack of disavowal on their end makes for an insidious motte and bailey.

Doubly so because Science™ claims to be the process by which we find "strongest ideas" generally. It's both a direct and a meta-level failure.

Very well-said. The thing about inviting cleansing fire is that it's not exactly discriminate.

That's the point of cleansing. You don't discriminate between filth.

Scientists are born subjects.

If the delusional fever dreams of democrat true believer karens come true and a Christian theocracy rises to power, the scientific establishment will simply publish appendixes to their papers reconciling them to the current state of creation research. Woke is the same damn thing. Trump should be demanding they include 'murica, fuck yeah! loyalty pledges instead of yeeting them for kowtowing.

While that would probably be a better outcome (to those who value American interests (me)), I don't think it would work. It's too deeply entrenched. I really don't think there's any coming back from it when you look at issues like transgender beliefs. Do you think biologists are about to walk all their support of that back, in favor of what used to be (and, in my mind, still is) an unquestionably obvious conclusion? I don't think it could happen. There will be no surrender on that front of the culture war, especially when you consider the immense reputational damage they'd incur from changing their story like that. It doesn't even matter if it's left wing or whatever at that point, they'd look absolutely retarded to come out and say "Oh, we were wrong about not knowing what a woman is."

Maybe the issue is that, despite a subject mentality, they're absolutely unable to contend with the fact that they are bleeding reputation to people who matter and can exercise control over them. They see the looming threat of admitting failure, and they clearly understand the damage that could incur, but they don't realize that doubling down on what many people see as overwhelming stupidity is causing them to lose substantial trust day after day. All they need to do, they think, is preach endlessly to the choir, those who have already given heart and soul to expert worship and could not think to question them, blind to the irreplaceable losses that their endless march incurs.

They just don't get it. They don't realize that they have a reputational standard that needs to be maintained. You get the certs, you wave a paper, and the people obey. If that's what you're used to, why shouldn't you fight to keep it that way? But any ruler can take things too far. I think there was a perception of invulnerability, that it would not matter what peasants who doubt The Cause think; you just have to yell at them again and again, and reinforce the need to Trust The Science, and all sorts of other patronizing measures. The idea that the experts could be in error is unthinkable, even as Trump hits them in the face with a sledgehammer over and over again while giving them very easy outs. Any mistakes can be corrected, any challenge from the opposition can be waited out (as they are too valuable to be dispensed with, clearly), and anyone noticing their repeated failures can only cause harm by going above their stations to cast doubt on the methods of their betters, who need to remain unchallenged for the ultimate good of America (which they often seem to hate).

I don't want to sound like I am enforcing a consensus, but it is funny. The way you frame the recapture of academia feels to me like The One Ring. You can claim it for yourself, but it will either unmake you into just another dark lord, or it will make you an unwitting pawn of the Enemy himself. Only by destroying it, perhaps, can what's in motion be stopped - and that is the only challenge that has not entered their darkest dreams.

Do you think biologists are about to walk all their support of that back, in favor of what used to be (and, in my mind, still is) an unquestionably obvious conclusion?

Observably, the medical industry seems to have been able to successfully walk back from several scandals of seemingly similar magnitude (on a logarithmic scale). The lobotomy as a procedure won a Nobel Prize in medicine. The sister of a future president had one! It had similar arguments over its ethics and efficacy, but in the end we don't do them anymore (I hear there are some rare similar procedures, with much more oversight and gatekeeping). It's largely been swept under the rug, though there wasn't zero introspection on the topic. At smaller scales I could point to "repressed memories," Freudian analysis, and such.

But it might take a decent fraction of a generation.

The lobotomy as a procedure won a Nobel Prize in medicine.

Exaggerating for effect, but: I will not stand for this lobotomy erasure!!!!!!

But seriously lobotomy was a great idea at the time and we dropped* it as soon as it stopped being a great idea.

Lobotomy (1930s) predates psychopharmacology (thorazine in the 1950s), some psychiatric illness responds to therapy alone but even with modern therapy modalities quite a few conditions can be debilitating to the point people would elect voluntary death (see last week's discussion) and that's with modern support and medication.

Some illness benefits from therapy for outcome improvement but requires medicine. The obvious heavy hitters are schizophrenia and bipolar disorder (~20% fatality rate from a manic episode pre-modern medicine).

Prior to the modern resources and approach you were absolutely going to die or end up locked up in an asylum with zero quality of life. Lobotomy managed to work some of the time. It wasn't great and had hideous side effects but it was the same as trepanning. You got no tools in the toolbox you use what you got.

Usage dropped off sharply after we had options but any modality with understood risks and benefits is going to take time to get replaced by new things.

Meanwhile it got a horrid reputation because mental illness scary and authority bad. The reputation is certainly deserved but the malign is generally misplaced.

It's helpful to consider that the best intervention we have period for psychiatric problems is still electro-shock therapy (now: ECT), which is equally poorly portrayed in media.

It is incredibly effective and safe and it is hard to get patient's to do it because of the media presentation which is basically based off of fear of mental illness and an impression garnered back from when ECT existed but anesthesia didn't (which was...certainly a more difficult time).

*okay started dropping it.

You probably know more of the specifics than I do, but it was at least in some places (notably the Soviet Union and Sweden) seen as controversial at the time.

I'm not an expert on the history of soviet mental health treatments lol but as part of my brief lit review for that comment I did spot that the soviets banned it first, they also had a history of misappropriating mental health stuff for political reasons (see: sluggish schizophrenia).

Secret police with a picture of a stethoscope duct taped to their head is a bit different than the medical establishment going about their regular or irregular business.

Now the choice of death, lobotomy, or locked up and the key thrown away is a tough one but I think when people hear lobotomy that's not quite what they are thinking. Many people then and now are more okay with locking people up and forgetting them than seeing lobotomized people around (which we do do chemically now). This isn't "wrong" per se, but it's not generally fully explored by the people advocating it.

With respect to lobotomies, I think the medical industry managed to restore quite a bit of public trust with the polio vaccine. Right around the time people were realizing what a terrible idea lobotomies actually were, along came this absolute miracle of modern science. If public opinion swings towards "puberty blockers in children are horrific, actually" and then a universal cure for cancer is developed, I think people will be a lot more willing to overlook the misstep.

public trust with the polio vaccine

I know where you are going with this but ironically the polio vaccine ended up being a long term public relations disaster once the pain of polio started to fall off. Check out the whole Salk vs. Sabin thing if you want to dig in.

hose collaborations have laid the groundwork for both theoretical breakthroughs and practical technologies. My own research at IPAM, for instance, helped lead to the algorithms that now cut MRI scan times by a factor of up to 10.

This is indirectly related to the main culture war topics.

I despise when theoretical or "pure research" academics try to launder their work as being "practical." Even before I get into the (quick) research I did, let's parse out that last sentence.

My research ... helped ... lead to ...

How much did it help? Was it the breakthrough needed to make the tech work? Was it just a novel approach to something that already had a solution? Did the person / organization who made the MRI tech just read one of your papers?

Algorithms

Dude.

cut MRI scan times by a factor of up to 10

What was the baseline time? I believe most MRIs are between 30 - 60 minutes. I don't think they were ever 300 - 600 minutes. "Up to" means it could also be lower. Is this shaving off 15 minutes?

The quick googling I did produced these two items:

A 2007 blog post from Terry Tao where he talks about pixel compression and mentions, at the end, how this could help speed up MRI image processing

A quick patent search - Terry Tao has four, which are all versions of each other

"peOplE aRe LITeraLly DyiNG!" is what we're supposed to feel when we read Terry Tao's sob story. But they aren't.

I can more than appreciate when gigabrained pure mathematicians and physicists honestly tell us "Yeah, we're working on this bleeding edge theoretical stuff. It might unlock the secrets of the universe, but, it's not actually going to be useful day-to-day for ... a while ... or maybe ever."

But I can't appreciate when the same people (let alone the humanities professors) try to wrap themself in the flag (diploma?) and cry out that they are the only reason we aren't all living in pit toilets and dying of diphtheria.

But I can't appreciate when the same people (let alone the humanities professors) try to wrap themself in the flag (diploma?) and cry out that they are the only reason we aren't all living in pit toilets and dying of diphtheria.

I mean, what do you want them to say instead?

They're literally not allowed to say "yes, we are going to take your tax dollars to fund this work because it is intrinsically valuable, and our ability to carry on with this work is more important than your ability to eat at Chipotle for the 5th time this week or whatever else you were going to do with that extra $20". They think that, but they're not allowed to say it. It's not in the Overton window, it wouldn't be egalitarian, it wouldn't be democratic, etc. So they have to lie about "practical benefits" to the grant managers, and ultimately to themselves.

There have been mathematicians that brag about how their work has no application.

Ironically, some of those were number theorists...

Being a professor at a California university is like being a soldier of the new Red Army. Terence Tao signed the open letters, took the government money, parroted the party line, and made the libations. He should not act so shocked that the other team is treating him as an enemy soldier, because he is one.

Hasn't he ever heard the saying, "And them that take the sword shall perish by the sword"?

The academic establishment has sinned against America and America must administer its punishment. Burn it all! Fire and sword and no mercy! Let the funding be cut, let the tenured professors be thrown out to seek work in the private sector, let the student loans no longer be backed by the government, and let the hollowed-out ruins of the academic establishment of the 2020's stand forever as a warning to future scientists about the dangers of taking sides in politics. Taxpayer money is a privilege, not a right.

Whew boy, now this is really some waging of the culture war.

Has Terence Tao actually engaged in any political activism other than sharing his opinions, or are you purely criticizing him for having anti-right political opinions and working for a California university?

Saying that being a professor at a California university is like being a soldier of the new Red Army is hyperbole. It's the same kind of hyperbole that committed Soviets used against their own ideological enemies in the Soviet academic system.

Sure, I don't think that Terence Tao is entitled to taxpayer money. I don't think even he is trying to claim that he is entitled to taxpayer money. Surely there's some room for nuance in looking at this situation.

The nuance was available for Tao and other academics doing "good" work to police their own and not let their own research to be used to launder pure advocacy and propaganda under the guise of research. You can't be a part of "no enemies on the left" for the better part of your career and then act shocked when people put weight on your words and actions.

TracingWoodgrains has a thread on the topic here: https://x.com/tracewoodgrains/status/1957878299146993821

Terence Tao, signing an open letter in 2020: "We are enraged at the everyday operations of a white supremacist society. ... Complicity with these systems of oppression is deeply rooted in the origins of this country."

He also wrote a blog in 2016 entitled "It ought to be common knowledge that Donald Trump is not fit for the presidency of the United States of America". He might want to put forth the image of a politically neutral mathematician now that his funding is at risk, but that does not reflect his previous behavior.

https://terrytao.wordpress.com/2016/06/04/it-ought-to-be-common-knowledge-that-donald-trump-is-not-fit-for-the-presidency-of-the-united-states-of-america/

Are you saying the government should punish one of the greatest mathematicians alive because he expressed his political opinions on things and the current leader doesn't like it?

Man I thought woke cancel culture was insane in their assault on academic freedom and free speech on campuses but this seems to be going up a whole nother level.

  • -17

Yeah, I'm thinking he should be punished. It's not his place as a mathematician to tell me how orange man bad. I'm not even inclined to care about his supposed groundbreaking work if he has martyr his supposed scientific reason on the altar of woke.

You agree with the woke leftists that professors and researchers with "bad opinions" should be punished even if it's not irrelevant to their work?

  • -16

He's not a neutral party. I actually would also like whole divisions of X studies wiped off the universities, so my views aren't neutral either.

Absolutely, you step into the ring you should expect to get hit back. Stay the fuck out of politics if you're not a political figure.

So you explicitly agree with the woke leftists that professors and researchers with "bad opinions" should be punished even if it's not irrelevant to their work?

  • -14

Yes, until the other side commits in a way that means their violation of trolerance will cost them in power then absolutely. If one side pays no price for punishing those with "bad opinions" they're going to do more of it when they return to power.

So how do you feel about a situation like this? https://x.com/pjaicomo/status/1958124476001861948

Do you believe the left would be justified with removing Tom Macdonald for his "the devil is a democrat" speech because the right wing started with saying legal residents don't have protections?

I think no, but "the other side started it" being a valid reason to betray what you previously said seems like it would apply here too then.

More comments

Define "bad opinions."

I don't think Tao should be defunded for this alone, but neither should he be defended as a neutral apolitical little guy.

Every academic that has used the word "whiteness" should be treated the same way the universities would treat, say, David Duke.

Have you heard of this little thing called freedom of speech?

  • -11

He still has tenure. the funding can be terminated at will

He's not being silenced or arrested. What is the old XKCD line, that's not your free speech rights being violated, that's just someone showing you the door.

Snarkly: As I've heard it described, it doesn't include freedom from consequences.

He's not being thrown in prison. As fond as I am of defending free speech, free speech is not the right to receive a check from the government to subsidize your tongue.

free speech is not the right to receive a check from the government to subsidize your tongue.

No, but it is the right to keep your non-political job whatever political opinions you espouse outside of that job. If Tao stopped midway through math lectures to rant to his students about his personal opinions, that'd be one thing. But if his political advocacy on his own time does not interfere with doing his job as an academic, then it is a violation of free speech to jeopardize his career on the basis of his political speech, no different from when left-wings cancel-mobs do it.

More comments

right, he still has tenure

But had he not signed the letter, would his funding not been cut? The stated justification by the trump administration has to do with UCLA failing to adequately police antisemitism on its campus, not wokeness.

Are you saying the government should punish one of the greatest mathematicians alive because he expressed his political opinions on things and the current leader doesn't like it?

Oppressing right wingers is OK, but the leftists can't be touched because they're more valuable human capital? Anti-egalitarian. I like it.

In all honesty, what would a government do to him? Cut his government funding? If he's that good, he can probably find alternate sponsors.

Edit: Also, holy hell, you got a lot of downvotes for that. Undeserved IMO; your point seemed entirely reasonable to make.

They've gone so far towards being egalitarian they've become anti-egalitarian.

The creatures outside looked from pig to man, and from man to pig, and from pig to man again; but already it was impossible to say which was which.

  • George Orwell, Animal Farm

Even if your portrayal of what he said was accurate, that is not "a whole nother level", it's "more of the same", and perhaps even "way more mild". But it's not accurate. He wasn't punished for his political views, his university was for their discriminatory practices. Tao was portraying himselfnas politically neutral, and the above comment was pointing out he's lying.

Are you saying the government should punish one of the greatest mathematicians alive because he expressed his political opinions on things and the current leader doesn't like it?

Not should. Must.

No peaceful government is possible if the power of censorship and control over truth is only available to one side.

When the left picked that sword up, they were warned endlessly that this would have consequences once they would inevitably lose power. There you go.

So you explicitly agree with the woke leftists that professors and researchers with "bad opinions" should be punished even if it's not irrelevant to their work?

Will you be upset if the left comes back into power and explicitly targets all conservatives with funding cuts after you've said it's now ok to do?

  • -16

What conservatives are there? Certainly none in academia. The left already uses its power to purge conservatives as much as they possibly can.

Progressives already do that, and have loudly proclaimed for years it is OK to do. So I will not be upset because it is expected behavior from them.

I believe in free speech and other such natural rights, so it should not happen. I also think that

This isn't about moral rectitude, it's about what's possible. You can't start shooting kulaks and demand they not shoot back because God commanded that thou shalt not kill.

I'm simply informing you of what's possible in the political climate created by such acts. Which is exactly what I was warning everyone would happen ten years ago.

The left wing has thoroughly destroyed the classical liberal fort on its advance, and now that the advance has stopped, it can't hide behind its walls whilst retreating. Actions have consequences.

I believe in free speech and other such natural rights, so it should not happen. I also think that

Well you say that and yet nothing in the following sentences expresses any idea that it is wrong to target researchers and scientists for their personal political beliefs. In fact all the effort seems dedicated to defending the idea of targeted wrongthink suppression.

  • -11
More comments

Man I thought woke cancel culture was insane in their assault on academic freedom and free speech on campuses but this seems to be going up a whole nother level.

In what way is it a higher level? The other camp has actually gotten people fired for expressing political opinions that seem pretty commensurate with the pro-progressive noises Terry has made. He is not even getting fired or having his career seriously threatened, but is just being subjected to some inconvenience (much greater for his students). Even the fallout to students is not without mirror precedent: at the US university where I did my PhD, a grad student I knew was prevented from graduating even with a different nominal advisor purely to put pressure on his advisor who got #MeTooed (in an incredibly fishy case) but was fighting back.

It is understandable that Terry is complaining (and, indeed, he owes it to his students to make this effort), but he has made his bed.

So you explicitly agree with the woke leftists that professors and researchers with "bad opinions" should be punished even if it's not irrelevant to their work?

  • -19

I don't understand why you are just ignoring the question - it wasn't intended as rhetorical.

Anyhow, my answer to this question is no, but as with many other things (e.g. war crimes, military invasions...) I would rather live in a world where 2+ competing parties do it than in one where only 1 party does it, even if having 0 parties do it is best.

To make it very explicit for the situation at hand: not punishing any researchers for opinions unrelated to their work is best, but punishing researchers of all teams for opinions unrelated to their work is second best. (Not even a distant second best - as a working scientist I honestly think the science community would be much improved if all scientists trying to play at being politicians or "public intellectuals" were summarily kicked out)

So how do you feel about a situation like this? https://x.com/pjaicomo/status/1958124476001861948

Do you believe the left would be justified with removing Tom Macdonald for his "the devil is a democrat" speech because the right wing started with saying legal residents don't have protections?

It seems to me that this line of logic would be just as valid.

not punishing any legal residents for political opinions is best, but punishing legal residents of all teams for political opinions is second best.

Personally I think no, but "the other side started it" being a valid reason to betray claimed principles would justify the next Dem admin removing Tom from the country.

More comments

I don't understand why you are just ignoring the question - it wasn't intended as rhetorical.

it's because he is concern trolling the lot of you.

It would be nice if you answered his question before asking a follow-up. Particularly when it has nothing to do with the case we're discussing.

There's no point in explaining why it's another level of wrong for government to target scientists and researchers funding over wrongthink if they're perfectly fine with that level of government suppression over academic freedom to begin with.

  • -16
More comments

Nah, I just don't appreciate his rhetorical approach here. It comes across as disingenuous. He's trying to pull the "wise man above the fray descends from his ivory tower to bestow wisdom upon the masses" when in reality he has been down here flinging shit along with the rest of us.

In terms of the actual issue, his funding was not specifically cut, and Tao making this all about him comes across as somewhat egotistical. UCLA's funding was cut for what appear to be fairly legitimate reasons. For example, they are still racially discriminating in college admissions, in flagrant violation of the recent SCOTUS decision. This comment goes into more detail: https://www.themotte.org/post/2732/culture-war-roundup-for-the-week/357296?context=8#context

Signing an open letter and writing an article that attacks Trump is pretty innocuous behavior, in my opinion. Is there any evidence that he tried to, for example, cancel anyone?

Signing an open letter and writing an article that attacks Trump is pretty innocuous behavior, in my opinion.

Surely the contents of the open letter would matter, wouldn't it? Would signing an open letter committing oneself to help the 4th Reich take over the United States also be pretty innocuous?

Of course, this letter isn't that. Rather, it's an open letter espousing an ideology that's specifically anti-logic, which I don't think is innocuous for a mathematician. The most innocuous and, IMHO quite likely, explanation for his behavior is that he unthinkingly followed sociopolitical pressure to sign that document. And caring so little about what he puts his signature on that he's willing to sign off on a belief system that rejects the very basis of what he's studying is at least as concerning as it is innocuous. If a bus driver was known to openly support an ideology that rejected the notion of left and right or red and green, the bus company would be justified in not considering that all that innocuous, even if the bus driver was merely doing it to look cool for his peers.

Would signing an open letter committing oneself to help the 4th Reich take over the United States also be pretty innocuous?

Yes, it would be. The United States is so far away from being taken over by either communists or by Nazis that an open letter in support of either of those groups would be innocuous.

You are fighting the hypothetical in a way that seems in bad faith. The ideology in question that refuses to be named does not share this characteristic of "anywhere near as far away from taking over US as Nazis or Communists;" it has already taken over the institution in question, i.e. academia, and if it hasn't, then it's certainly caused severe transformations to it, with plans to make even more. If signing off on Nazism or Communism is "innocuous" only or primarily due to circumstance of these ideologies being so weak as to be unworthy of consideration, that certainly doesn't apply to this real case.

Attacking Trump on his private blog as a candidate for President is Tao's right as an American citizen. Putting a pseudo-mathematical spin on that (as he does) to try to back his political views with his mathematical expertise is a version of getting Eulered, but while it's bad epistemology that's all it is.

Signing an open letter like that one, on his authority as a professor of mathematics at a university -- a public university at that -- is politicizing the institution. When people with the opposite politics get in power, it is perfectly reasonable for them to decide that no, they do not want to provide government funding for institutions that are fighting them politically. The letter isn't innocuous at all.

When people with the opposite politics get in power, it is perfectly reasonable for them to decide that no, they do not want to provide government funding for institutions that are fighting them politically.

I agree! And I agree that the open letter is pushing it, and I find the letter pretty obnoxious.

I think that Tao by signing the open letter was, deliberately or not, unfairly taking advantage of the fact that non-leftist academics who signed an open letter supporting different politics would possibly expose themselves to career-endangering consequences.

That said, I still think that @Sunshine's take goes overboard. Identifying your own political side with America as a whole and calling for the wholesale demolition of the other side is a bit much of a reaction to what amounts to an academic most people have never even heard of putting his name on a politicized open letter.

I agree! And I agree that the open letter is pushing it, and I find the letter pretty obnoxious.

A few posts ago you said it was "pretty innocuous behavior".

Sunshine's post is way over the top. But it's a lot closer to the truth than "UCLA, Tao, and his colleagues did nothing wrong"

Just because I find it obnoxious doesn't mean that I don't find it innocuous. I observe obnoxious political activities all the time, coming from both the left and the right, without necessarily thinking that it is any sort of serious political threat.

The "left" ran a profoundly successful multi-decade propaganda campaign to convince the entire country that racism is quite close to the worst possible sin. Obviously not everyone has bitten, but overwhelmingly the general population on the left AND right buy it. Now the left doesn't think what they are doing is racist, but a good chunk of the middle and the right do - and they've been trained to tear down people and institutions that support racism by the left.

This some combination of not accepting immoral behavior, being held to your own standards becoming a problem, and inevitable consequences of your decisions.

If someone believes that anyone who holds the belief that an ethic group is scum deserves what's coming to them and believes an ethnic group is scum....you are doing what they asked when you come for them.

Add in the meta game aspect of tanking trust for authority leading to bad outcomes in society? These people deserve what is happening to them, and more.

I've heard of none. Why do you believe that should matter?

Most people here are familiar with the Herbert quote:

“When I am Weaker Than You, I ask you for Freedom because that is according to your principles; when I am Stronger than you, I take away your Freedom Because that is according to my principles.”

That is a reasonable approximation of my model of Blue Tribe. Over the past ten years, I've watched Progressivism attempt a full-fledged social revolution through methodical weaponization of our society's institutions and centers of value. The revolution they attempted was merciless and insane, caused incalculable harm, and cannot at this date truly be said to have failed. They are on the back foot, momentarily, but they very clearly have learned nothing and will go right back to their revolutionary march the instant they see an opportunity to do so. They must not be given that opportunity. Their political movement must be entombed, their centers of power torn down and destroyed, any possible route back to social dominance foreclosed.

It seems madness to me to pretend that, having seen what we have seen, we should go back to "the way things were before", turn our backs and let them have another swing at our necks. If forestalling that threat means a few years of reduced scientific output, so be it. That is a small price to pay compared to another Blue offensive. To the extent that "neutral" institutions wish to protect themselves from the depredations of unrestrained culture war, common knowledge is necessary that such a defense is achieved through rigorous neutrality, not unlimited Blue appeasement.

You appear to be approaching this from a frame of "how can we remove the worst outliers from the academic system, so that we can get back to the work at hand". I approach it from the angle of "Even ignoring the worst outliers, the Academy has become a vast system for converting taxpayer money into Progressive political power and social control". "Cancelation" is a single facet of that machine. The machine, as a whole, must go.

That is a reasonable approximation of my model of Blue Tribe.

Well, how is it not also a reasonable approximation of the Red Tribe also? The sad reality is that the quote really should go, "when I am weaker, I ask for freedom because that is according to the principles we all claim to have; when I am stronger, I take away freedom because that is according to the principles we actually all share".

The progressives, in their many years of relative weakness, had me bamboozled; I'm not inclined to repeat that mistake with the other camp now in the #resistance.

Well, how is it not also a reasonable approximation of the Red Tribe also?

I don't think so, but I am exceedingly aware that I have no way to prove it to skeptical Blues or Greys. My perception of the Red side is that what we want is to not be ruled by Blues, rather than to rule Blues. I've been advocating for a national divorce for many years now, and I'm hopeful that this is the direction we're currently moving in. I don't want to fight Blues for control of social institutions. To the degree that institutions are shared and therefore must be fought over, I would rather deconstruct those institutions and allow the value that fed them to be diverted to new institutions that are not shared. That applies to Academia, the education system generally, the courts, the police, entertainment, everything.

I believe that the whole culture war, everything we're seeing, is because we can't get away from each other. And an unfortunate consequence is that much is shared, and must be fought over; there's only one presidency, only one congressional majority, only one Supreme Court. All of those have to go away, and it seems clear to me that the most straightforward way to make them go away is to capture them, contaminating them with Redness from the Blue perspective and thus mobilizing Blue Tribe to attack their legitimacy. More unfortunately, this is likely indistinguishable from seizure of power from anyone who doesn't already buy it, even without inherent human bias. If there were a way to avoid that, I'd be for it. It doesn't seem to me that there is, though.

For what it's worth, I try at least to be straightforward as I can in my own communication. I don't believe in "freedom" or "human rights", "free speech" or any of the old liberal touchstones. I don't recognize appeals to these ideas when others make them, and I try my best to avoid appealing to them for my own side as well. I believe they are fundamentally incoherent concepts outside an environment of values-coherence; they are never going to work across tribal lines. Both Reds and Blues want good things and not bad things. Expecting otherwise is foolishness.

If there were a way to avoid that, I'd be for it.

Well, you could cut out the middleman and simply secede. Didn't work so well the first time, I'll grant you, but, like… if Trump announced some kind of federal split live on air tomorrow, do you really think that ends with a boots-on-the-grounds, millions-dead civil war? Somehow I can't picture that. If it gets anywhere, I'd expect something more like a messy, drawn-out, infrastructure-wrecking, but ultimately-bloodless Brexit-type scenario. Lawfare, not warfare. Who knows how it would end, but starting from your premises, it seems worth a shot.

More comments

To some extent you're right, and it's just human nature, but I also think that the Blues have some universalist drive that the Reds don't.

The most obvious case is Commies insisting that you can't just implement their system in one country, and show the world how obviously superior it is, because something something capitalism ia a global system. But even basic libs have the same instinct, everytime I saw someone propose "why don't you do your thing in your jurisdiction, we do ours in our, and we leave each other alone" someone would show up saying "this would be too cruel for people under your jurisdiction". I don't think all Blues believe this, but 100% of the time the person saying it would be Blue, and other Blues would never give them any pushback.

Eh, this seems very dependent on whom you include under "Reds". If the actual (historical) Commies count as Blue, then surely their Yankee rivals should count as Red - and the Cold War era was rife with missionary wars to bring Democracy and Capitalism to other countries. You can stretch the line into the past all the way to Matthew Perry forcing Japan open to international trade, and into the future at least to Iraq, which was sold by its Red cheerleaders as Operation Iraqi LibertyFreedom. Now, you could argue that all the democracy-bombing was window dressing and each instance was actually motivated by hard geopolitical and economic interest, but then how do you disprove the same statement about the Commies? Isn't the best ideological window dressing one that the NPCs on your side fanatically subscribe to? Also, if you are fighting a civilisational battle, is ideological conversion even distinguishable from hard geopolitical interests?

More comments

Over the past ten years, I've watched Progressivism attempt a full-fledged social revolution through methodical weaponization of our society's institutions and centers of value. The revolution they attempted was merciless and insane, caused incalculable harm, and cannot at this date truly be said to have failed. They are on the back foot, momentarily, but they very clearly have learned nothing and will go right back to their revolutionary march the instant they see an opportunity to do so.

Whenever I hear cries of "help help I'm being repressed for my speech" from the left, I think about Masterpiece Cakeshop and the neverending litigation the owner has been put through, the mocking phrase "freeze peach," the national ACLU changing its guidelines for case selection to avoid representing right-wingers (that internal memo from way back in 2018), state chapters of the ACLU refusing to represent right-wing groups, and the infamous xkcd comic about being shown the door. They demonstrated their true principles when they had power and I have no reason to think anything has changed.

link to the letter https://newsroom.ucla.edu/stories/scientists-condemn-racist-violence these cut have to do with UCLA's complicity in failing to denounce antisemitism, not the letter ? Had he not signed the letter, presumably his funding would have still been cut?

There is a fundamental misunderstanding between two very closely related but irreconcilable positions on the state of academia, both of which can be summarized as "it's been captured by woke and that's bad". One position is that the academics themselves are culpable because this makes them complicit in nebulous sins against the American people. The other position is that the academics forced to parrot spurious diversity statements to keep their jobs are, you know, the victims, with ideologically-captured admin as the bad guys. The second position seems trivially the correct framing to me, and wanting to punish the academics as collaborators looks about as absurd as saying you're going to topple a tyrant to liberate the people, then executing anyone who ever saluted the tyrant at gunpoint.

Aren't the head "admins" typically drawn from the tenured faculty (sometimes hired across institutions)? I doubt there is a college president (or provost, or dean, or department head) out there without a doctorate. Maybe not all the mid-level admins ("Deputy Title IX Coordinator"), but those aren't intended to be steering the ship.

The other position is that the academics forced to parrot spurious diversity statements to keep their jobs are, you know, the victims, with ideologically-captured admin as the bad guys. The second position seems trivially the correct framing to me, and wanting to punish the academics as collaborators looks about as absurd as saying you're going to topple a tyrant to liberate the people, then executing anyone who ever saluted the tyrant at gunpoint.

The admin didn't force the professors to put Foucault on more syllabi than Shakespeare; Marx and Judith Butler over Plato; Said over Locke. Mill, or Aristotle; Fanon over Machiavelli and Hume.

Most of the academics didn't complain about being forced to parrot spurious diversity statements, nor even when those spurious diversity statements were made the foremost criteria in their hiring. They DO complain, loudly, when the Trump administration moves explicitly against those spurious diversity statements and other requirements. If they were really held captive by an ideologically captured admin, they should welcome the Trump administration as liberators.

If they don't, I see three possibilities

  1. They actually agree with the admin. This is what I suspect is true.

  2. They don't agree with the admin, but believe accepting the admin's dominance is preferable to the short-term pain Trump is imposing. If they believe this, they are, IMO, fools.

  3. They think Trump will fail, and thus adhere to the admin in order to prevent later repercussions against themselves. In this case they are craven.

None of these cases demand they be given any sort of mercy.

I have no doubt that there are some true-believers. Though actually, I suspect that what academia has, ultimately, is a supermajority of normie liberals - people don't like cancel culture or having to parrot meaningless diversity statements, but agree with the left more than the right overall, and with a deep-seated distaste for Trump. Such people, I would describe as living under the yoke of the cancel-culture regime as much as anyone. If you take free speech seriously, then they're archetypal examples of victims of cancel culture. But they have every reason to believe Trump sees them as enemies anyway, and thus, correctly refuse to welcome the Great Liberator because they identify any call to do so as an attempt to divide and conquer.

More to the point, to whatever extent there are conservatives in academia whom cancel culture is preventing from speaking up, they are the people Trump is/should be trying to save. If everyone in academia is in fact a true believer in wokeism, then by definition cancel culture in academia would be a nonissue: there would be no wrongthink for cancel mobs to punish, and no free speech would be infringed. Attacking cancel culture in academia is only a worthy endeavor if you presuppose that there are, in fact, people currently forced to mouth insincere diversity statements that you want to rescue. An attack vector which hurts such people as much as their oppressors - even if they are a minority - inherently loses its justification.

Also, whether you describe #3 as "craven" or simply rational behavior depends a great deal on the object-level question of whether Trump will, in fact, fail. Say I, a closet conservative in academia, happen to believe he will fail, hard, with, say, >80% confidence. Wouldn't it be idiotic of me to throw off the mask now? You say craven, I say survival instincts. Don't online right-wingers tend to approve of hiding your power level?

normie liberals - people don't like cancel culture or having to parrot meaningless diversity statements

Such people don't exist. The most "moderate" fringes of the enemy have still shown a voracious appetite for land acknowledgements, attaching black/brown/trans flags to everything, mandating everyone take the nlm loyalty oauth, cancelling nazis (everyone right of them), diversity quotas, and more of anything called "DEI".

There are no "normie liberals" who don't love all those things. If you think they do, then show me they exist.

Normie liberals don't tend to talk a lot about politics, especially not in public. Most of them are hanging out under real names, and their social circles include social justice warriors willing to cut them off for heresy. They're afraid to get thrown out into the Wilderness if they speak their minds.

(I'm legitimately unsure if @WandererintheWilderness's username references that article, because yeah, theMotte as a community has been cast out into the Wilderness even if doesn't fully have the "Wilderness nature".)

Though actually, I suspect that what academia has, ultimately, is a supermajority of normie liberals - people don't like cancel culture or having to parrot meaningless diversity statements, but agree with the left more than the right overall, and with a deep-seated distaste for Trump.

Then they have chosen their side, and are correctly considered collaborators.

If everyone in academia is in fact a true believer in wokeism, then by definition cancel culture in academia would be a nonissue: there would be no wrongthink for cancel mobs to punish, and no free speech would be infringed.

Those who cancel are perfectly happy to go after those who are only perceived to commit wrongthink, or to change the definition of wrongthink to catch those who were formerly right-thinkers, and thus to even cancel true believers.

Attacking cancel culture in academia is only a worthy endeavor if you presuppose that there are, in fact, people currently forced to mouth insincere diversity statements that you want to rescue.

As I said above, certainly not. If cancel culture has already pushed out everyone who is not a true believer, or I can't rescue those who have not been pushed out, it is still good to destroy cancel culture in academia as a step in either re-populating academia with non-wokes, or destroying academia in its entirety so the wokes cannot use whatever power and influence academia has to cause trouble in other areas.

An attack vector which hurts such people as much as their oppressors - even if they are a minority - inherently loses its justification.

No, it doesn't. If there's one oppressed person per 1000 in academia, and they are hurt as much as the 1000 by some measure, this is what's called collateral damage. No one is required to use a perfectly precise weapon.

Say I, a closet conservative in academia, happen to believe he will fail, hard, with, say, >80% confidence. Wouldn't it be idiotic of me to throw off the mask now? You say craven, I say survival instincts.

Trump, however, must act as if he will succeed. And if he does, they were craven.

Don't online right-wingers tend to approve of hiding your power level?

A phrase I associate mostly with the dissident right/neo-Nazis, actually. But keeping your head down when you're totally outclassed may be merely prudent. Keeping your head down when you have a chance at success is cowardly.

If you take free speech seriously, then they're archetypal examples of victims of cancel culture.

No, the real victims of cancel culture are the ones who didn't get to be in that position because they are conservative. My preferred result is admissions officers being put in prison for decades of discrimination. What is happening is the compromise.

I have no doubt that there are some true-believers. Though actually, I suspect that what academia has, ultimately, is a supermajority of normie liberals

Varies by department, of course, but at some point the ratios are so extreme I don't think it's reasonable to really consider them normie. Many are, sure, but cutting off half the normal curve suggests the left tail is going to be significant.

And I can't get the full text at the moment, but helluva statement from the abstract of this paper:

Third, conservatives fear negative consequences of revealing their political beliefs to their colleagues. Finally, they are right to do so: In decisions ranging from paper reviews to hiring, many social and personality psychologists said that they would discriminate against openly conservative colleagues. The more liberal respondents were, the more they said they would discriminate.

My personal experience is that, with the exception of a handful of autistic math and econ professors, the academics are 100% complicit. The entire history department at my major state university was made up of proud, self-professed marxists. Professors would regularly stop teaching in the middle of class to go on political rants. 80% of surveyed academics admitted to engaging in deliberate discrimination against conservatives.

I don't buy the poor, hapless academic argument. They've been happily leading the charge for the politicization of the academy for decades.

Even so - surely the entire point of being mad about the politicization of the academy is to rescue whatever fraction of professors do live in fear of cancellation. What else would even be the point?

What else would even be the point?

To destroy enemy centers of power.

To prevent academia from leveraging the power that it has (to pronounce Official Expert Truth) in support of the Left.

Rescuing academics would be nice but the vast majority of people who weren’t at least lukewarmly woke left years ago, like me. And the ones who are left will find they can get a lot of mileage out of “of course I agree with you but if I say it in public Trump will pull our funding”.

Even if the admin have a woke score of 110 and the academics only have woke scores between 30-90, neither group actually likes me.

Uh, rescuing the students?

The point is to rescue the students, and therefore the next generation of professors. To the extent it's convenient to save the careers of the good ones, we should try to do so, but I'm not overly concerned about mathematicians who just kept their heads down catching strays. We need to take academia back down to the foundations before rebuilding. That's inevitably going to result in some collateral damage. The non-crazy professors had literally decades to set their house in order. If they wanted moderation they should have advocated for moderation sometime before social justice started lapping McCarthyism in terms of body count.

I care more about the educations of my future children than I do the careers of some scientists too timid to stand up against the last decade-plus of woke star chambers. I'm perfectly happy to sacrifice an entire generation of academics to this project.

Even so - surely the entire point of being mad about the politicization of the academy is to rescue whatever fraction of professors do live in fear of cancellation. What else would even be the point?

To prevent the academy from being used as a political weapon against oneself. Which does not require rescuing anyone.

This is isomorphic to left-wing cancel culture, equally morally bankrupt, and equally un-American. The only ethically justifiable mandate for fighting cancel culture is to restore intellectual freedom and freedom of speech. If you abandon that justification then you are as hypocritical and craven as your enemies, and, if nothing else, you have no high ground from which to criticize Tao.

This is isomorphic to left-wing cancel culture, equally morally bankrupt, and equally un-American.

No, it isn't.

The only ethically justifiable mandate for fighting cancel culture is to restore intellectual freedom and freedom of speech.

Probably not true, but even assuming it is, restoring intellectual freedom and freedom of speech does not require rescuing anyone.

No, it isn't.

How so?

restoring intellectual freedom and freedom of speech does not require rescuing anyone.

"Rescuing such-and-such people" was just a fancy way of saying "lift restrictions on freedom of speech currently affecting such-and-such people". Imposing new restrictions on those same people, policing for the opposite quadrant of political speech, is… not that.

More comments

This is isomorphic to left-wing cancel culture

It isn't, though, that's the thing. Presuming Tao were being targeted (something which I don't think is evident, but we can presume it), it would be for signing off on an ideological document that commits to him to an ideology that explicitly rejects things like objectivity and reason as tools of White Supremacy for oppressing minorities; the ideology openly and proudly prefers personal testimony labeled as "lived experience" to ascertain "their truth" which is just as valid as anyone else's. This is fundamentally incompatible with mathematics, which relies on logic to make objective statements, or generally the academic pursuit of truth, at least for commonly understood meanings of "math" and "truth." Now, people can paper over and ignore or mitigate fundamental incompatibilities for a long time, but likely not forever, and so such ideological commitments a major handicap in an academic being able to credibly produce truth.

This is the general problem that this ideology runs into when trying to claim victimhood of cancel culture. By its very nature, the ideology is about redefining and subverting our understanding of basic concepts like "truth" or "reason" in a way that's incompatible with academia as we know it. And if academia were transformed according to the ideology, it would no longer be academia in terms of the functions it serves our society (i.e. knowledge generation & education), but rather a church. And so rejecting ideologues of this stripe from academia isn't cancel culture in a symmetrical way to the now-traditional leftwing cancel culture, which has to do either with opinions that are orthogonal to the person's ability to do a job or with chains of "logic" that fall apart under the smallest scrutiny (e.g. this CEO disagrees with me on gay marriage, which means he must have bigoted antipathy, possibly subconsciously, against gay people, which means he cannot be relied on to be their boss in a fair way).

Now, one could argue that the benefits of these ideologues, given their ability to still pursue truth thanks to compartmentalization and cognitive dissonance, outweighs the harms of them also laundering ideological falsities under the label of truth, as well as the harms of the continued self-discrediting of academia due to placing trust in someone who's ideologically committed against fundamental principles of academia, and therefore, these people ought not be "canceled" from academia. The strength of that argument would depend heavily on the specifics of the benefits and harm. But that's a different argument than one around symmetry.

chains of "logic" that fall apart under the smallest scrutiny

This is kinda how your argument about the contents of the letter reads to me. It is certainly how it would read to anyone to my left. The impossibility of neutrally adjudicating which "chains of logic" of that type hold up, and which don't, is precisely why we need a society-wide norm that no arguments of that form will be considered, under any circumstances. I could as easily argue that no religious people should be allowed to work in STEM, because if they believe in miracles, their epistemology is clearly compromised in a way that is fundamentally incompatible with scientific truth-seeking. That's an argument that feels true to me on a deep level. I really think we'd have better science if all science was done by committed atheists. But I have never and will never advocate for setting such a policy. Arguments of this form are an indiscriminate superweapon that unravels societal trust when anyone starts breaking them out.

More comments

Researchers might have to carefully consider the political leanings of their funding proposals in election years.

This has always been the case. I learned years ago from my professors that when writing a grant proposal under a Democratic administration you say "by improving the electrolyte in this battery we will increase diversity in STEM, lower carbon emissions, and promote gender equality in developing countries" and when writing one under a Republican administration you say "by substituting this zeolite catalyst we will bring jobs to rural areas, ensure American energy independence, and strengthen our national security." While for some (mostly American-born) the former is what they really believe and the latter is just a game they play to hide their power level, for others (many of the foreign-born researchers the current administration seems to want to get rid of) the whole process is just another hoop they need to jump through to continue autistically pursuing their niche interests and they have no true political allegiance.

The main grant for IPAM is already unsuspended anyway (possibly because UCLA bent the knee).

Further, the grant DID fund DEI programs in the past, such as (from the latest annual report):

“PUNDiT: (P)racticum for (Und)ergraduates (i)n Number (T)heory” is a 2-day intensive program which will showcase number theory broadly interpreted at the introductory level. A goal of this program is to expose Southern California students traditionally underrepresented in number theory (such as women and historically marginalized minorities) to the beauty of the subject.

And as tracingwoodgrains points out, Tao already chose a side His complaints about "political directives" ring hollow.

Isn't UCLA's math department built on ancestral and unceded land violently stolen from the Tongva by white settler colonialists? By actually dismantling oppressive structures instead of just giving lip service, Trump is implementing the woke program.

I'm a bit more sympathetic to Tao: he lives and works in a milieu where not signing that letter would have made many of his colleagues and students (maybe even his wife) shun him; and if he didn't, he would absolutely have been hounded and targeted to to make some statement because of his stature. He still had more agency in the matter than most, but it's a mitigating factor. Do we condemn Kolmogorov?

Do we condemn Kolmogorov?

Scott doesn't. I do.

Do we condemn Kolmogorov?

Sure. Appeals not to generally devolve into special pleading that are categorically rejected in other contexts.

Kolmogorov complicity is still complicity, and it was specifically complicity with, for, and for prestige within one of the worst authoritarian/totalitarian states of the 20th century. Kolmogorov is not morally absolved by being a stellar mathematician who advanced the field. He has the same sort of moral onus of gifted scientists of other totalitarian regimes, who are routinely condemned.

Terence Tao is guilty of the same level of complicity as Havel's greengrocer - he mouths the enemy's words in order to pass the enemy's loyalty tests and prosper under enemy rule. Kolmogorov went beyond that - he testified as a witness for the prosecution at the show trial of his PhD advisor. Under ordinary western liberal ethics, that is bad. If you think that "traitors to lords and benefactors" (Dante's words for the group he selected for the very lowest circle of Hell) share the basic nature of Judas (as Dante and all the ancients did), then it is unforgiveable. A new regime that is for maths but against Communism offers Tao his job back, but not Kolmogorov. I suspect part of what is going on here is that the MAGA base is against maths as well as Communism.

Do we know Tao is just mouthing the words? Some of the stuff I saw linked made an argument he is 100% down with such things.

Do we condemn Kolmogorov?

I don't condemn enemy conscripts. "The enemy" is not necessarily synonymous with "evil", and that's something lots of people have forgotten (the Nazis are a foundation of how the American Empire justifies its right to rule to itself, so it's kind of unavoidable)- if my enemy forces all of its constituent parts to, for example, wear a blue shirt or die, I don't blame anyone for putting the blue shirt on [whether or not they share all of my enemy's goals is irrelevant].

Yet, I don't think friendly forces are evil for killing them either- even in an environment where the enemy has intentionally frustrated identification of those who cause the enemy's cause (those who would rather die before ceasing to be the enemy), and those who would abandon those principles to not be dead (this includes those who only joined for the meals).

It is not, and cannot be, the enemy's fault that circumstances forced your uniform upon you; your only hope is that your own side advances its interests in such a way that your enemies do not decide to violently destroy you if and when they obtain the power to do so.

He does not necessarily deserve the consequences of being an enemy (contra traditionalist thought, where he does), but at the same time it is not immoral to destroy enemies (contra progressive thought, where it is), so I guess it depends on what you actually mean by "condemn".

I'm a bit more sympathetic to Tao: he lives and works in a milieu where not signing that letter would have made many of his colleagues and students (maybe even his wife) shun him;

"Letter? What letter? Oh there was an email? I must have missed it. Can you send it again I'll definitely put it at the top of my queue for sure."

Academics are absolute masters at ghosting and dodging, as everyone who has set foot in a school can attest to. And I'm 100% confident that there are plenty of other UCLA professors who didn't sign the letter. So given that he didn't just ignore it, he's fully responsible for the consequences of signing that letter.

Edit: I'm not going to bother checking the entire list, but the very first 2 professors in the math department aren't on the letter: https://web.archive.org/web/20200807214114/https://www.math.ucla.edu/people/ladder

I don't see anybody in my field there, either.

That's pretty convincing that he wasn't merely coasting along but more enthusiastic (or, at least, more hopeful of positioning himself for more spoils) than the average. Quite disappointing: I had a recollection of him speaking against the new equity based California math standards, which improved my opinion of him, but I can't find that anywhere so I must be misattributing. Sad.

He did good finding that letter but Trace is definitely a huge tool for not posting the actual link - I believe this is correct: http://atripati.bol.ucla.edu/May2020AntiRacismLetter.htm

If you don't want to fall prey to politics, don't let your institution get stacked by political actors.

Most long lived institutions have to learn this. Universities used to understand it. And then they didn't. Here's the outcome.

It doesn't matter that Tao's smart, it doesn't even matter that his work is useful to humanity. Universities aligned themselves with one side of the friend-enemy distinction, that side lost, therefore they must suffer. There is no other way that this can go. This isn't me saying that it is good that this happens, merely that it is a law of nature.

Next time, fight the militants that are trying to use your university for political ends and win. Defeat has consequences.

Universities aligned themselves with one side of the friend-enemy distinction, that side lost, therefore they must suffer.

Sure, since 2000, campuses really doubled down on social justice.

But that is only half of the story. The other half is that MAGA has fully embraced anti-intellectualism.

Granted, the wokes were certainly not great for intellectual honesty. They had some topics where they had ideological blinders -- anything related to women, race, DEI. Any genuine intellectual had to either learn Kolmogorov complicity (like Scott Aaronson) or be an independent and contrary figure (like Scott Alexander).

From what I can tell, MAGA has little use for intellect. Take the previous Republican president, GWB. He was also not an intellectual giant (though likely smarter than his opponents painted him as). But his policies were written by smart people in conservative think tanks. I disagree with a lot of his policies -- mainly his wars and torture prisons, but I would probably also disagree about his tax policy if I read up on it -- but his policies were at least coherent.

Not so with Trump. His tariff announcements were simply some underling of his asking ChatGPT for the trade deficits with various countries. While he certainly has an uncanny ability for showmanship, he does not have a political vision apart from becoming president and getting the peace Nobel. He is against immigrants because that is what his voters want.

A lot of politicians are opportunistic to some degree. But most pick up the spoken and unspoken rules. With Trump, I have the feeling that he is playing president simulator and skipping through all the dialog and ignoring the world-building. Take J6. If he had read the supplemental material, he would have known that the coup game mechanics work different in POTUS2016 than in Tropico, and just telling his followers to "stop the steal" would be futile. But he does not care about the finer points. He wants to be a beloved king, whatever the Americans call him. (He can't be playing a tabletop because any self-respecting DM would have either stopped his character or walked out. On the other hand, it is bizarre that the game designers even included a dialog option to criticize Zelenskyy for not wearing a suit.)

I think that even in the GWB era, the universities were mostly left-leaning. But they also knew that Bush needed the US to keep its technological advantage for his new American century grand strategy or whatever. With Trump, all bets are off. That guy put an anti-vaxxer in charge of the health department, not out of personal conviction or even because it was a big campaign promise, but just on a whim. Whatever research is done in the STEM departments of universities, and however useful it is to either humanity or the US in particular, it is likely less beneficial than vaccine development.

In short, the universities had quite a few bad reasons to be against Trump (e.g. SJ), but they also had a lot of excellent reasons to be against him. I also do not think any big university will fully suck up to Trump, e.g. giving him a honorary doctorate (which would work great -- a pompous celebration of Trump is just what he is waiting for).

Granted, the wokes were certainly not great for intellectual honesty. They had some topics where they had ideological blinders -- anything related to women, race, DEI.

You are a master of understatement.

Any genuine intellectual had to either learn Kolmogorov complicity (like Scott Aaronson)

With intellectuals like these, who needs anti-intellectuals? While I disagree with Alexander's take on complicity, I can at least understand where he's coming from in theory. Aaronson, with his persecution complex, groveling to people who hate him, and who attributes his desire to have children entirely to spite, does not strike me as someone capable of doing anything worthwhile with that complicity. It is not a matter of convenience or strategy for him.

On the other hand, it is bizarre that the game designers even included a dialog option to criticize Zelenskyy for not wearing a suit.

The best part of the AO with Chris Christie was the anecdote near the end, Chris talking about Trump trying to do his makeup at some campaign event. The man cares about appearances, in his way.

I also do not think any big university will fully suck up to Trump, e.g. giving him a honorary doctorate

Like Trump, the universities that "matter" are way too prideful to do anything so strategic. And to be fair, the big ones are probably correct that they can play out the clock instead. That said, that does suggest exactly where they find their telos these decrepit days.

They won't understand it, because they're convinced that this doesn't count as 'politics' but as the principle of basic human dignity, or some BS like that.

You have been warned repeatedly to stop putting words in other peoples' mouths. Especially when it comes to low-effort dismissals like this. Or like half of your comments over the last month.

Three day ban.

  • -10

Without “some BS” this seems like a clearly true and factual statement. I can certainly dig up a number of “‘political correctness’ is just basic decency” quotes.

Yes, there were a number of things he could have done to make his comment more accurate, charitable, or defensible.

People understand it's political. That's why the claim is often that science is always political so you're either for good things or for bad things.

But simply stating "I thought we were on the verge of a thousand year woke reich and would never face consequences (but I certainly would if I defected)" is unflattering.

People understand it's political.

I mean, not all of them. There are definitely SJWs who believe that SJ doesn't count as politics but indeed "just common fucking decency"*, although there are certainly others who'll yell at anyone who thinks it's possible to be apolitical.

And, of course, it's practically a defining attribute of the social justice movement that it considers basically all its positions not just mere political issues.

*You've got to remember - until Musk broke the dam by buying Twitter, SJ's massive gaslighting operation to manufacture apparent consensus by banning everyone who disagreed from the virtual public square was actually working pretty well on a lot of people. Something that "everyone" agrees on doesn't look very political.

I mean, not all of them. There are definitely SJWs who believe that SJ doesn't count as politics but indeed "just common fucking decency"*, although there are certainly others who'll yell at anyone who thinks it's possible to be apolitical.

I think the "personal/everything is political" is a better explanation of the mindset than "just common fucking decency". Especially because it's paired with a sort of almost gnostic/mystery cult mentality. The Onion parody of the general mindet of "if only you were educated as I was" is instructive: "just decency" doesn't require induction into a political discipline.

"It's just decency" can be taken as an attempt to build consensus that ran out of control, precisely because of the dynamics you note.

Terry Tao gives all of the great reasons why we like science. And hes right on those reasons. But he does not give the reason why his funding was cut. Which is odd, he is a smart guy, but reading his letter you get the impression that Trump / the NSF just came in and randomly cut his funding. He actually say this himself:

This is not because of a negative scientific assessment of the work, but instead by seemingly arbitrary justifications.

[Side note: very lame Terry. Your entire funding just got gutted, and you can't even nut up enough to say it was "arbitrary", just "seemingly arbitrary". Weak.]

Anyways, it just seemed odd that UCLA got its funding cut for no reason, the admin has been sending letters to colleges outlining its reasons. So I looked, and this is what I found. I took it from the link to the lawsuit below, where the Trump NSF letter to UCLA is reprinted.

The U.S. National Science Foundation (NSF) has undertaken a review of its award portfolio. The agency has determined that suspension of certain awards is necessary because they are not in alignment with current NSF priorities and/or programmatic goals. NSF understands that [UCLA] continues to engage in race discrimination including in its admissions process, and in other areas of student life, as well as failing to promote a research environment free of antisemitism and bias. We have considered reliance interests and they are outweighed by the NSF’s policy concerns.

Effective immediately, the attached awards are suspended until further notice.

NSF is issuing this suspension to protect the interests of the government pursuant to NSF Grant General Conditions (GC-1) term and condition entitled ‘Termination and Enforcement,’ on the basis that the awards no longer effectuate program goals or agency priorities. This is the final agency decision and not subject to appeal.

Costs incurred as a result of this suspension may be reimbursed, provided such costs would otherwise be allowable under the terms of the award and the governing cost principles. In accordance with your award terms and conditions, you have 30 days from the suspension date to furnish an itemized accounting of allowable costs incurred prior to the suspension date.

The lawsuit gives details on claims/allegations from a second NSF / Trump letter:

• UCLA engages in racism, in the form of illegal race-based preferences in admissions practices;

• UCLA fails to promote a research environment free of antisemitism and bias;

• UCLA discriminates against and endangers women by allowing men in women’s sports and private women-only spaces

What does Terrance Tao say about these allegations? Nothing. Totally ignores them. Doesn't acknowledge them.

I am sympathetic to the argument he makes. But he is willfully blind to the larger systemic issues in his employer and university system at large. UCLA has been told over and over again to stop doing affirmative action. Its the law. And in response UCLA just sticks its fingers in its ears and mumbles something about holistic admissions and does it anyways. Which, to be fair, got them by with doing what the wanted to do for the last few decades.

But not anymore. Sorry Terry.

https://calmatters.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/08/9e9d118f-51fb-4e98-a9c0-fa060ea131ad.pdf

  • UCLA engages in racism, in the form of illegal race-based preferences in admissions practices;

Affirmative action is a bad thing. One might argue that forcing universities to adjust admission rules through threats of withholding research funding is also bad. OTOH, this is something I could have seen the Obama administration doing as well if the admission rules were against their ideology.

  • UCLA fails to promote a research environment free of antisemitism and bias;

"bias" seem extreme weak-sauce. Everyone is biased. Of course, sometimes biases are bad, but that would require going very much into the specifics.

The antisemitism thing is more plausible. Of course, for Nethanyahu, anyone who criticizes him is an antisemite, which is a great way to get people not to care about antisemitism.

Personally, I think that if the UCLA does not want to deal with Israeli institutions, that is ok. If they want to allow students to burn Israeli flags, that is also defendable. However, they do have a duty to protect their students and staff from verbal or physical attacks. If they turned a blind eye to Jews or Israeli citizens getting singled out and attacked, that would be bad.

  • UCLA discriminates against and endangers women by allowing men in women’s sports and private women-only spaces

Discrimination in sports? Like 73% of the NBA players being black? There are no level playing fields in sports. You can compensate for some genetic advantages (like high testosterone), but then the people who win will simply win through other genetic advantages. That does not mean that trans women in women's sports are necessarily good, but just that yelling "help, help, I am being oppressed" is just not a thing you do in sports. Are transwomen even winning most competitions?

And the "endangering women" thing is even worse. Are there credible accusations of people abusing their trans status to rape or grope women in their protected spaces, above the base rate? This seems to be a moral panic like the D&D satanism thing.

Yup. This is what I proposed six months ago. Later, I got showered in downvotes when I said maybe, perhaps, they should do something like this, targeting the institutions and policies in a way that could actually affect change rather than using 'indiscriminate chemotherapy' on academia. Tons of people here seem to have bought into the idea that the entire university system is 'enemy' and must be destroyed rather than changing their behavior.

I find that perspective mostly ignorant of theoretical premises, instead jumping in at the level of 'grunt'. That is, one should start by considering the conceptual nature of war. Clauswitz and all; politics by other means. Even modern political science treatments talk about war with the phrase "coercive bargaining". You actually have a goal that you want to accomplish. Usually that goal is not to simply genocide a people.1 It may be that war or the threat of war furthers that political/bargaining objective.

Now, it's only after elites think that war or the threat of war may further their political/bargaining objective that you start propagandizing the proles about the other side being the 'enemy' that must simply be eliminated. Their weak minds lap that drivel up, likely blind to the political/bargaining objectives that are underlying the entire endeavor in the first place. These are the 'grunts'.

Early on, from what I could tell from the grapevine, they were genuinely just blowing up shit randomly. From what I heard, there was no rhyme or reason that could be discerned; just some random things getting cut randomly, without any meaningful reason attached. Like if some private was suddenly thrust into generalship, not even knowing the terminology or how the systems worked to align efforts with the objective. Such a private would, understandably, make all sorts of random decisions with random and unpredictable effects. Some here were happy with that pathway, with the aforementioned analogy to 'indiscriminate chemotherapy'.

Now, it seems like the administration has either gotten up to speed or put someone in charge who actually knows how to be a general. They might still not be perfect at it, but I'm glad they're at least trying something more like my six month old suggestion. Concerning Tao, specifically, I wrote previously on how this affects individual incentives:

Moreover, it also changes the individual incentives. If you're a hard sciencer who doesn't give a shit about wokeness, you might still find yourself accepting a job at a woke-ass uni, because that might be the place that really enables you to get grants, have equipment/space, top students, whatever. If suddenly, it doesn't matter what you personally do/don't do in your research, but staying at a woke uni means you're forbidden from getting grants, while moving to a cleaned up uni means gravy train, the unis that manage to clean house are going to get showered in top tier talent. No more unis managing to somehow attract some set of possibly politically-neutral, bank-making talent that they skim from to fund their crazy wokies.

1 - Possibly one might have a goal for which genociding a people is the most effective means by which to attain one's goal. Without getting into that conversation too deeply, the actual end being served is still not the actual genocide.

UCLA is alleged to be violating actual black letter law. Do you think Bob jones shouldn’t’ve been forced to integrate?

Affirmative action is a bad thing. One might argue that forcing universities to adjust admission rules through threats of withholding research funding is also bad. OTOH, this is something I could have seen the Obama administration doing as well if the admission rules were against their ideology.

Your last sentence is the most relevant. I'm fairly sure there are actual rules (if not statutes) under Title IV of the Civil Rights Act which disallow Federal research funding to schools which engage in racial discrimination. This is not some new thing; it's just Trump using it against schools who discriminate against whites and Asians and Jews instead of just "underrepresented minorities". You can't (in a morally consistent way) nuke Hiroshima and Nagasaki and then call "no nukes" when the Japanese take out New York and Chicago. Of course, the Japanese didn't have any nukes, and the affirmative action people thought the Republicans didn't have any weapons either. They were wrong.

UCLA fails to promote a research environment free of antisemitism and bias;

"bias" seem extreme weak-sauce. Everyone is biased. Of course, sometimes biases are bad, but that would require going very much into the specifics.

I expect you'll find that "bias" here has some specific technical meaning.

The antisemitism thing is more plausible. Of course, for Nethanyahu, anyone who criticizes him is an antisemite, which is a great way to get people not to care about antisemitism.

I'm pretty sure nobody's being called an antisemite by the Department of Education for criticizing Bibi. There may be questionable cases but they won't go that far. I suspect the antisemitism thing is largely because the institutions (both universities and enforcement bureaucracies) haven't been purged of Jews nor even pro-Israeli Jews (though the latter has likely been keeping its head down at the worst places), so it gets Trump some internal support. Of course, Trump's personal connection to pro-Israeli Jews is also part of it.

Discrimination in sports? Like 73% of the NBA players being black?

UCLA is not, of course, responsible for the NBA. Trump here is referring to Title IX gender discrimination, not racial discrimination, anyway. The rules (again, not statutes -- Title IX has been extended beyond reason by rulemaking and court decisions) require as much money to be spent on women's programs as on men, so Trump is on pretty solid ground if men are taking advantage of women's programs with the university's connivance.

You can't (in a morally consistent way) nuke Hiroshima and Nagasaki and then call "no nukes" when the Japanese take out New York and Chicago.

But I can object when the previously-nuked side runs on a platform of nuclear disarmament (i.e. cancel culture is bad, free speech must be protected), and then, the moment it wins, starts nuking its enemies instead (i.e. just try to cancel the left harder)

You could, if you were able to point out where it happened.

Trump very much did not run on nuclear disarmament. The mild respectable Romney types haven’t been in charge for a while. I’m sure Romney would let UCLA get away with discriminating against Asians and Jews. But Trump and his ilk are not hypocrites for punching back.

Trump has definitely spoken about cancel culture in terms that clearly pointed to the means themselves as being disgraceful, not just the ends.

We must reclaim our independence from the left’s repressive mandates. Americans are exhausted trying to keep up with the latest list of approved words and phrases, and the ever-more restrictive political decrees. (…) The goal of cancel culture is to make decent Americans live in fear of being fired, expelled, shamed, humiliated, and driven from society as we know it. The far-left wants to coerce you into saying what you know to be FALSE, and scare you out of saying what you know to be TRUE. (…) We will appoint prosecutors, judges, and justices who believe in enforcing the LAW – not their own political agenda. We will ensure equal justice for citizens of every race, religion, color and creed. We will uphold your religious liberty, and defend your Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms.

There just isn't a reasonable reading of that speech where he's saying that the "firing, expelling, shaming, humiliating"-style tactics are neutral weapons that he intends to use just as much once he wins. What he told his voters in that speech was "the Left has made a mockery of true freedom and equality; Americans are rightly exhausted by the climate of fear and hypocrisy; vote for me and I will restore true normalcy and freedom, with genuinely de-politicized institutions and true equality before the law". He was definitely not saying "vote for me and I'll fire, expel, shame, terrify, humiliate and drive out anyone who disagrees with me".

Granted, that was 2020 and I don't recall if/whether he made similar statements during the last election. If your point is that he'd already given up on those principles by 2024… I guess I can't disprove that, but that's somewhat besides the point. The point is that he was saying this stuff a few years ago, and I approved of that for all that I've always disagreed with much of his platform, and now he's falling far short of that promise. It isn't that I'm surprised, but I am disappointed.

I don't think Trump was running as a classical liberal. Those guys were pretty much successfully extinguished by the last decade. The joke is no longer "imagine if the roles we're reversed", it's "we're going to kill you".

If you successfully destroy the disarmament party, you can't object that the nukemback party wins.

UCLA isn't being punished for its speech. The grants are being revoked in accordance with a long-standing legal precedent that allows the Federal government to take away public money from institutions that illegally discriminate on the basis of race. The only difference between previous applications of this strategy and the present one is the race of the people being illegally discriminated against.

The First Amendment does not actually guarantee the rights of large institutions to discriminate against Asian kids.

Oh, I was arguing under the premise that Tao was indeed being targeted for signing the open letter etc., with the discrimination thing as a handy cudgel. I am open to a factual argument that this is not the case, and have no objection to UCLA being punished for discrimination against Asian kids; I am generally against affirmative action. But lots of people in this conversation were saying "well if Tao was punished for signing the letter, it serves him right" and I find that to be a position worth arguing against even if that's not the fact of the matter in this particular instance.

People on this forum are arguing that Tao deserves to be caught in the blast radius because of his speech, but that's separate from the formal legal justification that the Executive used for its actions against UCLA. Freedom of speech is about what powerful institutions are and are not allowed to do, not about whether individuals who suffer misfortune did or did not have it coming.

When Terence Tao is being treated like James Watson or Tim Hunt, THEN you can give me a villain speech about cancel culture. Not before.

Discrimination in sports? Like 73% of the NBA players being black? There are no level playing fields in sports. You can compensate for some genetic advantages (like high testosterone), but then the people who win will simply win through other genetic advantages.

Precisely. If we let everyone play, women would simply be shut out.

Which is why women's sports gives women a place to play that they otherwise wouldn't have, society has decided that 50% of the population being mostly locked out is bad, even if we don't care that Michael Phelps crushes the dreams of all his male competitors daily. There are critiques of Title IX and how it's interpreted wrt what counts as a "sport" but the plain purpose was not to facilitate males destroying the whole point of having female sports.

There's no point in trying to even have a philosophical discussion about which biological advantages society decides counts: what they're doing is just against the law. There's already a law passed to protect women's sports and many universities are simply acting against those rules. That they may feel coerced by a past administration to do it simply says that that administration was also wrong.

If you want to have that debate push for another law and we can have a real discussion on the merits of mixing sports, with a positive case made for this stuff outside of bogus definitional arguments and suicide threats, instead of skin-suiting Title IX and then pushing the burden of proof unto the side that wants to stick to it as it was.

And the "endangering women" thing is even worse. Are there credible accusations of people abusing their trans status to rape or grope women in their protected spaces, above the base rate?

Can you explain your thought process here? Like...why is it that people always go to "a trans person wouldn't abuse their trans status"?

Besides the obvious problems with this, it's a bit akin to saying there's no problem waving through Orthodox Jews in airport security because Jews aren't as likely to do suicide bombings. The point is obviously that weakening the standard allows any bad actor to exploit the situation because trans status isn't exactly based on having completed surgeries now.

This seems self-evident to me. But it is not to a whole swath of people, the question is why we have a gap here.

I was going to suggest that it's caused by priming but OP did say "men in women's spaces" not "transwomen in women's spaces" so I don't even have that explanation.

And the "endangering women" thing is even worse. Are there credible accusations of people abusing their trans status to rape or grope women in their protected spaces, above the base rate? This seems to be a moral panic like the D&D satanism thing.

It's actually a physics thing. The nature of most common team sports in America is such that, if college aged trained athletes attempted to play at the best of their abilities in mixed-sex format, the odds of the women being injured due to inevitable contact with men who are far bigger and faster than them skyrockets relative to just women-only. If we decided to mix the NBA and WNBA and have them play in mixed format, that would also endanger women, ie the WNBA players. No rape or groping required or implied.


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