site banner
PaperclipPerfector  3mo ago (text post)   26273 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of March 9, 2026

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.

3
Bottom New Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Lots of discussion in the last few weeks on the dating recession, and I wanted to add another (anecdotal) data point to the pile.

I've been swing dancing here in Baltimore on and off for about the last three years (started in 2024 after my girlfriend broke up with me). Initially classes and actual dancing were heavily female dominated, often at ratios of 5:4 or even 3:2. This year that has completely changed: my class tonight was short 11 follows in a class of ~30 total people, meaning the ratio of men to women is about 2:1. The instructors managed to get some more advanced people to drop in to help out as follows, but half of them were dudes who wanted to learn the follow part. This was roughly true in the last session of the class as well although not as pronounced.

What I hypothesize that has happened is the message that dating apps don't seem to work has trickled down to the male part of the population. Around the same amount of women are taking this class as in the before times (2024), but the number of men has almost doubled. Men are starting out to try and meet people in real life again! Which is awesome. But for whatever reason, this hasn't happened with women.

I'm not entirely sure why this is, because dating apps don't seem to particularly work for women either. Maybe the illusion of abundance is enough to keep them from thinking that they need to meet people in real life? Maybe they're all in a situationship with the same man (lol)? Maybe women just have stronger social connections in general and don't need to do something like dancing to meet people?

Thoughts TheMotte?

Dating is anti-inductive. A parable:

Back in the early days of Tinder it was common for women to mention that they love to watch tv, specifically Netflix. There wasn't any subtext to this. That was in fact what they loved to do, and so they put it on their dating profile. Men, wanting to get laid, responded by also putting how much they loved Netflix on their dating profile, and by asking women they matched with to "Netflix and chill".

This did not result in previously unheard of numbers of interest-matched couples forming relationships. It resulted in the word "Netflix" or "tv" becoming a gigantic red flag.

I've observed it multiple times over the last 4 years.

Any space that is likely to have attractive, single females to interact with in a group setting will quickly draw males who want to interact with such women, and inherently, more guys show up for this explicit purpose. So there DOES NOT exist any mythical IRL space where a straight guy can enter and find a favorable gender ratio to work with. Other than a college campus, perhaps. Other males would notice and also come to exploit it.

This creates the gender imbalance, and the attention/distraction gets overwhelming for some of the women, who might stop showing up altogether (or go to events specifically reserved for women).

This further throws off the Gender imbalance, and also might block new women from joining. No woman is seeking out a space because she heard it had an excess of single guys. And even if some of the guys give up and leave, there'll be plenty more new guys coming in to try their luck, so this imbalance can persist for a while.

So the only women who continue show up are extraordinarily confident... or already have partners. This is maybe the final blow, when the remaining pool of women are already partnered, and drag their partners in with them so that the actual ratio of single women to men is even worse than it appears.

So you can legitimately have like 5+ single guys for every 1-2 single women in attendance.

This happens in any space that doesn't intentionally filter by gender.

I've also commented on the difficulty of getting women to show up to social gatherings even when directly invited. If there aren't other women already going, they're less likely to show up themselves. Even when they claim to want to go they have a decent chance of flaking.

The ability to ensure that a certain number of attractive women will be present is thus very, very valuable.

Most spaces/events don't have someone with this capability.

I'm not entirely sure why this is, because dating apps don't seem to particularly work for women either. Maybe the illusion of abundance is enough to keep them from thinking that they need to meet people in real life? Maybe they're all in a situationship with the same man (lol)? Maybe women just have stronger social connections in general and don't need to do something like dancing to meet people?

Partially that they seem to have female friend groups that they can spend time with.

Partially because a lot of women, esp. those with anxiety and other mental issues, find it easier to just stay home and binge Netflix or play games online and build "communities" in Discord or similar.

I know of an upsetting number of women whose lives are basically "work/school, outings for shopping and then... staying in at home, nose shoved in their phone with a TV show on background." They're being 'social' in that they're texting/chatting with a bunch of people, but their actual social presence IRL is virtually nil, and it is VERY hard to coax them out of this cocoon.

Ask me how I know. Female shut-ins are an increasing phenomenon, I think.

And because the underlying logic of romance is "men chase, women select," guess what happens if women don't make themselves 'available'? Men have fewer people to chase, and women have no pressure to take any 'active' steps to find someone.

Also a lot of women don't understand how to do the intermediary stages of the dance where they make themselves available but also do some mild shit testing. Or atleast conduct it in a sane way.

I've been involved in multiple conversations with single friends of my wife where they're forlorn over some potential beau not leading hard when they've dropped the handkerchief via liking 2 IG stories and stonewalling DMs. Literally seen women crying over failing to inspire hot pursuit vis texting conduct on their part that, to me if received from an online dating match would have me assume that they're soft dumping me.

I've been involved in multiple conversations with single friends of my wife where they're forlorn over some potential beau not leading hard when they've dropped the handkerchief via liking 2 IG stories and stonewalling DMs. Literally seen women crying over failing to inspire hot pursuit

Most agentic and emotionally resilient young women.

They’ve more than done their part in deigning to perform the Herculean emotional labor of liking 2 IG stories and stonewalling DMs. Men are supposed to read their minds and know when and how to message them and court jester for them.

Exactly plus it's like... On a scale of 1-10 where 10 is a marriage proposal and 1 is a restraining order I'd have read these messages as a 2.5/10 at best and desisted from further pursuit if I'd been the recipient.

I feel like I'm only successfully married now since my wife is essentially male-brained and met me in the middle in terms of communication

lso a lot of women don't understand how to do the intermediary stages of the dance where they make themselves available but also do some mild shit testing

Yep, separate but related issue. Young women don't know how to flirt, nor how to gracefully reject advances (or reject them in a way that encourages future attempts). I used to think it was just me being autistic, but nah. Often the signal just isn't there.

when they've dropped the handkerchief via liking 2 IG stories and stonewalling DMs. Literally seen women crying over failing to inspire hot pursuit vis texting conduct on their part that, to me if received from an online dating match would have me assume that they're soft dumping me.

REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

I've also taken the initiative to push forward whenever I see any positive sign of interest whatsoever and gotten HARD rejected when I finally cross whatever threshold of comfort the woman apparently held in her mind. There's no push-pull. Its just me pushing pushing pushing then an ABRUPT pull away when some arbitrary line is crossed.

Like, I've legitimately heard a woman say that even viewing someone's IG/Snap Stories should be an actual hint, but then you follow up on such things and try to ask to meet up in person and they are suddenly super busy and can't make the time. Because guess what, in person you're expected to use your words and physical touch and you're not 'protected' by a digital barrier of plausible deniability any longer.

Something about the dopamine hit of being desired and getting the other party to express interest being enough stimulation, then the actual stress/tension of actually reciprocating interest seems to snag many of them.

I'm reminded of a platonic female friend of mine who had this like 6 month crush on her boss and was eternally talking about how she wished he'd do all sorts of 50 Shades activities with her.

Then he made one like off-color milquetoast but not like insane joke at the end of a meeting and she instantly icked on him/wanted to take him to HR. A certain part of female sexuality is wanting to be the proverbial dog barking behind a fence who doesn't do anything when let out, but some of the instant 180s I've seen as a third party are jaw dropping.

This is my diagnosis.

There's a solid number of women who are absolutely down to clown if you get them in the mood. They don't just talk the talk.

But many, MANY of them get engrossed in the fantasy, they read the romantasy books, watch the shows and movies, maybe even watch the porn, and will engage in massive amounts of dirty talk, digitally, but are terrified of having the actual physical interaction. Maybe they dip a toe in and then immediately retreat back to the safe, comfortable world of fiction.

And in some cases, if you end up part of their fantasy world, and then break that fantasy in some way, either from rejecting them, or giving them the ick, or, hell, you actually help them act on the urges but your performance isn't up to snuff (good luck living up to minotaur standards), and they get incandescently angry at you.

Something about the collapsing of the ideal they imagined to the dirtier, lacklustre reality leads to disappointment that manifests as anger.

Its something like accepted knowledge that women get off way more on the mental side of sex whereas men, despite being very visual, really need physical interaction to be completely sated. Hence why strip clubs for women aren't really a thing. And current tech is much more catered towards entertaining the mental aspects of sexuality, whilst keeping the physical at a 'safe' distance. So I'd guess many women now have a completely enclosed, fantasy-centric approach to their pleasure, and the thought of making the jump to realspace is daunting.

Then he made one like off-color milquetoast but not like insane joke at the end of a meeting and she instantly icked on him/wanted to take him to HR.

To what extend would you guess that this ick was motivated by having a crush on him that was unrequited for 6 months? As a third party reading a second-hand text description, it appears to me like cliche-level sour-grapes behavior.

This was like still during the crush, though. If I recall correctly the joke was something like that they were traveling together and there was enough of an age gap that a coworker remarked it'd look like a father and a daughter then he said something to the effect of he'd hope he's in good enough shape that she'd look like a second wife

This was like still during the crush, though.

If anything, that makes the "sour grapes" scenario far more likely.

Ah, the joke being about her and the age gap makes this more intelligible.

A certain part of female sexuality is wanting to be the proverbial dog barking behind a fence who doesn't do anything when let out, but some of the instant 180s I've seen as a third party are jaw dropping.

I can understand changing your opinion on your coworker because he makes an off-color joke, but what I find genuinely hard to understand is the having of a months-long intense sexual crush on your boss and telling your friends you want to do BDSM with him. That's wild.

I know of an upsetting number of women whose lives are basically "work/school, outings for shopping and then... staying in at home, nose shoved in their phone with a TV show on background." They're being 'social' in that they're texting/chatting with a bunch of people, but their actual social presence IRL is virtually nil, and it is VERY hard to coax them out of this cocoon.

Ask me how I know. Female shut-ins are an increasing phenomenon, I think.

I don't know if it's increasing, but it's certainly a contributor to every public social space being a sausage-fest. "The elites don't want you to know this, but women are only 20-30% of the population" might not be factually accurate, but it's directionally correct.

I sometimes ask LLMs to do Fermi estimates on the number of single women in the U.S. who meet certain sets of criteria in terms of their eligibility as a partner.

Those results are usually disheartening on their own. But I haven't dared ask what percentage of those women are actually 'on the market' in any real sense, that is, available such that you might encounter them if your social surface area is reasonably large.

I fear that a relatively chaste/modest, low maintenance woman is also less likely to be out and about and open to meeting people. If you do see them in the real world you'll pass like ships in the night. AI boyfriends might exacerbate this.

I go to restaurants and bars these days and the phenomenon of "woman sitting by herself but dressed up like she wants attention" doesn't seem to be a thing (if it ever was?). You see older adults (in my area, anyway), a few mixed groups, usually one (1) lady's group sitting all together, and a smattering of couples or lone dudes.

More and more young adults living with parents gives a hint here.

Last year I encountered an extremely tragic case of a young lady, cute, petite but pleasantly curvaceous, smart, but her entire life was just working in her parents' business, taking classes, then home to live with her parents, where she played LoL or Overwatch until like 1 a.m.. If she went out it was usually with the same 3 people. Desperately seemed to want a relationship, but didn't know a damn thing about flirting and... get this... at age 25 her mother still controlled her bank account.

I don't think she realized how much of a honking red flag that last bit was, a guy won't want to date a woman whose mother has that much sway over her life at that age. She didn't get out to social events often enough to meet many guys, and wouldn't know how to converse with them if she did. And, alas, she turned my own offer/request for a date down.

She's like 80% of the way to being the complete package for a stable, friendly type of guy, but I daresay she'll hit 30 without a serious relationship under her belt unless she gets out from under Mom's thumb and puts herself out there while avoiding the pitfalls of modern romance.

Or mom makes her put herself out there until she goes out with someone. It happens.

From what I've seen, mom is the source of the problem, wants to control her so she doesn't get into trouble but also wants to be 'best friends' with her.

The habits she's built up are probably quite set now.

This happens in any space that doesn't intentionally filter by gender.

Larger social dance events like full weekends of workshops and parties are one of the few places that does this obviously and explicitly and still gets away with it, by selling "leader passes" and "follower passes".

Turn up as a male follower. They exist (and are getting more popular), usually taken by experienced men who want a new challenge (it also helps you understand the leader steps better if you know what your follower has to endure when you do a certain figure).

Yes, it's very useful for skill development, and it's really fun dancing with women who know both roles and can pass the lead back and forth during a song.

Isn’t Pilates very female and very attractive for the most part but does not have men showing up?

Does pilates encourage interaction between the participants?

And ask any given woman what she thinks of random straight guys showing up to her pilates class.

When I lived in a city, I used to go to yoga 3x a week. The intro classes were generally 60% women, but intermediate/advanced classes could be 10-16 women and 1-2 men.

For the intermediate classes, the other regular guy and I would show up early, BS some, set up our spots, and start doing some warm-ups. A few women would trickle in. 30 seconds before class started, 6-10 women would show up and unroll their mats. The second class ended, they'd roll up their mats and bolt.

Other dude was a married 50something grandfather. I was in a relationship and not looking. I barely talked to anyone besides him. The two of us were hardly putting out predator vibes. Even so, a good half of the women attending class were like frightened gazelles approaching the watering hole. Some had rings on, some didn't, but some without might've been married and just avoiding a ring for comfort during class. Even so, some of them must've been single.

I always wonder just how many of the single ones complained that they couldn't meet anyone, but even in strongly gender-segregated hobby environment, they didn't spend 1 second longer there than they had to.

Yep.

Dance classes/socials at least anticipate that you'll be interacting with the other members, and physically touching them, and getting to show off a skill.

The logic as to why single men would be able to pull attention there is at least sound... if there's a decent gender ratio.

Classes where you just show up, do some work on your own at an instructors behest, then leave without much of a fraternization period might encourage familiarity over the course of time. But that means the guy has to keep showing up, repeatedly, to show he's not just there to pull women, and HOPE that one he finds attractive is open to approach. Not a very active approach angle.

I teach Krav Maga classes at my gym, and when people, especially women, are new they tend to come in two minutes before class, do the class, then bolt, but warm up over time to the social aspect of it. If they don't, they often disappear within a few weeks.

But I've noticed a somewhat unfortunate selection effect where the single ladies who want to take the classes often have sexual assault, stalkers, or similar trauma that compelled them to seek out such training. And they thus have personal issues that make them a little wary of male attention in general.

So ultimately, the sort of event where:

A) Attractive, single women would attend;

B) They're actually actively looking for partners/accept approaches;

C) Aren't damaged goods;

D) Interaction between men and women is encouraged;

and

D) There's a balanced gender ratio.

Just do not seem to exist hardly anywhere, even when people try to intentionally create such spaces.

One's workplace might be good for this but huge risks there.

One's workplace might be good for this but huge risks there.

This one is something of a funny disparity. As an employee at various state government agencies, the hammer of HR has always been hovering, especially with any perceived "power disparity." An attorney dating a legal secretary could expect to be fired if it goes south, even if the attorney wasn't the supervisor. On the other hand, I've seen HR turn a very blind eye to 2 attorneys dating, even when one was the supervisor of the other (until it became so public and such a problem internally that they had to do something). Huge, huge risk for an attorney to date a non-attorney, even if historically that kind of intra-office thing led to marriages.

But small firms? The stories I've heard (from reliable sources) make half of them sound like a continual frat party (especially the ones that are a bunch of solo attorneys or partnerships sharing office space--one I'm very familiar with had a legit "who's the father" freakout among the attorneys with a secretary). This is not all that surprising given the personality types involved, and also that plenty of women get jobs at firms looking for a lawyer husband. You've mentioned being at a small firm, so even if yours is professional, I bet you know of some that aren't (which means you just need to get invited to those holiday parties...).

I have managed to find a balance where I can have a jovial atmosphere around the office, keep morale up by occasionally going out to dinner with staff but otherwise keeping healthy distance such that I don't engage with their personal lives much and definitely don't have text conversations about non work stuff that might lead elsewhere.

That said, since legal assistants tend to either be young women in their early 20's OR older, 50+ ladies, I do see the temptation that arises when you've got a nubile young thing around a bunch of Type A personalities.

I know of at least one attorney who imploded his personal life (not his law practice, funny enough) by getting an assistant pregnant.

We do a Christmas party that involves our other offices every year, and like 5 years back one of the attractive younger assistants got pretty drunk and was hitting on me slyly but openly. The means and opportunity was there, but equal parts concern for my job AND the fact I was still with my ex at the time kept me from acting. In all retrospect, since the assistant left the firm not too long thereafter, and the Ex broke up with me, it probably wouldn't have done much harm in the end. But its the principle of the thing.

It didn't even leave that much impression, since I cannot even remember the assistant's name. Else I might have tried to look her up after the breakup.

My point was it’s not “intentional filtered by gender”. Though there are strong norms against it. Same thing as a girl showing up to a basketball court. Though I am semi-ok with that if they have legitimate game since there are no such thing as an adult female games.

It does kill some male space vibe. And it’s a little weird to play hard against a girl.

As far as I know Pilates does not exclude male participants. But it’s not a thing men have interest in unless maybe your gay.

Men will have interest in it insofar as it can lead to meeting attractive women.

I just think 'you're only doing this to get in my pants' is a reaction women often have when the guy enters the female-oriented space.

Sure. And if you cross a social taboo line without seeming very genuinely interested that’s a reasonable reaction.

I would add it’s very nice having male/female coded spaces. Less of those exists today. I don’t like it when girls join my basketball game. Occasionally it is fine. But if it was 15% female it completely changes male dynamics.

Doesn’t speed dating have a problem with not being able to get enough men?

Not in my local area, distinctly the opposite.

But given the type of woman who signs up for speed dating (read: they aren't getting much attention elsewhere) men may have caught on as to the selection effects at work.

I counter your n=1 anecdata with my n=1 anecdata; I got dragged to dance classes by my girlfriend and our class is (remains? I don’t actually have eyewitness evidence as to the gender ratio pre-2025) heavily female skewed, roughly 3:2 women:men.

Unfortunately(?) it’s not the sort of skew that tests my fidelity; I would rank the quality of IRL women on offer somewhat lower than I would have ranked those on offer on the apps. And with the significant added problem that the apps were designed to solve: namely that IRL, you don’t know if they’re going to be receptive to solicitation, whereas online, you do.

Perhaps, but at any offline event the attendees are physically present and unmediated by anything other than the immediate social standards. You're not limited to one introduction a day, or waiting around for a six word reply that never comes, or seeing only what they looked like five years ago in their best photos, and so on. And while there might be thirty other people at the class there isn't a thousand other people (a number of whom aren't even real) vying for attention as they rotate past on an endless carousel.

Besides that a lot of people can enjoy music and dancing for their own sake. Dating apps not so much. Figuring out a tactful way of assessing whether someone is single seems like a small trade off.

Figuring out a tactful way of assessing whether someone is single seems like a small trade off.

You’d think so, but no, it’s an insurmountable, socially paralysing cliff face for anyone vaguely neurotic (my past self included), especially those who have been involuntarily stewed long enough in the social messaging milieu of “Expressing unwanted romantic interest to a woman is Basically Rape”. But if she’s on an app, then she’s Asking For It so can’t really call you a creeper for cold approaching, can she?

Most people (both here and in wider society) seem to condemn dating apps in The Current Year; I still think they’re fucking great, because - while they certainly have many problems - they also solve many problems.

To be fair, dating apps haven’t gotten me a respectable wife in my half decade of using them, so they have technically failed the assignment. But dating apps have gotten a lot of Zoomer girls into my bed, which is certainly worth partial credit when 6 years ago I was staring down the barrel of incel-dom.

Most people (both here and in wider society) seem to condemn dating apps in The Current Year; I still think they’re fucking great, because - while they certainly have many problems - they also solve many problems.

Yeah, using dating apps to find chicks, sending rideshares via apps to deliver them to your place, and ordering alcohol through app-delivery for the dates, is *chef’s kiss* when it comes to effort efficiency in Current Year. Booze and broads straight to your door.

Born too late to explore the earth, born too early to explore space, but born just in time to lay pipe without having to leave my place or take girls anywhere to monkeydance for them.

To be fair, dating apps haven’t gotten me a respectable wife in my half decade of using them, so they have technically failed the assignment. But dating apps have gotten a lot of Zoomer girls into my bed, which is certainly worth partial credit when 6 years ago I was staring down the barrel of incel-dom.

Partial credit? More like enough extra credit to offset the original failed assignment with bonus points leftover to spare. woody_harrelson_wiping_tears_with_Aplus_report_card.gif

Because women get a steady diet of fear porn about how men are all out to get them(and to be fair, some are. Not all or most, but certainly some). When they've had 'men are malicious and dangerous' pounded into their skulls they'll not go out of their way to meet men. Simple as.

As @Quantumfreakonomics alluded to, a much larger proportion of men are "out to get them" in the sense of a pump-and-dump. Unfortunately, I doubt that their cautious instincts are well-calibrated on average to avoid this, but it is a legitimate cause for concern on their part.

While that’s fair, there’s a pretty easy remedy against the classic pump and dump- don’t sleep with him until you have your relationship. The classic pump and dump scenario might include some deception, but it does not typically imply rape.

Or even better, save it until marriage. Unfortunately, outside of religious communities, that doesn't seem to be the preference of either men nor women.

A coordination problem, you say?

I think two things can be true at once, for example the average man on a dating platform might not be out to get you, but the average man you meet on a date made on that platform might be. The average man who manages to get you agree to sex on the first date is probably not going to be around for a second date.

Basically, the question to ask would be: "If this guy is such a great catch, then why is he single?"

I think there is a large gap between the hottest man (by whatever metric) a given woman might get to have sex with her and the hottest man a given woman might get for a longer term exclusive relationship, and a minority of men use that to be unethical sluts.

An awful lot of women don't actually care, though, except for the implications to their status. I met a very beautiful girl through a friend and she confided in me that her dating-app match had just messaged making it clear he expected her to put out on the first date (in about four hours time). She raged and vented for some time: did he really think she was the kind of girl who would do that?

You've already guessed the punchline. I commiserated with her over the failure of her date plans and she looked at me like I'd dribbled on her shirt. "Obviously I'm going. He's hot," she huffed, and flounced away.

That's the kind of behaviour that is frustrating and that her mother should have smacked out of her.

Plainly, she is that type of girl, she just was affronted by the guy being so explicit about it. He was hot enough that she agreed to go on a date, so she probably would have had sex anyway, he just needed to play the game. Demanding at the start that she put out (or, the presumed implication, he would call off the date) was insulting: if he would call off the date, then she wasn't hot enough for him.

Now, whether that was a bluff on his part or not, I don't know, but she didn't call him on it and so yeah. We're just arguing over the price now.

Pump and dump from Chad >> Lifetime of Brad.

Listening to a hot chick talk about her dating life when you haven’t banged her feels like a humiliation ritual.

Listening to a hot chick talk about her dating life when you haven’t banged her feels like a humiliation ritual.

Especially when interjecting sarcastic remarks which make her cry ("and after all that you slept with him anyway") makes YOU the bad guy.

"Obviously I'm going. He's hot," she huffed, and flounced away.

This is pretty funny, but I might compare it to the oft-ignored advice to not "stick your dick in crazy." It seems to me both sexes are bad at putting down and holding to firm and sane boundaries if the individual in question is hot enough.

I know I've put up, in brief courtships, with some pretty noncommittal/confusing/game-playing behavior because I found the individual in question very attractive. There was certainly some stewing in those situations, but in my heart of hearts I have to admit that if they'd resolved their confusion and stated what they wanted clearly, I'd probably have gone along with it. But my response to that kind of behavior, absent the stewing, is basically to shut down and move on, in annoyance, so these kinds of things never advanced. I'm willing to trade a lot of attractiveness for stability and common sense.

It’s way too early to be reading blackpills like this.

Consider the implications for a hypothetical “no hook-ups” dating app. Are they really going to ban people for consensual encounters? How would they even know?

This encapsulates my entire objection to the Apps as a class.

Regardless of how they advertise the intentions of their service, the ONLY thing they 'promise' is to show your profile to other people, and to initiate a connection if you both click 'like.'

They have done no vetting, their algorithm is sorting your matches but makes no guarantees as to quality, and they give you no recourse if your match doesn't pan out despite doing everything 'right.'

They abdicate all responsibility for filtering and policing and otherwise giving any useful feedback, basically disclaiming any blame for what happens after the match. WHICH IS THE PART THAT MATTERS.

And yet, they expect to be paid money for this service, and refuse to openly admit they can't help police people's behavior, continually implying the blame lies solely with the user.

This would be intolerable in about any other industry.

Anyway, if I were going to pass just one law to regulate these apps without banning them outright, I'd require they post their 'success rates' for the average user (by gender) for both achieving matches, and achieving actual relationships.

And have these appear on the screen for like 5 seconds every time you boot into the app.

If you're going to turn dating into a casino, you should be required to post the odds.

You've already guessed the punchline. I commiserated with her over the failure of her date plans and she looked at me like I'd dribbled on her shirt. "Obviously I'm going. He's hot," she huffed, and flounced away.

And then people accuse me of hating "natives" when I express the (justified, I submit) contempt I have for these people. And my tax money is going on funding this shit. People complain about their tax money going on migrants with different values here in the UK, never mind that these migrants make up a small portion of society and there are lots of "natives" that don't even pay much tax in the first place, so the per "native" price they are paying is relatively small. On the other hand the tax there aren't that many people like me, I pay a shit ton of tax and there are a shit ton of these "natives" who make bad decisions that society (read: taxpayers like me) end up subsidizing and we're supposed to just sit and take it. I'd wager I'm personally paying 6 figures in GBP each year directly subsidizing the likes of these people. Few things make me seethe as much as seeing the government's yearly breakdown on where the money I spend paying tax ends up going.

I have at least 1.5 orders of magnitude (closer to 2 actually) more justification to be pissed off at the "natives" than the average "native" has to be pissed off at a poor migrant care worker. And yet...

  • -15

On the other hand the tax there aren't that many people like me, I pay a shit ton of tax and there are a shit ton of these "natives" who make bad decisions that society (read: taxpayers like me) end up subsidizing and we're supposed to just sit and take it.

Assuming you have citizenship elsewhere, you could move elsewhere and not pay those tax rates. Natives who complain about funding migrants don't have that option.

Well, unlike the natives, you joined the society willingly with full knowledge of the deal. I'm not saying you're not entitled to wish it were otherwise or advocate for it to be so, but I am no particularly sympathetic to your complaints.

Not English. I met her back in Japan - she was some non-Japanese Asian ethnicity like Korean or Indonesian. No idea about her finances but we're definitely not talking welfare queen.

Okay, that adds another layer to it. If she's managed to score a Japanese guy, she was probably willing to put up with more crap from him because of the Japanese attitude to foreigners. Though apparently Japanese have a good impression of Indonesians (if I believe online search results) while seemingly there's a more negative attitude to Koreans.

So it depends exactly where she was from and if the guy was Japanese or not. I mean, I still think she's an idiot, but there's more going on there than simply "yeah of course I'm gonna sleep with him, he's hot".

There may have been an element of that, I don't know. I can't remember if the chap was Japanese but she certainly had no shortage of non-Japanese admirers. She was half-French, or she'd grown up in France, if I recall correctly, and was involved with the embassy in some fashion. It's a fleeting impression from a while ago in any case so my recollections could be incorrect in any number of ways.

What makes it so vivid for me is the memory of her confusion at my confusion, as if it was weird and rather impolite of me to not be familiar with the kayfabe involved. Clearly, it was very improper of me to expect "there's no way I'd sleep with that guy!" would not be followed up with "brb, fucking that guy".

I filed it away as another part of the world I'd failed to understand until then.

Getting corrupted by the westoid mindset is just as bad in the long run because it's contagious. She might not have been a leech and may have had a background which could fund her behaviour, in which case more power to her, she's not the sort of person who I'd want in my life but that's fine, different people are different. What's not fine are the people who are like this and fund it off the taxpayer's teat and then lecture us for our values. Neighbour, have you looked at your values???

I did swing/salsa/ballroom/etc dance classes off and on at a UC school from 2011-2014. Every single class session had more men than women :(

Conceptually, the men in a dance class can be divided into 3 groups: (1) men who are there primarily to meet women; (2) men who are primarily there to learn dancing, but meeting women is a secondary goal; and (3) men who are strictly there for dance and not to meet women.

My guess is that the vast majority of men in your dance class belong to either group (1) or group (2). Which makes sense. It's no secret that there are a lot of young men out there who are fairly desperate to get a female romantic partner. And most men, at some point, are told that a good way to meet such a woman is to do some mixed-sex activity.

Maybe they're all in a situationship with the same man (lol)?

You can laugh, but I definitely think that this is a factor. It seems pretty clear that ultimately man is a tournament species. In the absence of laws and social and economic constraints, most men would build a harem if they could and most women would join such a harem. Dating apps allow people to circumvent some of these constraints because they make it much easier for men to enter into relationships with multiple women without those women knowing about each other. (Or at least allowing those women to avoid facing the reality that they are part of a harem.)

If you've been at it for a few years, presumably you're in some of the intermediate/advanced classes. You allude to the social dancing also, but I'd be interested in a specific breakdown of the ratio between beginner classes and the more advanced classes and the social floors. I'd also be interested to hear what the vibe's been like among those men, particularly the newer ones - do they seem like they're interested in dancing or just pulling?

It'll be interesting to see how long this lasts. IME, dancing scenes don't stay tilted towards an excess of men for very long, as the etiquette of asking women to dance means men either get in each other's way asking women to dance, or get no dances at all. In the reverse case, where there's an excess of women, the men are busy dancing, and surplus women often dance with each other or get asked to dance the next song or the one after.

I commented on the dating recession as well previously, but ill add another hypothesis: The dating recession is probably downstream of the friendship recession (Ill make a longer post talking about this, separately. As i feel it deserves attention by itself.). Even today 2/3's of couples start out as friends first. The dreaded "friend zone" a lot of guys want to avoid might be your best shot in actuality. I suspect a lot of women don't want to go out on a date with a random stranger they met on the street, at a bar, dancing, etc. (although there are still a chunk of women where this works!), and prefer friends first as way to gauge compatibility (or they just value the friendship!). There is also a safety aspect in that you know that the man in question is a descent person.

One thing that should also be added here is that you have to be comfortable genuinely being friends with these women (not just a friends to get in your pants kind of deal.), and be comfortable with the possibility that it wont go in a romantic direction. Even if it doesn't go that way, you made a connection that's valuable in its own right, and you may be able to date other women she is in proximity with.

As for why women might not be keen on going outside to make friends, or engage in hobbies that lead to friendships. I'd suspect its a combination of the "friendzone" problem in men's case. And a jealousy/toxicity problem with many women, where they are jealous of how another women looks, or just a toxic person, etc. (the movie Mean Girls comes to mind). The decline of 3rd places also may play a role. Its not that those kinds of issues weren't present in the past, but people are probably much more sensitive to these issues now, for whatever reason.

One thing that should also be added here is that you have to be comfortable genuinely being friends with these women (not just a friends to get in your pants kind of deal.), and be comfortable with the possibility that it wont go in a romantic direction. Even if it doesn't go that way, you made a connection that's valuable in its own right, and you may be able to date other women she is in proximity with.

The proximity with this is important, I met my wife by getting set up by a friend of hers that I met on a dating app but didn't hit it off with. But the idea that single men who are serious about making a partner should settle for a friendship with women they meet is just an absurd delusion some women harbor who haven't ever seriously thought of the logistics of single men dating. I'd need to have maintained literally hundreds of female friends by the time I met my wife for this to have been a plausible strategy, it just doesn't really work. I'm sorry but if it doesn't work out you can't expect him to stay friends with you, it just doesn't scale. It's not personal, it's just that forming a strong attachment, getting stuck in the friend zone as it were, and then getting rejected in the end eviscerates a portion of your soul each time.

I've basically resorted to telling any women who suggest mere friendship "I literally have all the good friends I need or want." Nicely, but making it clear I'm not that guy who will remain in orbit indefinitely.

Now, if I know them as part of an existing friend network or through work or because I happen to run into them on semi-regular occasions, fine. I can pop by, be friendly and engaging, and see where it goes. I just won't be fielding long, emotional text conversations or helping them move heavy objects.

The effort required to put up even the facade of friendship with multiple women doesn't seem worth it unless she is actively wing(wo)manning for you. And maintaining mere 'facades' of friendship is way too manipulative/dishonest for my taste.

And my experience with women wingmen is laughable. They'll bring this one friend who is "single and super nice that you should meet" to a gathering. And she's 50+ pounds overweight or a major butterface and usually poor social skills to boot (i.e. there's reasons she's single). So you have to politely reject without either insulting your friend or the referral.

Happened to me 2, maybe 3 times in the past 5 years? And if you're out and about they'll suggest the most insane approaches to you. "You should talk to that 45-year-old cougar-looking lady with the back tattoo!"

Yes, having female friends is important so you can have a some social proof you're not a creepy loser and have access to her potentially single friends, but don't expect them to be that big a help in landing one.

So you have to politely reject without either insulting your friend or the referral.

In the long-ago pre-covid times, a female friend of mine tried to set me up with one of her friends, and was describing her. I pointed out a glaring red flag that was obvious even in my friend's super-glowing description, and the response was "well, if you're going to have standards like that [i.e. any standards], prepare to die alone." She couldn't have created a better summary of the dating market if she tried.

Its very fair to ask a friend "this person sounds great... why are they single?"

There's a few fine answers to that question.

One of my buddies got his GF from our friend group b/c the current GF asked her friend, who is close friends with my buddy, if he was single and looking and then had the friend nudge him in her direction, and things worked out well because the friend was a good intermediary and could vouch for both parties.

But they'd had a decent amount of time to assess each other from somewhat afar. It wasn't a cold/blind introduction.

I've basically resorted to telling any women who suggest mere friendship "I literally have all the good friends I need or want."

Based. “Thank you for reaching out, but all available positions have been filled. I’ll keep your resume on file and let you know if any openings emerge.”

And my experience with women wingmen is laughable.

And even when women attempt or “attempt” to wingwoman for a male friend, oftentimes they can’t help but still accidentally or “accidentally” throw the male friend under the bus: “This is @faceh, one of my besties. He’s a total sweetheart and like a brother to me, always there to listen and lend a hand.” In which case at most a friendzone just +1’d in terms of the population size.

One of the best wingwoman experiences I’ve had was from a girl I had maybe met once in person before then. I don’t know if it was intentional or not. She introduced me to a female friend of hers and was like “teehee this is [my first name], he’s the one hooking up with [hot chick they both know].” Cut right to the chase with the most value-add information she had. Female mate-choice copying FTW.

I totally agree. The two exes ago girl (last girl I was probably in love with) begged me to stay friends with her after she broke up with me, despite the fact the first time I had hung out with her we had fucked. The entire relationship was completely romantic (we had sex 80+% of the times we ever hung out), but she seemed to think that somehow the relationship had a strong platonic foundation that we could maintain. I initially agreed because I thought I could change her mind back. That obviously didn't work out, and I learned that this woman was a terrible person to be friends with because her extreme dogmatism combined with terrible mental health. I ended up terminating the friendship after a couple months because I realized she was never going to get back together with me, and that I didn't really want her to anyway.

On the flip side of the coin, I think having female friends who you have no intention of sleeping with ever is perfectly fine and perhaps even good. Women are just as diverse as men when it comes to platonic personality, and it seems crazy to remove 50% of the population from the friendship pool solely because someone might get feelings. I have few very close female friends from college/work that I have absolutely no feelings for and I'm very glad they're in my life. I would never be open to a relationship with any of these women, and unless you plan to get married, I think the friendship->lover boundary should never be crossed, because unfortunately you can't really go back.

I initially agreed because I thought I could change her mind back.

Been there.

Its odd that I used to (and somewhat still do) believe that there was a specific sequence of words I might be able to utter that would 'fix' things and get them back to where I wanted.

But attraction really don't work that way.

and I learned that this woman was a terrible person to be friends with because her extreme dogmatism combined with terrible mental health.

Also been there. Had a really awkward Friends -> mutual crush -> 'breakup' -> friends -> FWB -> breakup/blocked sequence with one girl. Took me like 5 years to realize she was irretrievably messed up in the head and she was happily using me as a psychological crutch, which was causing a drag on my mental health. She reacted poorly to my attempt to create a boundary, which confirmed that cutting her out was the right choice.

I think having female friends who you have no intention of sleeping with ever is perfectly fine and perhaps even good.

I've got a solid handful of such friends, and the thing they have in common is I have negligible levels of sexual attraction to them (like, I wouldn't turn down an offer, but I get no arousal just from being around them) and they're usually partnered to someone and thus I mentally sort them as 'off the market.'

I think the friendship->lover boundary should never be crossed, because unfortunately you can't really go back.

I think you can, but in my experience you need like a solid 18-24 months of virtually zero contact and of course lingering feelings can flare up so you have to keep a boundary in place on how often you hang out.

Me, I am loathe to give up a connection with someone I share a lot of pleasant memories with.

I honestly can't blame anyone they get into a relationship with from being antsy about it, though.

Romance is just a messy thing, tied in with our baser instincts. Even having a fully intellectual comprehension of how it works you'll still be susceptible to the standard traps and pitfalls.

I think it's more a case of "one of your 20 friends is a woman from work you met 4 years ago. You were in a relationship when you met, but today you're both single. You go for your usual coffee catch up and decide to do it again next week instead of the usual next month. You begin dating organically after this."

I don't think the play is to maintain a friendship circle of hundreds of prospective girlfriends. Meeting people through friend groups or work does seem to be some great mechanism for finding the love of your life.

Right, having some women who are friends is definitely useful in a number of ways. Maybe I misread the OP and they weren't suggesting it as a main strategy, but there really is a strain of thought among women that a man who would be interested in dating but not becoming friends is some kind of contradiction. "why would you date someone you wouldn't want to make your friend?". It makes a kind of sense from the perspective of the selective sex but it just isn't workable.

How do men meet women in your culture, and what are romantic relationships between men and women like?

Thoughts TheMotte?

Was it a beginners class? My experience with kizomba is that the classes (particularly the beginner ones) may be heavily male, but the socials are overwhelmingly female. Because kizomba is easy to follow, women learn super quickly and stop going to the classes, but still go to the socials because they like the dance.

I don't know enough about swing dancing to say whether or not that's the case, but if it's significantly easier to follow than lead, then that could be something. Although that wouldn't explain the change in the last couple of years.

It’s way easier to follow swing dancing than lead, or at least I had more trouble learning it than the women I danced with did. Either I’m unusually bad at dancing or one role is easier than the other.

Leading is indeed much harder because you have to decide what to do.

Depends on the dance, leading a jive is easier than being a follower, the follower steps are much more complex depending on the choreo.

Leading properly (instead of just doing the leader steps/choreo) is a skill as well, but it takes like 4-5 years to learn how to do correctly, you're not going to learn it by going to 1hr weekly social dance classes.

I also do dancing (competitive though, not social), our classes are 3-4 women per man, and have stayed this way or if anything the most recent new cohort is even more female dominated. I highly recommend dancesport to any men who are interested, at intermediate+ levels almost all couples end up 1 man + 1 woman so as a man you don't need to be as amazing to make it up there. I wouldn't recommend using this as a way to meet partners though in the short term, that's gonna get noticed and you'll be ostracized very quickly (and for good reason, we do this because we want to get good at dancing, not because we're horny, it's actually a surprisingly sexless sport, despite what the rumba may appear like to you). Longer term once you're actually good and in a stable dance partnership plenty of couples end up marrying each other, but this is a very different thing than hitting on women after 4 weeks of slow waltz.

This comment may be slightly low-effort and/or non-culture-war, but it seems relevant to past discussions of housing affordability from @grendel-khan. See also my past comment on actual culture war in building codes.

The current round of proposed amendments to ICC (International Code Council) codes can be found through this page (both group A and group B). Committee decisions regarding acceptance of the amendments are in the separate "ROCAH" documents.

  • E24-24 (group A, IBC egress) was submitted by the Center for Building in North America. The current edition of the IBC (International Building Code) permits an apartment building to have a single exit only if the building contains no more than three stories and four apartments per story (for a total of 12 apartments). This amendment would increase the maximum to either six stories and four apartments per story (for a total of 24 apartments) or three stories and six apartments per story (for a total of 18 apartments). The submitter estimates that this amendment would reduce "the cost of constructing multifamily buildings on small lots" by 7 percent. At the first hearing, the committee unanimously rejected the amendment, citing various safety-related reasons. However, at the second hearing, a modified amendment prescribing a maximum of four stories and four apartments per story (for a total of 16 apartments) was approved by the committee in an almost-unanimous vote.

  • G154-25 (group B, IBC general) was submitted by the same organization. The current edition of the IBC requires elevators to comply with several ASME (American Society of Mechanical Engineers) standards. This amendment would permit elevators to alternatively comply with the equivalent ISO (International Organization of Standardization) and EN (European Norms) standards, and thereby invite competition from European elevator manufacturers that generally don't bother with American standards, possibly reducing the extremely high elevator costs that prevail in the US. The committee rejected it almost unanimously.

  • G158-25 was submitted by the same organization. The current edition of the IBC requires an elevator in a building with at least four stories to be large enough to accommodate an ambulance stretcher. This amendment would eliminate this requirement in apartment buildings with no more than six stories. The committee rejected it unanimously.

  • RB121-25 (group B, IRC building) was submitted by the NAHB (National Association of Homebuilders). The current edition of the IRC (International Residential Code) prescribes a maximum stairway slope of 77.5 % (7.75-inch risers and 10-inch treads). This amendment would increase the maximum to 91.7 % (8.25-inch risers and 9-inch treads). The NAHB points out that similar slopes were permitted by predecessors to the IRC and still are permitted by 46 percent of state codes, by the federal manufactured-house code, and by multiple foreign codes (90.0 % in UKGBNI and 90.9 % in Spain). The NAHB estimates 150 dollars of savings per stairway, not including the reduction in floor area of 5.75 ft2. The committee accepted this amendment by a bare vote of six to four.

  • RB115-25, submitted by the government of New York, would require locks on the exterior doors of a house. The committee unanimously rejected it as out of scope for the IRC.

Disclaimer: I did not look through all the literally thousands of proposed amendments. Rather, I looked through the PCH (public comment hearing) documents for stuff that actually drew public comment. So I probably missed other relevant proposals.

I don't have much to add beyond that I like posts like this as much if not more than 'actual' culture war posts. And that when somewhere I lived had a ~90% stairway slope, I thought it was a bit steeper than I'd prefer in terms of safety, but not so steep I think it shouldn't be allowed. Hm, now I want to read a good blog post about the history of building codes.

You have cited these international building codes in a lot of discussions. It's never been clear to me, however, how they relate to real world construction. What countries actually follow these regulations? Are they effectively law in the US? Would a general contractor in Southern California know/care about these changes? Would my city's building inspector? An architect?

Almost all states in the US, and a few countries, use the ICC codes as bases for their own codes (residential building, commercial building, energy efficiency, etc.). Even after a jurisdiction adds its own modifications, the unmodified ICC code still forms the nationwide baseline, and is considered in the jurisdiction's periodic code-updating process.

Disclaimer: I did not look through all the literally thousands of proposed amendments.

I see you are getting lazy in your old age. The ToaKraka I knew would have at least read 500 of them.

I realize that this is a joke, but just to clarify:

CategoryProposed amendments…that received public comment
IBC egress5718
IBC general 2024123
IBC general 202521044
IBC structural 202493
IBC structural 202518628
IPMC614
IRC building30436
IZC30

The bold numbers indicate the ones that I checked. Perhaps I should have checked more, but I saw this page only yesterday, and I didn't feel like spending a zillion hours on this random task.

In comparison:

StateApprox. court opinions posted per week
NJ50
PA100

Okay, I take it back, that is the OG ToaKraka I know, love and am slightly perplexed by, in a good way.

Jury finds defendants guilty of terrorism-related charges in attack on Prairieland ICE detention center

Eight defendants were convicted of rioting, providing material support to terrorists, conspiracy to use and carry an explosive, and use and carry of an explosive — the explosive being fireworks. Daniel Sanchez Estrada was convicted of corruptly concealing a document or record. He and Maricela Rueda were also convicted of conspiracy to conceal documents.

Description of the event from Wikipedia:

On July 4, eleven people[1][21] gathered near the Prairieland Detention Center at 10:37 pm,[22] several dressed in black "military-style"[23] or black bloc clothing with their faces covered.[1][21] A suspect was seen removing a wagon filled with fireworks from a vehicle and pushing it towards the detention center.[20] Law enforcement officials allege that the participants conducted a "diversion" to draw ICE officers out into the open; fireworks were set off, the group split up into several smaller groups, and a participant spray-painted vehicles and a guard structure with slogans including "Ice pig" and "traitor".[2] One small group remained near the facility entrance, apparently keeping watch.[21] The ICE officers called 911 to report the incident to local law enforcement.[23][22]

Only one person (Benjamin Song, a former Marine reservist) in the group fired shots, nonfatally hitting an officer. The defense argued that the other members of the group intended only to peacefully protest and not to bait out officers for Song. This, of course, brings us back to the classic, airplane-on-a-treadmill style "Does Antifa exist" debate.

https://www.keranews.org/criminal-justice/2026-03-13/prairieland-detention-center-ice-antifa-shooting-terrorism-trial-verdict-texas

The jury heard several perspectives about the night of the shooting and the events surrounding it: a recap of Morris’ interviews with law enforcement after her arrest and direct testimony from cooperating defendants Sharp, Sikes, Kent, Thomas and Baumann.

All told law enforcement and the government that they didn't expect violence the night of July 4 — just a noise demonstration with fireworks. Morris told investigators she suspected Song used others present at Prairieland as a distraction so he could pull off his "fantasy" and run away.

The cooperating defendants' answers varied on whether a "North Texas antifa cell" existed. Some testified the people in their circles never seriously referred to themselves as members of antifa. Others named specific defendants they considered "antifa." Defense attorneys later sparred with Kyle Shideler, the prosecution's controversial antifa expert, over his testimony that the defendants' actions aligned closely with prosecutors called a handbook on antifa beliefs authored by Mark Bray. The prosecution wrapped up its case during closing arguments by describing Song as a "ringleader" who worked with his politically-aligned inner circle to coordinate an ambush at Prairieland, escape and hide any physical or digital evidence.

All these articles are light on evidence, so let's go to the DOJ press release.

Evidence at trial revealed that most of the Antifa Cell involved in the Prairieland attack looked to Benjamin Song as a leader. Song acquired firearms that he distributed to co-defendants and recruited members at gun ranges and combat sessions he conducted, as well as from various ideologically aligned groups. For example, defendants Ines Soto, Elizabeth Soto, and Savanna Batten were part of a group that created and distributed insurrectionary materials called “zines,” according to trial evidence.

Witnesses testified that an Alvarado police officer responded to the scene after correctional officers called 911. When the officer began issuing commands to defendant Nathan Baumann, Benjamin Song can be heard on police bodycam video yelling, “get to the rifles!” and then he opened fire on the officers, striking the Alvarado police officer in the neck as the unarmed correctional officers ducked and ran for cover. Police arrested most of the Antifa Cell shortly after the attack, many near the scene. Benjamin Song escaped and remained at large with the help of others until his capture on July 15, 2025.

Trial evidence demonstrated that collectively, the Antifa Cell acquired over 50 firearms in the Fort Worth/Dallas area prior to July 4. During trial, the government introduced numerous chats of the members, who used an encrypted messaging app to coordinate with each other that had auto-delete functions, permanently deleting some Antifa Cell members’ communications. They also used monikers in group chats to hide their identities, and some of the planning chats included only trusted participants. The chats introduced at trial revealed that members in this limited group conducted reconnaissance and discussed what to bring to the riot, including firearms, medical kits, and fireworks:

"rifles might make the situation more hot if this is the case either way" (Rueda)

"I think you'd be surprised. Cops are not trained or equipped for more than one rifle so it tends to make them back off" (Song)

From the texts released, it doesn't seem like there's firm evidence that they knew what Song was planning. Of course, many of the messages were deleted, so it's hardly exonerating.

So like, I understand that these people and their lawyers are just trying to find a way to stay out of prison, but it's still absolutely stunning to me that anybody can say with a straight face that a bunch of folks who all showed up at the same place at the same time wearing the same thing carrying loaded rifles and explosives, who then all participated in throwing those explosives at a bunch of police officers, were actually a bunch of totally unrelated individuals with completely independent and totally legal motives after one of them shot a police officer. Like yeah, I get it, you want to put up the best legal defense you can and you can't exactly admit that you were knowingly organizing terrorism, but who are they actually expecting to buy that?

Never underestimate 'There can't be any "members" of Antifa. It's just an idea, not an organization, bro.'

I get a distinct 'something is off' feeling every time I hear someone say that. I don't know why exactly but I'd like a name for it. Like when you hear something you know is wrong but also know that if you tried to explain why you'd be getting nowhere.

The same people who say that, also say that "white supremacy" or "nazis" are a real threat to society, despite "white supremacy" also being "just an idea, not an organization," and also literally zero of the people they accuse of being "nazis" self-identify as such.

The term for this is "being disingenuous," aka "pretending not to understand things, thus making discourse impossible"

Because it looks like the person using it is creating a fig leaf of an argument so an allied group will never be held responsible.

It's an attempt at bullshit. It isn't really about truth but is just an attempt to convince (or, more likely, just deflect and waste time long enough to dissipate actionable outrage) so what's the point in trying to get into a factual debate about it?

The person has revealed themselves to be a partisan.

As a side note, that's one of the things I find really annoying about these Leftist activist types. For example, suppose they block a highway and get arrested and prosecuted for it. I would have a tiny bit of respect for them if they would own up to what they did, take their licks, and accept their sentence of 100 hours of community service or whatever. But instead, their MO is to spin, lie, etc., do whatever they can to avoid punishment for their wrongdoing.

Wrongdoing? What wrongdoing. They did no wrong. And besides, punishment would harm their enjoyment of those social acitivities. Taking punishment isn't part of the plan; punishment for socially just acitivities would be injustice, after all! If it can be avoided, then that is justice. And what do they care about your opinion, anyways? You're probably a fascist anyways, or at least a violently-silent bystander who refuses to take the correct side.

They're engaging in a socially accepted and promoted social activity (just not accepted by the wrong people whose opinions are wrong) with a thin veneer of sanctity-within-the-civil-religion, why ever from their own perspective would they want to take punishment for it?

What does your tiny bit of respect matter to them compared to not being punished by the laws they believe are unjust?

What does your tiny bit of respect matter to them compared to not being punished by the laws they believe are unjust?

That's an interesting question and I think it touches on one of the core parts of the issue I was raising. So there are laws against blocking traffic; disrupting gatherings; arson; destroying people's property; etc. Do Leftists believe that these laws are unjust? I tend to doubt it. If someone destroyed their property; disrupted their gatherings; etc., they would freak out and demand that the offenders be punished. So what's really going on is that they simply believe they have carte blanche to break the law because in their self-serving judgment they are "punching nazis" or "fighting fascism" or whatever.

A point that MattyY makes is that acts of civil disobedience work because they play on existing faultlines and sympathies. Which is why stopping traffic for Gaza does nothing. It's just a cargo cult licensing their Main Character Syndrome.

That is why they should care, insofar as they care about their cause at all and it's not an excuse to impose their will: you don't need to earn omw_68's specific respect, but you probably need to earn it from some segment of society if you want to make sweeping changes to very big systems or policies.

A point that MattyY makes is that acts of civil disobedience work because they play on existing faultlines and sympathies. Which is why stopping traffic for Gaza does nothing. It's just a cargo cult licensing their Main Character Syndrome.

I basically agree with this, although I would quibble with your use of the phrase "civil disobedience." To me, "civil disobedience" means that you (1) openly and notoriously disobey a rule which you genuinely believe is unjust; and (2) accept the consequences of breaking that rule as a way of making your point. (So for example, a black person intentionally sitting in the "whites only" section of a bus station.) Nobody who blocks traffic for Gaza is seriously claiming that the rules against blocking traffic are unjust. Moreover, instead of owning up to what they are doing, these people (typically) lie, cheat, and play games in order to avoid legal consequences.

I think that when you block traffic for Gaza (or some other cause), it's more akin to terrorism than civil disobedience. To be sure you are generally not killing or maiming people (although you might be if you end up impeding an ambulance) but you are still inconveniencing people and interfering with their legal rights, albeit in a minor way.

In another discussion, I called this "terrorism-lite"

But in any event, as mentioned above, I basically agree with you. For terrorism (or terrorism-lite) to be effective, there needs to be a minimum amount of sympathy in mainstream institutions such as the news media, college administrations, and so on. With Gaza, at least in the United States, there is some degree of sympathy, but there is also a lot of organized pro-Israel sentiment. So it's difficult to accomplish anything with terrorism-lite.

Just like the "youth club" one town over isn't an antifa cell, it just so happens to be staffed and frequented by people who organize questionably-legal political activities together while wearing antifa regalia, quoting antifa slogans and distributing antifa media.

It's a good thing we can just close our lying eyes and decide to stop seeing.

"Antifa activists" is a parallel to "Environmental activists". You can't be a member of "Environmental" either, because it's just an idea, not an organization.

Nobody cares about that fine distinction for environmentalism, like when Sea Shepherd ships ram whalers or when Last Generation Canada members throw paint on museum pieces. Outsiders recognize that the disparate groups (and non-affiliated individuals) all share a common goal and philosophy, and treat them as a coherent entity. This is as it should be.

Antifa is the leftiest of the left wing, so its adherents use tactics like "[not] Fucking Tell[ing] Me What Term I Am Allowed to Use for the Sweeping Social and Political Changes You Demand". 1984 may have overreached a bit when it said if you can't name something you can't think about it (hence the Party making Newspeak), but it sure does make it harder to legislate against something if you can't establish a definition first.

Nobody cares about that fine distinction for environmentalism, like when Sea Shepherd ships ram whalers or when Last Generation Canada members throw paint on museum pieces. Outsiders recognize that the disparate groups (and non-affiliated individuals) all share a common goal and philosophy, and treat them as a coherent entity. This is as it should be.

Why is it "as it should be" to look at environmentalists using low resolution? Surely there is a significant difference between a scientist studying climate change models who calls for using less fossil fuels, on the one hand, and Ted Kaczynski on the other. And plenty of people make the distinction, indeed it is unusual not to.

Notice that you yourself picked two particularly militant examples of environmentalists.

Even if you mean "nobody cares about that fine distinction for militant environmentalists", that is not true. Most people make a distinction between people who throw paint on museum pieces and Ted Kaczynski, and recognize that not only do their actions have different moral qualities, but they can also in no way be said to be part of the same organization. Indeed, since Kaczynski acted alone, his actions cannot be characterized as being the actions of any environmentalist association whatsoever.

To look at people who share common (or somewhat common) goals and philosophies as belonging to a coherent entity is the type of low resolution thinking that perhaps makes sense in the face of an existential threat, when there is no time to try to use higher resolution and to do so would decrease one's emotional willingness to fight, but even in that kind of a situation it would be just an expedient, not something that is good in itself.

I question your characterisation of Kaczynski as an environmentalist. I don't recall him mentioning climate change or acid rain even once in his manifesto. He was opposed to modernity primarily for what he saw as its deleterious effects on the human psyche, not for its impact on the environment.

Even if you mean "nobody cares about that fine distinction for militant environmentalists", that is not true. ... but they can also in no way be said to be part of the same organization

Unless you specifically mean Ted Kaczynski, and not violent eco-activists generally, this is complete nonsense, and of course people think they're a part of the same movement.

The reason Kaczynski doesn't fit is that he was following a different set of ideas than environmentalism, not because he was violent.

Even the militancy is hardly relevant. Few people bother drawing distinctions between violent and not violent Nazis, or violent and non-violent Jihadis.

Jihadis and Nazis, whether non-violent or violent, are pursuing evil aims. At least some environmentalists are pursuing good aims.

Bringing humanity to the light of Allah, doesn't sound evil in and of itself to me, and even a good leftist will find lots to agree with even in the OG Nazi party platform. So I don't see a reason to allow this kind of picking and choosing for one, but not the other.

I don't think this is the same kind of "picking and choosing". Sure, not all the aims of jihadis and Nazis are evil, but all jihadis and Nazis pursue at least some evil aims - whereas many (most?) environmentalists have wholly good aims. Thus any given jihadi or Nazi, even if they're non-violent, has some amount of evil intent, while the same is not true of a given non-violent environmentalist.

(And anyway, insofar as "bringing humanity to the light of Allah" is ultimately a euphemism for "enslaving humanity to the tyrannical will of a supernatural being" I would consider that an evil aim in itself, even before the specific of shariah law are taken into account.)

More comments

Why is it "as it should be" to look at environmentalists using low resolution? Surely there is a significant difference between a scientist studying climate change models who calls for using less fossil fuels, on the one hand, and Ted Kaczynski on the other. And plenty of people make the distinction, indeed it is unusual not to.

When moderates (of whatever topic) benefit from the actions of extremists, I start to suspect that they are only moderates out of practicality and convenience. If one person in a crowd starts throwing molotovs, then peaceful law-abiding people should either kick them out, or leave. If they close ranks instead, then I suspect the only reason they aren't committing arson themselves is practicality and convenience.

Outsiders using low-resolution judgment means that movements have an incentive to clean up their act. A high-resolution one would let them reap the benefits and face none of the consequences.

Notice that you yourself picked two particularly militant examples of environmentalists.

You have to choose controversial examples, otherwise it's rhetorically useless. Would you have learned anything about my opinion if I said "Both used oil recycling advocates and anti-CFC advocates are 'environmentalist'"?

Indeed, since Kaczynski acted alone, his actions cannot be characterized as being the actions of any environmentalist association whatsoever.

I called out non-affiliated individuals above. Why do you think formal organization matters at all? Leaving aside his environmentalist bona fides, he was certainly part of a movement. Does your (presumably negative) perception of his actions just poof into irrelevance when he died? Would it have mattered if he founded and passed on a shell corporation to promote his work, making an "association" of 0-1 people?

Outsiders using low-resolution judgment means that movements have an incentive to clean up their act. A high-resolution one would let them reap the benefits and face none of the consequences.

In other words, you can't complain about being called a communist unless you have enemies to the left.

Pretty much.

I tried looking for that comic with someone politely asking for a wallet while backed by a crazy guy with a gun (who he disavows, of course), but I couldn't find it. At least he had the good grace to say the right things, even if he didn't take any concrete actions.

A bit late to the party, but it was a Chainsawsuit comic, originally done in response to GamerGate.

'There can't be any "members" of Antifa. It's just an idea, not an organization, bro.'

"Corruption" is just an idea too; that doesn't stop us from punishing those who advance its cause.

The difference is that corruption refers to a specific set of practices, many if which are illegal and most of which violate ethics rules. Antifa is a theoretical set of political opinions that can result in illegal activity, but the activit isn't antifa in and of itself, and holding certain opinions isn't illegal.

corruption refers to a specific set of practices, many if which are illegal and most of which violate ethics rules

No, corruption is the idea that your personal goals are so important that you're willing to break the law to accomplish them. Antifa, therefore, is simply corruption by another name.

and holding certain opinions isn't illegal

It isn't illegal to be a member of the Mafia either, but they're never punished for that; they're punished for the evil, corrupt actions that naturally arise from that idea taken to its logical conclusion.

No, corruption is the idea that your personal goals are so important that you're willing to break the law to accomplish them.

I think this is an overly expansive definition.

No, corruption is the idea that your personal goals are so important that you're willing to break the law to accomplish them.

I'd say "betray your responsibilities", not "break the law". Not all corruption is illegal and not all premeditated crimes are corrupt.

Never underestimate 'There can't be any "members" of Antifa. It's just an idea, not an organization, bro.'

The top comment in /r/law on reddit: https://archive.is/FNOnK

"To see what is in front of one's nose needs a constant struggle." - George Orwell

I mean, it isn't an organization the same way, say, the NAACP is, where there are local chapters and a national office and membership lists and a full-time staff. It's more like the Crips, where various local crews of a dozen guys will wear the colors but aren't beholden to any larger organization. This is assuming that people still identify as antifa and it isn't just an insult political opponents lob at people they don't like who presumably engage in certain practices.

Indeed, these people didn't identify as Antifa- IIRC, they identified as members of the john brown gun club, one of several groups that people refer to when they say 'antifa'.

Splitters!

Give a fig leaf so a sympathetic juror can do some jury nullification?

I suppose one of the major mistakes these people made, in terms of getting away with their crimes, was committing them in Texas where a jury of their peers will consist entirely of Texans.

The first mistake was committing the crimes in the first place. The second mistake was using electronic communications to discuss their crimes. Committing them in a jurisdiction where the jury might not be as sympathetic as it could be is pretty far down the list.

Zoomer criminals just leave the damn phone at home challenge [IMPOSSIBLE!!!].

Leaving your phone at home can also be presented as evidence of intent to commit a crime, especially if your usual pattern is to carry it with you everywhere. This has been successfully presented as circumstantial evidence by prosecutors at trial in various cases.

I think the argument is intended to be that since you carry your phone everywhere and the phone was at home, you must have been too.

If the intent is to use the phone as an alibi based on location data, the issue is that modern phones track a lot more than just rough location. Eg. unlock/lock events, movement, checking notifications, etc. For a habitual phone user, a gap of a few hours with absolutely no activity in the middle of the day looks pretty odd. Especially when a digital forensics expert could compare it to the pattern of life for the last six months or something.

And if they get any indication that the suspect left their house (eg. vehicle GPS, red light camera, neighbor's Ring camera) now they are caught lying, plus leaving the phone at home looks like preparation for an illegal act.

More comments

@urquan

Yeah, the unstated premise there was "assuming you don't get caught". If you get busted in flagrante delicto then I can see how that would make things worse. But if you even hoped to get away with it, not having the tracking device in your pocket with a time-stamped trail is a good idea.

More comments

The first mistake was committing the crimes in the first place

Seems to me that apart from shooting the cop, they weren't committing any crimes that haven't successfully been committed all over the country for years by their fellow travelers. Seems that shooting a cop is the threshold for getting the book thrown at you, and as long as you don't do that you can just keep doing low level terrorism forever.

There are shitlibs, resistancelibs, and blue tribe tribalist tards in Texas. Probably very few in Johnson county, but immigration jails aren't built in downtown Dallas.

Not just he jury. Usually they operate in areas where the prosecutor and judges are friendly.

If something like this happened in Portland only the shooter would have been charged and they would have found an excuse to let him plead down.

In this case, though, the charges were federal, so local judges and prosecution are less of a factor.

Not just he jury. Usually they operate in areas where the prosecutor and judges are friendly.

I agree. I do think their biggest mistake was trying this in Texas.

Fireworks are gunpowder, so yeah, explosives.

And count me in as one of those rolling their eyes about "so we all turned up dressed in black at the same time at the same place and acted in a co-ordinated manner but it was all pure coincidence!"

All these articles are light on evidence, so let's go to the DOJ press release.

Or the RECAP docket.

It's incredible to me the sheer fucking amount of paperwork required just to put somebody away for committing a crime that everybody knows they did. Of course, it helps having pro-bono activist lawyers from the NLG with unlimited resources to spam the court with procedural issues, but god damn. It actually disheartens me to see how difficult or even impossible it would be for the legal system alone to actually make any sort of dent in the extremist left.

Indeed. Every time I read even a probable cause affidavit I'm both impressed by how clear they are--they're good writing--but also disheartened at how expensive they must be. This is a limited resource!

Not trying to argue that they're PhD level documents or anything, but I'm surprised that every salty ragged looking detective has to be able to write one at that level.

Not trying to argue that they're PhD level documents or anything, but I'm surprised that every salty ragged looking detective has to be able to write one at that level.

They're just Mad Libs. There's standard things they write that work in court, that they have been trained to write. So all they have to do is fill in the details. Of course, this also means they may or may not have any relation to reality. Same goes for police testimony.

Mark Carney, Ascendant

At the start of the year there was somewhat of a stalemate in Canadian politics. The Liberals were close to a majority with two recent floor-crossings, but still a few seats shy. Prime Minister Mark Carney was reasonably popular, but the Liberal party he led was decidedly not. Conversely, the Conservative Party was moderate popular, but its leader Pierre Poilievre was not. All this added up to what was essentially a deadlock in voter intention should an election be called.

Since then, there has been a dramatic change in political fortunes. Mark Carney is now the most popular Canadian politician in recent memory. Pierre Poilievre is now the most unpopular (give or take a Justin Trudeau). The difference between their favourability metrics (i.e. how much people approve vs disapprove of them) is now 60 points, which is truly monumental. The Liberals are now polling into solid majority territory, but they don't even need to call an election to get one. With two more defections (one from the Conservatives, and another from the NDP last night) they will have a majority if they (almost certainly) win two of three forthcoming by-elections. And that's even if there isn't more floor-crossers, of whom there are several more expected from both the Conservatives and NDP.

What the hell happened?

I've always said that even the most dysfunctional democracies favour boring bankers as leaders in times of crisis. Carney is probably the most-qualified PM in Canada's history, if you try and rank them by achievement before taking office, but obviously that only goes so far in the social media age. But the economic and political turmoil, and especially the impact of Trump, definitely works in his favour. As the various American attempts to squeeze the Canadian economy have continued, Carney's popularity has grown. This isn't all pure contrarian reaction to Trump - Carney's messaging has been very effective. He makes repeated high-profile trips to foreign countries to secure new trade deals and terms, and I think this is a huge boon to his popularity as the news of new trade deals, investment, partnerships, etc. is a good counterpoint to the economic uncertainty. Even the areas where Liberal support reached a nadir, like Alberta and Saskatchewan, have substantially warmed up to him because of his success in ending trade conflict with China and clearing the bureaucratic hurdles towards substantial new infrastructure projects. Also it can't be overlooked how influential his speech at the WEF was in setting himself apart from the crop of other Canadian politicians in terms of having a coherent, long-term philosophy that is achievable rather than a mishmash of contemporary trends and reflexive partisanship.

Speaking of which, Pierre Poilievre is largely the victim of his own personality. He is not exactly what you would call charismatic. He has had basically no work experience outside of being an MP, and for decades was the "attack dog" of the Conservative caucus who gave much of their replies during Question Period in Parliament. In short he developed a character that was partisan, quippy, and negative. This worked just fine when he was up against a very unpopular Justin Trudeau. Even while he was still unpopular himself he was looking at a super-majority election win at the end of 2024. But up against a very popular Carney he comes across very poorly by comparison, and Canadians have soured on him even more as a result. It doesn't help that his leadership style is very literally driving MPs out of his party: all the three defectors from the Conservatives so far have cited his abrasive nature as a reason for leaving. In late January his continued leadership of the party was confirmed at the Conservative convention, but you wonder how much leash he has if Carney remains popular and peels another few Conservatives away. It's one thing to lose an election: it's another to then let your opponent form a majority because you've driven off your own MPs.

The third element in all of this is that the NDP, the traditional third (fourth?) party and the left flank of Canadian politics, is currently having its leadership race and looks set on picking Avi Lewis, who is firmly from the progressive/activist mould. He is an interesting choice for leader in the sense that there is some reward to the risk; he's a very smooth media personality and has the potential to sell Canadians on a different approach. But his views are at odds with average Canadians and more NDP MPs seem primed to jump ship to the Liberals if he wins, which is very bad for the NDP as they're already skating on thin ice. Even the MP who just quit the party, Lori Idlout, was a supporter of Lewis not an opponent. But at some point you figure it's better to be in the tent pissing out, so to speak. Especially given that Carney has (so far) been successful at securing foreign deals and investments, there's a strong personal and political incentive to join the winning team if you can secure something for your region out of it.

Anyways, here are the polls as they stand now. You can see the very marked shift in fortunes since the start of the year. This is a new phenomenon in Canadian politics; floor crossers are nothing new, but the sheer number of them in such a short span of time, let alone to form a majority government, is entirely novel.

Immigration is like boiling a frog. It really is too late by the time you notice it getting a little warm. Occasionally, you start thinking “man, it’s getting hot in here”, but then you’re distracted by geopolitics, or by the economy, or another financial crisis, or a pandemic, and the water temperature goes to the back of your mind.

I think this probably ought to be the greatest cause of pessimism for the Western right - you can have a few great years where immigration is the number one issue, but then there’s another recession and suddenly all anyone cares about is stimulus and unemployment and bank bailouts and it’s another decade before people remember what’s happening.

Immigration has been another interesting change with Carney in power; most of the pathways that were vulnerable to fraud have been (quietly) shut down. It's been a strange phenomenon where you end up seeing the article about how x or y immigration scheme has been closed from an Indian newspaper, because the Canadian government has not commented on it all. Since Carney has taken over, Canada's population has started to shrink for the first time in a long time (not including COVID years). The vast bulk of this is due to expiring visas of temporary residents.

Obviously it won't be enough for a lot of people, but the people who were claiming that Carney was going to press down the accelerator and flood the country were obviously wrong. I think more importantly for Canadians the more obviously fraudulent elements are being restricted, namely the international student streams, while popular capital I immigration (that is to say, permanent residency offered to non-Canadian residents) stays the same.

The other really troublesome issue is the stream of asylum seekers which exploded again at the end of Trudeau's reign; Canada got some 170k in 2024 and another 110k in 2025. The Carney government is cutting a bunch of funding to refugees and asylum seekers (again, quietly), and there's been more recent debate in Parliament about going further.

I think the Liberals have managed to somewhat skillfully defuse immigration as the bomb around their neck, at least for the present, by simultaneously addressing the most negative elements of the system they had set up (while also not telling anyone they are doing so, as to avoid blame).

I think the Liberals have managed to somewhat skillfully defuse immigration as the bomb around their neck, at least for the present, by simultaneously addressing the most negative elements of the system they had set up (while also not telling anyone they are doing so, as to avoid blame).

The big question is going to be how they deal with the bubble of post-COVID migrants as their visas start to expire. Canada does not have the law enforcement capacity or legal infrastructure to carry out a deportation program at any meaningful scale. If people simply overstay and refuse to leave until they have exhausted all possible remedies including bogus refugee claims, it will create a decade-plus backlog of appeals in a system that is already not fit for purpose. An illustrative example of this is the Indian migrant who killed 16 members of a hockey team in one of Canada's largest mass casualty incidents. He pled guilty and was sentenced to seven years in prison, which should have triggered automatic deportation after his release. Now years later, he is still in Canada filing appeals, and using the anchor baby he has post-conviction to argue for humanitarian relief. What's even more insane is that legacy Canadian media appears to be supporting this push for his deportation to be waived. If they can't manage to deport this particularly heinous criminal, do they really expect to be able to process 100k+ deportations per year?

it will create a decade-plus backlog of appeals in a system that is already not fit for purpose.

Nonsense, this is the system working as intended. Who's going to hold it to account? Clearly, voting doesn't matter- whatever party rep you selected is just going to go LPC anyway becuase fuck you, that's why.

What's even more insane is that legacy Canadian media appears to be supporting this push for his deportation to be waived.

Media system working exactly as it's intended to.

There definitely are issues with the legal deportation process in Canada, no doubt. But it is also significantly harder to live illegally in Canada than it is the United States. There are no doubt hundreds of thousands of visa overstays, maybe even a million - but we don't have to nearly the same extent the same kind of underground economy.

the Liberals have managed to somewhat skillfully defuse immigration as the bomb around their neck

Immigration was never a bomb around the LPC's neck, though: it helps exclusively their voters, and that's the only Canadian that matters.

See, LPC voters care about two things, and two things only: the price of their house, and flapping their jowls at the US (and any liberal reforms in that direction; the LPC is a Conservative party, not a classically liberal one). Carney is objectively the best candidate for those things, and that's clearly good enough for a dictatorship.

Labour in the UK are trying surprisingly hard as well, from what I can see. Not doing that well but definitely much more than I was expecting - and more than the Tories for that matter.

You have to have a total victory where the regime has a different perspective on immigration. Everything else is just delay tactics.

There were a couple of decades where all the books on immigration in the public library's catalog were from 1992-97.

Indeed. And if you look at California, there was this huge outburst of public anger, they passed the law, SCOTUS overturned it, and then it just faded away. People gave up, demographics changed, now it’s over. Why won’t that happen everywhere else?

What about delivering on prosperity? Has Carney actually lowered cost of living, made things more affordable?

In Australia I see a certain symmetry. We have a similarly boring, albeit less qualified, centre-left Labor leader in Albanese. He was elected on a platform of lowering electricity prices and improving cost of living, promptly failed to do that (prices went in the other direction), got re-elected anyway. I was sympathetic to Dutton (former leader of the centre-right Liberal Party) and his more ambitious nuclear energy plan but the country rejected him totally. I guess Dutton wasn't charismatic enough, too Trump-coded.

The Liberal Party seems to be totally disintegrating, the more immigration-restrictionist One Nation is demolishing them in polling.

Dutton was certainly kneecapped, like most right-wing leaders in 2025, by the extreme unpopularity of Trump, but I would emphasise also that Dutton's personal brand was always awful. He just puts people off, and while some of that is not his fault (it's unfair to point out the alopecia, but I think it was a factor), some of it was to do with the way he'd spent a long time building a reputation as this hardline police officer.

Albanese is quite good at projecting an image of himself as a boring moderate, and this is a time for boring moderates. Trump created a vision of chaos overseas, while Albanese looks like stability. As a rule, when Albanese tries to gesture towards big, large-scale or symbolic reforms he fails (most famously with the Voice), but I think he has learned from that. He beat Scott Morrison with a small target strategy, and even with Dutton, it was mostly a matter of projecting competence, not walking into any landmines, and trusting that the political winds were blowing his way. Albanese is not an ambitious politician by any means, and is obviously a party man at his core, but that was what the Australian people wanted. No chaos, please, no big reforms, just keep working on trying to fix cost-of-living.

The Coalition is absolutely in crisis at the moment. Both partners are having troubles with leadership, they've threatened splitting up twice and got back together at the last minute, and as you say, One Nation are crushing them. As of last month, on their signature issue, immigration, One Nation poll better than both major parties combined:

A recent Redbridge survey in the Australian Financial Review found 34 per cent of voters preferred One Nation's approach to migration over other parties. The poll found 17 per cent of voters preferred the Coalition's migration policies and just 16 per cent liked Labor's approach.

Does this mean the One Nation will replace the Coalition as the Opposition in Australian politics? I doubt that myself. Much of the reported polling surge for One Nation is disaffected Coalition voters. I expect the Coalition to eventually pivot in enough of an anti-immigration direction to win most of that back. But it will probably be a long and difficult path back to power for them, because the older, Howard-style Liberal fusion is not going to work any more.

What about delivering on prosperity? Has Carney actually lowered cost of living, made things more affordable?

Nope. But then, this war may bail him out of responsibility to do that.

If you look at 2022 - 2026 numbers then it's clear that the real story is the collapse of the NDP. They've lost half of their typical support.

Look at past elections: https://www.sfu.ca/~aheard/elections/1867-present.html

If this holds up then we're looking at a realignment following the death of the NDP as a national party. They basically committed suicide to stop the Conservatives in the last election, and it's not clear that they can come back if they do it again.

There's a long tradition in Canada of blaming the Conservative leader for not being in government. Surely if they oust him then the messiah will appear.

The reality is that there are multiple institutions in Canada who consider shitting on the right wing opposition leader to be a de-facto part of their mandate. By contrast it's relatively easy for Carney to look Prime Ministerial, what with him actually being the PM.

There's a baseball stats term called "Wins Above Replacement" where to evaluate players they compare their stats to a typical replacement level player. We can't quantify political leaders like that but I am suggesting he's better than any likely replacement.

As for the polls, there were polls showing them as tied back in December and January. It'd be silly to oust a leader over something so transient.

There seems to be a big campaign right now from the left to get the Conservatives to dump Pierre. That's not what you'd expect if he was truly weak.

There seems to be a big campaign right now from the left to get the Conservatives to dump Pierre. That's not what you'd expect if he was truly weak.

Poilievre is simply very, very, unpopular with the broader public. There's no way to get around that.

My view is that there's no depth behind that. Canadians don't know much about him, have seen negative stories about him lately, and so report a negative opinion on polls.

Carney has been staying popular by keeping the focus on anti-Americanism and avoiding launching new bold social experiments.

His problem is that's not sustainable. His base has been distracted by Trump but they are going to be expecting some bold new social program soon. Meanwhile Carney is going to be hit by consequences of Trudeaus policies hard over the next couple of years and it will be extremely hard for him to navigate.

Poilievre's big problem previously was that he was running a front runner campaign. His people didn't want him doing podcasts / youtube because it would upset national reporters in Canada. He's been making some changes with that.

Poilievre's Triggernometry interview from 7 days ago is at 675k views. Those views are likely mostly from people outside Canada, but that's a lot for a Canadian politician. Especially for one who's only in opposition.

Contrast that with Carney's Monocole interview from 2 days ago which currently has 139k views. Keep in mind that he's the actual PM.

"very, very, unpopular with the broader public" implies that there's some deep dislike, and I don't see any evidence of that. Opinion can turn on a dime if Carney gets into trouble and isn't seen as viable.

Poilievre just needs to keep going on podcasts to get his message out and wait for Carney to be hit with a crisis that divides his base.

Something has always felt off about that.

I'll grant it's true now. I don't know that it always was. There was a time where he seemed like the most popular Conservative leader in living memory. He was genuinely getting people out to rallies, and not even during election season. His campaign doubled party membership in under a year.

And even then, the media was running the story "Pierre is unlikeable and unpopular". I was like "are we watching the same movie?". Doubted it was true at the time. Suspected they memed it into existence, but it stuck.

He's been saying (with energy!) the things young people have been grumbling about for years, especially re: housing, economy, etc. A coworker was ranting about politics to me basically complaining about the fact that she'll never buy a home, and practically repeating lines from Pierre's youtube playbook. I asked her what she thought of Poilievre. "don't like him". "oh? why?". "dunno. just don't"

I think it's because he's a nerd. The general public hates a nerd. Even though he ditched the glasses, hit the gym, and changed his messaging to 3-word populism, people can tell he's still a nerd. He has debate club energy, and the fact that he is right and "wins" the debate doesn't help him.

He gives off a really smug vibe and I find him generally offputting, but I found Trudeau to be more offputting. I did plan on voting CPC in the last election but the CPC platform was not published before I voted, and when I read their governance document (forget the proper title) I found it vague and full of contradictory sentiments as they tried to appeal to reactionary voters (medical decisions are your right, the government can't mandate vaccinations, but also, you can't be making medical decisions about your children with the participation of those children and their medical team -- vaguely worded of course). I also listened to interviews with Carney from years prior and found him to be a reasonable, pragmatic, neoliberal technocrat. I hopped on /r/candianconservative and asked for people to give me links to PP discussing trump and other issues of the moment. The videos all turned me off because of his tendency to blame others (the Liberals in this case), and not come out with concrete plans. He never felt like a serious man with serious plans who wants to build stuff. He came across as a reactionary politician trying to create soundbites and boo his outgroup.

Now, I'm open to changing my mind. I do not think he's an evil man, or Canadian Trump or any of that BS. However, he really needs to focus on ignoring the Liberals and laying out a clear plan (emphasizing CLEAR) on lots of issues. When he gets interviewed and asked tough questions he needs to answer them instead of trying to pivot to talk about how bad the Liberals are. It's insufferable. I know the Liberals suck, I don't need you to tell me that. Tell me how you are going to lead the country instead.

Yeah. I had a similar evaluation. Expected Carney to be a more competent leader, which counts for a lot, though I still could not vote Liberal that election. After breaking the country so badly with the immigration & housing mess across a decade, just couldn't endorse another term for their government.

I will say that Poilievre used to do more messaging about economics, inflation, housing, etc. trying to show his work. At a certain point, he stopped doing that and pivoted to more attack ads and three word slogans. Worse in my opinion, but it probably polled better.

Not sure about Canada, I asked aislop and it says that basically the Liberals run Canada, forever, except for that one time that a liberal spoiler party joined the election and spoiled it for the Liberals. It also seems like a standard case of "Conservatives conserve nothing" just like in the UK. Why should anyone bother voting Conservative if it just means tax cuts and infinity immigrants?

Anyways it seems like the era of third parties and spoilers may be coming to a close, so we may see Canada simply become a one-party two-bit petrostate.

Conservatives were set to win in a landslide, with Liberals possibly even losing Party status, until Trump awoke the Sleeping Lion of Canadian Politics: "Not being America".

The Conservatives were in the Labour position: certain to win, so they decided to shut the fuck about anything controversial to avoid being tarred (as your AI says the Liberals are the natural governing party, the media is very favorable to them, every single conservative leader is prima facie suspicious and a possible Trumpite/American wedge to them). Whether they're leaving a highly motivated immigration voting bloc on the table or were right to avoid pissing off Boomers who don't want to be like America I don't know. But I think the latter fear is very reasonable.

But it isn't a Tory situation where people seem to actively want to punish them. Trudeau's handling of the immigration system was so over the top that even hardcore immigration restrictionists would likely welcome a turn back to Harper's already large numbers. And because they knew that, the CPC did nothing. Fuck were they going to do, vote PPC? Okay, maybe it isn't the late Tory situation.

The minute Trudeau dropped out though, the immigration argument stopped making itself and the CPC didn't want to touch it. PP's abrasive personality was also no longer a plus when it seemed like Trump was the only person it didn't apply to. But, then again, he wasn't in office and couldn't pull any stunts (like Doug Ford, another person you could consider an asshole at times who directed that at the US and scored some points, despite having to pull back on some of his stunts).

Beyond Carney's already noted talents, he is good at another thing and it's not doing anything radical while being seen to do stuff. Immigration has come down, especially temporary workers, but then there's also going to be a one-time speedup in PR for protected persons of about 100,000 (and he's assuming that the temporary workers let in by Trudeau will all just leave). Then the method of calculating the budget changed to split the operating budget and investment, which theoretically makes sense except Carney is in control of this distinction which has obvious consequences (like a supposedly balanced budget with a massive deficit)

On top of all of the right noises on interprovincial trade barriers and pipelines, I can see not only why he's popular but gaining defectors. If he's going to hang around for 5 years you might as well go to the popular party that can do something.

Anyways it seems like the era of third parties and spoilers may be coming to a close, so we may see Canada simply become a one-party two-bit petrostate.

A petrostate with a loud minority of people who loathe building infrastructure to support and sell oil.

every single conservative leader is prima facie suspicious

This is because, from the only politically relevant perspective in Canada (Easterners), they are foreigners.

I can't really overstate that enough. Western Canada is a foreign country to them, and that means their political parties are foreign too- CPC and NDP both. The NDP collapsed because it was indistinguishable from the LPC (and is why its only seats are out in the West).

You never vote for a foreigner in a crisis, Trump is the Worst Thing Ever to the Eastern Boomers, QED.

This isn't that complicated, unless you're of the opinion that Canada is a political monolith (which polls tend to do, for reasons that at least rhyme with manufacturing consensus).

I mean petroleum producing parts of Canada will eventually secede and the country will collapse. One party Canada won't last forever.

Them and what army?

We barely have an army in the first place -- and the constitutionality of separation has been mostly confirmed previously. (if you are Quebec)

The Liberals are competitive in Alberta again. That Trudeau-era dynamic has been washed away, at least for now.

Why should anyone bother voting Conservative if it just means tax cuts and infinity immigrants?

That's why they lost the last 2 elections. This is why PP continues to have that mandate, by the way- at least he's saying Reform things this time rather than "but we should bend over backwards for whatever Karen of Toronto wants". You can't win that way, you see.

The NDP was the other counterbalance for reform, but they're arch-Conservatives now, which is why they're so indistinguishable from the LPC that most of their MPs are LPC now.

we may see Canada simply become a one-party two-bit petrostate.

If the petrostate part of the petrostate isn't smart [or powerful] enough to prevent that, and content with losing elections for ever, then it will be so.

If the petrostate part of the petrostate isn't smart [or powerful] enough to prevent that, and content with losing elections for ever, then it will be so.

If that happens, you might end up with a legitimate secessionist movement (assuming the stink from Trump wears off).

It's treated as absurd, as if QC has the exclusive right to agitate so, but we'll see.

you might end up with a legitimate secessionist movement

It's kind of already here. It doesn't have as much support in the cities (NDP voters [progressives] are 95-5 against, UCP voters [traditionalist-liberals] are 60-40 for, UCP is majority party) but it's clear to every Westerner (and Easterner, for that matter) under 40 that they'll never be permitted to win an election in this country- outside of one 4-year period they never have.

It's treated as absurd, as if QC has the exclusive right to agitate so

QC is different because they don't actually need to hold the executive to get what they want.

AB, by contrast, has to hold the executive; if it doesn't the Easterners just team up to block everything. Older AB residents are probably made happier by the Carney regime's recent overtures about more development... but those aren't really his policies, and even the CPC voted for those bills. I don't think it's as reliable a signal of "well they're going to vote LPC at the first opportunity", this is the bare minimum that the LPC believes has to happen for the country not to splinter.

but the sheer number of them in such a short span of time, let alone to form a majority government, is entirely novel.

Yes, the government just straight up refusing to respect the results of the election is extremely novel for Canada.

Question is, of course, if anyone's going to care about that; or if the people that do care the most (i.e. people who don't live in Ottawa) are simply going to decide to quit. Sure, oil prices being higher helps those people in particular, but who knows if that's going to last.

THE OUTCOME OF THE BATTLE OF STANCILGRAD STARTS TO BECOME APPARENT

Jumping back to the pre-war CW topics. There was a lot of debate during Operation Metro Surge about the wisdom of the tactics and choices being made in Minneapolis. We won't be able to really assess the results for years if not decades, but we're getting some early returns. After the killings of Renee Good and Alex Pretti, Greg Bovino was removed from Minneapolis and there was debate over whether this represented a pullback by ICE, or just a shuffling of personnel. Politico reports a decline in immigration cases.

As the Trump administration has scaled back its most aggressive immigration enforcement efforts, the torrent of emergency lawsuits mounted by ICE detainees has also begun to slow. Courts have been flooded for months with petitions for habeas corpus — requests by ICE detainees to be released from custody or at least to have a chance to plead their cases. Habeas petitions are still arriving at astonishing levels, but have noticeably declined since the administration pulled back from its mega-enforcement operation in Minnesota.

A POLITICO analysis found that immigration habeas petitions peaked at about 300 to 400 per day from Jan. 16 to Feb. 17, at the height of Operation Metro Surge. It was in this timeframe — which includes the Jan. 24 shooting death of demonstrator Alex Pretti — when public opinion began to sour on the Trump administration’s mass deportation tactics. Habeas petitions peaked at more than 400 on Feb. 6 but have since steadily declined, dipping below 300 per day late last month and approaching 200 per day by early March. The decline in habeas cases tracks with a similar decline in immigration arrests reported by The New York Times, citing internal DHS data...Meanwhile, habeas cases in Minnesota have dropped sharply since the administration last month announced a drawdown of federal agents. Crackdowns in Chicago, Los Angeles and Portland led to similar surges in habeas cases late last year and into 2026, but they have also abated.

So we're seeing a drop in cases, related to a shift in administration priorities. I noticed less ICE in the news, and local activist networks were talking about ICE less, but they still seemed to be around and there was no declaration that things were cooling off. Trump has periodically made noises about laying off of workers in certain industries, but that’s never been really confirmed as official policy. Statistics and reporting now seem to be confirming a pullback after the deaths in Minneapolis. Obviously, some are not such big fans of this. Elsewhere in Washington

Top allies of President Donald Trump are furious at the White House’s new rhetorical emphasis on deporting violent criminals over all unauthorized immigrants — and they’re launching a lobbying effort to reverse that reversal. A group of longtime Trump allies, immigration restrictionist groups and hawkish policy experts have formed the Mass Deportation Coalition to lobby the Trump administration to refocus its efforts on deporting all eligible migrants. The group has commissioned new polling from one of Trump’s top pollsters to back its thesis that doing so will ensure GOP wins this November, and plans to share that data with White House officials, agency heads and every member of Congress.

“Overwhelmingly, Trump voters expect this from the administration. They don’t just support it, they expect it,” said Chris Chmielenski, president of the Immigration Accountability Project, which advocates for conservative immigration policy. “This is a good way to re-energize the base as we move into the midterms, the same way that Trump was able to do so in the lead up to the 2024 general election.”

The new coalition includes Mark Morgan, the former acting commissioner of Customs and Border Protection under Trump; Erik Prince, a Trump ally and former Blackwater CEO; as well as a number of conservative think-tanks and lobbying groups close to the Trump administration including the Heritage Foundation, Federation for American Immigration Reform, American Moment, and the Claremont Institute.

((Prince, notably, had this to say about the recent Iran war:

"Look, Steve, I'm not happy about the whole thing," Prince said on Bannon's War Room podcast. "I don't think this was in America's interests. It's going to uncork a significant can of worms and chaos and destruction in Iran now."..."Who takes over?" Prince asked on the podcast. He added: "I don't see how this is in keeping with the president's MAGA commitment. I'm disappointed."))

The campaign comes as other Republican strategists and lawmakers warn Trump’s mass deportation agenda is becoming increasingly unpopular following ICE operations in Minnesota that killed two U.S. citizens, and could hurt the party’s chances of retaining control of Congress. Since then, the administration has pivoted its message on immigration enforcement while overhauling its leadership at DHS. Border czar Tom Homan replaced CBP chief Greg Bovino in Minneapolis and drew down the immigration enforcement presence there; the president ousted DHS Secretary Kristi Noem last week and tapped Sen. Markwayne Mullin (R-Okla.) to replace her; and even Trump, in his State of the Union address, focused mostly on border security and deporting violent criminals.

It remains to be seen what Mar’Kwayne and his homeboys will do when they are put in charge of DHS. Possibly, given that we are now on a war footing with the largest state sponsor of terrorism, he will have other priorities altogether. I suspect the confirmation hearings will be an opportunity for Democrats to put Mar’Kwayne on tape about ICE policies, and to force Republicans to vote on the record before the midterms.

But if we see a sustained pullback in ICE raids along the lines of Metro Surge, and a net reduction in deportations, we have to call this a victory on the part of the protestors. Renee Good and Alex Pretti will have been successfully, if not exactly willingly, martyred for the cause. The whistles, the Telegram chats, the aggressive policy of confrontation with authorities, will have at least temporarily forced the administration to change course. A sufficiently determined and brave protest movement was not defeated. Love them or hate them, they appear to have succeeded, and others interested in changing American policy should take note. If enough people are willing to put themselves in the gunsights, the government will not be willing to slaughter Americans wholesale.

Does this reflect a fundamentally bad plan in Metro Surge? What adjustments can be made to neutralize this kind of aggressive protest against ICE? Does this reflect an underlying shift in public opinion?

My theory remains as ever that the plurality of Americans would broadly like to see immigration normalized, with illegal immigrants removed or otherwise punished, but that they are unwilling to accept the steps necessary to get there. So we're trapped in a permanent state of exception.

This has me wondering, does the average protestor realize their goal is to get one of their own shot? You can blow whistles and hold signs and scream all day, but if ICE doesn’t shoot anyone nobody will care. The whole thing only works if somebody dies on camera. Do they understand that? Or is this just a sort of spontaneously evolved Darwinian thing, where this protest strategy reproduces because it is successful, even if the participants don’t comprehend it?

I imagine much like a gang or an army or an extreme sport, proclaiming your courage and willingness to die, and the risk of death you have already faced, is so socially valuable that everyone is willing to put themselves in a position to die even if they would all prefer not to draw the short straw.

A little of column A, a little of column B. Back during the Civil Rights Movement, organizers and protestors absolutely knew the goal was to get the shit kicked out of you - the point was to quite literally say "come and see the violence inherent in the system." This time around, there's a noticeable mix of people who understand this and cargo cultists who are just aping the form of the CRM (tbh, there were probably similar people back in the day).

That said, I doubt there were a lot of people specifically anticipating someone getting shot.

My feeling is that the organizers fully understand that but the average protester does not.

Their lived experience is protests with a friendly city government where the police will get in trouble for actually trying to control the situation. They've been fed falsehoods about how ICE agents aren't real federal agents.

How does this explain the increase in protests following the shootings, which were largely reported in the leftist press as "fascist cops are just shooting protestors completely at random," if they thought it was risk free wouldn't they have stayed home after that?

They needn't believe that it's risk-free; they simply think that the point of protests is to intimidate and shame the bad guys into retreating by showing how many people stand against them. This can involve knowing there's a risk of being shot, and still be a very different mindset of "the point of protests is to create martyrs".

I mean, I knew for previous protests; I just figured it was a numbers game. I'm more likely to get mulched during a march by some chudmobile 5 foot lifted dodge ram doing 60 in a 45 zone as the dude driving throws his third empty buzzball out the window than get got by the feds, so the math works out in favor of the protestors when the government is even a bit accountable to the populace/not completely psychotic.

The answer like many topics is that Americans in general are not nearly as retarded as elites seem to think and their lazy attempts at doing and saying extremist unpopular things while denying it with "nuh uh that's not true" doesn't actually work well outside of the far left and far right cultists. The Biden admin forcing through progressive policies while pretending to be moderate lost them the popular vote suddenly, and the Trump administration has decided to take the same approach.

"Illegal immigration" is both a great example of the noncentral fallacy and of a motte and bailey.

When the Trump admin says it's only illegal immigration, and the DHS is talking about deporting a number equal to all non white people in the country, they undermine their claims. They have left this post up for months, it is not a mistake. Americans are not retards, people who are for removing illegal immigrants but not every minority sees this sort of thing too and gets pushed away from supporting his agenda.

Likewise when the Trump admin strips the legal status of people who came here properly, people who are against illegal immigration but for legal immigrants are also pushed away. People who see their friends/coworkers/family/etc have their spouses and children banned not because they're doing anything illegal but because the Trump admin just won't process them are able to look past the lies that it's just the "worst of the worst"

When the Trump admin continues to just straight make shit up all the time even in the Senate, people notice.

The Trump admin has repeatedly decided to appeal to the extremist online right who believes in some grand race war, instead of the independent and centrist Americans who make up the swing vote. And because they know what they're doing is unpopular among that crowd, they just lie instead. But asking the centrists and moderates to disbelieve what you are literally doing and bragging about doing doesn't work! Biden couldn't do it, and Trump can't do it now. The American people are not that stupid, and the progressives and postliberals should learn the lesson that just because you, an extremist partisan, can trick yourself into ignoring the world doesn't mean everyone else will.

Heck even Trump himself is less extremist than many of the people in his admin. He offers asylum to the Iranian woman's soccer team if Australia wouldn't take them, meanwhile the people below have pretty much completely cut off asylum and are even trying to deport people like this gal who was adopted by an American soldier, is Christian and has had her life here for 53 years. She would die in Iran just like the soccer players would, she's a Christian American to them!

When the moderate American hears criminals they're thinking people who do violent things. When they hear about illegal immigration, they want the focus on the antisocial and anti American ones. They don't want the sweet Nona across the street who got a speeding ticket 20 years ago removed to have her legal status revoked, and yet that sort of thing is what the administration is doing.

Here's some advice for the Biden and Trump admins and any future presidents to come. Instead of telling Americans you're doing popular thing Y and then doing unpopular things X, just do the Y thing! Tell your extremists to settle instead of trying to appeal to them.

Likewise when the Trump admin strips the legal status of people who came here properly

"Temporary actually means permanent" and "Biden's psycho paroling should be permanent" continue to be terrible positions and give away the game that most complaints about immigration from the left are salami-slicing at best.

One president can do what they want and it can never be undone is not a good policy. Everything flip-flopping on a 4 to 8 year basis isn't great policy either, of course.

Instead of telling Americans you're doing popular thing Y and then doing unpopular things X, just do the Y thing! Tell your extremists to settle instead of trying to appeal to them.

That more or less Denmark alone has managed this really begs the question of why its so difficult.

I guess Japan just elected what's supposedly their most right-wing government since before The War suggests it's not technically just Denmark, but may also suggest America is past some tipping point where it was possible.

Believe what you want about refugees but people who followed the rules as they were at the time are categorically not "illegal immigrants", and trying to motte and bailey the topic is not a successful PR strategy. The moderate swing voting Americans are not partisan brained enough to turn off their critical thinking like that.

That more or less Denmark alone has managed this really begs the question of why its so difficult.

Well one issue that we see with the Biden and Trump admins is that they're often more moderate than the people working under them. The extremists get into positions of power and work for approval from their social media tribes, blinding them to the worsening popularity. A captain isn't liable to remain popular if he can't stop the crew from pillaging, like if Robin Hood stole from the rich and gave to the poor while the merry men snuck behind back and beat the children up.

Non of the asylum seekers followed the law. It was being abused by the Biden administration. Non of them were ever true asylum seekers. It’s a word cell game they played.

people who followed the rules as they were at the time are categorically not "illegal immigrants"

That's not quite what I said, either.

That they followed the rules of the time does not mean the rules of the time made any sense, or that the rules of the time must never be undone.

The moderate swing voting Americans are not partisan brained enough to turn off their critical thinking like that.

LOL you were alive in 2020, they absolutely are willing to turn off their critical thinking, or at least stay quiet and in hiding so the outcome is the same.

and the DHS is talking about deporting a number equal to all non white people

This was an interesting claim, so I clicked. The post says "America after 100 million deportations" which is a bit shy of the 150 million nonwhites in the States. It's also a bit more than the estimated 10ish illegal immigrants. One must imagine the white supremacist DHS poster to be mathematically challenged.

Per the Census, if you exclude multiracial people who identify as both white and another race from "non-white" it goes down from 144 million to 113 million. Note that people who identify as both white and hispanic are already included in "white alone", counting all hispanics as non-white raises it to 160 million. So we're hypothesizing a DHS white-supremacist who thinks Barack Obama is white and then rounds from 113 to 100. I'm guessing the "dogwhistle for number of non-whites" claim was from someone who looked at a "whites in U.S." statistic that included multiracial people, falsely assumed it could be subtracted from the U.S. population to get the number of non-whites, and then thought 113 million was close enough.

Presumably the actual explanation is that "100 million" is a big round number chosen without any reference to actual statistics as a hyperbolic way of saying "more deportations good". It could say "1 Billion Deportations" and the meaning would be the same. Also I very much doubt that accusations of twitter dogwhistles are having much impact on people's opinions on the Trump administration at this point.

So we're hypothesizing a DHS white-supremacist who thinks Barack Obama is white

Damn it, I'll bite.

Is he not? He's the son of a black (absent) Nigerian father and a white mother. He was raised by her, his grandparents, and for a time an Indonesian stepfather. He has not, so far as I can make out, any experience at all of his father's culture or homeland. He was not raised 'typically' black as the majority of African-Americans were (Michelle was very important to him as being authentically African-American background and able to introduce him to that).

If you can be black with one white parent, why can't you be white with one black parent, if your upbringing was functionally white as a white child?

(The above is not seriously meant).

I joked in 2012 that we hadn't really had a black president until Obama got reelected, as the first term only gave us half of one.

Because despite both political sides complaining that it's stupid (with different reasoning), the One Drop Rule seems as powerful as ever.

By that rule, we already had a black President: Warren Harding.

Warren "O.G." Harding

Yeah this is what I get from ChatGPT at least to double check it

Using the broad definition “anyone who is not white at all” (so excluding people who identify as white alone, including white Hispanics):

The U.S. population is about 334 million.

About 75–76% identify as white alone according to the United States Census Bureau.

That means about 24–25% are not white.

Approximate number

24–25% of 334 million ≈ 81–84 million people

However including white Hispanics does bump it up to around 140 million apparently. It's impossible to say that it means this implication, but it's still an example of how extremist rhetoric is put out by the admin underlings. It's not just "the libs" you get with the Epic Trolling, tons of normies and moderates will see it too and update a little away from supporting you. Likewise with Laura Loomer's statement of feeding all the Hispanics in the country to crocodiles

The left wing extremists often push the moderates back with their own nonsense, but the ones in power tend to be the people most in danger if they can't control their rhetoric and behavior. Biden never learned this lesson, and it doesn't look like Trump intends to learn anytime soon. Even now while they are attempting to moderate out a little, it's only after all this extremist content already got pumped out and it still is upsetting the partisan fringes who are trying to lobby for more extremism.

The issue is that an administration that tries to be popular with the normies and moderates is an admin that the partisans don't really like that much. You have to be willing to upset your own group some knowing that they'll be loyal for you anyway and appeal to the centrists.

Likewise when the Trump admin strips the legal status of people who came here properly, people who are against illegal immigration but for legal immigrants are also pushed away.

People who are against illegal immigration are against it not because it is against the law, but for some other reason. Joe Biden going and flying in millions of people, immediately giving them humanitarian parole, and then giving them TPS does not actually address any of those reasons those people were concerned about. People can see that Biden used humanitarian parole / TPS in a very novel way, they can see it used as an immigration pathway,

lies that it's just the "worst of the worst"

Who here is lying? Do you have any evidence that Trump has ever said this?

From his 2024 platform he did not promise this. CARRY OUT THE LARGEST DEPORTATION OPERATION IN AMERICAN HISTORY is what it promises. I have searched and I have not found DJT promising to just deport criminals, and I have found loads of instances of him saying positions contradictory to that claim.

People who are against illegal immigration are against it not because it is against the law, but for some other reason

There is no singular explanation for the dislike of illegal immigration. There are plenty of people who are perfectly fine with legal immigrants and just want them to enter in following the rules. Most immigration restrictionist seem to believe that this is even the mainstream view among them, given the proclivity to focus on illegal immigration in discourse and staying on the down low regarding efforts to restrict legal ones.

The PR you choose to output is reflective of what you believe others want to see of you, and the PR of immigration restriction puts a large emphasis on the illegal part. Therefore they must believe it is an important distinction to the swing voters they are trying to convince.

Who here is lying? Do you have any evidence that Trump has ever said this?

Trump repeatedly uses the phrase "worst of the worst". They even had a website about this exact phrasing, albeit they even admit it was filled with errors. Just go ask any of the chatbots and they can give you tons of examples.

And like many things involving Trump, he changes what he says based off who is talking to and who is trying to appeal to at the time. You can't point to just one place where he says something and assume he's never contradicted it elsewhere.

Trump repeatedly uses the phrase "worst of the worst".

The claim was that Trump has called for "JUST" the removal of the "worst of the worst". Those are your words, I even quoted them. You are not alone in making the claim, but that is your claim. That you change the claim instead of defending it with evidence indicates that you cannot defend it.

They even had a website about this exact phrasing, albeit they even admit it was filled with errors.

You are interpreting words to mean what you want them to mean, not what they actually mean. This website is a good example of what is going on. Here is the Trump admin, direct from the website you linked, emphasis mine:

"The U.S. Department of Homeland Security is highlighting the worst of worst criminal aliens arrested by the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE)."

"Under Secretary Noem's leadership, the hardworking men and women of DHS and ICE are fulfilling President Trump's promise and carrying out mass deportations - starting with the worst of the worst - including the illegal aliens you see here."

They say they are starting with the worst of the worst. They never say they will just deport the worst of the worst. They say they are doing the opposite of just going after the worst of the worst, they are carrying out mass deportations.

The slight of hand here is that you are misconstruing "highlighting the worst of the worst" as "just the worst of the worst." Highlighting does not imply exclusivity. Does a highlighter block out everything on a page not highlighted?

Just go ask any of the chatbots and they can give you tons of examples.

ChatGPT says that you are reading framing from media and not Trump's actual words:

✅ Bottom line:

-Trump has often said criminals would be deported first.

-But he has also repeatedly supported deporting all undocumented immigrants, not just criminals.

-I could not find credible instances where he explicitly promised deportations would be limited exclusively to criminals.

If you want, I can also show a few examples of how this claim (“Trump said he would only deport criminals”) entered political discourse, because that framing mostly came from media summaries and campaign messaging rather than his literal wording. That nuance is actually pretty important in debates about this.

"14 heartbreaking photos that will make you say fuck having borders and law and shit” undefeated.

Why are you using the ghetto spelling of his name?

You'll notice this chaos happened in Minnesota, and only in Minnesota. So the formula for successful immigration surges is clear- get the local authorities to cooperate. The immigration surge has to end in a particular location eventually, for allotment of resources reasons, so temporary cooperation is the fastest way for local authorities to go back to whatever mismanagement and petty corruption they were doing before. Obviously Minneapolis and Minnesota more broadly had ideological reasons for not wanting to go this route, but so did LA and Chicago- one has to wonder if the bigger factor was looming federal investigations into Minnesota fraud was a bigger factor. I wonder if Trump could have gotten cooperation by using these investigations as leverage, or by waiting a minute until the investigations had some results.

The ironic thing was that while Minnesota got into the news due to the Somali fraud cases, the immigration surge paralyzed the US Attorney's office and didn't affect the Somalis one bit, as 90% of them are US citizens and almost all of the remainder are here legally. I remember reading some Minnesota Democrats complaining that the fraud wasn't being investigated properly because everything was tied up in immigration.

Well yeah, a more competent regime would have focused on the fraud first, then followed up with immigration enforcement after using it to take down local political machine structures- or simply avoided the high-profile immigration surge, because it's Minneapolis and you just don't need that many boots on the ground.

If a motivated administration could actually take down corrupt urban political machines, the deportations thing would be a footnote afterwards. But at that point you might as well ask for a new flag.

Why are you using the ghetto spelling of his name?

As a protest against the degradation being imposed on me by the decline of our culture.

You'll notice this chaos happened in Minnesota, and only in Minnesota.

...huh? "Mostly peaceful" ICE protests occurred in every city that ICE launched major surges into. Minneapolis ultimately became the flashpoint for a variety of reasons, but the same protests occurred in metros across the country. Moreover, post Metro Surge, arrests are down across the country, not just in Minneapolis. So after Metro Surge, Trump's team has pulled back on these tactics across the country.

Trump got his way in LA and Chicago. He lost in Minneapolis. Yes there were all sorts of protestors in these places but it was all page five stories and professional activists getting arrested.

Yet detentions are down nationwide. We're not seeing the same tactics used nationwide.

If I martyred myself for a right-wing cause it would be a waste of time.

Just ask Ashli Babbitt.

but that they are unwilling to accept the steps necessary to get there. So we're trapped in a permanent state of exception.

Are they even, or are they insufficiently critical of media reporting yet?

That's it. That's everything. In a parallel universe, crimes committed by illegal immigrants or other left-sympathetic figures would move from local news to a national roundtable discussion. But it consistently fails to be escalated to such. It stays local (and even there is massaged, see affiliate reporting on BART crimes, purely locally). Unlike Ferguson, Missouri, a local crime that made the big time.


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