site banner
PaperclipPerfector  1mo ago (text post)   25933 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of March 16, 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.

4
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

To sort of echo Daste's recent post, it's remarkable the lack of threads for the ongoing conflict given its historic implications for Culture War, but I'll keep the ball rolling for another update/call to register your predictions:

  • On Friday Donald Trump gave Iran an ultimatum to open the Strait of Hormuz, or else the US will target Iranian civilian energy infrastructure. Israel has enthusiastically supported the ultimatum.
  • Iran has vowed to retaliate against Gulf energy and desalination infrastructure if the US follows through on its threat.

It's very possible the next few days will be a turning point in history. I guess I will register the prediction of Trump TACO given any other alternative is too bad for the world to fathom. Yesterday Iran did enormous damage to the towns in Southern Israel hosting Israeli nuclear infrastructure (which actually does not fall under the oversight of the IEA in contrast with Iran's program to this point). The notion that Iran is incapable of following through with its avowed retaliation is bunk, given the recent strikes on Qatar gas facilities that will have long-term impacts on global supply of natural gas.

So what's going to happen tomorrow? All of the public signals point to Trump making the decision to totally destroy Iranian infrastructure in order to destroy the country. But Iran won't back down because it would be the end of the regime. So who's going to blink?

So Trump chickened out and said he’s making a deal, then Iran came out and said they’re not making a deal, then Trump clarified and said that actually it was Witkoff and Kushner, implicitly speaking to some third parties, who were relaying messages to Iran.

The markets are wobbly but I think this is the clearest sign possible that a unilateral Trump retreat is the most likely next step. If Iran keeps the strait closed or - more likely - extracts a hefty toll from anyone who wants to ship through it, that is something Trump can and will blame on others. He can say “we pounded them and killed the supreme leader” and that will be enough for the base. Gas prices can remain elevated but will trend downward over time.

@ me if this is all a feint in advance of a US invasion but I doubt it.

Marines are still on their way. I was expecting the opposite -- Trump announces a deadline, then before the deadline, there are strikes. But either way, watch troop movements, not Trump's mouth (or Truth Social account).

Theoretically, certainly, the Iranians could make a deal. But I doubt any Iranian capable of controlling the country is an Iranian willing to make a deal.

It's also very possible that Iran's left hand didn't know what the right hand was doing, given the break down in Iranian government communications created by this situation.

I think this reverses cause and effect. Nobody actually wants to destroy Iran's energy infrastructure, because what would that even accomplish? It would just make lifei hell for their civilians, without affecting their military much. The real reason for this threat is just to remind Iran that we have this capability, and make them knock off their attacks on things like gas facilities or the possibility of attacking desalinization plants

At least in regard to Saudi Arabia, this does seem to have worked

Bear in mind there's a lot of propaganda flying around right now. All different sides seem to be spinning every event in the most climactic, dramatic way possible. So we have to be careful to separate fact from rumors and threats.

edit: https://www.cnbc.com/2026/03/22/stock-market-today-live-updates.html and now there's "very good and productive conversations regarding a complete and total resolution of our hostilities in the Middle East"

Bear in mind there's a lot of propaganda flying around right now. All different sides seem to be spinning every event in the most climactic, dramatic way possible. So we have to be careful to separate fact from rumors and threats.

To be clear, this is a direct quote from the President of the United State:

If Iran doesn’t FULLY OPEN, WITHOUT THREAT, the Strait of Hormuz, within 48 HOURS from this exact point in time, the United States of America will hit and obliterate their various POWER PLANTS, STARTING WITH THE BIGGEST ONE FIRST! Thank you for your attention to this matter. President DONALD J. TRUMP

There is no connection drawn between Iranian infrastructure attacks and American attacks on Iranian power plants, only between Iranian threats against shipping and American "obliteration" of Iranian power plants.

This is directly from the President of the United States, who by all reliable sources runs his own Truth social account. I don't understand how one can support the American war effort, and then say that to understand it you have to credit some statements by the POTUS, SoW, SoS; and discount others.

On the other hand, fifteen minutes ago as of this writing.

Good news everyone:

I AM PLEASE TO REPORT THAT THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, AND THE COUNTRY OF IRAN, HAVE HAD, OVER THE LAST TWO DAYS, VERY GOOD AND PRODUCTIVE CONVERSATIONS REGARDING A COMPLETE AND TOTAL RESOLUTION OF OUR HOSTILITIES IN THE MIDDLE EAST. BASED ON THE TENOR AND TONE OF THESE IN DEPTH, DETAILED, AND CONSTRUCTIVE CONVERSATIONS, WITCH WILL CONTINUE THROUGHOUT THE WEEK, I HAVE INSTRUCTED THE DEPARTMENT OF WAR TO POSTPONE ANY AND ALL MILITARY STRIKES AGAINST IRANIAN POWER PLANTS AND ENERGY INFRASTRUCTURE FOR A FIVE DAY PERIOD, SUBJECT TO THE SUCCESS OF THE ONGOING MEETINGS AND DISCUSSIONS. THANK YOU FOR YOUR ATTENTION TO THIS MATTER! PRESIDENT DONALD J. TRUMP [sic]

We'll have to see how the markets open on this news.

I think it's just standard to assume by now that everything Trump says has some degree of boast and bluster in it. him writing '"48 HOURS" on his Truth Social account isn't some sort of legally binding deadline, its just his way of applying pressure to get negotiations going. Markets are massively up in the futures markets, so they seem to be taking these peace talks seriously.

Trump could actually do something pretty hilarious here which is blame the whole thing on Israel. Say that the over-escalation is their fault. They were completely unhinged (killing Iranian moderates, targeting energy infrastructure) and that the US was trying to get them to pull back. Say they're fed up and if Israel won't follow orders they can fight on their own. Just pull out of the war and say it's Israel's war if they want to keep going - we can't support them if they are not going to do what we tell them.

Whether the Iranian's gain enough face from this to break the escalation spiral I'm not sure. It would be a pretty big win form them - driving a wedge between Israel and US - but hard to say.

Looks pretty bad at the moment. Hard for anyone to walk back without losing face.

Such an action, while hilarious, probably dooms Republicans in the midterms to such an extent that it would be unlikely for Trump to actually try it.

Everything dooms the Republicans in the midterms.

That's not analysis. It's barely even sarcastic. I feel like every month there's 1-2 things that DOOM REPUBLICANS IN THE MIDTERMS and then the actual polling needle barely budges.

Maybe everything is just fully too stupid for mere "events" to make anyone update.

A sudden face-heel turn on Israel is a significantly larger action than anything you've seen in the paper up until now.

Betrayal is the most difficult move to execute in a democracy, because the people who support the betrayal rarely trust you afterward. The anti-war caucus will not trust Trump after he flips on Israel, while the zionist contingent will be demoralized and may stay home.

It's not really possible to fully model something like this because it's basically never happened before. The closest I can think of is maybe LBJ on civil rights, or HW Bush on taxes? But even those weren't nearly as clear value betrayals as this would be.

The anti-war caucus will not trust Trump after he flips on Israel

I assume you mean the anti-war caucus of the Republican Party, seeing as the anti-war Dems have never trusted—and will never trust—Trump in the first place. In which case, why? Trump kept his promise of no forever wars in his first term, and for most of his second term. The recent Iran action is an aberration but so long as he doesn’t get bogged down in a quagmire, the America First anti-war types should be perfectly willing to turn a blind eye, as they have on Venezuela.

Trump kept his promise of no forever wars in his first term, and for most of his second term. The recent Iran action is an aberration

This is one of those "but you fuck one goat..." situations, though. The biggest difference by far is the jump from zero to one.

and for most of his second term.

Homeboy, we're not even halfway through the second term, and we've committed to at least two acts of war (I'll spot you bombing Yemen).

...seeing as the anti-war Dems have never trusted—and will never trust—Trump in the first place.

Which is my point, betraying your base to appeal to your enemies by turning on Israel won't work, because your enemies won't trust you anyway.

and we've committed to at least two acts of war (I'll spot you bombing Yemen)

And my point is that—as evidenced by the deafening silence around the Venezuela operation—the so-called anti-war Republicans are not actually anti-war tout court, they’re really just anti-quagmire, especially in the Middle East, double-especially when it comes to quagmires (that they perceive as being) in Israel’s interests rather than America’s. The recent resignation letter of the former head of the National Counterterrorism Center encapsulates this mentality nicely.

If Trump immediately pulls out of Iran and declares “mission accomplished, American interests secured, no boots on the ground, no occupation”, that portion of his base should be willing to cut him some slack, just as they did with Venezuela, regardless of the actual merits of his claims, and of the fact that this is just another instance of TACO. Bonus points if he loudly and publicly turns on Netanyahu and accuses Israel of perfidiously trying to manipulate us into another forever war (which I think is unlikely, but supposedly Trump is aware that after the Boomers, support for Israel is cratering across the political spectrum)

A sudden face-heel turn on Israel is a significantly larger action than anything you've seen in the paper up until now.

Yes, there is no way Republicans would accept a complete 180 like this. What next? Bombing Ira... oh, wait...

Big difference. Nobody likes Iran, a large contingent of American prots actively believe that supporting Israel is a religious obligation. I drive by (biblically ignorant, in my opinion) billboards reading "God blesses those who bless Israel" on a daily basis.

I suppose there's "blessed are the peacemakers" as a counter, but everyone ignores that anyway, except Pope Leo.

Also, I think Republican support for the Iran war is overstated. 80-85% of Republicans support the strikes in most polls I've seen, the equivalent numbers in Iraq were 95%+ (Lizardman range) for the first few years of the war. Losing 10-15% support from your own party is pretty bad, though it's just issue polling.

I had firm belief that Ukraine would sue for peace after they weathered the shock of the initial attack by Russia. But it turns out you can just ignore the obvious disaster on the horizon and condemn hundreds of thousands of men to their useless deaths.

Honestly feels like reality lost its training wheels after that and anything is now possible regardless of how obviously stupid it is.

That being said, I'd wager against further escalation in this specific direction if only because Israel is allegedly very vulnerable to retaliation. Now, how true is that? I don't know. Maybe the Israeli government has tunnel vision on the idea that this is their final chance to knock Iran down a peg, so the risk is worth it.

My prediction is Trump will bomb something else and successfully pivot to that being a victory.

They've negotiated but Russia hasn't offered terms Ukraine would accept. People up to JD Vance himself have assumed Russia will accept some sort of armistice on the line of control but they won't. The Trump administration offered this and Russia refused. Given the state of the front it's very unclear "disaster' is on the horizon. Either side could collapse tomorrow or they could continue another two years. Russia doesn't actually have a massive numerical advantage because Ukraine has a draft and they don't so it's far from clear they have an inventible victory. Regardless their terms are Ukraine giving up significant land that Russia doesn't control and that's a nonstarter the Ukrainian government would get lynched if they accepted that.

I had firm belief that Ukraine would sue for peace after they weathered the shock of the initial attack by Russia. But it turns out you can just ignore the obvious disaster on the horizon and condemn hundreds of thousands of men to their useless deaths.

The problem with your preferred strategy, which I might paraphrase as "surrender immediately when it becomes obvious that you will lose in the long run" is that it is not a dominant strategy. If your medieval city surrenders to every approaching army which could lay siege to it, then expect every general to sack your city at every opportunity he gets at no cost to his army.

I would argue that Ukraine has had a tremendous success in one key military objective, and that is to inflict costs on their enemy. Now, this does not help them in this timeline (though it does help other countries at the risk of Russian aggression), at least not while the war is going on. However, if they had not had that pre-commitment, if instead it had been common knowledge that Ukraine's plan for a Russian invasion was unconditional surrender, then they would have been annexed by a single Russian tank in 2014.

By contrast, Venezuela might as well have pinned a sign "please kick us and we give you oil" to its back. I am clinging to some slim hopes that they will somehow manage to extract costs from the US for their aggression, ideally timed to mess up the mid-terms (not that Trump needs more help with that), but otherwise they will be a US colony for the foreseeable future, with every US president considering a quick military strike followed by even more lopsided conditions from now on. At least there are no other superpowers in the Atlantic to take their turn with them.

I mostly agree with you in the context of medieval or ancient warfare. Historical societies could rebound fast because they were essentially malthusian-limited: Even if they lose a majority of men, they'd just get them back in a generation or two. Whether you stay at the limit thanks to high infant mortality or dip below for a while thanks to war but recover quickly afterwards doesn't really matter all that much, not even in terms of net-deaths. Arguably, a decent number of the men were more trouble than worth anyway, so it might even be beneficial for the rest to get rid of them. But two can play at game theory, see the Melian Dialogue, so you shouldn't discount the alternative even back then.

Ukraine's behaviour is also beneficial for me, as a cynical european who wants them to bleed russia as much as possible to reduce the chance of them starting a war against us. It's apparently also what Ukraine wants, so they should get our support, and we're in no position to talk them out of it. But for themselves it's basically suicide if you look at the numbers. Lots of dead, mostly men. Lots of emigration, mostly women, and I'd be very surprised if more than a third returns, if even that much. The birth rate is in the gutters as well. There's no coming back from this.

Venezuela becoming a de-facto US vassal seems ... clearly preferential to this? It's true that I prefer the US by far to Russia already so it's hardly a symmetric issue. But to go back to history, there are plenty of independent rulers who swiftly surrendered or even swore fealty to a superior foe when the writing was on the wall, only to bide their time and come out on top eventually.

I'd argue you mistakenly have cause and effect completely reversed. It's not that surprising, since many Atlanticists seem to share your assumptions. I'd say the plain truth is that the only reason the Ukrainians keep fighting, to the extent that they do, is because they assume the West will keep supporting and supplying them.

I'd rather say that without western support, they would have simply lost some time ago already, so you're kind of right but I wouldn't say that this means my causality is reversed. I don't think that they wouldn't have at least tried to fight. It's more a case of reciprocal causality that is hard to entangle; I also wouldn't deny the obvious maidan involvement of the US either, which is itself a precursor of the current conflict. But there as well, it worked because the Ukrainian majority did lose trust in the russia-aligned government, and it did want a realignment towards the west.

The underlying tension is the definition of "The Nation" that is being protected or promoted through these wars.

Attalus III deeded his kingdom to Rome in his will, knowing that inevitably Rome would subsume his kingdom regardless, and this avoided violence and death in his population. He protected his population, and while initially they weren't Roman citizens, their descendants likely became citizens later. I don't have the classicist juice to be able to trace Pergamese(?) families through time, but maybe it's been done. Maybe, genetically, those families were better off over time, with more and better off descendants as a result?

The modern Nationalist view, on the other hand, is that cultural extinction as a unique ethnic group is just as bad as genetic extinction. Zionists would not consider a future in which genetic descendants of Jews were numerous, but they didn't identify as Jews or practice Judaism. Zionists would prefer a future of a million practicing Jews to a future of fifty million undifferentiated Jewish descended people.

Ukrainian nationalists would prefer a future of a smaller Ukraine with fewer Ukrainians, to a future with more numerous Ukrainian descendants who speak Russian.

Ukrainian nationalists would prefer a future of a smaller Ukraine with fewer Ukrainians

Were that true, that'd have at least meant a nationalist policy of tolerating the idea of autonomy and general otherness of the Donbass as a predominantly Russian region in character, at least before 2014. In other words, a compromise with Russian separatists. But, as far as I know, not only did this never happen, in fact the opposite was happening.

They'd prefer, even more, a future with more Ukrainians in a larger Ukraine, and they might not be averse to reeducating misguided Russian-speakers, or expelling them. Certainly, they aren't going to accept reduction of their borders.

Borders that were drawn up by Communist functionaries, ironically.

Bias disclosure: I am not convinced of the sacred uniqueness of the Ukrainian people, and think they probably should have stayed part of Russia after the fall of the USSR.

The problem with any national border is that it wants to be a bunch of things at the same time. Administratively convenient, contiguous, following clear natural boundaries, and containing all the X on one side and all the Y on the other. This can only be achieved by violence.

This war could be the violent birth of a real Ukrainian nation.

But redrawing boundaries and announcing they are not sacrosanct is equally fraught with danger.

It's also an extremely common trope of nationalists from Magyars to Israelis to seek larger borders.

More comments

The issue with Ukraine is that Russia would not accept anything short of unconditional surrender. So there was really nothing to discuss. Even now, Russia continues to demand areas they are not currently in control of. This would also not mean peace. The Russians will only settle for an armastice that would give them time to rebuild their military whilst demanding that no security guarantees be placed on the Ukranian side. If the Ukranians accepted this kind of "peace", most likely Russia would just attack again in a few years anyway, potentially with Ukraine being weakened and Russia much stronger. By then, the Ukranians might not fare as well as they currently are.

The Ukranians are in a difficult position: Unconditional surrender or keep fighting. Currently they seem to believe that freedom is worth the deaths. Surely, an American should understand this concept.

I thought Ukraine has sued for peace. But Russia has never offered anything besides everyone dies.

Not "everyone dies". But "Ukraine ceases to exist as a separate political entity". Sometimes rather obvious versions of "We take half now, the rest later".

The humans there don’t die in a physical sense. But the do die in terms of having any sense of agency or an independent cultures. The best offer Ukraine has received is something like become the equivalent of a Native American tribe. You live but not as a society.

It’s never been that “stupid” for them to fight as a poster claimed.

Sitting here an American; the Revolutionary War was orders of magnitude stupider. It was over a tax of 2-3% and of course thousands did in war.

"Everyone dies" and "the country is conquered" are two entirely different things. Societies are not literally living entities, and even if they were (as fascism suggests), the death of the society would be "it dies", not "everyone dies". "Everyone dies" is rank hyperbole at best.

Hardware versus software. Russia was very clear they weren’t going to let Ukraine culture be Ukraine culture but would Russify it.

“I think therefore I am” - Rene Descartes.

If at the barrel of a gun I am forced to change how I think then it kind of feels like death to me. Russia’s goals were not to change lines on a map but cultural control thru violence.

All this seems to be the unfortunate consequence that was the disaster that was the Versailles “Treaty”. Nobody wants to become yet another fool like the Germans did in 1918. Politicians seem to all believe that if you voluntarily sue for peace, you’re a dunce.

I'm also going to put my money on TACO. The consequences for anything else are just way too dire, and even though I believe the Trump 2 administration is completely compromised by a foreign power I don't think even that foreign power is suicidal enough to take this next step up the escalation ladder - at least not before they've seen how US boots on the ground fare. Destroying all that energy infrastructure would make Iran substantially less attractive to rule over, and I think we'll need to see a lot more Americans coming home in boxes before blowing up all that infrastructure becomes a worthwhile option.

Consider Netanyahu has already said, just the other day, the aspiration is for Gulf oil to flow through pipelines in Israel. The fact is they want the escalation ladder.

I believe that was the original plan, but at the same time I think they underestimated just how effective Iran's missile campaign would be. The risk of Israel being completely destroyed or rendered effectively uninhabitable for civilian life is just too high - though maybe they consider that price worth paying in the long run.

On Friday

You're a day early. He posted the demand on Truth Social at 3/21/26, 7:44 PM Washington DC time. So we've got another day to go.

to totally destroy Iranian infrastructure in order to destroy the country

planefag on X pointed out that the US has Graphite bombs, which are designed to disrupt transformers without destroying them. So the US could cause power outages with repeated bombings until they decide to stop.

Hyperbolic a bit? No the next few days won't change the world even if Iranians start singing Flintstones, meet the Flintstones.

It is a boring local war to which US has committed tiny portion of its force, oil takes 3 months from well to tank so any shortages and price rises are artificial right now. With Venezuela secured - chances of physical shortages for the US is low - IIRC the US has capacity in this type of heavy oil. With Qatar gone Europe will import more LNG from the states. And if Europe is left without oil - it is their own fault for antagonizing Russia.

Also there is no such thing as civilian energy infrastructure. It is not as if you can separate the electrons by spin and split them into separate conductors for the military and for the general population.

And if Europe is left without oil - it is their own fault for antagonizing Russia.

I’m benevolently assuming this is supposed to be a reference to events after the US presidential elections in 2024 and you’re suggesting that Western European leaders should have assisted Trump in pushing for at least a negotiated ceasefire in Ukraine. Unfortunately there is only one Western European government that is theoretically able to decisively choose not to antagonize Russia, doing so in a way that compels smaller European states as well; that is Germany, but they are beholden not to Trump but to the globohomo US deep state, which is their creator, master, trainer and indoctrinator, as the German federal state itself is an artificial construct of theirs.

No. I am referring to supporting Ukraine unconditionally instead of cutting Realpolitik deal.

I think the US deep state was been unconditionally supporting Ukraine and prodding it to prepare a revanchist war since 2014.

Probably but in 2022 it was the "globohomo" in charge of EU that were pearclutching hard.

Europe is clearly not going to be left without oil. The oil market is global, oil is fungible and Europe has money.

Its poorer countries without domestic oil that are going to be left without and potentially completely collapse if this drags on.

So basically no issue at all.

At this point the global trade of crude oil is essentially blocked.

Lol, no.

If your argument is that Europe is free to import oil from any place other than the Persian Gulf or Russia, I agree. But that does not represent global trade in any practical sense.

?????

There is a lot of hyperbole on this topic and it's easy to get lost in the sauce.

There are, however, some key elements that are a bit too big to just be swept under the rug.

And if Europe is left without oil - it is their own fault for antagonizing Russia.

This seems like a pretty big swipe. Especially considering Europe has already been the garbage dump for all the trash Israel and American wars have caused in the middle east.

Is there no concern Europe will eventually just either have enough or take on so much trash it can no longer function as an ally? Seems like we are already seeing signs of that with UK's reluctance or Spain's flat out refusal to aid in the war so far.

It is a boring local war to which US has committed tiny portion of its force, oil takes 3 months from well to tank so any shortages and price rises are artificial right now.

Markets are forward looking and predicted shortages in the future lead to buying surges and demand increases now by people and companies trying to get ahead of it. This increased demand means even currently normal supply conditions can result in shortages, all because everyone is predicting tough times in the future.

Think of it like how a grocery store is emptied out when a major storm is coming up, or some of the shortages during COVID like with toilet paper. People are worried they won't have enough so they buy extra, which leaves less for others so they buy extra too.

With Venezuela secured - chances of physical shortages for the US is low - IIRC the US has capacity in this type of heavy oil.

Unless we want to export ban all the companies from selling abroad, oil shortages worldwide impact the US too. They'll need oil so they'll pay the big bucks for it and the corporations wanting profit will sell off to them, forcing domestic buyers to pony up more in response.

oil takes 3 months from well to tank so any shortages and price rises are artificial right now.

"Artificial" seems a strange word for a market. Typically, economists model market actors as rational. But rational people have a conception of the future, and how events in the present -- like an oil tanker stuck due to Iran blocking Hormuz -- will influence prices in the future.

Basically, if you own a depot full of crude and anticipate that supply will be tight in the future, you might decide to hold onto your oil -- unless you are offered a higher price than usual.

Now it is certainly debatable if markets are prone to irrational behavior, but a model of the world where the oil price does not move for three months until the tanker fails to arrive strikes me as naive in the extreme.

With Qatar gone Europe will import more LNG from the states.

Qatar is a US ally. Throwing them under the bus is not the typical behavior of the US, and will severely change the tradeoffs of a US alliance.

And if Europe is left without oil - it is their own fault for antagonizing Russia.

This is actually not how the chain of causality went. When Putin invaded Ukraine, both the US and EU agreed that Europe should try to avoid buying fossil fuel from Russia to limit the cash flow for Putin's war. For the most part, we did. Now Trump became profoundly disinterested in Ukraine when he finally noticed that it was not an easy Nobel for him.

If the US plays "fuck everyone else as long as our needs are met", others will too. For Europe, Ukraine is a lot more relevant than Iran having nukes. Personally, I would just make a deal with Iran to keep the Straight open for ships to Europe in exchange for gas centrifuges. It would be the same "fuck everyone else" attitude you display. Why should we care about US interests in the ME if the US is unwilling to care about anyone's interests there?

This one is tough, because we finally had a security apparatus retarded enough to back Iran up to the wall without actually having the capacity to make it stick: If they (Iran) don't make trump publicly eat shit and look like a bitch, then they are long term fucked. They signal that anyone whose dick is long enough can come in and fuck them, and they won't actually do the thing that they always threaten to do.

It's do or die for them now, and as a cherry on the cake: I imagine having the global freedom democracy western values christlike love country doing strategic bombing on them would go a long, long way to reconciling the public to the regime: "Observe the compassion of the people who were going to come and free you. Your paranoid suspicions weren't paranoid after all; they do hate you and they do think you are less than human."

Trump on the other hand did a no look walk across the street like a badass and comically fell into an open manhole surrounded by flashing lights. Makes you miss ol' Donnny "I believe what I said yesterday. I don't know what I said, but I know what I think, and, well, I assume it's what I said.". Makes Rummy "I'm not into this detail stuff. I'm more concepty." look competent. We went from one historic brains genius foreign policy Republican directly to another with an 8 year interregnum of neoliberal technocracy and a 4 year interruption of senile pattern holding.

I mean I don’t think he’s going to TACO there. If he were, he would not be proudly shouting that he intends to do that. He’s perhaps TACO over tariffs in the past, but this is different because he’s being very clear about what he intends to do, and he’s positioning the thing so that the west looks absolutely weak if they don’t force the straits open. Add in that we’re mere months from midterms, and the public isn’t going to be patient if gas prices stay high, and inflation goes up by 10% in a month etc. It’s a situation where if he doesn’t get a big win quickly, the whole thing can blow up in his face. Backing down isn’t going to fix this.

I mean I don’t think he’s going to TACO there.

Update: he did chicken out again. Mimimi, productive talks, mimimi, five days extension. Nobody has reported that Iran opened the Straights, the deadline is past, so his threat was clearly not serious. Which is a good thing for the world.

My estimate is that the productive talks have mostly been with gulf monarchies. "Wise king Donald, are you enjoying the plane we gifted you? Please have mercy on us and do not escalate in Iran, lest we lose our infrastructure and can not keep sending you gifts."

Looks like Israel already fixed that.

Reports now on CNN, Iran is denying that there are talks.

Which, who knows, we could even have a situation where talks are going on but communication within the Iranian government has broken down.

Chad Centrist time: Trump uses a nuclear weapon (set for Tiny Yield) on Iran, then signs a treaty with them saying that they agree not to even think about maybe pursuing atomic weapons for 100,000 years and that the US gets a 20% cut of their net oil revenues which will be diverted entirely to finding a cure for cancer. In return, Trump agrees to Iran's demand to hand over 'hostile' media withdraw from the region entirely.

The big red button is generally not labeled "I win".

"They nuked us, so we surrendered" might be a plotline which was swallowed by the Imperial Japanese forces (who had lost a conventional war in any case). "The Great Satan decided to martyr 20k of our citizens, so rather than face further losses, we decided to pledge allegiance to them" is not something the Iranian theocracy could sell to the grunts in the IRGC.

Few people doubt that Putin has nukes, and few people think that NATO would start WW3 if Putin nuked Ukraine. Yet Putin has fought years of a very frustrating conventional war against them. If you are right, he is stupid to do that, he should just nuke them a bit and watch them surrender. Personally, I do not think that he was simply to stupid to consider nukes, but rather that he correctly concluded that they would not secure his objective.

Of course, even if Iran after a nuke turned into Venezuela, this would establish a precedent. At the moment, few middling military powers pursue nukes because they do not significantly improve their security situation. If nuclear powers use their nukes offensively to miraculously force surrenders, then that changes. After all, you do not need to win a pissing contest against the US to make nuking you unappealing. It is enough to be able to kill enough Americans so that whoever attacked you will lose the next election.

Please do not read too much into my actual political thinking based on a comment that starts with "Chad Centrist time" and is structured around a political compass meme but,

"The Great Satan decided to martyr 20k of our citizens, so rather than face further losses, we decided to pledge allegiance to them" is not something the Iranian theocracy could sell to the grunts in the IRGC.

It's very unlikely a bomb set to Tiny Yield would kill 20k people. Maybe if you intentionally dropped it on a populated part of downtown Tehran (in fact, Nukemap gives almost exactly that). But Iran has a target set uniquely suited for tactical nuclear weapons: all those big underground bunkers they've built and filled with ballistic missiles. From what I understand, the US has trouble penetrating them properly, although it can damage the entrances. Dropping a B61 in the entrance or having it bury itself before detonation would do more damage than can be achieved with conventional weaponry, from what I understand – it's one of the relatively cases where a tactical nuclear weapon might be able to pull something off that can't easily/at all be accomplished with conventional weapons.

Personally, I do not think that he was simply to stupid to consider nukes, but rather that he correctly concluded that they would not secure his objective.

It was reported that Putin did consider nuclear weapons, and it freaked the West out, although I have no idea if the reports that filter their way back to the US press are anywhere near accurate. I definitely think he would reconsider his lack-of-use if the US used one in Iran. Which is one of the reasons the US is relatively unlikely to use one, although I hope that Iran doesn't decide to start hitting desalination plants based on this line of reasoning.

At the moment, few middling military powers pursue nukes because they do not significantly improve their security situation.

This isn't really true, I don't think, nuclear weapons significantly improve your security situation, it's just that the powers that already have nukes throw a hissy fit if you try to get one. I also don't think it's true that middling military powers don't pursue nuclear weapons; most middling military powers (if you watch closely) have sort of collected a lot of the bits and pieces. Examples include Egypt (suspected of pursuing a nuclear program), South Korea (putting ballistic missiles on submarines for conventional deterrence, has nuclear reactors), Brazil (pursuing a nuclear submarine program, possibly as a convenient way to spin up a domestic nuclear program) and Saudi Arabia (stashed a nuclear program in Pakistan).

If nuclear powers use their nukes offensively to miraculously force surrenders, then that changes.

I do think this is true. But I also think that the last couple of decades have increasingly been an object lesson in "get nukes" if you think your security situation is precarious even without the US attacking Tehran.

I'm inclining towards TACO. Trump is at heart a businessman, why would he want to blow up all this energy infrastructure? He wants to somehow secure the oil, not wreck it. He's been badly misinformed by his 'advisers' but a man who constantly times announcements to game the markets should be relied upon to try and sustain markets.

Also, why are we treating random proclamations on Truth Social like they mean anything? He's declared victory several times, he's made vague nuclear threats, he's just making up nonsense.

But the whole thing has been one unforced error after another, so who can say what will happen?

It sounds like a negotiating tactic to put someone under pressure via a deadline.

I'm sure he wrote something similar in 'Art of the Deal'. Not sure if you can transfer the intended effect over a social media post in the context of a deadly civilizational conflict.

Trump wrote a book on the tactic and has spent 50 years living by the motto of "Make an insane starting demand and then allow them to talk you back to merely what you originally wanted". Unfortunately, that doesn't scratch the Orange man dumb dumb poopy head itch for people who can't model other minds.

Hence, the idiotic TACO meme.

Well he just chickened out, didn't he? He said 'oh we're having productive discussions, deadline is pushed back 5 days' while Iran denies any such negotiations and sticks to their position.

Orange man does seem to be dumb. He's been signalling weakness the whole time with these bizarre market-manipulation/weekend proclamations. Inconstancy and incoherence weakens your position in war of choice where Iran's strategy is to damage the world economy and outlast the enemy.

Iran denies any such negotiations and sticks to their position.

Perhaps Iran has activated a mosaic diplomatic as well as a mosaic defense strategy.

The backchannel talks between Donald Trump’s special envoy, Steve Witkoff, and the Iranian foreign minister, Abbas Araghchi, were not a secret in the sense that the Egyptian Foreign Ministry had tweeted that conversations were under way on Sunday, 24 hours before Donald Trump’s late Monday deadline to start blowing up Iran’s energy infrastructure.

[...]

Yet gradually, the Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesperson Esmail Baghaei opened up. The spokesperson said: “Over the past few days, messages arrived through some friendly countries indicating America’s request for negotiations to end the war, which were responded to appropriately and in accordance with the country’s principled positions – Iran’s stance regarding the strait of Hormuz and the conditions for ending the imposed war has not changed.”

(Link)

If the straits actually open, then logically the Iranians have chickened out. If Trump says he'll bomb power plants unless the straits are opened and then doesn't, doesn't it follow that he chickened out?

Yet gradually, the Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesperson Esmail Baghaei opened up. The spokesperson said: “Over the past few days, messages arrived through some friendly countries indicating America’s request for negotiations to end the war, which were responded to appropriately and in accordance with the country’s principled positions – Iran’s stance regarding the strait of Hormuz and the conditions for ending the imposed war has not changed.”

Doesn't seem like much cause for hope, the Israelis will presumably try their hardest to wreck the whole thing. Negotiations at this point seem to be both sides issuing maximalist demands at eachother.

If the straits actually open, then logically the Iranians have chickened out. If Trump says he'll bomb power plants unless the straits are opened and then doesn't, doesn't it follow that he chickened out?

Sure, but if he wanted Iran to be a bit more flexible in negotiations and he threatened to blow up their power plants and they were a bit more flexible in negotiations, doesn't it follow that Iconochasm is correct? You can label his behavior whatever you want - Iconochasm is suggesting there's a pattern to it, and you are suggesting that Trump is dumb. A lot of this stuff is pretty opaque to me because it's fundamentally nonpublic (I don't really trust either Iran or Trump to honestly characterize their negotiations), so it can be hard to tell what's correct.

But I do think that Iconochasm is correct that opening with insane bargaining demands can be a smart bargaining position. I like his model of Trump's behavior because I think it's more interesting than the TACO meme, although they both offer predictive insight/an observation of repeated patterns. If Trump actually wrote 50 years ago "open by making insane demands and letting them twist your arm into giving you what you want" (I haven't read the Art of the Deal, so I guess I will have to take his word for it?) then that seems like decent evidence that explains his pattern of behavior. Note that this does not mean that Trump Always Wins, it just suggests that Trump does have a strategy. (Having a strategy does not mean that your strategy is always or even sometimes good.)

I also think "Trump is dumb" by itself is...kinda boring (we have ample evidence he's not; he's creamed other smart people in a presidential debate, for instance) and yields little insight, unless it's coupled with an explanation that explains why we should update our priors (e.g. "Trump is suffering from TIAs that impair his judgment.")

Negotiations at this point seem to be both sides issuing maximalist demands at eachother.

Maybe the Iranians read Art of the Deal too!

he's creamed other smart people in a presidential debate, for instance

Trump can be highly charismatic and adept at manipulating the media without being strategically intelligent as a President, without being a wise leader, without knowing or caring about details, without being able to gauge the competence of advisers and officials, without mastering the institutions he nominally runs.

I think people have an excessively Manichean view of intelligence. It's not that smart people are always better leaders. You can have an intelligent and hard working man fully committed to nation-wrecking ideologies who devotes his intellect to gaslight people to further his wrecking of the country... A stupid leader could run rings around him. Trump has done this at times.

But while you don't have to be smart to do a good job it certainly helps. Intelligence and good judgement is vital for making critical decisions and achieving good outcomes.

Would an intelligent president launch a shambolic tariff campaign against US allies, allies who at times are needed to provide the capital goods for American reindustrialization? Or even start this war that all the other presidents have shied away from? Even at the heights of US power in the 2000s they were unwilling to attack Iran for reasons that the administration is now discovering.

Or back in 2020, if Trump was smart he would've discovered or produced evidence of vote-rigging, not been found trying to produce evidence of vote-rigging.

If Trump were smart he'd organize a clear justification for the war, not have different officials give different adhoc explanations. Certainly not have Rubio out there saying that it was because Israel was about to attack, which may well be true but shouldn't be admitted. He'd explain what the goal is and how the campaign will achieve it. The campaign would be planned out in advance so the necessary forces were there, not bringing in Marines belatedly. He'd be consistent and coherent, not idly proposing that the US and the Ayatollah jointly control the straits of Hormuz, threatening to blow up power plants, walking back threats, saying the war is simultaneously over and needs to continue.

Q: You said the war is 'very complete.' But your defense secretary says 'this is just the beginning.' So which is it?

TRUMP: You could say both

It's dumb. The approach we're observing is a show of weakness, it gives the Iranians hope that if they cause enough pain Trump will chicken out. TACO is just an observation of this inconstancy, it's one of many obvious flaws in the pattern Trump has shown - sensitivity to markets. Even if Trump had been consistent, without the intelligence to formulate good strategies they still wouldn't work. Tariffs alone cannot industrialize America, you'd need judicious and well-executed industrial policy. Air war with Iran isn't going to produce regime change and will have huge costs, this should've been known at the start but wasn't. He needed a rigorous understanding of what can and cannot be done with various forces, considering the balance of power.

I agree that Trump has a strategy but it's dumb, based on false premises.

More comments

We'll get to TACO eventually, but it seems like not enough damage has been done to the economy yet for Trump to care or his handlers (please tell me there are handlers) to come their senses. Really should have just declared victory after week 1, and then if Iran kept retaliating and closing Hormuz it would be Iran's belligerence and not Trump's bellicosity.

Really should have just declared victory after week 1, and then if Iran kept retaliating and closing Hormuz it would be Iran's belligerence and not Trump's bellicosity.

It does not work like that. Bin Laden could not have declared victory after 9/11 and expected the US to consider the conflict over. From the perspective of the Iranian regime, the killing of the Ayatollah is alike to what 9/11 was for the Americans, something which has to be answered.

And of course, merely closing your national waters (though not all of the straight is Iranian, so that might not be enough to matter) to innocent passage would be a very low form of aggression, unlike bombing a head of state, for example.

Trump declared victory on day 2 but the key thing about declaring victory is that first you have to actually win... If you declare victory and the other side keeps fighting then you've lost.

Why would Iran cease hostilities only for Trump to attack them again in 6 months time, like last time? How are they supposed to negotiate with an America that constantly tears up agreements with them, with Israelis that bomb their foreign ministers, with assassination attacks when they gather to discuss negotiations? Do they want to turn into Syria, which can apparently just be bombed and invaded by everyone, which has virtually disintegrated as a state? Do they want to turn into Lebanon?

There's a hoary old cliche where people say 'the only thing _____ understands is force'. In this instance, it's not quite right since Trump is interested in both wealth and force. But the general idea stands. If the diplomats are assassinated or otherwise sidelined, then there can only be a military resolution.

Robert Mueller dies at 81

If you're like me and you barely paid attention to the Mueller Report while it was happening and don't remember anything, the article is a decent summary. I was under the impression that Russia did stuff, Trump didn't actively participate but didn't put up a protest either, and some of his team got busted for lying to investigators (Trump's lawyers were worried about him also getting involved in perjury but successfully managed to get him to "not recall" everything).

Anyways I still don't see what the big deal was, other than lying to investigators. They didn't do any hacking themselves or ask anyone to do it. Knowing about it in advance, or using it as part of campaign strategy, isn't a crime either.

Trump of course has a take on the event:

Robert Mueller just died. Good, I’m glad he’s dead. He can no longer hurt innocent people! President DONALD J. TRUMP

Rude, but I can't say I'd be any nicer to the guy who tried to put me in prison.

Yeah I feel like Trump going off on Rob Reiner after he was stabbed to death by his own son was considerably worse

Could've gone with the Rickover classic:

He is dead now. I trust God will treat him as he merits.

Gives a fig leaf to the rudeness.

Could've gone with the Rickover classic:

He is dead now. I trust God will treat him as he merits.

I can't find any reference to that anywhere; DuckDuckGo returns no results, the Wikiquote page for Admiral Hyman Rickover does not list such a quote either by or about him, and Wikipedia redirects 'Rickover' to the Admiral's page without any disambiguation page for others of the same name. Are you referring to the Admiral or someone else, and was the quote said by or about them?

Gives a fig leaf to the rudeness.

"I hope the rest of your day is as pleasant as you are."

It's from what I believe is his final congressional testimony as admiral: Economics of Defense Policy, Hearing Before the Joint Economic Committee Congress of the United States Ninety-Seventh Congress Second Session Part 1 January 28, 1982. Page 55, PDF page 59:

Senator PROXMIRE. I recall that several years ago, a former Tenneco lobbyist, the late Thomas Corcoran, is to have lobbyed extensively in the White House and in Congress to block your reappointment. Is that true?

Admiral RICKOVER. That is correct. He is dead now. I am sure God will treat him as he merits.

Looks like I was off by two words, which may have been throwing off your search results. The Wikiquote page for the Kindly Old Gentleman is missing a great many of his best lines, IMO... such as the one where he compared cleaning up the patent lawyer profession to Hercules cleaning the Augean stables:

In coming here, I feel a bit like Eurystheus of Greek mythology. The Augean stables housed three thousand oxen and had not been cleaned for thirty years. Eurystheus did not have the wherewithal to clean the stables himself. But he did point out the problem to Hercules—who cleaned them by diverting two rivers.

In similar vein, I can only hope that some of you will take on the Herculean task of cleansing the legal profession. This is well worth the effort, even if you have to drown a few oxen in the process.

The Wikiquote page for the Kindly Old Gentleman is missing a great many of his best lines, IMO

Then update it.

Whoever owns the page will just delete them again.

This page (Wikiquote, not Wikipedia) has been the subject of five edits (including the one that I just made in order to add the first quote mentioned above) in two years. I don't think anybody cares enough to camp on it.

"Lying to investigators" is how the FBI, which to this day refuses to record interviews, frames people directly. You can't defend yourself, it's your word against the interviewer, who doesn't even write down notes as he goes, but writes it all down a few days after the interview, from "memory". They can literally write anything they want, and there is no recourse. Congratulations on your confession to 9/11.

As far as I could ever tell, the Mueller report was, basically the actual coverup of the crimes. Mueller himself was a doddering figurehead who knew little about what was happening (selected because he was ostensibly a Republican, but his team was staffed with partisan Democrats), and clearly was at Joe Biden 2024 levels at the end. The report meticulously avoided investigating FBI wrongdoing, such as the dozens of leaks to partisan news organizations of half-truths, and the fabrication of evidence put into FISA applications, and instead focused on process crimes, often ones the investigation itself generated by doing things like not videotaping interviews, so agent memorializations could put interviewee's "statements" in the least favorable light when seeking indictments under $1001.

While some of the Trump conduct did seem at the time, obstructionist, with hindsight, we see it was perfectly justified. Trump's campaign advisors were illegally wiretapped. Comey himself attempted to blackmail Trump during the transition with the fake Steele Dossier (then leaked the fact that Trump was briefed on it so people could treat it like it was a serious FBI piece of work product). The Michael Flynn prosecution was an ongoing demonstration of the venality of the prosecutors, essentially bankrupting a man, and then the judge frustrating efforts to undue the ridiculous results.

All in all it was a big production to distract from what really happened which was a lot of illegal things at the FBI, wherein the Mueller report succeeded in its goals of hindering the Trump adminstration's agenda and running out the clock on those criminal and civil claims (and also fouling evidence by way of time).

I would rather not speak ill of the dead but I feel like Mueller fundamentally failed to grasp the situation he'd been presented with. He opposed prosecuting people for institutional failures on the grounds that he felt that such prosecutions would erode public trust in our institutions but what he didn't seem to grasp was that a failure to prosecute would erode trust even more.

See @faceh's rant about rewarding failure

Yeah, part of the theory of institutional rot is that eventually it settles in so deeply that

  1. To actually address the rot would require exposing how utterly compromised the institution is, likely leading to its full collapse.

  2. The members of the institution itself are aware of how compromised are but are dependent on its continued existence, and the honest ones are outnumbered by the apathetic/compromised ones, so everyone just goes along.

It is hard to imagine situations where a high-profile, wealthy, esteemed institution that becomes aware of its own declining functionality is able to course-correct from purely internal pressures, rather than some exogenous force arriving to impose changes.

Ironically (or not?) Elon showed that there are 'nondestructive' ways out. His handling of the twitter takeover maintained continuity but he fixed things by a quick purge of staff, then bringing in some motivated replacements to reorient and take control and 'right the ship' then a lot of rapid,

This didn't work nearly so well with DOGE... but I think the idea has legs.

I do now believe the the filtering/skin in the game mechanism has to be harsh and trigger as early as possible. Harsh as in the outcomes should start with death and scale down from there. "Early" as in people should be getting filtered before they are in position to do extreme damage.

And there should probably be some redundancy as well since the first thing any infiltrator will do if they sneak through a filter is... disable or modify the filter itself.

I don't think there would be much direct collusion between the Trump campaign (at least, not multiple high level staffers) to begin with just because there's not too much need for it. It's simple to just stay working in parallel with the same goal in mind than risk communicating too much. That being said, I take it by default that there was Russian influence in the 2016 election, but I also assume there was foreign influence of basically any kind. Point to any modern middle income or above country and they're most likely engaged in a bunch of spycraft, cyber warfare, bot networks, etc. The US does it to other countries too!

The Mueller report is mostly meaningful to me in just how much obstruction there was from the Trump 1 admin. That's the suspicious part to me, trying to hide Russian operations suggests there might have been something deeper that was left undiscovered. Similar to how the continued attempts to slow walk and hide the Epstein files continues to suggest something deeper. I'm a big fan of privacy from government and don't buy the "if you have nothing to hide you have nothing to fear" argument for mass surveillance, but that's on individual rights and personal privacy. It is in fact suspicious when done with the government itself.

But realistically it doesn't even change anything. We already know that Trump is extremely friendly towards Putin and Russia! We don't need any proof of campaign coordination to know how much they get along, he's pretty blatant in this!

Speaking of Trump's reaction btw, incredible how much material This You is getting from it. also boy there is an old Kirk tweet for everything at this point.

I don't think there would be much direct collusion between the Trump campaign (at least, not multiple high level staffers) to begin with just because there's not too much need for it.

The problem with this entire take is that Trump actually has colluded with a foreign power and he was extremely open about it, creating an undeniable trail of evidence accompanied by corrupt outcomes which simply do not exist for Russia and Putin. The Russian connection relies on incredibly dodgy IP address connections and other bullshit, along with one of 2016 Candidate Trump's policies (get the US out of foreign wars) coinciding with one of Putin's priorities (end the Ukraine war, which was rendered substantially harder by US assistance). There's mysterious backchannels, blackmail material with sources exactly as strong as someone on 4chan saying they made it up (not joking) etc - and to top it all off, there's no real evidence that Trump acted in a corrupt fashion and helped out Russia.

But if we switch focus for a second and look at Israeli compromise, there are mountains of evidence - we can see Trump talking about how Miriam Adelson purchased his foreign policy decisions for money, we can see the pipeline from donations to pardons, we can see foreign policy decisions completely outsourced to Israel no matter how much the US suffers. This is what corruption actually looks like, and it isn't hidden at all - there IS direct collusion, there IS evidence of quid pro quo, there IS evidence of bribery. What's the point of talking about the anemic and insubstantial accusations of pro-Russian collusion when Trump openly confesses in public to being purchased by Israeli money?

we can see foreign policy decisions completely outsourced to Israel no matter how much the US suffers

Why did Israel decide that Trump should make a separate peace with the Houthis?

My apologies for being ambiguous - I did not mean that Israel were in charge of all foreign policy decisions, but that certain decisions were made by them with zero regard for America's interests.

Ah, I see. Thank you for clarifying!

I got the impression that the Trump "obstruction" was very similar to a "resisting arrest" charge by cops accompanied with no other crimes.

Basically go hard on accusing someone of a crime, when they protest their innocence as just about anyone will do, slam them with your body or investigation powers and now the cop has a guaranteed crime even if the original accusation was bogus.

But realistically it doesn't even change anything. We already know that Trump is extremely friendly towards Putin and Russia! We don't need any proof of campaign coordination to know how much they get along, he's pretty blatant in this!

He was friendly far below the "friendliness" that the Obama and Biden administrations had with Ukraine. Which amounted to million dollar bribes to Biden's son.

I very much felt like the Democrats were expecting their own level of corruption to be uncovered by the investigation, but instead it was a bunch of nothing. Like the jealous partner that insists you are totally cheating when it's then that has been unfaithful.

He was friendly far below the "friendliness" that the Obama and Biden administrations had with Ukraine.

Russia is an enemy nation that hates the US, the west, and democracy. They have been our opposition for decades and decades.

Ukraine while definitely not perfect is an ally of the west, a democracy, and have not been our enemy for decades and decades.

Can you not tell a difference here?

Ukraine has totally been USA enemy in the decades before 1989. Ukraine is exactly as Russia by any conceivable metric just scaled down a bit. Third - Ukraine is too weak to be an ally. Potential client state is a better description no matter what Churchill of the 21st century thinks.

Ukraine should not be defended against conquest because they're a worthy country or ally but because it contains lots of valuable farmland and other resources and millions of potential janissaries Russia could use to conquer Europe.

Ukraine could not have been the enemy of USA before 1989 because there was no such thing as a diplomatically and geopolitically separate state of Ukraine. USSR was the enemy of USA. The territory of the modern day Ukraine was territory, it could not have been the enemy of anyone. It's land. Maybe you could argue that the politicians of the Soviet Republic of Ukraine remained enemies of USA after they became independent, if you could actually trace the same politicians and the same attitudes.

By that logic Russia too couldn't have been enemy for decades and decades.

That logic would apply to Russia if Russia did not inherit the vast majority of USSR's momentum, position and ambition.

Enemy country changes name, slightly shrinks, wants same things = effectively same enemy.

New country spawns from fringes of enemy country, has fraction of its power, different concerns = not the same enemy.

I could see a situation where I'm enemies with the ROC then retain enmity with Taiwan despite them being fringe and tiny compared to the previous entity

Russia not great, Putin definitely not great, but we're all friends now (or at least back then) because it's no longer the USSR, the Cold War is over, and we have no reason to be flinging nukes at each other anymore, right?

The reset was an Obama initiative in 2009. There have been swings in the "friends/not friends" arc between the West and Russia over those "decades and decades" of being an enemy.

Hunter Biden was a different matter, but I think yes, he got paid to basically be Dad's Boy and be the introduction between Ukrainian (and Chinese, let's not forget that either) interests and the White House due precisely and solely to Joe's position. Without Joe being in power or near to it, Hunter is not getting paid spit.

The "not perfect" is doing a lot of lifting in that statement.

Prior to the Russian invasion of Ukraine Russia seemed no worse than any of America's Gulf state "allies". Ukraine would probably get dumped in the same general category but much less bad within that category.

America has been friendly and "allies" with plenty of shit tier governments around the world.

I've been putting "allies" in quotes because an ally that you aren't willing to let have nuclear weapons is more accurately a protectorate territory.

Since the fall of the Soviet Union there has not been an ideological reason for Russia and America to hate each other.

Back in 2016 Trump had no reason to do saber rattling crap with Russia. He was instead picking a trade war fight with China. And you'd probably want Russia on your side if you start a trade war fight with China, since Russia can negate the main leverage over China: Fuel.

The general point is that back in pre 2016 taking bribes from Ukraine would not have been ok simply because "they aren't Russia". I would consider Great Britain to be one of America's best allies, and I don't think Hunter Biden's relationship with them would have been ok.

Meanwhile the lukewarm stance of Trump 1 administration of "we are not going to label you as enemies" was treated as being equivalent to treason.

Russia is an enemy nation that hates the US, the west, and democracy. They have been our opposition for decades and decades.

The 1980's called. They want their foreign policy back.

Sorry, Cat, but table stakes for this conversation is the kind of scathing, molten ranting at Obama and Hilary Clinton that'll get you fired, bankrupted and jailed when Democrats retake control and implement Project 2029.

Sans the ante up, this is just TDS from the peanut gallery.

The 1980's called. They want their foreign policy back

Has any of "Russia hates the US, the west, and democracy" changed, or are you trying to say that foreign policy going forward should be against those traditional American beliefs and against ourselves?

Because it certainly doesn't seem like they've changed much. While the UK, Germany and Ukraine have taken the top three of Russian enemies, the US still has a significant amount of hate towards it from the Russian people and the only reason they don't hate us more is because Donald Trump is very friendly to the country that threaten our allies, threatens to nuke Elon Musk and is currently providing Iran with intelligence to hit American targets. And we all know their elections are about as fair as North Korea, just great campaigning by Putin and fortune that all his critics end up insane or falling out of windows or dying to rare dart frog poisons.

Should 2020's American foreign policy be cheering this on?

molten ranting at Obama and Hilary Clinton

Didn't realize they were the current president and were cozying up to Putin right now.

There's not really way to ask this without sounding condescending, but are you old enough to remember the Obama administration?

Because if you want to talk about not getting that Russia is THE ENEMY, then the conversation has to begin with Mitt Romney calling Russia our biggest foe, and Obama's turn-it-around re-election zinger specifically making fun of him for it.

Helpfully, I already linked the video.

Part of that was driven by the Russian Reset, a showy, futile, embarrassingly stupid effort at rapprochement made by the Obama administration towards Russia (much like their efforts towards Iran). Team Obama thought it was cringe and old-fashioned to still be mad at Russia just for being a genocidal communist tyranny. And Hilary let them personally enrich her to the tune of tens of millions donated to the Clinton Foundation and generous speaking fees to Bill, while she signed off on the things like the Russian purchase of a major uranium company.

In 2014 the idea that "Russia hates the US, the west, and democracy" was considered laughable neocon boomer anti-communist retard shit.

The reason Democrats hate Russia with the fire of a thousand suns is because they needed a scapegoat for Hilary losing in 2016, even if the efforts to blame Russia were idiotic and laughable. Putin obviously wanted Hilary to win, because he'd already bought her and knew how to fold her like a cheap table. Meanwhile, Trump occasionally says nice things, and also threatened to bomb Moscow if Putin invades Ukraine.

Didn't realize they were the current president and were cozying up to Putin right now.

It's about consistency. Do you actually think the Russians are the villains of the era? Then please, show your homework essay on how insane and evil it was that Trump's predecessor and rivals were so cozy with Putin.

There's not really way to ask this without sounding condescending, but are you old enough to remember the Obama administration?

I do remember it but way too young to really pay much attention to or understand politics much. Regardless I don't find it a strong argument to point at how the Dems fuck up here. Yeah, maybe they are soft on Russia. That's not a good reason to be soft on Russia too, they are our enemy. They're a freedom hating west despising dictatorship.

"Other people kiss up to America's enemies so we should as well' just means more kissing up to our enemies!

That's not a good reason to be soft on Russia too, they are our enemy.

That was not the American consensus position 14 years ago. It became a bit sketchy after Russian invaded Crimea in 2013, but no one wanted to go too hard on that because it was embarrassing to Barak Obama and Hilary Clinton, who were not just "soft" on Russia, but far softer than Trump has been.

"Trump kisses up to Putin" is actually just a retarded, self-serving lie, perpetrated by bad actors who were driven insane by TDS. He says nice things sometimes when he wants something from people, just like he does to Kim Jong Un and Zohran Mamdani, and other times he says mean things. And in the real world, Putin consistently launches invasions when verbally harsh, limp Democrats are in power, and sits in his lane when Trump is.

Again, as someone who does know the history here, it's hard to take your position as anything other than an isolated demand for standards, fueled by ignorance.

The Mueller report explicitly concluded it "did not establish that members of the Trump campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities," despite the Trump Tower meeting, WikiLeaks interest, etc. There was no smoking gun of active collusion, even after the most exhaustive investigation since Jimmy Hoffa's disappearance. There is a boring explanation to Trump 1.0's aggressive actions (like trying to have Mueller fired via McGahn); rather than an attempt to hide some deeper conspiracy, it was understandable frustration and defensiveness in response to what they (Trump and MAGA) view as an overreaching, politically motivated investigation that ultimately found no criminal coordination despite two years of scrutiny.

Epstein files continues to suggest something deeper

I'm apparently the only "Epstein skeptic" here, I discussed it in an earlier CW thread. Regardless, there could be a deceptively simple explanation here as well: there is simply no exit strategy here. The "files" are a raw doc dump of anything tangentially related to Epstein. Analogously, any tangential mention of Trump (and other individuals) that's not quite incriminating but still supremely humiliating can and will be used to impugn him as a child rapist. But Trump himself lit the fuse with the "pedo cabal" hysteria, and he probably did not expect it to blow up under his own arse.

There was no smoking gun of active collusion, even after the most exhaustive investigation since Jimmy Hoffa's disappearance.

"No smoking gun" doesn't mean something didn't happen, it could of course be hidden successfully. Controlling parents not finding the birth control their daughter put in her sock drawer doesn't mean she's not out having sex.

The act of a coverup suggests that something might have happened. Tons of encrypted messages, deleted communications and other roadblocks to knowing the truth makes the picture murky in both ways. It's harder to show guilt, but it's also harder to suggest innocence. From a legal perspective where they have to prove guilt, that works well. From a casual perspective where we can ask "what's with all the deleted messages?", it doesn't work as well.

I'm apparently the only "Epstein skeptic" here, I discussed it in an earlier CW thread. Regardless, there could be a deceptively simple explanation here as well: there is simply no exit strategy here.

There was an easy exit strategy! They could have just released the files as they promised to do multiple times before and during the election season. The only reason why Epstein is even a fiasco for them now is because they completely pivoted so hard from "we're gonna reveal this coverup" to "nothing to see here, ignore everything we said before".

Who cares about "exit strategy" when they never even had to make it into such a topic to begin with if they just did what they said! It is perfectly reasonable to wonder why they pivoted so hard, and that reason is pretty likely related to either people in the admin itself or a powerful third party who they wish to protect. The strategy is to not enter the burning building to begin with if you don't have a plan to get out.

"No smoking gun" doesn't mean something didn't happen,

Dude what?

Russell's Teapot for reference.

In looking at your string of comments in this thread, I'm starting to think you have a particularly nasty case of TDS or are doing a kind of slow-boil trolling that will eventually blossom reveal itself for what it actually is.

You're more than free to be an anti-Trumper here. Hell, I'm one. But claims like this one;

It's harder to show guilt, but it's also harder to suggest innocence.

Are the kind of equivocating nonsense that lead TheMotte to split from Reddit in the first place (and also, like, censorship and stuff). If you think that the Trump-Russia collusion story is valid, that's fine as well and I'd encourage you to highlight some evidence you find impressive or just do some good ole schizoposting. But, again, a lot of your argumentation is the kind of bad faith and literal Motte and Bailey style sophistry that is frowned upon around here regardless of your subjective beliefs.

Again, there was two years of digging through everything they could get their hands on. Yes, the deleted messages and encrypted apps leave some gaps, but the team still pieced together a pretty clear picture that didn't show campaign level conspiracy or coordination with Russia. It's more like the parent searched the whole house, questioned friends, checked call logs, and even found some flirty texts, but nothing that actually proved the daughter was sneaking out for secret hookups.

They could have just released the files as they promised to do multiple times before and during the election season.

It is perfectly reasonable to wonder why they pivoted so hard, and that reason is pretty likely related to either people in the admin itself or a powerful third party who they wish to protect.

The actual contents of the files are ancillary to the volatility of an international public primed for outrage.

American elites are a pedo cabal, the Epstein files is the grand unifying conspiracy that explains the world, and old Jeff was a Mossad linked predaphile blackmail kingpin puppeteering America towards Greater Israel. Any mention of sexual activity on Little Saint James island is evidence of minor sexual abuse. Absence of details means the real tapes have been scrubbed a long time ago. Exoneration means elite capture, silence is cover-up, and deviant Jews are overseeing the network.

That is the popular narrative. And it is epistemically bulletproof.

Best case scenario is we revisit this fiasco with a little more lucidity once it's ancient history.

The strategy is to not enter the burning building to begin with if you don't have a plan to get out.

Not the first, not the last ladder climber to yank his own rug just to make his rival trip. Recent events should be the most glaring exhibition of a consistent blind spot in Trump’s capacity for modeling downstream second and third order consequences.

What those who don't remember politics before Trump miss is that the people hyping-up the Mueller investigation still thought we were in the Watergate era of political scandals. Their mindset was that they just needed a fancy report in PDF format formally accusing Trump of firing Comey to cover up the Russia investigation, and then Trump would be finished.

The Supreme Court has since ruled that this is constitutionally protected conduct, but no one back in 2017 would have considered such a ruling to be possible.

I really feel like the popular narrative of Watergate was completely detached from reality to begin with. Nixon did things that were wrong, sure, but I'm pretty sure basically every modern president does things at least that bad. You would have to be profoundly naive about that for the accusations made of Nixon to stand out as a unique stain on the presidency. It was basically a hit job by someone or something, and insofar as Nixon was driven by paranoia, he was right to be; he just screwed up the implementation.

I feel like this is just an argument for applying a similar level of scrutiny and accountability to everybody else. Or better yet, an even harsher standard than that precedent. I rather like the idea of my leaders being too afraid of the consequences to attempt any ratfucking.

Oh, to be clear, 100% agreed.

I mean, Mark Felt did turn out to be Deep Throat. And wasn't E. Howard Hunt one of those involved in spying on Goldwater for LBJ?

The big deal was that the MSM said it was treason and you’re a traitor for thinking otherwise.

I have zero opinion on Mueller himself and usually abide by thinking less people should die.

Russian collusion was one of the seminal - possibly the top - things that killed media trust for millions of people. The damage will never be undone (in our lifetime).

I suppose now that he’s following in lockstep of the neoconservative warhawks he’s therefore ‘atoned’ and has been rehabilitated as a Russian prop. Or are we still going with that narrative and calling Trump’s bombing of Iran a new military incursion by Putin?

Never. The objective of Russiagate has always been to attack Trump, his legitimacy as POTUS 45, and erode public confidence in his administration. I don't know if an Iran war was always inevitable independent of Trump, but Trump has most certainly accelerated the timeline.

Review: Pierre Poilievre on Joe Rogan 2h23m

We begin with an extended gift giving segment. It's hard not to interpret this as a minor lord begging a king's aid and presenting a gift from his lands to curry favour. It's a heavy kettlebell (fitness, manliness), made in Calgary (Poilievre's birthplace), by a gunsmith (conservatism, gun rights) with a maple leaf (Canada), and several things designed to flatter Joe specifically: UFC motto, Musashi quote, UFO.

Already, we see a few examples of what will become a running theme in this podcast. Pierre pretends to be uncertain about something, and in a calculated gamble, gets his facts just slightly wrong, so that Joe can be impressed with his knowledge but still score points by correcting him. "the first UFC that you were the commentator for. I think it was number 13?". Joe: "12. Number 12". "right. and then we've got here your favourite quote from um.. what's his name? The Japanese martial artist?" Bullshit, Pierre. You come to present this offering absolutely laden with symbolism, every square cm of it covered in meticulously chosen references, and you can't remember the numbers or names? Very interesting.

Poilievre's origin story is boring, but honest. He doesn't dwell on parts that another politician might play up - e.g. being adopted. Maybe he knows it'd come off badly. Maybe he's told the story so many times it doesn't occur to him. Moves through it quickly. One thing that sticks out is that after he has a sports injury, his recreational outlet is to .. attend his mother's social-political meetings? If I were Joe, I'd have dug in on that.

Moving on to Canada, Covid, and MAID. Joe has rants to go off on, and Pierre mostly lets him - does a good job of threading the needle on MAID, defending it while denouncing its excesses in a way that Joe can get behind.

Another recurring theme is that Joe has a great sense for what makes fun conversation, and tries to steer towards it. Pierre has the opposite sense. Joe knows it'd be hilarious to go into the "Castro is Trudeau's dad" conspiracy theory. Pierre won't touch it. Pierre launches into a prepared talking point about Biden not understanding Canadian politics (easy points), but then goes off explaining the Canadian parlimentary system. As someone who did ~5 years of mandatory Canadian social studies classes, I can confidently say that no one in the history of the country has ever been excited by learning about the Canadian parliament. The best part of that was the "two and a half sword-lengths" bit. Didn't even manage the old "it's called question period, not answer period" joke.

He does do one of the things he evidently came to do: denounce the 51st state rhetoric and swear on camera. Good for a memorable, punchy soundbyte. Curious that Joe leaks that he'd talked to Trump about it and that it was initially a joke, but then Trump doubled down (as he does). Is that new info? I didn't know about it.

Poilievre gets some talking points in about the economy, permits, tarrifs, etc. Joe tries to steer toward conflict re: oil sands. Poilievre ironically goes into Trump-mode. "No, no no no". We have the best oil sands. Best in the world. "they love it". "incredible". Pristine forests like you wouldn't believe.

Joe goes off on his usual food/health rant. Pierre mostly doesn't contest it, but agrees enough to keep the conversation going. In my head, I picture the gears turning in Pierre's mind trying to figure out if Canada produces more preserved goods or meat/fresh produce. When Joe gets on to glyphosate, Pierre keeps saying "okay". "okay". "okay". like an animal backed into a corner, and finally has to squirm out of it with "I don't know anything about it". This is not even bullshit. This is almost certainly a lie. Pierre is from Western Canada, and you're telling me he doesn't know anything about the most common and contentious agricultural chemicals in North America? I mean, there's no winning this discussion so it's a smart play. He either disagrees with Joe and starts an argument, or he sells out the agricultural base and looks anti-science, but he's clearly lying.

Joe and Pierre connect over the opioid crisis. We're just playing the hits at this point, and I kind of fell asleep. Though, Pierre leans a bit harder into the Big Pharma conspiracy angle than I'd expect for a politician. I guess there's no constituency for that, so they're a safe target. Poilievre is annoyingly incurious about ibogaine/psychadelics. Probably doesn't fit with his conservative abstinence-only treatment ideology, but it's jarring in the conversation. For a guy who just professed to care deeply about this problem, I'd expect more interest.

Then we get almost a half hour of MMA talk. Ugh. The worst part of this is that Pierre is doing the thing where he clearly has done his homework, but plays dumb to let Joe be the expert. Pierre: "did you ever see <some obscure fight>?", or goes off talking about some specific technique that's far beyond intermediate knowledge of the sport. Followed up with: "is the spinning back kick typically a body kick?", or "do these guys hate each other sometimes?" or "is Conor ever going to come back?". No one with his apparent level of knowledge would ever need to ask those questions, so it comes off as fake, and undercuts the whole point of this extended MMA chat - to make Pierre look like someone who likes combat sports.

You can tell Pierre's focus is slipping by this point because his questions get more robotic. "who do you cheer for?" is such a non-sports-fan way of asking that question. Not "who's your team?" or "Cowboys or Texans?" or similar.

Anyway, that goes on a while and eventually wraps up with a prepared closer. Joe gives him a conditional endorsement (the other thing he came to get), and we get a reminder that this was supposed to be about tariffs, not MMA.

Notable: In the entire episode, Pierre does not name Mark Carney once. He is "the Prime Minister", and he is mostly an afterthought. Trudeau gets name-dropped all over the place, but not Carney. Pierre even refuses to condemn Carney "on foreign soil" played off like it's just being polite. Obviously a deliberate strategy, with Carney being popular, it suits Poilievre to be the "loyal" opposition, on his team, almost, with the Prime Minister stealing his ideas, and he's just fine with it.

… Joe has a great sense for what makes fun conversation…

He does? Always found him uninteresting most of the time. I remember one of the times he had Jocko Willink on his podcast and in the first few minutes of the discussion Jocko said he doesn’t like talking to people who talk a lot without saying anything. He evidently caught amnesia momentarily and forgot where he was.

Joe’s a guy who’s a mile wide and an inch deep. Along with Jocko. A lot of his conversations feel like 3 hours of a 30 second attention span. I like the complexity that often builds in difficult conversation that feels like it has the opportunity to yield breakthroughs and new insights into things. Boring and bland conversation leaves very little that’s new to be said. The takedown videos of some of his guests were always far more entertaining and informative than the discussions he’s ever had with them. That’s also why I like Theo Von more than Rogan. Especially where he interviews people like the NYC garbage man and the New York firefighter. You actually learn things from those people, and you find yourself hanging on the next spoken sentence of his guest throughout the whole interview.

Same thing is true with personalities like Michael Franzese. Guy talks a lot. Says very little. Unless he’s going to directly divulge information about where Hoffa’s buried, most of his content is boring. I think anticipation brings in his viewers more than anything he’s ever said. People are wanting him to deliver the answers on things he can’t reveal. And I get it. There’s no statute of limitations on murder. You can be sure law enforcement is watching every one of his videos for clues of past activities he may have been involved in. But to me he’s never had any appeal, specifically for reasons like that.

That’s also why I like Theo Von more than Rogan.

Agreed. Theo in the 2021 - 2023 era was consistently outstanding. It seems since then he's had some personal mental health issues and is now fully onboard the Bro-Science Antisemitism train. He's a recovering addict (of many flavors) and I sincerely wish him the best, but I i'm not sure he was ever built for as big as he got. Shame. I'm UPSTAIRS!

With Joe Rogan what you get out of the interview is often exactly who goes in. Boring Politician goes in boring political talk comes out. Funny comedian goes in funny podcast comes out. If I like listening to guest on other podcasts I will usually like them on Joe Rogan as well. It won't be that persons best podcast, just solidly average.

He has good comedian podcasts with Stavros Halkias, Ms Patt, Tim Dillon, (protect our parks crew), etc. but those are all people that are just excellent and entertaining on podcasts anyways.

Joe Rogan has always been mid, and I will fite anyone who disagrees.

I mean, relative to his guest here.

Joe offers him: "Fidel Castro is Justin Trudeau's real father" and he doesn't want to go there. Obviously it's not true, but you could at least have some fun with it. Okay. Maybe it's a bad look for a prime ministerial candidate to be engaging in that kind of conspiracy talk, fine. Joe offers him: "hey, how'd you lose that election you were supposed to win? wtf happened there?" Doesn't engage with that either. A human response would have been something like: "yeah, that really stung. I have no idea. Trump warped politics. The NDP collapsed and our multi-party country does that sometimes." I dunno. That would have been real conversation.

Instead we got Pierre waxing philosophical about the Westminster system and being the leader of the opposition. Boooooring.

Obviously it's not true

I disagree and insist that you justify your statement.

That would have been real conversation.

It's irritating how 'conservatives' haven't figured out how to call themselves 'reform' yet. To a degree, the under-40s have figured that out anyway (and the label's just for the benefit of the Boomers, much like 'liberal's are the enemy of classical liberalism these days no matter what the old think), but I'd rather have someone intelligent talk frankly about it than just jacking off in the corner Politics 1.0 style.

Well to me the whole entire discussion seems boring. I’d be much more stimulated arguing about the mechanics of flushing a toilet than that.

My impression of Rogan has always been a variant of that old joke about D&D: "twenty minutes of fun packed into four hours".

Every time Rogan has ever been recommended to me, my impression has been that it's 15-20 minutes of interesting conversation spread throughout hours of dull, meandering small-talk. I do not think that Rogan respects my time as a potential listener, and so I do not give it to him.

I don't think you can get those nuggets of value without the meandering.

Rogan needs to create an environment where the person is drawn in, talks about a bunch of off topic stuff, gets relaxed, and gets to to share some of their "texture."

If he had a 15-20 interview the person would just stay on message and do the press junket thing.

But the ratio feels disrespectful to listeners who aren't already invested fans willing to sift through hours of filler for 15 good minutes. The meandering is the main event, loaded with Rogan specific easter eggs that his guest had clearly rehearsed for. I'll take the press junket thing.

Sure! Some people go to Rogan so that they get to have the "access," if that's not for you well that's that clips are for.

A lot of podcasts have variable model where some people watch the whole thing, some people watch the sound bytes, some watch clips that vary in size from a few minutes to big ass chunks.

In order to get all of those you need the base thing though.

I don’t criticize him for failing to live up to my preferences given that his show isn’t targeted at people like me. But it’s a staple of his podcast unlike say Dan Carlin’s, in that you have to wade through 1 or 2 or sometimes 3 hours just to find a valuable nugget in it. That’s something I’m less willing to do. Podcasts are a useful stepping stone to kicking it up a notch, but I’m still someone who prefers to read a book or listen to it in audio format when I have free time.

If you listen to Mike Duncan’s History of Rome podcast, it’s amateur history done well. The conversational format that summarized his work was done well, even though it still caters more to junk food intellectualism. His work hasn’t been received well by historians. Academics that have read The Storm Before the Storm for instance have reviewed it and said “… he’s just aping what Appian and Plutarch have said…” “Pop” history isn’t “history.” In fact, actual “history” is very boring IMO. It’s learning foreign languages, academics debating dry, arcane details that are inaccessible to the understanding of a lay audience. So even then, it’d be unfair and biased for me to knock on Rogan, because I also enjoy people like Duncan, despite knowing much of what he’s done is flawed.

If you listen to Mike Duncan’s History of Rome podcast, it’s amateur history done well. The conversational format that summarized his work was done well, even though it still caters more to junk food intellectualism. His work hasn’t been received well by historians. Academics that have read The Storm Before the Storm for instance have reviewed it and said “… he’s just aping what Appian and Plutarch have said…” “Pop” history isn’t “history.” In fact, actual “history” is very boring IMO. It’s learning foreign languages, academics debating dry, arcane details that are inaccessible to the understanding of a lay audience. So even then, it’d be unfair and biased for me to knock on Rogan, because I also enjoy people like Duncan, despite knowing much of what he’s done is flawed.

Are you sure about this or just convinced by their argument? I think academics are arguing in bad faith here. I think they’re insanely jealously of people like Duncan. These “amateurs” that are able to get an audience and minor celebrity while they toil away. I sense extreme resentment. I don’t know if Mike Duncan’s history is good or bad from a technical perspective. I do know I don’t trust an academic to assess it fairly.

I don’t get the vibe that many historians are simply failed fame diggers. And even if some secretly harbored envy for the notoriety of someone like Duncan, they’ve given intellectual reasons and made the case for why his work is not historically reliable. And I’ve read enough about the period to detect when Duncan is simply repeating the classics and isn’t aware of critical scholarship surrounding the reliability of the conclusions he draws. So in that sense whatever historians feel about him is still irrelevant to the merits of the case they make. “They just hate us cause they anus,” is a personal judgment, not a scholarly conclusion.

People have said the same about Carlin. And that’s why Carlin calls himself a “fan” of history and is careful not to make himself out to be a historian. He’s fully aware that he’s doing much the same thing Duncan is, whenever he’s doing a podcast.

Yeah, I see the criticisms of Carlin and Duncan that they simply repeat what the ancient sources say, and they're not wrong necessarily. But then you look at their own work and it's... not better. I'd rather read someone uncritically relaying the biases of ancient Romans than someone uncritically relaying the biases of some German socialist. Most academic history of ancient Rome, especially anything touching on the Republic, is so fundamentally tainted with marxist historiography as to be almost unreadable in my opinion.

If all they led with was simply telling the story of the Romans as the ancient sources say, I think historians wouldn’t have an issue with that. That’s different from a historical portrait of the period. Ancient sources are still of supreme importance in telling that account, except in the obvious and numerous cases where history departs from them. And that’s where historiography begins.

Most academic history of ancient Rome, especially anything touching on the Republic, is so fundamentally tainted with marxist historiography as to be almost unreadable in my opinion.

I have no idea what this even means. This just seems like some right-wing slur or glib remark. If you’re referring to the reality that modern historiography commits itself to ‘something’ like the materialist conception of history, then you’re right; only in the sense that material realities play a significant if not dominant role in the development of historical events. That’s uncontroversial except for the fact that you used the word “tainted.”

Modern cultural anthropology is the only discipline I’m aware of that maintains explicit links to Marxist historiography. And there’s good reason for doing that, though it’s been recognized to have problems.

History podcasting has also evolved a ton since the Carlin/Duncan days. It's sort of split off into two directions - one, exemplified by The Cost of Glory, is being upfront about being a retelling and explanation of the ancient sources. Cost of Glory is as much about Plutarch as it is about the characters, and I think it's a better podcast for it (it's my favourite of the current crop. Listen in the gym and hit PRs). Then, there are podcasts like History of Byzantium, History of the Germans, and above all When Diplomacy Fails, which blend narrative history with an overview of the historiographical debates and a proper examination of the sources.

Accidental double-post

My bad. I'm in a hotel on bad wifi.

"Pop" history isn't "history" if it gets stuff seriously wrong. But history as a discipline isn't just an arcane hobby for a gaggle of ivory-tower academics - a huge part of the point of those academics' existence is to inform (or to write) works that educate the public about history. And Mike Duncan pretty much gives you the background you need to read academic Roman history without getting lost. Papers can be abstruse and difficult but academic books are generally written with enough background to be readable outside a specialist niche, even if you need to have some experience in the discipline. Just as an example, I recently read Emanuel Mayer's The Ancient Middle Classes. Mostly a very dry read going through the details of Roman tombs and houses and making arguments from there about the existence of a Roman "middle class", but the book contains enough background that someone generally familiar with Roman history can read it all - after all, an academic writing a book like that will expect it to be used by scholars in other aspects of ancient history, or economic historians studying class throughout history, or historians working on urbanization, etc. etc.

I think this is a place where a lot of academics sort of create their own problems. When they sort of hold out the idea that you have to be able to read dry academic texts and have a university degree to do real [subject] it creates two problems.

First, it opens the door to frauds who want to play fast and loose with facts in order to create pseudo-academic lite texts. Most of the Pop-Physics and Pop-Philosophy stuff contains serious enough distortions that you are likely to end up with a false sense of how these subjects actually work. A lot of woo has come out of pop physics books trying to explain quantum mechanics or astronomy, particularly around things like time travel or quantum mechanics or space travel. Michio Kakaku is simply terrible at telling people what physically is actually possible and realistic as a possible future.

Second, it creates a situation where most people think of those subjects as impossible to understand and study. People think history is boring because they think it’s dry historical texts and dates.

I like Poilievre from what I've seen, at least insofar as it relates to his dealings with the media and the fact that he was the primary opponent of Trudeau. I just checked my phone though to see how long I listened to this episode before I got bored and turned it off. I listened for 8 minutes. In Poilievre's defense, I only turn on about 5% of Rogan's episodes to begin with. I was hoping it'd be more interesting but he is, after all, a politician and he has to pivot and carefully choose his words in order to not ruffle certain feathers. I get it, but it's just too bland for me. Maybe I'll give it another go when I do house chores this weekend.

Poilievre

He's a simple goy from the prairies

They talk about the apple video in the episode. Claims he didn't think he was being filmed, so that's why he was so candid. I'd say the value of having a politician like Pierre on a longform podcast is being able to hear the difference in tone when he's talking about an issue he really cares about (economics, inflation) vs when he is reciting prepared bits (MMA) vs when he's being tactical "I don't know anything about it".

The significant life and death of Patriarch Ilia II of the insignificant country of Georgia

The Head of the Georgian Orthodox Church just passed away, leading the officially secular government to institute five days of national mourning. According to surveys, Ilia was the most trusted man in the Caucasus. The public’s trust in his “patriarchy” peaked at 94% in 2010, at a time when trust in the parliament stood at a pitiful 34%. Ilia presided over the most interesting rise of religiosity ever recorded. In 1977, when he entered his position, Geogia was in possession of only a few dozen churches. Youth church attendance sat at 7%, and the perceived importance of religion was somewhere below 50% (likely quite far below, but there is little data before 1993). By the end of his life, 2500 orthodox churches were built, youth attendance rose to 60% by 2010, perceived importance of religion rose to 85% in 2014, and general weekly attendance jumped from 27% in 1996 to 44% in 2014. Even well past the end of Soviet atheism, religiosity continued to rose, with monthly prayer increasing from 57% in 2007 to 75% in 2020. Much of this data is explored in the interesting paper, “A counterexample to secularization theory? Assessing the Georgian religious revival”.

Serendipitously, I was exploring Georgian Orthodox music at the time of patriarch’s passing. The god of the algorithm and the God of the gods rewarded my search for good music and led me to the mass held in honor of the Patriarch. If you like choral music, or the aesthetics of Game of Thrones, you might like it. I personally think the aesthetics are peak. The godchildren of the Patriarch led his procession throughout the capital city, though it’s hard to know how many gathered for the occasion because he had 50,000 godchildren. Why so many? In an effort to increase the Georgian TFR, the patriarch promised to be the Godfather of every third child born to an Orthodox Christian family. The result was an enormous religiously inspired baby boom:

We find a 17% increase (0.3 children per woman) in the national total fertility rate, a 42% increase in Georgian Orthodox women’s birth rate within marriage, and a 100% increase in their 3 and higher-order birth rate within marriage. The impact of the intervention also correlates with higher marriage rates and reduced reported abortions, aligning with the church’s goals

The speaker of the Georgian parliament honored him as follows: “Georgia has lost a spiritual father, our most Holy Patriarch, who dedicated every minute and second of his life to serving Christ, defending the homeland, and caring for his flock.”

I don't have much to add on this topic, really. But I won't pass a chance to mention I've been to Georgia!

Even though it's a very low-profile and small country, it's a very popular tourist destination for UAE residents. It's a 3-hour flight away, the cost of things is roughly 1/3 to 1/2 of the UAE, so we have excellent purchasing power there, and it's the nearest "cold" and "green" country to escape the heat. I guess it's vaguely European?

It's a beautiful country that has history, wine, and Orthodox churches in super-abundance. The north of the country is breathtaking: snow-capped peaks, alpine climate, wildflowers everywhere. If you're itching for the Swiss Alps without the Alps prices.

Even though the capital, Tbilisi, is modern and has much better infrastructure than you would expect given the country's (lack of) wealth, the city is steeped in history and has that raw feeling that places used to have before they got enshittified by globohomo slop. This is true of the people as well.

The locals are cold, as per the experience of other tourists from here, but that hasn't been my experience at all.

Highly recommend. 10/10 place.

I don't know if this is the case in Georgia but some people have an expectation that service workers should be very subservient and borderline lick their boots. When they don't get this they think service is bad or "cold" regardless of whether it is performing it's core function well or not, and they might not notice or be aware of other competing goals service workers can have like being unobtrusive. Some people enjoy the experience of being served, while others enjoy not having to do things the service does but doesn't otherwise want to engage much with them.

This leads can lead to wildly different experiences of the same service.

I really want to visit now. Seems really cool.

I'm curious what the logistics were of the godchilding. Did he just spray a mister over them or?

This is what I’ve always wondered too. Especially 50,000 of them. Hard to imagine how he led a life of anything else but then again, that’s the nature of the religious vocation.

One of the direr likely consequences of the war in Ukraine that often gets sidelined in Western discourse is the Moscow-Constantinople split in Orthodoxy, which I understand to be historically unusual. Deeply unclear how it'll ultimately pan out, but I doubt it's likely that it'll be truly resolved by the outcome of the war. Georgia seems to be closer to Moscow's orbit here than Constantinople's; it's the only preexisting Orthodox Church, as I understand it, that's recognized the UOC (as opposed to the OCU). The Russian state disapproves of both the UOC and the OCU, as they're both attempts to split off from the ROC in Ukraine; however, the UOC is the one that's politically closer to Russia, and so also faces the disapproval of the Ukrainian state. A lot of nuance here that I don't really understand, seeing as this is all quite foreign to me.

One of the direr likely consequences of the war in Ukraine that often gets sidelined in Western discourse is the Moscow-Constantinople split in Orthodoxy, which I understand to be historically unusual.

It depends. There are some schisms every century. The other major schisms in recent history are Old Calendarist Schism of 1923/1935 (permanent ones, then there was temporary Bulgarian Schism (1872–1945), then there was permanent Melkite–Orthodox Schism of 1724 etc. Even before the current schism there was a schism in 1996 between Moscow and Constantinople over Estonia for couple of months.

Orthodox have to some extent the same issue as protestants - it is not clear who holds the authority. Heck, it happens with Catholicism with popes and antipopes, only it is much worse inside orthodoxy. So can be orthodox which literally means correctbelief, except it is not clear which one of those correct beliefs is truly correct with all the schisms around. This is why it is so hard to mend The Great Schism - as soon as it is resolved e.g. with union of Brest, it just becomes a catholic rite (Ukrainian Catholic Church in that case) and there is internal schism within this mending.

I’m of the opinion that the more “competition” between traditional churches the better. I would even like the Catholic Church to split into different denominations so that the one with the best spirit and art can triumph. There should be factions among Christendom so that we can measure who produces the greatest fruit somewhat-empirically, and which produces the greatest art and spiritual change according to the opinion of Sensitive Young Men (and I wonder if this explains some of the rise of the Church in Georgia). I think, also, that Israel is a fair example of how you can have national and religio-political unity without having any semblance of organizational unity among the competing strains of the religion. I mean there’s controversy with the Haredi, but otherwise no one can claim that they are socially or politically disorganized. And it does not appear that each of the Sunni schools of jurisprudence are “organized” in any way that aids their defense or prosperity despite having so many precise areas of agreement.

Orthodoxy in America may be one of the few denominations which have a genuine rise in attendance (1, 2), and while the converts might claim it is due to the history and liturgy and theology, I think instead it is an aesthetic-spiritual-vibe-feel sort of thing. (Would they attend if it was in a strip mall, there was no incense, the robes were a fugly purple, and the priest sang in gay voice? I don’t think so). However, they are starting from such low numbers that I don’t think it will really matters for a number of decades.

I would even like the Catholic Church to split into different denominations so that the one with the best spirit and art can triumph.

Schism is generally frowned upon.

But the SSPX might run it up the flagpole to see who looks on July 1st.

I would even like the Catholic Church to split into different denominations so that the one with the best spirit and art can triumph.

We did that. It's called the Protestant Reformation. How do you like your megachurches?

There's also the splinter 'Catholic' denominations like the Old Catholics or the Women Priests (a couple at least separate ones of these) or the liberal parishes still formally within the Church or the very traditionalist ones which split off around Vatican II and eventually went either full-bore liberal themselves or totally nuts (I'm distinguishing these from the traditionalist ones who remained in communion).

(I'm with Cardinal Arinze on this kind of thing).

A separate denomination means separate theology and separate doctrines, so you can't call it "the" Catholic Church if it splits. You're looking for something more like the Anglican Communion where it's all separate national churches who can go their own way if they feel like it but are in loose bonds of association.

It also depends how you measure "spiritual change" and "fruits"; 'we now accept and ordain gay trans lady bishops in polyamorous relationships who refer to God as 'she' amongst one set of the deities of your choice or none and are also Muslim Buddhist Wiccan rabbis' may be deemed the greatest, most advanced, spiritual fruit by one set of measurements and completely the opposite by a different set of measurements.

How do you like your megachurches?

This is not the typical Protestant experience. I've heard Protestants in person unkindly mocking megachurches.

Back when I was young and went to church twice a week with my family we went to small local churches. Like every churchgoer did.

Oh, indeed, but if OP was wanting breaking up into separate denominations to compete on attractive art and something, then they have to accept that some of that competition results in the likes of megachurches, which copied the poor parts of secular pop culture and decided this was the future of church.

I can't throw stones when it comes to terrible architecture and crimes against liturgy, because we have our fill of concrete warehouses post-Vatican II as churches, not to mention one horrible example of wreckovation from my own town where an inoffensive 19th century Gothic Revival parish church was pulled to pieces in the name of accessibility or some stupidity, and now the interior is a mess and the marble etc. that past generations proudly contributed towards, for the sake of beauty, has been ripped out and would have been dumped or otherwise disposed of, had not a local group managed to repurpose some of it for a grotto on a main road.

There's also the other example, where cherrypicking from liturgies and architecture and vestments and icons of Orthodox traditions has been co-opted by liberal churches; they have the beautiful visuals but they also burnish their LGBT+ credentials. One has one's own opinion on how fruitful this is, and indeed it may well be, but it's not producing anything of its own, it's copying the past because it's aesthetically appealing.

I think a church/denomination needs more than merely aesthetic appeal.

There are plenty of groups which don’t have normal jurisdiction from Rome but in practice accept its doctrinal authority, ranging from the (not)Polish national Catholic Church to the Sspx. It was well into the twentieth century by the time the pope appointed the majority of the world’s bishops.

Is unity important? Yes. Is it evidently possible to prevent governance by lunacy without it? Also yes.

I don’t see why you couldn’t have a situation like in Orthodox Christianity where national churches are granted a degree of autonomy in local matters and cultural practices while being obligated to uphold the things that the orthodox churches have declared dogma or required practices.

where national churches are granted a degree of autonomy in local matters

In the Catholic Church, this effectively exists at the sub-national level in Bishops. The autonomy of Bishops pertaining to the matters of their own (arch)diocese is quite broad.

The Ukrainian state is politically closer to the Ukrainian Greek-Catholic Church, which runs the other successful post-Soviet revival of Christianity and would like to suppress all Eastern Orthodox groups for heresy, but for realpolitik reasons settles for aiming the state against the more Russia-leaning ones while it slowly outbreeds the rest of Ukraine.

On the same day as Chuck Norris. Let's hope St Peter doesn't mix who's who.

How sure are we they're both ending up in the same place?

Hell with Chuck Norris is heaven

If he does, a roundhouse kick to the face should convince him to straighten things out.

Hmmm... have they ever been seen in the same room together? Allegedly theres a 7 year age gap, but I feel living a double life as a famous kung-fu actor is exactly the sort of thing Papa Illia would do.

The best way to win as a black man against white cops:

Don't make it about race.

Also, being in the legal and moral right certainly helps.

This is the story of Afroman, a rapper most known for the hit single "Because I Got High". Then his house was raided by the sheriff's office of Adams County, Ohio, based off of... almost nothing, as far as I can tell.

They damaged his door, gate, and security cameras. They were looking for narcotics smuggling and kidnapping victims, but instead found a few blunts and unused pipes, and filed no charges. The repairs cost $20k, not a single cent of which was paid by the officers, who also kept $400 of his cash.

So Afroman did what anyone would do if the cops came and unjustifiably kicked down his door and paid nothing for it: He made songs making fun of the raid, complete with his own security camera footage of the cops. This led to the production of such classics like "Will You Help Me Repair My Door", "Why You Disconnecting My Video Camera", and "Lemon Pound Cake" (about the officer who was eyeing a rather delectable slice of lemon pound cake sitting on his countertop). And in a sane world, this would have been the end of it, and the raid and associated songs would have faded into obscurity.

So of course, the Adams County Sheriff's Department decided to do the dumbest thing possible: Sue Afroman.

Somehow, the case went to trial, with the deputies unironically arguing -- with a straight face -- that Afroman's videos seriously defamed their character and reputation, enough to cause $4 million in damages. This led to a hilarious examination where a female officer cries on the stand as "Licc'em Low Lisa" plays. Afroman played his defense straight, pointing out that the entire situation was caused by the cops fucking up and raiding his house for basically no reason, and that he has a First Amendment right to criticize and make fun of the police. Also, he was wearing a badass suit covered entirely in the American flag.

The jury sided with Afroman.

A couple culture war takeaways here. First, I think the biggest factor in his success was not playing the race card at all, even though he easily could have. Instead, he stood behind the freedoms that every American has, and demonstrated that this could have happened to anyone, black or white. Every American has the right to not have their privacy invaded or property damaged, and when that right is violated, they have the right to speak freely and mock those who violated their rights. The race card would have only served as a distraction at best and polarized the jury at worst.

Second, this verdict could have only happened in America, where there is a strong legal tradition of freedom of speech. If it had taken place in a European country like Germany, where calling the government "parasites" gets your house raided, he would have lost. Having a jury trial was also very important in this case, because the judge was almost blatantly biased in favor of the plaintiffs. If this case had taken place in a country like the United Kingdom, which is seriously considering scrapping most jury trials, he also would have lost. Turns out, jury trials are there to protect the people from corrupt judges.

The point is that though Americans may be stereotyped as being irrationally fearful of a tyrannical government, this fear is entirely justified, and this case is a good example of it. Or at least a good example of how small town cops abuse their power, which seems to happen an awful lot in small towns across America.

Second, this verdict could have only happened in America, where there is a strong legal tradition of freedom of speech. If it had taken place in a European country like Germany, where calling the government "parasites" gets your house raided, he would have lost.

What do you actually know about countries based around roman law legal system? I have attorneys in my family and they routinely sue government for this or that overreach or damages or bad tax ruling etc.

Having a jury trial was also very important in this case, because the judge was almost blatantly biased in favor of the plaintiffs.

It can also be very important the other way such as with O.J. Simpson and many other cases.

Turns out, jury trials are there to protect the people from corrupt judges.

Again, judges have quite different powers also in other countries. Plus there is plenty that corrupt judge can do - for instance he could have used JNOV and to overturn jury. Which can in fact be then used as a defense from corrupt or biased jury - e.g. such as when jury full of some tribe makes mockery of justice.

The point is that though Americans may be stereotyped as being irrationally fearful of a tyrannical government, this fear is entirely justified, and this case is a good example of it and this case is a good example of it. Or at least a good example of how small town cops abuse their power, which seems to happen an awful lot in small towns across America.

Yeah, it seems so on paper. But despite that, staggering 99.6% of federal criminal cases end up in conviction, mostly because 97% of people rather plead guilty. In true Kafkaesque manner, the process is the punishment. Once people see what their tyrannical government prepared for them, they rather plead guilty even if innocent. So much freedom.

What do you actually know about countries based around roman law legal system? I have attorneys in my family and they routinely sue government for this or that overreach or damages or bad tax ruling etc.

I know that in most of them, you would easily lose any case that anyone (and especially the government) brings against you for your speech. I never claimed that you couldn't sue the government in other countries. I just said that in most of them, you wouldn't be able to win if they sued you (or charged you) for speech.

It can also be very important the other way such as with O.J. Simpson and many other cases.

The prosecution fucked up in the O.J. Simpson case. I wouldn't expect any jury to return a guilty verdict with how shoddy the police work was.

Again, judges have quite different powers also in other countries.

How many judges have less powers in other countries?

Plus there is plenty that corrupt judge can do - for instance he could have used JNOV and to overturn jury. Which can in fact be then used as a defense from corrupt or biased jury - e.g. such as when jury full of some tribe makes mockery of justice.

JNOV is a bit limited; in a criminal trial it can only be used to overturn a guilty verdict, and even then the prosecution can appeal it. Now this was a civil case, so JNOV can be used in favor of both parties, but it's such an extraordinarily rare step that it would be scrutinized and almost certainly appealed. I also find it less likely for a jury to be corrupt or biased than a judge.

But despite that, staggering 99.6% of federal criminal cases end up in conviction, mostly because 97% of people rather plead guilty. In true Kafkaesque manner, the process is the punishment. Once people see what their tyrannical government prepared for them, they rather plead guilty even if innocent. So much freedom.

Or it's because most of those people have a really bad case and the plea deal is genuinely better than going to trial? Surely you don't think that even a significant portion of people charged with federal cases are innocent. I'm not saying innocent people can't be charged or plead guilty, or that it isn't a problem worth worrying about, but you seem to be exaggerating the scale to which it happens.

I know that in most of them, you would easily lose any case that anyone (and especially the government) brings against you for your speech. I never claimed that you couldn't sue the government in other countries. I just said that in most of them, you wouldn't be able to win if they sued you (or charged you) for speech.

This may be the case, however it is not specific to common vs roman law. You have common law countries like UK or Australia which are significantly easier to misuse. For instance in case of defamation the US has apparently strict standard of proof of malice where burden of proof is on plaintiff. In Australia the burden of proof is on defendant who must prove that what he said was true and they are much more tyrannical when it comes to government officials successfully suing private citizens despite having common law and jury system.

JNOV is a bit limited; in a criminal trial it can only be used to overturn a guilty verdict, and even then the prosecution can appeal it.

You maybe know, that appeal is an institution also in EU, with extra layer of EU courts, especially European Court of Human Rights. The problem of course is if the whole system is corrupt especially in some highly politicized context. So yeah, the appeals are good way to disrupt local incest where police, prosecutor, judge and even attorneys are in kahoots in some scheme of smalltown mafia. However sometimes this mafia system is too powerful and they basically get protection. For some examples in US just look at "learing center" fraud in Minnesota or well known system of let's say Eastern District of Texas, which is hotbed of what is basically patent troll homebase where they freely extort rest of the world probably in exchange to some kickbacks. Jury does not care if they decide on some shit related to distant corporations, they know that if they rule in favor of patent troll they will get money for school or something.

Or it's because most of those people have a really bad case and the plea deal is genuinely better than going to trial?

Okay, so US federal government probably employs some CIA precrime unit akin to Minority Report if only one out of 200 prosecuted people is actually innocent. Amazing investigative competence. And now some other bedtime story.

My point is that both systems have pros and cons and they are much more complex. There is not single "EU law" as there is not single common law - see the difference between US or Australia. As people say, shit is complicated.

This may be the case, however it is not specific to common vs roman law. You have common law countries like UK or Australia which are significantly easier to misuse. For instance in case of defamation the US has apparently strict standard of proof of malice where burden of proof is on plaintiff. In Australia the burden of proof is on defendant who must prove that what he said was true and they are much more tyrannical when it comes to government officials successfully suing private citizens despite having common law and jury system.

My point is that both systems have pros and cons and they are much more complex. There is not single "EU law" as there is not single common law - see the difference between US or Australia. As people say, shit is complicated.

You seem to be misunderstanding what I am comparing. I am not comparing common law and Roman law. I am comparing America to the rest of the world. Freedom of speech is uniquely an American right that citizens in other countries don't really have.

I'm not even saying America is better in every single way. I'm just saying that America is better when it comes to being able to criticize whatever, whoever, and whenever you want, especially when that criticism is directed towards the government, and especially when the government has unambiguously wronged you. I'm saying free speech is one thing that America (and only America) got right, and this case is a good example of why.

Okay, so US federal government probably employs some CIA precrime unit akin to Minority Report if only one out of 200 prosecuted people is actually innocent. Amazing investigative competence. And now some other bedtime story.

Do you have any actual reasons to doubt the statistics, or is this just vague non-specific irrefutable hand-wavey skepticism?

You seem to be misunderstanding what I am comparing. I am not comparing common law and Roman law. I am comparing America to the rest of the world.

You were arguing for "jury trials", not that USA is best, but fair enough.

I'm just saying that America is better when it comes to being able to criticize whatever, whoever, and whenever you want,

I'm just saying that America is better when it comes to being able to criticize whatever, whoever, and whenever you want, especially when that criticism is directed towards the government, and especially when the government has unambiguously wronged you.

I think this may be the case, it seems that US system as with many systems with jury are uniquely tribal. Jury can be played emotionally and it of course favors citizen vs government as well as poor guy vs rich guy etc. I am not sure if this is justice, but whatever. However I would not be that sure when it comes to free speech. USA also has one thing going against it, which is very workaholic culture. I am EU guy and I worked with and for US corporations and there seems to be unique blending of corporate and private persona, which is not at all usual in Europe.

I participated on harassment training due to working with US colleagues, and the level of outright threats and requirements on the workforce down to details of what can constitute as harassment was shocking not only to me, but also to my colleagues - including our very own HR. BTW many of those things required could be outright illegal in my jurisdiction, like for instance complete ban on any jokes related to protected characteristics - this would be against Freedom of Speech in Germany. The most shocking thing for me was that manager is obliged to report all potentially illegal things happening - the US law turns every manager into little commie spy telling to HR what kind of jokes about age or gender were told - even between two friends in breakroom, otherwise he may be held liable if they "fail to act". In true US fashion many of the most shocking breaches of rights and freedoms were outsourced to private sector. You have a right to tell a joke, but be prepared to get sued and fired.

I will concede that freedoms in the private sector are lacking, especially due to the "it's a private company, they can do whatever they want" argument. Youtube deplatforms a creator for publishing wrongthink? They're a private platform, they can do whatever they want. Twitter does the same? They're a private platform. Patreon drops them? Private platform. However in this regard, the First Amendment (and in particular Section 230) is vital to the platforms that do choose to host free speech, such as the Kiwi Farms.

If it had taken place in a European country like Germany … he would have lost.

And as a German I say rightfully so.

We have something called Persönlichkeitsrechte, or literally “right of personality”, which encompass the right to personal honor, the right to one's name, or the right to one's own image. There doesn’t seem to be an English wiki article about the concept, only a German and French one, so I link the translation:

https://de-wikipedia-org.translate.goog/wiki/Pers%C3%B6nlichkeitsrecht_(Deutschland)?_x_tr_sl=de&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=de&_x_tr_pto=wapp

https://de-wikipedia-org.translate.goog/wiki/Recht_am_eigenen_Bild?_x_tr_sl=de&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=de&_x_tr_pto=wapp

The right to one's own image , or the right of publicity, is a specific aspect of the general right of personality . It states that every person has the fundamental right to decide whether and in what context images of them are published. In the Anglo-American legal system, the right to one's own image is far more liberally defined than in German law.

Afroman should have pixelated the cops faces. The state invaded his home, not individual agents. If a cop would have been ill or on vacation or whatever they would have been replaced by a different officer. Also while I sympathize with Afroman as a victim of the almighty Leviathan there is also a power imbalance between him as a rich celebrity who can direct millions of YouTube views vs an individual police officers.

I suppose the closest English-language equivalent would be the "right to be forgotten" or the broader category of defamation of character.

And as a German I say rightfully so.

Obviously there are pluses and minuses, but I think that on balance I prefer the American approach of having very broad protections for speech. There are a lot of people out there who would LOVE to be able to sue or prosecute me simply for stating true facts about racial differences; sex differences; whether or not the "it's ma'am" guy is a dude; and so on. The American tradition of free speech puts a huge obstacle in their way.

I can't believe that the Germans are still rolling out the "he was just following orders" defense.

Following orders and being a good little cog in the machine are foundational elements of civilization. It's an entirely valid defense for the common soldier or policeman.

The nuremburg trials proved that might makes right, not that there's some set of ethical laws that somehow supersede orders in disciplined, hierarchical organizations within authoritarian states.

If some people are to be believed, apparently nobody is ever supposed to follow any order by anyone ever, even if they have no reason to believe the order is unlawful or even immoral.

Multiple non-German commenters in this thread are replying to me with "just following orders" arguments, including in response to me criticizing acts of murder. It apparently is a position with significant support.

Culture runs deep.

The state invaded his home, not individual agents.

I get your point and entirely reject it.

The US government has at times murdered Americans. Including in the past few decades. By which of course I place personal blame and responsibility on the individuals who pulled the triggers, not on the amorphous and impersonal state.

"The department did [bad thing]." Makes it sound like an out of control building is victimizing Americans. Remember these are individuals with just as much moral agency as you and I. Don't let them hide behind a mask of collective guilt. As though department policy is an evil spirit haunting the land.

I get your point and entirely reject it.

Thats kinda silly. The people executing the search warrant dont know what the PC was. Thats on the detective and the judge.

The search warrant forced them to disconnect his cameras and literally steal the cash out of his wallet? If they merely searched his place, determined he doesn't have a slave dungeon in his non-existent basement and then left than would be one thing. But no, they went further and disconnected his cameras and stole his cash. I now have no sympathy for them and advocate cruel public shaming.

I get this isn't my nicest view, but civil asset forfeiture is so vile. The incentives so perverse. I say good riddance and hope for more robbers wearing law enforcement uniforms to weep on camera from the targeted shaming.

This wasn't a civil asset forfeiture thing. It was a poorly issued criminal search warrant thing. Every jurisdiction has their own regulations, but disabling cameras might be standard. Seizing all cash in drug/prostitution operations certainly is standard for most jurisdictions.

The officers carrying out the search warrant weren't like NAZIs "just carrying out orders" they were literally executing a search warrant, not only approved by their superiors, but signed by a judge, and in a way that was indistinguishable from the dozens or hundreds of search warrants they had conducted in the past that looked (to them) the exact same. The petty cash tallying problem is a problem. But also they are not the smartest folks.

The real problem is this alleged source and the detective (and his Sergeant/Lieutenant) that believed it. They are the ones that created the situation and then lied to or misrepresented the facts to the judge. And not to let the judge who signed the warrant off the hook. Obviously, they are supposed to swear detectives to their search warrants. If you see something like this, its your judicial duty to bring down your weight on the department and detective. Perhaps through a contempt action, or simply refusing to sign all future warrants.

But they literally stole his money. It was also a civil asset forfeiture thing.

I'd... argue otherwise.

It's especially bad here, where the alleged source was almost certainly a malicious or self-serving motivation behind the lurid claims, but a probable cause affidavit is just that: it's not a claim something must be wrong, but that someone could be wrong. Like a grand jury indictment, the standards for a search warrant are hilariously low, and the people signing it off and executing it have very close to cart blanche. Not everyone being searched will have evidence of a crime, and not everyone being investigated will be guilty, necessarily.

Which makes it a problem when these things are world-upending, without any valid need. There may well be a scenario that requires a six-person team with assault rifles. As with countless other examples such as Malinowski and going all the way back to Ken Ballew, it's very hard to understand what is benefit derived from those tactics here, which look to be optimizing for shock-and-awe at the cost of not just inconvenience to the suspect, but danger to the community and even alleged victims.

That's a criticism that sometimes is delivered with perfect hindsight or expecting clairvoyant police and judges, but I think it applies here even when considering the least convenient world. In an alternate universe where Foreman had been guilty and had dangerous control over kidnapped women, and had been at the residence at the time of the raid, this raid could have easily resulted in the kidnapped women turned into hostages or 'made incapable of testimony' at the first kick at the door.

This is a consideration police do take, before serving even far more strongly evidenced search or arrest warrants.

It's just really easy for them to not, when they're morons. My personal favorite example is the FBI leaking to press the location and time of the search of a suspected mad bomber, presumably not for the purpose of maximizing casualties if he went Molotov, but there's a long and storied set of examples. Some of that's bad-but-at-least-foreseeable motivations -- arrest warrants in particular tend to get served at home despite it being well-known to be dangerous as shit, because SCOTUS hasn't slapped down searches-while-executing-arrest nearly aggressively enough. A lot of it's just how things have always been done.

That's still not reason, alone, to keep doing it that way.

This is where I'm at. Civil libertarian types like to screech about searches gone wrong but the reality is that a whole lot of searches, conducted in exactly the same way, go just fine, and you just don't hear about them because they went just fine.

I think this is misunderstanding the problem. Imagine if someone came along and said that those civil engineer types like to screech about bridges that fall down but the reality is that a whole lot of bridge, with cut corners in the same ways, are standing just fine, you just don't hear about them because they are still standing.

Using a disastrous result to highlight bad incentives, policies, and procedures is the expected part of examining something. If we only ever look at the medians and averages, we are basically ignoring the downsides as they are, by nature, almost entirely going to happen on the fringes in freak circumstances.

Even ignoring that, do we know that all those median searches go just fine? Is there not a loud and vocal movement against the justice system's current methods under the umbrella of "the process is the punishment"? Do people enjoy interacting with the justice system as witness, suspect, or even jurist or is it usually avoided at all costs, as recommended by the very profession that interacts with it the most?

Those individuals were carrying out the will of the elected officials that supervise those departments. As well they generally should (except when those officials ask things that are beyond the pale) we can't have a democracy and also give the individuals that are staffing that agency at the time veto power over everyone else.

I'm not criticizing them for executing the warrant. I am criticizing them for disconnecting his cameras and stealing the cash out of his wallet. That is a moral failure on their part. It is also technically legal so the only recourse against their terrible behavior is to name and shame.

And also things like Lon Horiuchi shooting a dark siloute he saw in his rifle scope and oops, that's a woman holding her baby. I'm not against him or the FBI having a sniper team or obeying orders to get ready to shoot. I am bitterly criticizing them for obeying the illegal order to shoot any adult on sight. He pulled the trigger and shot an unarmed woman. He indeed had a veto against obeying that illegal order. His obedience was a personal moral failing and he deserves shame to be heaped onto him.

This is a "just following orders" debate and I'm staking out the position that following orders to steal and murder is not acceptable. I hope our democracy can survive FBI sniper teams not murdering unarmed people and local cops not literally stealing the cash out of people's wallets.

He indeed had a veto against obeying that illegal order. His obedience was a personal moral failing and he deserves shame to be heaped onto him.

I suspect you are not really willing to bite this bullet.

If you are, then I guess I commend you, but I'm not particularly willing to concede to some future Dem DHS that they can decline to enforce immigration law (and in doing so veto Congress' law) because they believe it's illegal and/or immoral. In a world where large parts of the country deeply disagrees with what is legal & moral, an individual veto is like throwing policy into the wind.

I'd also note that "name and shame" is the weakest possible form of accountability. The strongest is ensuring accountability through the ballot box.

Where you lose me is "these police officers did something wrong, therefore it is justified to make a 15 minute video where you hire a stripper to portray one of them engaging in a bunch of sex acts." It doesn't follow. The officer can have done something wrong without deserving to be defamed.

Of course the correct recourse would be to slap them with a hefty fine and force them to pay back the stolen money, but since the act itself doesn't seem to have been illegal, just immoral, you're limited to either defamation or some level of personal violence. I think a better outcome for all involved is afroman making fun of them on tape, although he would of course have been completely morally justified in breaking into their homes, vandalising their property and stealing back his cash.

There is no legal recourse against them, therefore complaints about recourses actually possible against them amount to wanting them to be immune to all consequences.

There is a political process by which a legislative branch can pass institutional safeguards.

Look at the city of Oakland, they've got so many that they've all but hobbled their police department with them. By choice.

Institutional safeguards only work when the implementing institution wishes to obey them.

More comments

Police officers can and do get charged and convicted of crimes committed on duty, and police departments can and do get sued and pay out for civil rights violations committed by officers. It is outright false that there is "no legal recourse against them." Any issues that you have with whether a specific act by a police officer is a crime or civil rights violation should be taken to your legislature.

The problem with justifying extrajudicial vengeance against police officers as the means of tackling this issue is that if the behavior by the officers is legal, then only people with the celebrity status to streisand-effect the incident actually have the power to do anything about it. You haven't actually changed the legal situation, all you're doing is socially destroying the few random police officers who happen to do a search warrant on a celebrity with the social power to destroy them. The best possible result of this is that celebrities become effectively exempt from search warrants, but nobody else.

who happen to do a search warrant

If they had merely verified the lack of slave dungeon full of kidnapping victims they would have been fine. But no, they had to steal his money and now are getting smeared as fatsos, cucks and lesbians. Which in any other context I would be against. And I agree it is unfair in the sense that our complaints against them have nothing to do with their wives being unfaithful or licc[ing]'em low.

But no fair legal methods of retaliation exist and they deserve a good shaming. So I'll accept this little crumb of payback and hope somehow we get more in the future. Because I sure know my legislative representatives aren't going to help.

Police officers can and do get charged and convicted of crimes committed on duty, and police departments can and do get sued and pay out for civil rights violations committed by officers.

And sometimes when you flip a coin 100 times, it lands on edge every time.

Any issues that you have with whether a specific act by a police officer is a crime or civil rights violation should be taken to your legislature.

Thank you, Marie Antoinette.

But what they did was beyond the pale. A culture of valuing independent judgment may have prevented such an egregious violation of civil liberties.

I think my standard for beyond the pale is something like "beat the living jesus out of the guy that wasn't resisting", not break a gate and steal a trifling amount of money.

And that attitude among the populace, the police, and the courts is exactly why these sorts of violations keep happening. "Hey, it's just a tiny little home invasion, they didn't even steal that much. What do you expect us to do, hold cops accountable for their actions" is an unacceptable response to police misconduct of this magnitude, in my opinion.

I was the one in favor of accountability through the electoral process. That's how people in a democratic society are meant to hold the government accountable. And that's the thing that protects the largest number of people in the future.

I don’t know about anyone else, but I’d be more sympathetic to the cops in this case if they hadn’t disabled his security cameras, called him a “sex addict” on record, and violated departmental procedures to (charitably) miscount or (uncharitably) steal $400 from him. All that took place long before he made those videos, and they were all choices that a different set of officers might not have made. Note that Afroman only went after the officers who were involved in those actions, not all of the officers who were involved in the raid.

because the judge was almost blatantly biased in favor of the plaintiffs

Was he blatantly biased? I would expect the judge to prohibit Afroman from releasing music videos about the plaintiffs while the case was ongoing but he declined to?

He was verging on the border of giving free legal counsel to the plaintiffs and didn't even thank the jury when they reached a verdict that he clearly was not expecting or wanting.

...biggest factor in his success was not playing the race card at all

He may have centered the case around corruption and individual liberty, but in the instagram post he said (bolding mine):

here she is ... ADAMS KKKCOUNTY SHERRIF ...

I take that as seriously as I take his song about "Licc'em Low Lisa". That is to say, it reads like a joke to me. When I was young, I used to think inserting three K's randomly into words was the height of comedy. That doesn't mean I was seriously pushing a race-based narrative.

This led to a hilarious examination where a female officer cries on the stand as "Licc'em Low Lisa" plays.

Why are the court exhibits uncropped screencaptures from YouTube? Did the cops think that having Penguinz0 thumbnails about the case in the sidebar would help them?

I'm surprised not to see anyone mention the most memorable episode from this saga I've seen going around X:

One officer was suing because Afroman made a whole song about him saying he was fucking the officer[']s wife. When the officer was asked if Afroman was really fucking his wife, he said "I don't know".

He was kind of stuck there; if he said yes he'd admit into court being a cuck, and if he said no he'd weaken his claim that the songs are to be taken seriously.

If he said yes, then Afroman's statement was truthful which is a complete defense to the claim of defamation.

Technically all he had to do was say "no, not to my knowledge".

Its funny to think he had enough of an inkling of doubt as to the truth and thus didn't want to lie on the stand.

I’ve read that the cop in question has a mixed-race teenage daughter, even though he and his wife have been married for almost 30 years. He also testified that he’s known Afroman’s wife for years, so the families have definitely interacted in the past.

Holy cow.

I thought that this case was ripped straight from a South Park episode before.

After that it moved firmly into The Jerry Springer Show-territory.

The plot gets plottier.

Gotta admit, it would show dedication if in order to ensure he could win a libel case for saying he fucked the cop's wife, he actually fucked the cop's wife.

But would that make it revenge porn?

No. Revenge porn is distributing intimate images or footage of people without their consent. Revenge cucking is a time-honoured ritual for male status jockeying, and legally protected under all applicable laws and statutes.

a female officer cries on the stand as "Licc'em Low Lisa" plays.

18:30 in clip is about when the crying starts. The whole thing is bizarre. They play an Afroman song on YouTube in court. There's a stripper and implied cunnilingus involved. In the actual courtroom, Afroman is wearing an American Flag suit.

This song seems clearly defamatory to me. The video makes it even worse with an actress pretending to be the cop going down on a woman and then acting out having sex with Afroman.

I can only conclude the jury hated cops enough and got caught up enough in the bogusness of the search warrant that they let him slide.

Or... everyone is just media literate enough now to find all of this funny? Rural Ohio juror grandmas watching the three strippers laying on his counter with their legs up, then the video of her actress having sex with him? "Yep, seems like non-defamatory free speech".

I'm pretty sure if I tried flirting with a barista, she shut me down, and I took revenge by hiring an actress that looked like her and then created a music video depicting her as being mega slutty and then myself having hate sex with her and her loving it and blasted it to millions of people I'd be found guilty of defamation. The jury is only okay with this because she was a cop involved in a bogus search of his house and not a barista.

Was it crass? Yes. Disgusting, outrageous? Yes. Did it result in those involve being subject to ridicule and harassment? Seems like it. You can find what Afroman did as offensive as you want, but making fun of people isn't necessarily defamatory. Even in your example, the only scenario under which you'd be found liable for defamation is if the jury concluded that a reasonable person would believe that, based on the video, you had, in fact, had sex with the barista, and that this would damage her reputation. Lying about who you slept with isn't necessarily defamation, even if the lie is told in a more serious context than a rap video. What Afroman did may be intentional infliction of emotional distress, but that wasn't part of the suit.

From your other comment:

But Larry Flint didn't film an actor who looks like Jerry Falwell having sex with his mother in an out-house in a candid looking video. He just wrote a fake Campari ad in his own known-to-be-transgressive porn magazine claiming it was from Falwell.

You then go on to describe all the elements of the video. Except the argument you're making is exactly the one the court rejected in Falwell. Mr. Falwell argued that the parody in question was so outrageous as to take it out of First Amendment protection, and the court ruled that that isn't a thing. All your argument boils down to is that Afroman's conduct was worse because it was more outrageous than what Hustler did. I don't see how anyone can argue with a straight face how anyone viewing that video could reasonably conclude that Afroman knew about the sexual proclivities of a police officer who was present when his home was raided, and also had video of her licking pussy with him standing in the background. The idea that anyone would be misled by that is absurd.

According to Wikipedia, "Allegations of unchastity" are considered defamatory under common law. That would seem to apply here.

Or... everyone is just media literate enough now to find all of this funny? Rural Ohio juror grandmas watching the three strippers laying on his counter with their legs up, then the video of her actress having sex with him? "Yep, seems like non-defamatory free speech".

They don't have to find it funny, lots of insults aren't funny or entertaining. They just have to find it not defamatory. Like one important question is would people who watched actually believe this was a serious accusation as opposed to making fun of her as an insult, like just calling someone a slut or a whore as many angry people do to women?

FIRE at least believes Afroman was within his rights here and they aren't motivated by cop hating.

They don't have to find it funny, lots of insults aren't funny or entertaining. They just have to find it not defamatory. Like one important question is would people who watched actually believe this was a serious accusation as opposed to making fun of her as an insult, like just calling someone a slut or a whore as many angry people do to women?

Funny is not the operative part. They just have to get what he's trying to do. But it's more than just words though. There's 14 minutes of video of him trying to sexually humiliate her. My argument is further articulated here: https://www.themotte.org/post/3618/culture-war-roundup-for-the-week/423167?context=8#context

Separately from that, what about this from my OP?

I'm pretty sure if I tried flirting with a barista, she shut me down, and I took revenge by hiring an actress that looked like her and then created a music video depicting her as being mega slutty and then myself having hate sex with her and her loving it and blasted it to millions of people I'd be found guilty of defamation. The jury is only okay with this because she was a cop involved in a bogus search of his house and not a barista.

I'm positive I'd be found liable if I did this to a barista. But because it's a cop you could squint and argue maybe she's subject to more scrutiny but... how? She's a public official that executed a search warrant on his home, okay. Talk about how retarded she looked in his house. Talk about how crooked she is for being part of a search warrant that was bogus. Talk about her record as a cop. What does 14 minutes of soft core shot in amateur porn style video about what a raging whore she is have to do with any of that?

There's 14 minutes of video of him trying to sexually humiliate her.

The amount of time or "sexual humiliation" doesn't necessarily matter that much. Again, people throw out words like slut and whore casually as insults already. "You're a fucking whore slut who'd sleep with anyone" said for an hour over and over again as an insult would still likely not cross the bar from insulting a person to defamation. In fact we can look at another case of diss raps where the accusations was even worse with Kendrick vs Drake, pedophile and sex rings, and the defamation case fell through there too.

One big question is would reasonable people actually take this as serious allegations? Just like Kendrick v Drake, music is an art and the average listener does not listen to diss tracks expecting thoughtful well researched factual news. Putting a claim in a diss track vs presenting it as serious fact can make a significant difference in a defamation case, because the context it exists in takes away from how serious a reasonable person would take the claim. People generally understand songs are not meant as expressions of truthful information.

Separately from that, what about this from my OP? I'm positive I'd be found liable if I did this to a barista.

It depends on the exact circumstances of how you do it, but most likely not. Defamation cases succeeding in the US are not that common, it's a very high bar. It's especially high when criticizing authority figures, so there is a possibility that it might apply to the barista but not to say, a cop or the town's mayor. But even without that, I would not be surprised at all to find a defamation case from the barista fall through in similar circumstances as again, the medium of music, especially diss tracks, is not generally taken by the average person as intended factual information to begin with.

One casual check we could do is to ask if anyone in her life actually believed she was secretly a lesbian going around licking pussies thanks to the song? Not in a "did they tease her about the song" way, but in an actual belief way. Doesn't seem like there is if she didn't present any.

people throw out words like slut and whore casually as insults already.

I think there's a difference of degree between calling someone a whore, and using your celebrity status to widely circulate a 15 minute video in which you hire a stripper to portray that person as a whore.

In fact we can look at another case of diss raps where the accusations was even worse with Kendrick vs Drake, pedophile and sex rings, and the defamation case fell through there too.

Another difference here is that a lot of these diss-tracks type things are between people of similar level of celebrity. People who have sought fame have fewer protections against the sorts of gossip that come with being a public figure. A random police officer who is not a public figure, and never sought fame, should be treated as such.

The difference is that the cop, acting in their official capacity as an agent of the state, performed what appears to be a bunch of unjust and legally actionable violations of his civil rights. Afroman is offering criticism to specifc agents of the state for their specific actions that in his eyes, warrant such criticism.

A barista doing her job for Starbucks is in both a socially and leglly different position. It has been long established in case law that defamation of public figures or state actors has a much higher bar than private figures.

Afroman is offering criticism to specifc agents of the state for their specific actions that in his eyes, warrant such criticism.

I think for the label "criticism" to apply, your speech should actually be directed at the actual act or behavior that you take issue with. Hiring a stripper to make a video where you portray your target as sexually promiscuous is not criticism of any specific act or behavior.

Lol what? He is absolutely offering very specific criticism of specific actions. Specific cops raided his place based on an anonymous tip, caused $20k in damage that they did not compensate him for, and so, understandably pissed, he made a bunch of music videos using security footage of the incident and yes, ascribing certain negative aspects to the cops who raided his home in the context of thst criticism. Textbook free speech, and happily the jury agreed.

The idea that you can't insult agents of the state for doing their jobs poorly is how you get dictatorships.

Lol what? He is absolutely offering very specific criticism of specific actions.

Exactly how is a 14 minute video of a stripper performing a bunch of simulated sex acts a specific criticism of any specific act?

Okay, so, if you get pulled over by a female cop and written a ticket for a broken tail light and you feel this was unjust you get to hire an actress to play her and act out a 14 minute long amateur porn style sexual humiliation music video about her? Because she's an agent of the state and subject to more criticism? Including this kind of criticism?

It's true, in some of the videos he is indeed criticizing or mocking the officers in their official capacity. Like the fat officer in his house seemingly tempted by the lemon pound cake. Or for seizing $400 cash. But in Licc'em Lisa video he's just portraying her as a whore going around town licking clit and ultimately getting seduced and fucked by Afroman.

I reiterate that it feels the jury was so annoyed by the officers doing a bogus search and bringing claims over justified criticism that they just overlooked this really gross one that came later.

Defamation implies a credible assertion that people take the claim at face value, uncritically. This is a diss track; there is no such credible presumption.

In trying to game out the Deputies' plan here, I can only assume they just thought they'd found a target with potentially deep pockets and who would just settle with them for a high six figures or something.

But they found a guy disgreeable enough to stick it out and who was a very sympathetic figure in the whole thing. And as noted, didn't burn goodwill by trying to turn it into a racial animosity moment. Which would have been a believable narrative here.

"Corrupt Cops against the First Amendment and the American Spirit" is a VASTLY more appealing framing than "racist white cops vs. downtrodden black rapper."

And showing up for the trial in American flag suit and sunglasses combo (with a perfectly coiffed afro on top) is a serious masterstroke.

I'm actually somewhat surprised the Judge let that fly, but then, the First Amendment ALSO protects the right to wear such things in court.

And the thing is, the cops in question actually had the makings of a valid case. Afroman made very specific, defamatory claims using the clear real names and likenesses of the parties he targetted. He did so intending, very specifically, to cause them reputational harm. If they were true claims, then he's very much in the clear. But surely some of those claims were just blatantly false. That's how rap beefs work, you make certain claims and boasts that are exaggerated or false but provocative to diminish the opponent's status.

It wasn't a frivolous lawsuit, just a stupid one.

I don't know how large the reputational harms could have been in money terms. Its just not a good look to get on the stand and play some goofy-looking music video by a dude whose house you did in fact raid, and pretend you're the one with the emotional trauma from this situation.

It wasn't a frivolous lawsuit, just a stupid one.

Indeed; I can easily see how that suit could win on its own merit. But the cops did a severe injustice to Afroman and in trying to get justice for a much less severe retaliation they gave a jury the power to make things right.

Yeah. I think the best reading of this whole thing is effectively jury nullification, not because they think defamation laws are unjust inherently, but because in the broader context of this case they think finding Afroman guilty would be doubling down on the injustice he's already suffered. I expect someone who made comparable videos of specific people who hadn't wronged them this way would have been found guilty, despite the law not making this exception.

Pretty much.

Afroman could have waived the Jury and had a judge decide it, but either he or his attorneys realized that if the situation as a whole was put in front of a jury, it'd play very sympathetically.

Rappers seem like a very bad target for this sort of extortion . Their audience absolutely does not care about them mocking cops (one might even say it's expected), so they suffer no reputational damage from refusing to settle. You might actually make them more money.

Also, Afroman doesn't seem that rich.

Also, Afroman doesn't seem that rich.

I vaguely remember him having a commercial that ran on late-night 2000s TV, hawking his CD with a really low budget ad. It ran alongside that guy in the crazy suit ranting about how to get free money from the government. So yeah, I'm not surprised that he's not super rich... actually I'm kind of impressed that it actually launched a successful career for him, in the days before youtube or spotify.

From the CCTV videos, he has a decent amount of assets to seize to satisfy a judgment.

Agreed on the lack of reputational damage if he refused settlement, though. And he was obviously savvy enough to see that he could raise his profile if he played this one to the hilt.

It wasn't frivolous, in the sense that I understand why the judge agreed to let a jury hear the case, but it was always going to be a high bar to clear. As you say:

Afroman made very specific, defamatory claims using the clear real names and likenesses of the parties he targetted. He did so intending, very specifically, to cause them reputational harm. If they were true claims, then he's very much in the clear. But surely some of those claims were just blatantly false.

True, but these claims were made in the context of, as you put it, a goofy music video. The real question was whether a normal person listening to the lyrics would treat them as statements of fact. Officer Lisa may have to deal with ridicule about her supposed love for cunnilingus, but I doubt anyone making those jokes seriously believes that she licked every pussy in town. It's the Falwell case all over again. It didn't help when the defense called family members of the officers to the stand and asked them if they took similar claims made in other rap songs seriously.

I think you're mostly right there, but there is a reason that most forms of media that talk about real events will do that whole "Any similarity to actual persons living or dead is purely coincidental" disclaimer.

Had Afroman come to me before making his videos and described what he wanted to do, I would have advised him to hedge his risks. "Don't make a song about any particular cop/person, but you can make a song about corrupt cops in general" of "hire body doubles and make strong allusions to who you're talking about, but never stick their actual name or image in the song or video."

Shows what I know.

What he did is just a couple steps below this parody Grinch Song, calling them out with such precision and making it clear he's hoping people believe it. Or at least to make it a popular rumor.

Justified? I think so, he chose targets who had already done him harm, and was quite proportionate in response.

Officer Lisa may have to deal with ridicule about her supposed love for cunnilingus, but I doubt anyone making those jokes seriously believes that she licked every pussy in town.

But Larry Flint didn't film an actor who looks like Jerry Falwell having sex with his mother in an out-house in a candid looking video. He just wrote a fake Campari ad in his own known-to-be-transgressive porn magazine claiming it was from Falwell.

Does the fact that it's video matter? I think so. Afroman repeatedly flips between footage of the real officer and an actress that looks like her. He puts himself into the scene and apologizes to her, and then shows himself and the officer (the actress) having sex and also going down on other actresses. The sex videos are all done in amateur style, further implying they're candid footage. Though the video has farcical elements, he's also clearly trying to confuse the fact that it's parody[1]

NSFW: https://youtube.com/watch?v=7wWQxSV8CK8?si=zzuL3IqUoaJGOIys&t=700s

Are we sure everyone picks up the satire?

Me, I just don't have a lot of sympathy for this. I could see some people coming away believing this. Are they reasonable people? I don't know, reasonable person is doing a lot of work I guess. To me it seems like you have to be fairly media literate to navigate this all.

Keep in mind there are people who believe grainy amateur "homemade" sex videos are really amateur sex videos of the couple alone in an unscripted intimate moment and can't quite understand that there's a third person moving the camera around to film them. I would like to believe this population is tiny but I'm not so optimistic.

  1. Which, you know, makes it more outrageous and hilarious but also might sucker more people.

Note that a "reasonable person" in the eyes of the law is very much not the "average person." It assumes a level of responsibility, caution, and education that is far from universal.

  • The repairs cost $20k, not a single cent of which was paid by the officers, who also kept $400 of his cash

Good ol civil asset forfeiture, allowing cops to just steal from innocent people without any evidence for decades.

Cops will steal your money, they'll steal your RV, they'll steal the computers at your computer shop, they'll steal the funds for your medical clinic, they'll steal a teen's phone and sell it at one of those kiosks, they'll steal your horses even.

Fulton County, Georgia, seized seven horses from Brandon "Brannu" Fulton in 2017 after he was charged with animal cruelty. (The identical last name here is an unfortunate coincidence for the sake of clarity, but we will persevere.) Those charges were later dropped. But the government still declined to return the animals to Fulton—long ago dubbed Atlanta's Urban Cowboy after his affinity for riding into town on horseback—nor would it compensate him for their value. One of those horses, he said, is worth $35,000.

Law enforcement are thieves, because of course they are when you not only allow the theft but incentivize it by allowing them or the departments to keep the shit they take. Luckily many of those cases do eventually get ruled against, but "eventually you might get your money that was stolen back after paying a lot to fight in court" is a bit of a cold comfort. And that's not even guaranteed.

It wasn't civil asset forfeiture. It was an evidentiary seizure pursuant to a lawfully issued warrant.

I have a lot of nostalgia for my parents' politics, but in retrospect their love of civil asset forfeiture, clearly sold to them through conservative outlets as part of the war on drugs package, was a weird and embarrassing outlier. They were generally quite fond of constitutional and liberal principles, but it's like they didn't notice or didn't care in this case that the legal mechanism they were celebrating was a blatant endrun around them. They just thought it was based that wealth was flowing directly and freely from organized crime to law enforcement.

Based Afroman. He should file a civil suit for them to compensate him for the damage to his property.

Qualified immunity -- if there wasn't specific precedent saying the cops couldn't damage specifically his property in exactly the way it was damaged on the date and time it was damaged, the cops are immune.

But can't he sue the city itself?

Sovereign immunity! Even if they waive it, he sues (in their own courts), and he wins, it's likely the city simply won't pay him; there's no way to collect.

Cities generally do not get sovereign immunity, because cities are creatures of statute lacking sovereign authority.

Qualified immunity will prevent any recovery anyway, but sovereign immunity shouldn't apply here.

Ha! Sounds like a real-life case of rap album confessions! No real evidence but... isn't it safe to assume that the guy who made "because I got high" was probably in posession of narcotics?

Turns out, jury trials are there to protect the people from corrupt judges.

And to add a wildly unpredictable element. Usually biased towards charismatic, famous people.

isn't it safe to assume that the guy who made "because I got high" was probably in posession of narcotics?

He actually jokes about that in one of the songs he made. At one point the song goes "Why does the warrant say narcotics and - ok, I know about the narcotics (laugh) but why the kidnapping?".

isn't it safe to assume that the guy who made "because I got high" was probably in posession of narcotics?

He references that in "Will You Help Me Repair My Door":

The warrant said "Narcotics and kidnapping"/ The warrant said "Narcotics and kidnapping"/ Are you kidding? I make my money, rapping/ Why does the warrant say "Narcotics?" (Well, I know narcotics)/ But why kidnapping?

isn't it safe to assume that the guy who made "because I got high" was probably in posession of narcotics?

To assume that he smokes weed? Of course, though it's legal in Ohio. To assume that he smuggled drugs? That requires more evidence. Unfortunately, there hasn't been much of an investigation into why the Adams County Sheriff's Office so erroneously believed that he smuggled drugs or kidnapped people. The warrant even said he has a basement dungeon (the house doesn't have a basement at all).

What I don't get is: what is the purpose of having a judge sign the warrant if you do not name and shame judges for signing a bad warrant? If a warrant bears a judge's signature, then the buck stopped with them, and in the default case they deserve blame for it.

Of course, they could pass the blame by pointing out that given the evidence in the warrant application, it seemed justified. But then they need to throw someone else under the bus. "Actually, we had a witness who had made a sworn statement about kidnapping victims in a basement dungeon, and he was just found guilty of perjury and got a year of prison for that" would in fact absolve the other actors of most blame. Bonus points if they go after a cop for making a false sworn statement.

But if they say "Oopsy daisy, sometimes a warrant I sign is just bad, shit happens, nobody is really to blame for that" then you might as well replace them with a rock saying 'the warrant is probably fine'.

I mean, there are probably oops cases -- if a guy is caught on camera with a blood-dripping roll of carpet, that might justify a warrant for suspicion of murder, and if it later turns out that he merely buried his dog killed in a traffic accident then you say oops and move on. But in that case it would be easy enough to point out that of the last ten cases of blood-dripping carpet rolls, eight turned out to be homicides, and that it is better to raid one innocent than to let four murderers go free.

Of course, they could pass the blame by pointing out that given the evidence in the warrant application, it seemed justified

A pervasive problem of bureaucratic institutions (public or private) is that they disperse and attenuate responsibility such that almost everyone can claim to have acted reasonably given the information and responsibilities they had.

I don't know about county judges, but I know that FISA courts approve of 99% of wiretapping warrants. So 1% shy of your rock.

a rock saying 'the warrant is probably fine'.

This is more or less the actual process. Even on the very rare occasions that a warrant is successfully attacked after the fact, nothing happens to the judge.

there hasn't been much of an investigation into why the Adams County Sheriff's Office so erroneously believed that he smuggled drugs or kidnapped people

That is what is fascinating. They got the wrong address and the real drug-smuggling kidnapper rap star was someone else? An anonymous tip? Did Afroman have a bad breakup or is in a beef with another rap star? The mind boggles.

To assume that he smokes weed? Of course, though it's legal in Ohio.

Only since 2023. His song came out in 2000, so he's had a long career of signing songs about how he breaks felony drug laws. edit: also still illegal at the federal level, and a felony if he had more than 3 ounces, sold it to anyone, or moved it across state lines.

I'm pretty sure he's confessed to selling drugs in multiple songs from my familiarity with his canon.

Don’t other countries have rules that actually ban police raiding your house at 2am for no reason?

Wasn't there an article going around recently about German police knocking on doors at 5AM for online meme posts that fell a bit short of the letter of German criminal law?

Yes, and the articles detailed how they did that to lots of people. Including people who merely said government officials are parasites and one man who said a particular politician is a dick. And then German officials interviewed by 60 Minutes explained that yes they do this and it is a good thing.

Not that it makes it any better, but it seems like his house was raided during daylight hours. And other countries still do house raids.

I think the problem here was a judge rubber-stamping the warrant and not scrutinizing the evidence closely. (Some news sources have said it was an informant. Who was this informant, exactly, and how did they find out that Afroman allegedly trafficked narcotics and kidnapping victims?) However, to my knowledge, other countries don't have rules for investigating when the justice system harms the people in a case like this, and e.g. cleaning house on judges who rubber-stamp warrants.

Can we cite this as an example if the Streisand Effect too?

However if this were an earlier time when false allegations of homosexuality was considered defamation per se, might 'Licc'em Low Lisa' have been defamatory?

The intersection between a fruitless and perhaps poorly considered search and alleged lesbianism and tendency towards cunnulingus is not apparent to me.

However if this were an earlier time when false allegations of homosexuality was considered defamation per se, might 'Licc'em Low Lisa' have been defamatory?

I haven't listened to the song, but I would guess that yes, in an earlier time, implying that someone is a homosexual would be considered defamatory.

The trend in the United States is towards free speech, which I basically agree with but obviously this is not without costs.

The intersection between a fruitless and perhaps poorly considered search and alleged lesbianism and tendency towards cunnulingus is not apparent to me.

Afroman is not seriously alleging that "Licc'em Low Lisa" does, in fact, licc 'em low. He is making a joke. This is the same guy who sings comedic songs about smoking weed.

This one doesn't land as well as "Lemon Pound Cake" or "Will You Help Me Repair My Door." In those tracks, the nexus between police conduct during the raid and his ridicule is apparent and obvious.

Afroman is not seriously alleging that Lisa does, in fact, licc 'em low. He's making a joke.

Only two of five verses even reference the raid or her work as a sheriff. The rest is built entirely on her appearance and his assumptions about her sexuality. When you strip away the production and the comedic framing, the song is basically: "A female deputy was involved in raiding my house, she has a deep voice, therefore she must be secretly a man / secretly gay", then an entire track of sexual ridicule built on that premise.

The spoken deposition section actually makes it worse. You can hear Lisa Phillips describing real emotional harm, being harassed at work, being called slurs in public, having to leave shifts because of it, having to defend that she doesn't have a penis. Afroman's apology in that same section is telling: "I didn't know you was a biological lady", revealing the whole thing was rooted in assumptions about her gender and body based on her voice.

There's no allegation of actual misconduct by her specifically. The grievance is about the raid itself, and the "revenge" he chose was to target the most visibly gender-nonconforming officer on the scene.

His other tracks attempt to humorously allege actual deficiencies in police conduct. This one doesn't critique policing or say anything meaningful about the raid. It punches entirely at someone's appearance and perceived sexuality.

It punches entirely at someone's appearance and perceived sexuality.

In other words: it's a hip-hop diss track.

In other words: it's a hip-hop diss track.

Hip hop diss tracks generally target people who have deliberately sought fame and should reasonably be expected to tolerate having diss tracks written about them. Writing a diss track about your beef with another rapper who occupies the same social position of celebrity as you is different than doing it to a random police officer who has never sought fame and has no celebrity social power.

Counter-example: Eminem's entire career. He wrote songs attacking his mum, his ex-wife and a boy who picked on him in primary school, none of whom ever attempted or aspired to be famous. He's widely considered one of the best rappers of all time.

Not really. Common threads across that genre is that the ridicule connects to something real. Artistic credibility, business betrayals, hypocrisy, actual conduct. The punchlines land because they're built on a foundation the audience recognizes as legitimate.

Even in a genre where personal attacks are an art form, the best diss tracks target what someone did, not just what they look like. Afroman knows how to do that, his other raid tracks prove it. He just didn't do it here.

Not really. Common threads across that genre is that the ridicule connects to something real

The biggest recent beef (that reached the Super Bowl) had entirely unsubstantiated accusations of paedophilia and domestic abuse. And that was just the worst stuff

I used to watch pure battle rap (which has diverged into its own sport as opposed to a proving ground for new rappers). Yes, the most memorable and devastating moments involve something true. Especially if it's unknown.

But lying is also acceptable if it's funny and well-crafted.

It's a genre I was never deep into and haven't kept abreast of but I'd expect more.

AI I think does better with the medium.

Joseph Edgar Foreman, let me tell your story right, Raymond Elementary, 1986, a little boy with spite, Not middle school like you been telling every interview since then, Elementary, Joseph — you were targeting little girls back when. Carrie and Charmaine — yeah, you went at two of them, not one, "Hairy Carrie, Harry Leg Charmaine" — ain't you a lot of fun. Called on Bloods and Crips and Cholos: "Gather round while I rap About the hair on Carrie's lips" — that's your origin, that's your map.

"Clown these bitches so bad to the point they don't even want to be here" — Your words, Joseph, not mine — that was your goal, let me be clear, Then you told a journalist decades later with a grin: "She was paralyzed" — and you were proud of what you did to them. "I'ma talk so much trash to the point just to shut me up she'll pay me cash" — That's not a punchline, that's extortion from a child harassing for the bag. You didn't write a diss track, you wrote a weapon for the playground, And forty years later, you're still swinging at the same damn ground.

"A skunk has its spray," you told them, proud of what you are, "If you mess with me I rap about your ass" — that's not a bar, That's a confession that your music's just a weapon for the weak, You don't punch up, you don't critique — you find a flaw and let it leak. Forty years from Carrie's lip to Lisa's voice, the formula's the same: Find a woman, find a feature, exaggerate it, weaponize the shame.

Nas built "Ether" brick by brick, every line a case in court, Jay-Z's credibility, his art, his business — Nas indicted every sort, That record changed the language — "ethered" means you're done, Not because he clowned Jay's hairline, but because the substance won. Cube wrote "No Vaseline" and tore apart a whole machine, Contracts, management, and money — surgical, precise, and mean, Didn't mention what Jerry Heller looked like, didn't need to go that low, The facts were devastating enough to land every single blow. Kendrick buried Drake with "Not Like Us" and let the culture speak, Built a movement out of bars so sharp they cut you for a week. That's what diss tracks are, Joseph — receipts set to a beat, Not some Juggalo-circuit act recycling jokes from the cheap seat.

"Because I Got High" — a Napster leak that Howard Stern made hot, Grammy nominee, you ain't win, and after that? That's all you got. One-hit wonder status, your own Wikipedia says it plain, Debut album was a "flop," the follow-ups all did the same. Two hundred thousand net worth after twenty-five years in the game, Gathering of the Juggalos is where they're booking you by name. Dropped out of Palmdale High, declared yourself a Christian too, Then preached a sermon on YouTube about how God will see you through — Same mouth that wrote five verses fantasizing on a woman's sex, Same hands that punched a woman in Biloxi in the neck. "Involuntary reaction" — that's what your people said, She walked up from behind you and you put her on her back instead.

"Crazy Rap" had "she whipped out a dick that was bigger than mine" — That was 2001, Joseph, and you're still on that same line, Raymond Elementary to Adams County, woman-with-a-penis bit, Lisa Phillips is just Carrie with a badge — you haven't grown from it. Same kid in the same Wranglers with the same hole in the seat, Payless Pro Wings on his feet thinking cruelty is a feat.

Now let's talk about the raid — they came for kidnapping and drugs, Found nothing but some roach clips and some fan-made pipes and mugs, Busted up your door, your gate, your cameras — twenty grand in damage done, Four hundred dollars missing from the cash when they were done. You had a real case, Joseph. Property destruction, theft, A fruitless warrant, zero charges — you had substance, you had heft. "Repair My Door" pointed at the damage — fine, a start, "Lemon Pound Cake" was a parody — cute, but not exactly art, But then you saw Lieutenant Phillips and you heard her voice pitch low, And threw away the protest angle 'cause a woman's voice was low.

Two verses out of five even mention what the sheriffs did, The rest is "eating pussy like pizza" — what are you, a kid? The intersection between a fruitless search and alleged lesbianism Is not apparent to anyone with more than a playground sense of criticism.

And now the deposition tape — you left it in the song yourself, Lisa on the stand describing what your music did to her mental health, Can't go to Walmart, can't go to work without them yelling out your hook, Had to leave her shifts in tears while your track played in every nook. Your apology's on wax: "I didn't know you was a biological lady" — That's not remorse, that's just confirming every assumption that was shady. You targeted her because she didn't look the way you think a woman should, Same thing you did to Carrie at Raymond Elementary in the neighborhood.

You want to run for president? You can't even run a verse, Can't connect your punchline to the premise — that's a gift and it's a curse, Nas would've ethered every deputy by name with their misconduct on display, Cube would've bankrupted the department and had bars left for the day, Kendrick would've made them question every badge they ever wore, You just made a woman cry and called it settling a score.

You said it best yourself — "A skunk has its spray" — Yeah, Joseph, we can smell you from a mile away. Still that same ashy kid from Raymond Elementary with the Pro Wings on, Forty years of punching down and calling it a song.

  • -12

Afroman is funny but I don't know that anyone thinks of him as a top battle rapper.

On the hip hop side it's inseparable from the song being used (which is why one of the recent Drake-Kendrick songs became vastly more popular than the rest even if it wasn't the best).

On the pure battle rap side it's just inseparable from crowd work and performance - and writing for that particular person. Since battle rappers have an incentive to spend time in the ring (unlike rappers, for whom it becomes a potential danger once they're famous enough to not have something to gain) their styles become much more distinct and you have an incentive to attack them.

This joke about an opponent's style can only land in a public performance, and only if you know your audience.

You also get points for off the cuff freestyles, which obviously don't work online.

Like any roasting session, you need to be saying it in the kid's face in front of the other students on the playground to get the full effect.

But attempting to recreate it via AI is pretty on-brand for TheMotte.


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