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.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
Haha. Holy shit man, get off your high horse. Could you, in principle, reform yourself into a sensible person? This is just laughably tone-deaf in 2026. It's not "the rest of the world" – you don't represent the world, this won't even work as a polite fiction, "the world" is overwhelmingly against this lunacy, and not because the world likes Ayatollahs. You're on the side of a clearly fascist nation committing genocide in the name of a crude ethnosupremacist theological doctrine, you endorse the second tier version of that doctrine due to being too low IQ to understand Christianity without sectarian perversions, you're ruled by millenarian fanatics worse than Shia Muslims. You openly and proudly commit perfidy, you bullshit all the time, and you're boasting of how these interventions are not even designed to create peace-loving liberal democracies but to, like, appropriate muh oil. Your democratically elected representatives are worse than their authoritarians. I'm quite serious, we can just take a glance at "them" and see that Iranian leaders you're murdering look and talk like normal white Europeans from a developed nation, while yours, authorizing those strikes – Hegseth, Trump – are barely human but instead some degenerated swine from a Fromsoft game (and unsurprisingly detest Europe and revel in harming and humiliating it directly and indirectly). There's a limit to how much you can avert your eyes from the nature of your society and people. Or is there?
Then again, I realize that talking to Americans is as pointless as talking to demons from Frieren, you're only responsive to kinetic and financial arguments at this stage.
P.S. (given the length of the ban, btw thanks for FINALLY dropping this blat and treating me like a normal user as I've been requesting, I feel the need to say this in an edit:) I would very much prefer it if @self_made_human did not disseminate my contacts on any external platforms, for many simple reasons, not least being fed up with condescension here, and also not having any valuable thoughts to share with mottizens. I'd rather you treated me as braindead.
But speaking of the patronizing discussion about being "fried", social media incentives, speculative real life struggles, clout etc.: far as I know, other people's feelings and approval have always had negligible effect on my posting, or generally actions. There are very few internet strangers who matter enough (mostly instrumentally) to deserve any amount of charity or patience, and a tiny number of real life friends whose opinion and goodwill I value above that of any amount of internet strangers. To be frank, I actually struggle with remembering or paying attention to people at all, it often takes me months to read DMs or mail or respond to calls, even with money, glory or other rewards on the line; it's a major problem that has cost me multiple communities, friendships and relationships.
There is very little change in my modus operandi anyway; the only difference is who/whom, my ire no longer being trained on people you're entertained to see savaged, fairly or not. I've gladly taken a permaban on the original subreddit for much the same behavior many years ago now, and would have accepted a permaban on TheMotte at any later point of time if that were the cost of speaking honestly. Not all communities are for everyone, certainly not this one.
My views on the US in general and this community in particular have soured in response to new evidence, such as Resistance Libs (which we've collectively hounded off here) having been, in my opinion, strongly vindicated (unlike my own sympathy for American conservatives), and not in response to having gained some number of "followers" somewhere else. What an immature idea.
There's just nothing to be said. If there's anything to apologize for, I apologize for my recent top level posts that attempted to force an unwelcome discussion.
Entitled misinterpretations of minutiae of my rant (eg "genocidal dehumanization" of Trump&Hegseth who don't constitute a genus) do not merit a comment.
So in the post which earned me the ban, one specific line that invited complaints, glib pontification about my being brain-fried by Twitter, and even concern for my wellbeing (eg from @Throwaway05) was:
I stand by this line, and I believe it had aged very well indeed, complete with the claim of superiority of Iranian leadership material. In particular Ali Larijani, the butcher, the Kantian, had been vindicated, and killing him proved to be utterly futile. This is a triumph of the human over the bestial, reason over dogma, intellect and will over emotion and matter. Pretty clear-cut actually. I think Americans should reflect on this phenomenon, it's like their movies and cartoons, except they weren't the underdog protagonists.
The bolded part was labeled «Nazi talk», and: «Systematic dehumanization of someone you dislike and leadership figures of them is a classic sign of disordered thought processes that often lead to things like the rise of authoritarian states, ethnic cleansing, justification of deaths of people in that group (ex: Charlie Kirk).» Throwaway, being Mentally Well and Socially Adjusted, felt it prudent to only say that «the current admin has plenty worth complaining about».
I am obviously tempted to snark, but let's be civil. Throwaway, upon everything we've seen while I was out – do you think calling Trump and Hegseth, these two powerful men in particular, swine and worse – was undeserved? Do you think that after a perfidious attack during negotiations, Minab girls' school targeted by Palantir using SoTA AI and maps 10 years out of date and triple-tapped by supposedly Iranian Tomahawks, stealthily sinking a defenseless ship, «a whole civilization will die», «bridge and power plant day», «Death and destruction from the sky. All day long», moving goalposts and retroactively changing objectives of the operation, making up «regime change» with the regime getting unprecedentedly legitimized, lashing out at allies, withdrawing defensive arms from allies and freezing supplies to allies, insider trading, 30+ fraudulent declarations of victory and/or Deal to mislead the markets, bringing the global economy to the brink where SPRs would run dry and serious demand destruction would begin, and eventual concession of military defeat in Versailles, complete with thanks to Xi and Putin for not making it more pathetic – after this entire immense, destructive, disgraceful, fractally embarrassing, entirely unnecessary, wholly CHOSEN, heavily DEFENDED and RATIONALIZED here, shitshow that has defiled American reputation and deflated American mythos (not the LLM from Dario, which sort of saved the day) – …
…
do you think it was reasonable of you to give me a lecture on how I'm losing it, just because I expressed anger and disgust with what was happening and what it meant?
@aqouta do you still think it was my brain that got fried, and not of everyone here who treated this war as business as usual and a cause for armchair chuckling about… all manners of tedious war nerd minutiae?
@WandererintheWilderness do you still think Iranians have underperformed your standards for "human beings with moral agency and rational minds", and that Americans were more up to it?
And what have the warmongers got to say for themselves? @Shakes? @Iconochasm? I'm not even mad anymore, after all you lost, contra my expectations. I'm just kind of curious: can you process that this was a terrible idea and many supposedly cuckoo people who pointed out that the US will lose the war (like Scott Ritter) were, actually, straight up correct, at least?
America won. America killed a generation of Iran's leadership, destroyed Iran's military industrial complex, destroyed Iran's nuclear facilities, and is now negotiating how to destroy the dust. Casualties, 13 killed in action, a plane was hit with an Iranian missile and landed safely, another plane was lost in an accident. An American pilot had to eject above Iran and America was able to infiltrate Iranian land space and build an airstrip to get him out while Iran couldn't do anything. Iran declared the straight closed and the Americans launched night operations to escort ships in the dark. America blockaded the straight and Iran started to run out of energy and food.
Months ago the war critics made all sorts of predictions about how America was going to lose. Iran would be allowed to acquire nuclear weapons. They would toll the strait. America might suffer hundreds of casualties or suffer a dramatic naval defeat. America's allies would turn on it. Gas prices would rise so high that the global economy would collapse. Basically none of these things happened. War critics have simply continued onto the next set of predictions. Because the Iranian regime didn't completely collapse, and sanctions will be lifted as part of a peace deal, America is supposed to have lost. Whatever you guys say. I don't think any of you want to be convinced. I think you just want to hate America.
But I think the case is going to become more and more obvious as time goes by. America is building an economy in space. We have rockets that catch themselves in the air and wifi where there are no cell towers. We revolutionized energy, we export energy now. We are leading the AI superrace. We still have the strongest navy and the strongest planes in the world. Europe is falling behind. China can't catch up. We are building a next-generation tech stack the entire world will rely on and nobody else is close to catching up. It's an American century.
thanks btw, I'll be returning to this post. One note for now:
Fracking is genuinely technically sophisticated, but I just can't get excited about a new fossil extraction trick.
Chinese "New three" (solar panels, EVs, batteries) exports now produce like >$200B annual revenue., en route to 300. This is uncomfortably close to American fossil exports. I find one of these strategies of revolutionizing energy more compelling, technically and business-wise, and a good hint about the rest of the trajectory.
More options
Context Copy link
Ah. Very well, carry on winning then. This is what the Chinese call spiritual victory. Seriously though…
Literally what does it matter? Why do you even mention this? "Kill some dudes" is not a meaningful military objective.
that would hit so hard if war proponents didn't move through different war objectives.
Some did get fulfilled. I'm personally partial to this specific Truth:
This, as far as I can tell, has come to pass in its entirety. Iran has chosen new great and acceptable leaders (Mojtaba Khamenei and his team); Trump even wants to meet with him. The US and allies will aid Iran in reconstruction, granting Iran (and Oman) authority over the Strait, making it economically bigger, better, and stronger than ever before. Iranian military-industrial complex is fine (estimates for missiles and drones suggest they're not halfway done, whereas you are out of interceptors) and will be upgraded, given that there are no terms prohibiting that (which there were in Witkoff&Kushner's draft). The nuclear question didn't move much from their "surprising proposal" you responded to with assassination of Khamenei's family, and they had a decades-old fatwa on nukes to begin with. Americans acknowledging Iranian regime's legitimacy and committing to "not deploy any additional forces in the region" is as close to UNCONDITIONAL SURRENDER for a superpower as one could imagine.
Yes, I imagine so.
I fear that I am going to be repeating, until the end of time, that just because you read something in a newspaper doesn’t mean it’s true.
What I mean is, knowledge in the fog of war is unfalsifiable. The real information about how many interceptors America has is classified. So is the information about how many of them we used. It would take a lot of scrutiny to prove that what’s floating around on the internet has any credibility. A lot more scrutiny that what I’ve seen on social media.
I remember, for example, when Russia was going to run out of bullets weeks into its invasion of Ukraine. Or when Hillary was so far ahead of Trump that she didn’t even have to think about him anymore.
So when we start factoring out these unfalsifiable rumors, it seems pretty obvious to me who won. America can threaten Iran at will and they have no meaningful way to retaliate. Their only recourse is to attack shipping on the Strait, which can strain the global economy but is not nearly as dramatic of a lever as had once been imagined. America is in such a different weight class from Iran that we have to start inventing hopes that maybe America’s super weapons ran out of ammunition and the Iranian rockets will definitely blow something up next time, any day now.
This gap will grow as America is the only power capable of building into Space and the AI frontier.
That's not how wars work, though. You lost in Korea, in Vietnam, in Afghanistan, and in every occasion you enjoyed vast military superiority by the end. "We can kill them, they can't kill us" is simplistic and part of the problem, which is a bronze age savage's theory of victory coupled with an actually cost-sensitive political and economic system.
As for interceptors, I find the alleged exhaustion rates plausible despite "classified" noise from your India-tier corrupt officials, for the following reasons: corrupt people are generally untrustworthy; we know 21st century America is generally subpar at physical production; we know that some arms sales were frozen and THAADs were harvested from Korea; we know that interception rates have declined over the war, esp. in Israel; we know the bases are wrecked.
I won't even argue the facts again (China is about 5 years behind in space and 8 months in AI). On priors, why do you believe this is even plausible? You must know that you have fewer people than China, fewer highly intelligent people, lesser talent allocation to STEM, less industrial capacity, less energy, less cutthroat markets, less… pretty much everything, except some legacy IP. Is this just blind patriotism?
I think they’re a little further behind than that but let’s take this a step farther.
Consider all of the technologies that constitute global power, or that will. Nuclear, Satellites, rockets, rare-earth metals processing, silicon chip design, quantum computing, drones, artificial vision, robotics, energy dominance, etc. etc.
America is dominant or competitive in all fields. America was first to rockets that can catch themselves in the air. America was first to AI. America leads in biotechnology and robots. America leads in space.
China is still behind. They have developed with incredible speed but they have to maintain that pace to keep up. They have, to give them their due, genuine leads in a few fields. They are winning on rare earths and drones, they have the best solar and batteries. They now manufacture the most ships. But they are not producing bombers as advanced as anything made in America. They don’t yet have the rockets to colonize space. They can’t actually replace America’s role at the center of global security.
Not to mention that, fundamentally, China’s rise has been parasitic on America’s wealth. America protects the sea lanes that Chinese vessels rely on. China’s industrial rise doesn’t happen without America handing over the blueprint. Their genuine scientific advancements are still plagued by a culture of cheating and inefficiency that is worse than anything in the Replication Crisis.
China can grow out of this if they have the time. Do they have the time?
Maybe within five years they can replicate SpaceX rockets. But Elon is already pushing the frontiers again with data centers in space and AI. So in five years China might still be three years behind. Maybe in eight years they’re two years behind. Etc.
But China’s continued success is not assured. The fundamentals actually look quite mixed. China’s population is starting to age and even shrink. Capital continues to flee. Tariffs and trade deals are going to erode China’s marginal efficiencies in bulk manufacturing.
I think the likeliest outcome is a kind of China 1970s, or maybe like Japan in the 90s. Population turnover and changing economic fundamentals produce a decade of stagnation. Stagnation produces social malaise (if not unrest). And then China’s progress keeping apace with America stalls. This is already happening — American growth has started outpacing China these last few years. It doesn’t take much for China to stall.
I think this is much likelier than a dramatic shooting war or global conflict. I think it’s unlikely that America faces these same challenges. America is passing through a period of reform and is likely to come out the other side stronger.
Nobody else is even a competitor. Russia is too small to compete on all fronts. Europe is not going to begin building next-generation tech. India is not going to catch up. South America and Japan will be American satrapies. Europe too for that matter.
I keep coming back to space because it’s so stark: Because of SpaceX America is going to build dominance where no one can follow. If you run a mining operation in the Congo or an oil tanker at sea, you plug your operation into Starlink and everything runs through American computers. It’s better than the petrodollar. America wins again.
Yeah China has more people but so what? When has sheer numbers made the biggest difference? Besides, America has access to the smartest talent from Japan, Europe, Latin America, etc. Elon Musk was etc. etc. Everybody wants to live in America for its cities, its beaches, its money, etc. etc. etc.
We’re still having this debate in English. My Swedish friends all speak English. The Germans all care about Trump. Nobody is learning Chinese. Nobody cares about Xi Jinping. America makes the world, China copies America, not the other way around.
At worst it's been symbiotic. Your whole economy is parasitic, which you market as "center of global security", "reserve currency" and what not. Do you honestly believe you could afford these investments without decades of China exporting deflation via cheap manufacturing? You'd run into a couple more financial crises without their "parasitism". Well, they even helped you exit the real one in 2008, at some cost.
Stealth bombers and heavy lift rocket vehicles as a means to provide "the center of global security" is a funny phrasing. We're in 2026, the DoD is renamed to the "Department of War", could we drop the euphemisms? After Greenland, too. You also make systems like THAAD, but we've seen how it goes. It's maybe the center of global security for one specific Middle Eastern nation. Just having a heavily militarized industry is not much of a flex.
Are we still doing this Zeihanite nonsense? You demonstrably can't unilaterally unblock the "sea lanes" when they're threatened by Houthis and Iranians. Moreover you're now the primary cause of those sea lanes getting blocked in the first place. It's a pure protection racket. And as you say, they make vastly more ships than you do. They could escort their own ships if need be, which Trump admitted.
Well, it certainly helped, especially while they were a nation of uneducated peasants with like $900 per capita GDP (1999). As time goes, this argument loses its luster.
No, their R&D is quite efficient now. I routinely see smaller teams on lower budgets getting more done than in the US.
This is cope, sorry.
First, Japan didn't just fall into "stagnation" and "malaise". It was a functionally non-sovereign country which you deliberately fucked over with these "trade deals", incapable of providing its own security, dependent on imports of food and energy (not in a cute "would have to ration" way, in a "shutdown in 6 months" way), and it had a contagious real estate bubble collapse. None of these features are shared with China. Actually I often say that Americans drawing this analogy are telling on themselves. They helplessly lost several industries to a tiny island nation they had previously conquered, and instead of an existential crisis, their takeaway is… "we're invincible, China will be the same"?! Are you serious? Japan with nukes and 12 times larger population would have rendered you irrelevant by 2000s.
Second, no. This "has started outpacing" is largely a function of exchange rates, which China is alleged to suppress for RMB. In national currency terms the cumulative growth has been about equal since 2020. That's really good performance for the US stage of development, admittedly. But at some point they fully deflate their real estate bubble, and you notice that their industry and R&D have been growing quite a bit faster.
More to the point, you seem to not engage with the core fundamentals that matter: your clown government and your simply insufficient talent pool.
Pretty much every time. This is the story of America and Japan, too. Americans do have this strange conception of themselves as a plucky underdog who miraculously wins by Just Being That Good. But even the Soviets barely had an edge in population, probably had none if you exclude assorted Central Asian dependents, and were burdened by a suicidal economic doctrine. This isn't the case with China.
I'm telling you, this isn't enough. This entire list of rabble is just too small, they barely produce talent. Add India, add whatever, it's all just not enough smart people. The only real argument is brain draining China itself, which seems to be going worse lately.
Yes, Trump is more charismatic. Your Swedes and Germans care about Trump. But why should anyone care what Swedes and Germans care about? Trump spits on them. He cares about Xi's opinion.
America sure would like to try to copy some of China, it's just actually hard.
I don't know, this really doesn't feel coherent to me except as anger about America. I don't think you don't understand how the global economy works, I think you're just denying it for some sort of quixotic reason. It's as if you need America to be the Great Satan. When America invented all of the categories we are debating in the first place. America has an insufficient talent pool? America invented the talent pool. America perfected university educations for working-class people while China was trying to starve them. How many Chinese are alive today because of Norman Borlaug? We can debate this in English on an American website built using American technologies transmitted across American cables built under the protection of American ships. You're speaking English because of America. Your webpages are speaking Javascript, because of America.
America is parasitic? You wouldn't even be here without America. This is like the pyramid complaining that the ground is beneath it.
If you want, it's possible to be critical or even very critical of American leadership, lots of people are. But when you step through the looking glass it's a little ridiculous. China's industrial rise doesn't happen without America creating the global market, letting China in, supplying China with energy and raw materials and capital and IP. China still sends a quarter of a million students to American universities every year. What's the harm in admitting that? You can still criticize America for fighting bad wars in the Middle East or prognosticate China's eventual supremacy. Unless your precis is simply that you hate America. Because, otherwise, it's not coherent to argue that America is parasitic on the world because all we have are our ships and China's ships are better anyways.
Notably, this didn't happen.
Well, what happened next? What's the next part of the story? Did it work out for Japan? Does Japan rule the world now? Did America ever have a political reckoning over the economic policies that lead to outsourcing?
America + Europe + Japan + whatever is larger than China. America + India is larger than China. You are failing to advance any consistent standard of analysis except that you believe America must be inferior.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
For the record, you're definitely not mentioning all of the US losses there - the US lost or suffered damage to lots more aircraft (including even some that Iran managed to shoot down despite what seems to me to be a pretty anemic air defense performance, and others they hit on the ramp with missiles) and Iran seriously damaged or degraded a lot of American military facilities.
I actually tend to think that the facilities isn't a big deal, especially if Trump Venezuelizes Iran (what are we gonna use them for?) but it's not like Iran didn't get in a few solid punches.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Let's break this into three segments:
Factual correctness: important, but also not important. You can be right while being wrong because: discussion value-add and moral worries matter.
Darwin's greatest sin in my mind was never saying anything interesting, I would just assume his posts would be filled with maximally infuriating and inconsistent arguments as soldiers woke nonsense. Discussion rarely led anywhere useful. I didn't have to read his posts, I would read the responses and sometimes see something interesting but he himself was seldom useful.
I remember you being a high quality poster with a perspective and information that was useful for me to hear and I enjoyed hearing from. Of late I have not felt that. Many of us have been around long enough that we've become caricature of ourselves in some ways (I am certainly guilty of this). Yes some of this is that an anti-Western perspective does not flatter my biases. But that's not all that's going on here, I think most people would say that they feel what you write has changed and not for the better and that they have to pick harder to get to the meat. Only you can tell me why the change.
However both of those matter a little bit less than the moral worries. The way you are writing is worrying, it makes me worry about how you are doing, where this dehumanization is coming from, and so on. It's not always easy to spot internally that something has changed but a lot of people here who have seen much of your writing are like "okay what's going on here."
This community has been together for too long for me to enjoy flame-outs at this point, especially when I am worried that some topic (Charlie Kirk, Geopolitical Bullshit, The Joos/anti-joos) is having an active impact on someone IRL - both for real and in the mind alone.
Please take care of yourself.
Thanks for the clarity, I'll put it simply too.
People extend different amounts of charity to friends, to family members, to neutral strangers and to the hostile outgroup. This does not map cleanly onto political allegiance. For example I still nominally have friends of the Zigger persuasion, and either do not discuss the war and the broad issue of the… diminished credibility of the Russian national project, or try to make my points from the remaining common ground. Some friends who have Powerful takes on the need to eradicate Russian nation. There are also some people in this community whom I respect and disagree with, people with rich, coherent and defensible belief systems leading to different conclusions from mine, and I'd rather not shit on them over claiming something that I'd say disqualifies a stranger from having political rights.
But at the end of the day I'm a Sinophilic Russian who wants broader power decentralization. You're the kind of guy who can seriously posit that it might be "treasonous" for Americans to undermine an undeclared American war of aggression via criticism (which also makes you immune to the substance of much of the criticism, since the US has in fact lost the war for military reasons many critics had been bringing up, but your school of thought allows the causality to be inverted). Your epistemics and morality also appear shot:
No, not everyone loses. Just your team, which might not even represent the aggregate interests of the American nation. Your team's interests are not humanity's interests, they're maybe forgivable (though I don't think they are) but particular. "We need to win… for everyone!" is a self-serving argument.
In other words, you're a two-bit hegemonist, and hostile outgroup for me. When we talk about matters pertaining to your project and to mine, much of the meat you can find is poison, and vice versa; and just like you don't sugarcoat your assertions, I won't do mine. Did you ever say anything interesting? I don't remember, but do you think your cited posts, premised entirely on these self-serving axioms and warped morality, appear to be meaty to me, or just petulant, entitled chutzpah?
But I won't concern troll about your mental health. That'd be too self-serving.
Which of us is correct about Russia, Iran, and the U.S. is a different issue from the fact that you seem pretty heated by relatively mild discussion on the internet.
You can disagree with someone including about important things like religion and politics without thinking they are subhuman or wish you harm. This kind of black and white thinking always leads to bad things.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Yeah, basically. I'm unusure how any happening of the Iran war is supposed to interact with the social media induced brain frying hypothesis. Like if somehow the war had ended unambiguously on good terms for the US was this supposed to be evidence in my favor? If it had ended up even worse for the US how would interpretation of your behavior have been shown to be more wrong?
As you've blocked me on X and have been banned from this site I have not collected any evidence that could have updated me on this subject and so my opinion remains unchanged.
Yes, because it'd suggest that my opponents were largely correct to treat it as another culture war side show, and demand charitable discussion of American efforts and speaking of their leaders Trump and Hegseth as imperfect, maybe not highly moral, but rational actors with non-insane motivations, who have a plausible, debatable opinion on what's best for America (specifically, another war in the Middle East). And that insisting that the war is a wholly unjustified crime perpetrated by basically murder clowns is "TDS", "twitter fried his brain", or some such.
To be clear, I expected the war to end in Iranian defeat, but not really "good terms for the US". As in – probably ground operation, some more atrocities, more losses, high reputational damage, high economic damage, attrition of stockpiles, unmanageable conflagration in the region, dangerously inflated belief in capabilities vs China, and other assorted wages of insanity and malice that make it all not worth it. American defeat was well outside my model, so this is "winning too much", as it were.
Yes, you trusted the experts, as we all did. Nothing to be ashamed of.
"Well, plan A (kill the Ayatollah and watch whole Iran collapse like Sauron's tower) failed, there must be plan B. The best and the brightest working for the world's first super power were preparing for this day for all of their lives, there must be brilliant plan B that guarantees success of this special operation!"
More options
Context Copy link
I did not necessarily expect this outcome either, and I remember arguing with users here at the start of this war who were pre-emptively gloating about America having global unrestricted power to bulldoze everybody Chyna decided to associate with, that the good ol' US of A enjoyed such an overwhelming military dominance over virtually everyone else that they could just walk in, topple regimes and replace them with puppets, then walk away in slow motion while explosions detonated behind them.
Turns out none of these takes aged well at all. It was ridiculous hubris then and it's ridiculous hubris now, and at this point one would expect to see grovelling mea culpas from anybody remotely capable of updating their priors.
Eh, There's this kind of weird definitional game that's being played for what "winning" means. We've known that we have very little ability to nation build in the sense that we can use our military to get other nations to be governed the way we want them to be. Anyone paying attention to the other middle eastern adventures would have to conclude we cannot reliably do that. That this war was started with those aims was dumb and wasteful. But then there's this idea that Iran meaningfully "won" in some kind of conventional military sense which is just ridiculous. A whole lot of the arguments on this topic has been people with these two different definitions of "winning" hallucinating people who disagree with them.
If by "Iran won" you mean the US did not accomplish its war aims then absolutely, Iran won, and it seemed very plausibly they'd win from the get go. If you by "Iran won" you mean they have some kind of dominant military position then just no, they had the ability to take pain and sustain enough of a threat to close the strait.
I just don't really know what people are updating on in this conflict with respect to military might. The military executed its missions very well. The problem was our war aims basically required stoking something like an Iranian revolution to actually succeed which didn't happen.
This is why I'm not using the word "winning" to describe what occurred with Iran; they were capable of creating enough attrition to force the US to give up. The US, however, did not achieve the overwhelming bulk of its aims even in the best-case scenario for the US going forward, even the purported "gains" trotted out likely could have been achieved via diplomacy instead without incurring so much cost, and that is the relevant metric when trying to assess a statement like "The US has so much global power that it can effortlessly topple every regime, and nobody can do anything in response". It doesn't matter what word you assign to the whole sorry situation, though it's more accurately described as "US failure" than "Iranian victory".
Quite evidently people who believed the previous statement about practically unchecked US power certainly need to update! That is not a hallucination; it was an actual position which was triumphantly and openly stated by some users, as the links provided by Dase illustrate.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
My diagnosis wasn't based on the rough content of your post. I even mostly agree with the analysis of Trump and hegseth as contemptable individuals. I was engaging in the, admittedly often annoying, classic past time of discourse on the discourse. Why is dase crashing out so much more frequently? Yes, lib centrists are right about everything, especially Trump, but that hasn't changed. What has changed is the xitter algorithm.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I was more "passively war-tolerant". War with Iran was not something I was actively rooting for, and if you'd asked me beforehand I would have urged against it, but I was willing to let bro cook and see how it played out. Both in terms of reasons for the war and how the negotiations are going, I think the degree of misinformation and chaff is so extreme that normies watching the news (including all of us) have little ability to distill a signal from the noise. Especially for the latter, as I expect everything from the Trump administration to be positional maneuvering rather than statements of fact, and of course the same has always been true for Iran.
In fairness, that's also pretty much how I interpret everything you say, and why I usually just skim your posts.
See, this is what I mean.
See what? You're basically hiding in the fog of war and proposing a deeply nihilistic epistemology that Trump's tendency to brazenly bullshit everyone makes every circumstance completely open to interpretation. I don't believe this is how this works. Operation Epic Fury had been declared Over in early May already, by the Secretary of State, who doesn't have remotely Trump's reputation. The US and Iran have signed - not announced, not "leaked" – an MOU which is clearly an admission of defeat relative to any claimed early-war objective of the US, and a bunch of obvious Ws for Iran. Could Trump ignore it all, restart the war, and actually beat Iran this time? Quite possibly. Such things happen in history. But that'd be another, separate war. The terms accepted now suggest the US was pretty desperate for an off-ramp.
This assessment seems very far from defensible to me.
Trump on February 28 in his speech articulating the rationale of the attacks [excerpts]:
From the MOU:
I think it's completely reasonable to:
I criticized going to war with Iran before it happened on here. I still think it's too soon to tell how things are going to fall out, so I've been withholding judgment, but my preliminary assessment probably wouldn't be viewed as exactly a pro-Trump gloss.
However, I think you are badly mistaken if you to look at a US declaration of war that emphasizes "no nuclear weapons," look at an MOU where Iran agrees "no nuclear weapons" and then claim that the MOU is "clearly an admission of defeat relative to any claimed early-war objective."
Wikipedia gives the following incomplete list of objectives:
Oil and gas shitposting has obviously failed. Regime change, well, you see. Unconditional surrender, not mentioned, certainly failed. "Destroying missile capabilities" – significant attrition but that's a cope, Witkoff wanted them to give up on production, something absent from the MOU which even proscribes interfering in such matters. "Forestalling Iranian retaliation", worse than failed, it was caused by the aggression. Proxies – Iran had forced the ceasefire in Lebanon (thus, preservation of Hezbollah) to be the #1 issue in the MOU, if you go through the timeline you can see that this isn't really what the US wanted and not a win for the US+Israel either.
The nuclear stuff is the biggest sticking point, I agree. But the thing is, did Iran even move far from their pre-war position? It seems to me that they did not, in which case the US didn't even need the war to "win" here, therefore this is not an achievement of a military objective.
Also, Iran was talking about lifting 80% of the sanctions as their carrot. Now they get 100%, for much the same terms. So no, I think this is still American defeat, and the only way to spin it otherwise is to claim that Iranian terms were untrustworthy when originally proposed but are more trustworthy now that they know just how brutal and perfidious the US can be. I find that to be a pretty flimsy argument.
I am noticing how, when you make your list of Trump's different objectives, you dodge away from the actual text from Trump that I provided as a reference point to an incomplete ("various explanations...including") Wikipedia summary so that you don't have to concede that the United States dealt a severe blow to Iran's ability to project naval power, an objective that was reiterated by Hegseth on March 2 in case you just thought it was a one-off.
But most of your evidence for a resounding Iranian victory is the same evidence there is for a resounding American victory: namely, extrapolation from the MOU (that may not hold) onto a final state that has not been achieved yet and could resolve in a way that is relatively favorable for either Iran or the United States. I think your argument is passable enough: it seems very plausible to me that Trump got in deeper than he anticipated and was looking for any out that let him save face and was willing to settle for something he could have mostly gotten via conventional negotiations. But it also seems plausible to me that the US will be able to notch some Ws in the post-MOU negotiations on top of the degradation of Iranian military they have achieved. It also seems quite plausible to me that negotiations will break down and we'll see the resumption of military strikes in earnest.
As I said previously, "[i]t's possible that the war will end in a way that makes it easy to determine the winner, but it also seems plausible to me that the war will end with both sides claiming victory and the real measure of that victory will be measured in subsequent behavior over years or decades."
We're in the "both sides claiming victory" stage now and I think saying anything "clear" at this stage is premature.
I don't dodge it, I just deem it to be a cope. What "project naval power"? How was Iran ever a credible naval force? For years of reading about the Iranian Question, I don't remember ever seeing a serious concern about their growing naval capabilities specifically. IRIN was always doomed to sink at the first contact with the USN, at least I believe so, the USN has crushing advantages in every aspect; and Iran wasn't preparing to go on some aggressive expedition, so there was no great incentive to do it now. Russia, itself mediocre in naval projection, also wiped out Ukrainian naval capabilities early on in the war (which it's arguably losing now); this changed very little. The success here had been overdetermined, but that's also why it couldn't have been the goal – it couldn't endow Iran with a credible coercion/deterrence tool in the way that threatening Hormuz or Israeli desalination plants or South Pars field does. (Moreover the MOU doesn't say they can't rebuild their Navy if they so choose, and with the reconstruction funds and lifted sanctions they'll be able to afford it. Though it'd still be of little irrelevance.)
I see a pattern where Americans overstate their investment in impressive but strategically irrelevant feats just because these are things they can actually do. It's a cheap way to pad the metrics by announcing a thing you're confident about as the goal. Murdering Khamenei and other guys, destroying the Navy, "infiltrate Iranian land space and build an airstrip". So? What does this gain for you as a nation, relative to a scenario where you didn't do it? Not having to do it a bit later? It's a good flex on its own technical terms, but why should I believe these flexes were strategic objectives rather than instrumental moves in service of some cogent strategic objective? For all other goals, from "regime change" to "stopping missile and drone production" and even "steal oil", I see the answers. For nukes, I also see the answer but again, Iran was willing to compromise on the nukes from the start, the war at best changed something on the margins of the JCPOA 2.0 (and seemingly not in favor of the US). For the navy and assassinations… eh.
Before you accuse me of motivated reasoning, consider how the defenders of the war – and you – also apply Straussian lens to Trump's communications, correctly assuming that he's untrustworthy (just in a different direction) and his Actual Intentions (like reasons to sign such an MOU) must be deduced from first principles.
…All that said, ultimately my thinking is simpler. The US is a vastly superior power, and chipping away at the margins is beneath it. The real «objective of the war», universally and sometimes openly understood and lobbied for over decades, spelled out by Netanyahu, evident in the bulk of Trump's and Hegseth's communication too, was a generic Neocon/Zionist intention to «finally solve Iran». Remove it from the regional calculus, deny its resources to proxies, and make it unable to threaten Israel in the long term, by whatever means work: aiding an organic power transition, installing a pro-American/Zionist puppet regime, collapsing the nation into civil war, imposing treaty terms that defang it relative to the status quo, or "bombing it into stone age". Iraq, Syria, Venezuela… And Iranian objectives, on the contrary, were to survive, preserve the status quo, and hopefully improve on it by getting sanctions relief. In this sense, the present situation indicates Iran overachieving on its objectives, whereas the US has not just failed but made its position worse.
Agreed that this is very premature given previous fake-out "deals". But I do think that the MOU is qualitatively different, and American eagerness to sign it, allows me to say that Iran won. If, say, negotiations break down and the US resumes high-intensity strikes, that'll be a separate arc. I'm not saying Iran won forever.
I would agree that it's a cope to point to it as a success if the other elements of the settlement end up poorly for the US, but if the US had said "our only goal is to sink the Iranian navy," the operation would be a success goals-wise (not necessarily a strategic victory in the big scheme of things, since succeeding at dumb goals can be bad). So if that was a goal, it ought to be counted.
And omitting it is a cheap way to overstate your case and obscure the actual outcomes of the war, the same as when pro-Trump people omit the damage done to US bases by Iranian ballistic missiles.
Wouldn't you say that Iran also intended (and quite plausibly still hopes) to establish a strait toll regime as a war goal? I would agree with you if you said that it was a stretch goal or seemed like part of a motte-and-bailey play, but don't you think that was also on their bucket list as a war objective?
On this we agree.
This is where I disagree. I actually think it's too soon to rule out a Venezuela-like ending to this thing, for Iran. Not that I would bet on it, necessarily. I think both countries are basically going to try to get as much as they can out of the post-MOU bargaining and possibly they are both betting that the other guy will blink on some things they really want.
And maybe this is why I disagree: from my point of view, the MOU is a temporary ceasefire instrument to be replaced by something more permanent or (as Trump and I think also Iran) have warned, a return to war.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
The explicit early war objectives laid out by Trump and Hegseth were
What kind of benchmarks would you consider success for 1 and 2? 80%? 99%? I suspect you'd call anything short of 100% a "humiliating loss", and probably even then. Their Navy is about 90% destroyed.
And the MOU is "an agreement to talk out a future agreement", but one of the points purportedly agreed upon is 4. Which is still very far from a done deal, and very much obscured in the fog of the negotiating table. And that describes the entire situation. This isn't some trad war where a total surrender happens at a formal event. Both sides are going to posture and threaten and build contingencies, likely for years to come.
I will admit that this whole ordeal has strengthened the conventional wisdom that airpower alone is limited. But "we blew up most of their shit and crippled their economy, total W for them" seems like a retarded and delusional take.
Trump called for Unconditional Surrender and made regime change a clear goal of the war from the get-go. That objective was clearly unachieved. Replacing Khamenei with Khamenei is a joke.
On 1, 2, 3 we don't have any data that shows a significant decline in capability. The ability for Iran to project power has not been meaningfully reduced in any way that is testable, as they still possess the naval/missile capability to shut the Strait of Hormuz, threaten their neighbors, and force a deal that benefits their proxy Hezbollah.
The problem here is that some people think this is Team Deathmatch rules and some people think it's Capture the Flag. The objective isn't to kill a lot of Iranians, it's to achieve some kind of strategic goal. The K:D doesn't matter, the objectives do.
Eh, "unconditional surrender" did not come up in any of the overviews and AI summaries I looked up when making that post. Totally makes sense that he said it; demanding massive asks and threatening to walk away is the man's main tactic.
Compare it to the Iranians who have sworn to fight "until complete victory" while insisting that no negotiations have even been happening. This is what I mean when I referenced a fog of bluster, threats and maneuvering. What's going on in the minds of them men involved? What do they really want, what are they really willing to trade or sacrifice, what do they really think of the situation so far? I think I don't know, you don't know, Daes definitely doesn't know (or can't say if he did, isn't he posting from China these days?) and none of us have any plausible methods for rectifying that.
People can call that cowering in the fog of war. I think I'm dispaying some epistemic humility while acknowleding the basic surface-level consideration that there does seem to be a lot of fog.
Maybe. Their rate of fire did plummet something like 90% over the first few weeks. I am definitely open to the position that the Iranian decentralized method is overly difficult or impossible to completely stamp out with just air power. There's a lot of middle ground between "strong enough to shut the Strait", which seems not really true since we've been running ships through it, and "plucky enough to kick shipping insurance premiums into intolerable territory", which seems reasonably true.
There's a fair bit of room for criticism of the US here, but I do think this hUmIlIaTiNg LoSs line is just nakedly motivated reasoning.
And this is exactly what I'm taking a wait-and-see approach about.
Yes, let's compare. Indeed, to our knowledge, no direct negotiations with the US have been happening at virtually every moment where the US was claiming negotiations, and the MOU is both extremely similar to initial Iranian terms, dissimilar to Witkoff-Kushner terms which Iran had dismissed, and an admission of Iranian victory. They've performed so much better than you that you can't look at this. Wiki:
Pretty clear who's been full of bluster here and who achieved victory.
Uh-huh. From the inner spiritual China. The politruk does keep a tight watch over what I get to post on themotte. @aquota see, I really wouldn't have needed xitter to lose interest in dancing around the fact that some Patriots are going off their rockers and it's pretty funny.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
From Wikipedia:
Perhaps you're unfamiliar with how the term is used, but when it comes to power projection Iran's navy (which I don't think anyone seriously contests was "meaningfully reduced") is much more relevant than their ballistic missile arsenal (which was also "meaningfully reduced," if only because they launched off such a large portion.)
"Shut the Strait" is self-contained motte/bailey inasmuch as it suggests that Iran has much more complete control over the Strait than they actually do (nobody denies that cargo ships successfully passed through the Strait under the nose of Iran, do they?), thus successfully spreading a misleading idea, but if challenged the person using it can always say that they mean Iran has the ability to threaten traffic there (which is also true), not that Iran actually shut the strait, making it tedious to address, even though it may mislead the underinformed.
For this reason, I wish you (and everyone else on here) would stop using the phrase and switch to more precise language instead.
"He didn't have the choke on me. I could still breathe in little gasps! I just tapped out because of the choke."
Trump himself has said, when justifying the peace deal:
And again:
Trump himself has made one of the clearest statements he's made about the war, saying that the strait of Hormuz was insufficiently open. We can get pedantic about what exactly "closed" means or whether we just needed gutsier ship captains if you want, but I don't think that really matters in assessing the success of "America" or "Trump & Hegseth" as strategic actors. Trump stated directly: the restrictions placed on the strait of Hormuz worked to force Trump to make a deal.
A general or an admiral can claim a "stabbed in the back theory" that "we didn't lose we left" that "we won the war on the battlefield and the politicians lost it at the negotiating table" or that "the civilians followed the traitors at home and didn't support the war enough."
A politician, a POTUS, can't claim that, because rallying public support is kind of his whole job. Coordinating with international insurance companies is within his purview. The home front is his war. Trump can't whine that we were winning the war if it wasn't for public opinion and the markets, public opinion and the markets is his job. The buck stops here. He needs to go to war with the public he has, not the public he wishes he had.
Trump and Hegseth made the specific decision not to attempt to build a public case for going to war with Iran, not to coordinate with international partners, not to plan ahead for the business consequences of the war. They chose speed and surprise over those things. That turned out to be a bad decision.
Are the things Trump claims when he is justifying his actions trustworthy or not?
That's...why I'm here.
The context of the conversation had to do with achieving war aims which is a separate-but-related question, since achieving war aims can actually be really bad if your war aims are strategically stupid. The ability to achieve war aims is a question of military capability, and whether or not military capability is exercised successfully is a different question from whether or not it is being exercised wisely.
So: there's a difference between the economic considerations of Iran's ability to threaten transiting ships and their military capabilities to threaten ships. In a discussion about Iran's military capabilities Iran's military capabilities matter. And their military capabilities are sufficient to credibly threaten ships passing through the strait, but insufficient to reliably follow through on that threat. This indicates that they have imperfect ability to complete the kill chain required to strike ships transiting the strait, which is more directly relevant to a discussion of Iran's military capabilities than the degree to which civilian shipping is willing to take on the risks of a transit. For people who think about conflicts in terms of things like kill chains, sensor webs, and material capabilities, that's an important distinction that tells you something about the military capabilities of Iran (and the United States).
It's the difference between saying that German U-boats targeted Allied shipping, imposing a grievous economic cost, and saying that they "closed the Atlantic for the duration of World War Two." It is entirely possible to point out the success of unrestricted submarine warfare without exaggerating its effectiveness.
I did not claim otherwise. You said things that were either untrue or, I am arguing, misleading. I think you can make your case without doing that.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Compared to who? As long as it's the Iranians I can agree, but none of this is new for Western, or any other sort of leadership. There's another post of yours that has not only aged well, it reached out back in time and is perfectly applicable retroactively:
It's all there is to it, and all there ever was.
Call me a Western supremacist and racist but on Feb 27th I did not expect Iranians to come out looking more decent.
Many old things are vile and, worse, not even effective. There's a point to having standards.
That's because it's not such a small thing as you try to make it out to be. It's not like Hegseth has bad facial features or that I get the ick. It's that his entire shtick is shit. His… ah, I've already covered that, didn't I. Aesthetics is correlated with holistic value. This is how a commander presents himself when he's likely to wage a nonsensical war in a reprehensible manner. This is how a secondary antagonist in a Disney adaptation of a children's fable looks like. Apparently, this is also how a guy looks when he's about to blow it. We're not on SlateStarCodex, but Scott would surely say that nothing is ever a coincidence, or something to that effect.
But anyway, there is something new to it. Again: the US has lost the war. So:
I concede I should have added the third line, for example: "and then Trumpists fucking lose, having debased and betrayed themselves for nothing".
Maybe you haven't been paying too much attention to them - I've been mildly impressed with Iran since the Global War on Terror days under Dubya - or maybe it's my own bias - I have nothing but contempt for western elites. Perhaps a bit of both.
My personal opinion on the matter is that paying too much attention to aesthetics got us Ursula von der Leyen, and the entire European establishment.
I see where you're coming from, and there's something to be said for the argument. I'll even add that I hope we end up with someone better after Trump leaves office. President Hand Grenade was fun as a protest against the treasonous ruling class, but someone like him is not viable when you want to actually wield power, rather than permanently play the plucky underdog.
No argument there. I've been calling this whole affair a disaster since day one.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Noted. It was just one person over DMs, but my apologies nonetheless.
More options
Context Copy link
This was unnecessarily rude and a ban was deserved. Twitter is a cesspool and you shouldn’t let the zero standards of basic politeness common there change your writing.
More options
Context Copy link
I never actually said I supported the current war, which I don't really. But you can simultaneously reject a vigilante lynch mob as barbaric and counter-productive, and point out that in point of fact its target was guilty of a pattern of gratuitously antagonistic and frequently evil behavior which they could have quit at any time and without which the violence would not have escalated to this point. It doesn't justify the attack, but justifying the attack wasn't the topic of the thread, it was Iranian leadership's decision-making ability.
More options
Context Copy link
Believe it or not, "Americans" is also a category of people you aren't allowed to just say "You're a bunch of demons" about. Criticize American culture, foreign policy, and whatever else you hate about America and Americans, sure. But when you want to criticize a group you have to ground it in specific behaviors and traits, not just label everyone in the group as crazystupidevil. (Yes, I'm sure you don't literally think every single American is crazystupidevil , but that's beside the point.)
You've gotten a lot of slack because you've been around a while and as unwilling as you are to claim "emiitus" status, we do weigh positive contributions against negative ones. But something has happened to you, and lately your contributions are far more negative than positive,.and you repeatedly curl your lip and bark angrily when told to chill.
I'm giving you 90 days in liueu of a permaban. Being perfectly honest, I personally don't care whether or not you come back. I got @KMC snapping at me for "driving off the regulars," but the problem is, some regulars have never contributed anything but shit. And others stop contributing anything good. Emeritus status only goes so far.
I take it you’ll also be banning anyone who does the same about Europeans, right? Right? (Who am I kidding, of course you won’t)
From what I can tell most American vs. European argumentation mirrors the U.S. Republican vs. Democrat argumentation.
Democrats believe or complain about Republicans being evil (with often "subhuman" "moral degenerates" etc.). Republicans believe Democrats are stupid children.
Neither is particularly nice, but the "evil" belief and comments has historically resulted in Very Bad Things. "Stupid" usually results in protectionism and infantilization or ignoring.
So you'll see anti-Republican criticism that is far, far worse in objective terms and therefore clearer to deal with - Republicans don't usually wish Democrats dead (although it happens), the other way around is super common on Reddit.
I don't think the Euro/American divide is quite so bad yet, but I don't see anybody saying Europeans are subhuman pig men (except for a certain genre of racists complaining about non-euros in Europe.
More options
Context Copy link
Do you have anything in particular on your mind? Being an European myself, Dase's rant strikes me as substantially worse than anything I've ever read about Europeans on here.
More options
Context Copy link
If someone posts about Europeans like Dase posted about Americans, they will at least get a warning, and if they have a record like Dase's they will get a ban, yes.
More options
Context Copy link
What is giving you this impression? To begin with, who is even going around calling Europeans demons, or equivalent?
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
For some reason, this mod-hat post (along with @2rafa's un-hatted post) showed up in my volunteer mod queue. Were these posts reported out of revenge for being banned?
Modhat posts often get reported by people who disagree with the moderation.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I was inclined to go lighter on him, but then you already acted and I remembered that Dase had specifically rejected special consideration and demanded that he be treated like the average user.
So be it. He can take his ball to Twitter if he's unwilling to play along with rather basic civility standards.
It's Twitter that has fried his brain. Like many he has succumbed to the pattern where he spends his time quote tweeting the most deranged examples of his outgroup which the algorithm recognizes and then serves him more of. He's built a machine that serves him almost nothing but idiocy that he can happily dunk on. He's built up a heuristic where he pattern matches any argument made to something stupid he's seen on twitter posted by someone who he didn't need to use any intelligence to dismantle; his wit and charity have atrophied from disuse.
I didn't want to get into his Twitter, but yes, I agree. After he became a reasonably big name and a sort of authority on AI/ML (which is justifiable), the boost in popularity only encouraged him to spout far less technically grounded hot-takes on topics like politics.
Twitter moderation is not The Motte's moderation (lol, lmao). I know I code-switch a little when switching context, I'm more polite and formal on LessWrong than I would be here. But most of the time, I speak exactly as I would on our platform.
That's the thing. Some people are innately in tune with our ethos, our rules don't strike them as unreasonable because they're inclined to act that way by default. Others don't agree, on an instinctual level, but follow the rules because of the value the forum provides them.
This is hardly a binary, on one hand we have we have consistently polite effort posters, and on the other side trolls and shitposters. I hope I land pretty left on that spectrum.
And now that I contemplate it, the main reason that I lurk and rarely comment or post on my Twitter account is because the pressure towards being concise or dropping zingers isn't my style at all. I could probably do it, but I don't want to. You can do long-form text and intelligent analysis there with some success, but it's clearly not the default.
So we have Dase, who is clearly smart and talented, but has an abrasive personality, displays clears impatience for those he considers fools, and holds a few rather questionable and strongly held opinions. When he started here, with minimal X clout, he was in an environment that encouraged the the good stuff and came down strongly on the bad.
But X? The negative feedback mechanism is nowhere near as strong. Some of his insults and hot takes took off, or caused him no real harm. And sometimes, he does have a point when he's mad, the number of idiots or hostile interlocutors here is not zero, let alone on X.
Further, he's shifted mostly to posting there, only rarely visiting our site. I don't begrudge him for this, not at all. But that makes the relative impact of a ban or a warning far less meaningful to him. He knows he can pivot to X completely (and I doubt he's the kind to make an alt and scurry back, he's too proud for that).
In other words, we're less important to him than we used to be, our validation and our negative feedback means less, and he's got a fallback at hand. Shame, I like him despite all of that, and that includes tolerating him despite his anti-Indian bias. I wish he'd clean up his act, I can't defend him anymore.
What is his twitter?
Edit: nevermind I think I found it.... what a sad sight it is
More options
Context Copy link
He has now blocked me on X : /
I don't know how to put this in a way that won't be interpreted, incorrectly, as condescension but I think he's going through a rough time and hope he can get through to the other side alright. He wrote some posts that I cherish and arguing with him in long form helped me think particularly about the AI race with China even if I don't quite agree with him on the conclusion.
More options
Context Copy link
What’s his X handle?
Is it public knowledge? I don't know. I figured it out by accident while using X normally.
I'm quite loathe to share by default, even if I don't think he minds. If you really want it, I can DM you.
Edit: This wasn't intended to be an offer to DM it to everyone who asks.
DM me please too
I would like to, but I already felt uneasy about the potential dox, and Dase has specifically edited his post to ask me not to share further, albeit not because he seems concerned about doxxing. I'm sorry about that.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
DM me too
More options
Context Copy link
Agree with the ban, but also want to keep up to date with his spicy rants, could you DM it to me too, please?
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I... actually generally agree with your point, have been against this stupid war for the entire time it's been happening, and find myself similarly frustrated with many of the Amerikaposters here tribalistically supporting whatever they do. I am really not in favour of US foreign interventionism (which is long and storied) and have never been regardless of the partisan-political alignment of who's doing it.
The routine blanket portrayal of any country that's not in line with the American regime (not just Iran either, which I would consider more of a defensible position) as a dysfunctional backstabbing low-trust low-skill low-human-capital Third World hellhole is also not helping my sympathy for the pro-Americans, especially since it's so aggressively out of line with a lot of what I've seen in my expeditions travelling and living in many countries.
But yeah, this tone is going to get you banned. And I'm saying this because I think you're directionally correct and would rather you not get banned.
More options
Context Copy link
Look - I used to find your comments and insight to be a part of the special sauce that this place brought that I couldn't seem to find anywhere else.
But lately I've lost that feeling, and if I recall correctly you are a hair's breadth from catching a major ban.
I don't want that to happen, but you have to stop with some of this stuff. I'm not sure if it's meant to be rhetorical flourish but some of what you are saying sounds just as bad the worst TDS /r/politics user.
Yes the U.S. and the current admin has plenty worth complaining about, but saying the U.S. is a "clearly fascist nation committing genocide in the name of a crude ethnosupermacist theological doctrine" is wrong on so many levels that it has to have taken work to come up with that.
Calling Americans barely human? Come on man.
Like what the fuck are you doing.
If I was to try and deliberately write a comment to get me banned and convince Americans that Europeans have nothing worth listening to it would be like what you wrote.
What happened??????
Just being persnickety but I'm pretty sure a "clearly fascist nation committing genocide in the name of a crude ethnosupermacist theological doctrine" is referring to Israel.
That said, I agree that Dase is overstating his case. I personally always found his ideas interesting and his style to be an unfortunate barrier to the ideas, but I guess that's how he likes it.
Oh oops if I mixed that up but going on to add "you're ruled by millenarian fanatics worse than Shia Muslims" I'm fairly sure that's in reference to the reporting about U.S. leadership.
Also things like the later "Hegseth, Trump – are barely human but instead some degenerated swine from a Fromsoft game."
I mean that's Nazi talk. The level of dehumanization is I think new and totally collapses much of value of the contribution since you know it's all hiigghhhhly colored.
Please, no, not that can of worms again.
If you insist, please lead with an opener about your exact definition of nazi.
Systematic dehumanization of someone you dislike and leadership figures of them is a classic sign of disordered thought processes that often lead to things like the rise of authoritarian states, ethnic cleansing, justification of deaths of people in that group (ex: Charlie Kirk).
I'm not a person who throws around Nazi very often, can't remember the last time I did it - but referring to people you disagree with as subhuman animals and drawing connections to literal demons, shit that's a pretty good reason.
You can be mad at Americans and their political stances without hitting that level of rhetoric.
It's not about Nazis specifically, it's about the modes of thought that lead to behaviors the Nazis are famous for. "That's Khmer Rouge" thinking or "that's woke thinking" are equally appropriate.
How about "fanatic", "crazy", "demagogue" or "ideologue", all of which refer to more or less suitably vague but not historically burdened concepts?
I don't think those are quite strong enough for how significant the espoused rhetoric was - yeah Nazi is a loaded term, but people who make that much of an effort to dehumanize are up to some bad business most of the time.
Demagoguery can result in someone being hyped for the latest tech product.
I think "dangerously dehumanizing" is probably more accurate, for the reasons you elaborated on: Nazis are just one subcategory of that. I don't like that the euphemism treadmill has left us with no more-extreme synonyms for "dangerously" (though post-Charlie-Kirk I'd say "atrociously dehumanizing" is fair), but in the end reaching for the word "Nazi" doesn't permanently take us off the treadmill, it just pulls "Nazi" further onto it. Godwin's Law is decades old now, and if you run the risk of someone mistaking your serious point for hyperbole regardless then you might as well make the serious point as precisely as possible.
(this is all analysis in leisure and in hindsight; obviously you're not going to spend this much time analyzing every single word you use and I'm not upset that you might have chosen one slightly-suboptimally)
More options
Context Copy link
You can always load up on modifiers. "terrible", "atrocious", "inacceptable" etc.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
To avoid Godwin, I might suggest "Hutu Power Radio" talk, but there are plenty of other tragic historical references you could make.
I will use Thuggee next time.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
"Hegseth, Trump" isn't a demographic category lol. Individual people can be (and are, case in point) aptly described as degenerate swine regardless of the political ideology of the person doing the describing.
See my response to Southkraut.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Sure. I just had the bit of my brain light up that goes, "No! Somebody on the internet has made an easily-correctible error!"
The millenarian bit does seem to be at least partly real, though I'm quite prepared to believe it's over-reported.
No worries, at least as of late I remember good faith engagement from you so no frustration on my part.
With respect to the millenarian bit I don't believe that at all, I haven't really heard it mentioned outside the typical TDS crowd and the amount of nonsense and propaganda right now is incredible and people are very fooled.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link