site banner
PaperclipPerfector  8mo ago (text post)   29759 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of August 21, 2023

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.

14
Top New Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Tonight, mainstream audiences around the nation will be introduced to Vivek Ramaswamy - multi-disciplinary genius, serial entrepreneur, modern renaissance man, and nigh-messianic wünderkind who in this commenter’s humble opinion offers our beleaguered country’s best hope of national redemption

The story of Vivek is the story of the American Dream par excellence. A first generation American, Vivek was born to industrious immigrants who came to this land with nothing and went on to become a geriatric psychiatrist and engineer / patent attorney, respectively. Vivek’s giftedness shone through from the start, overcoming severe bullying - to the point of being hospitalized + needing surgery after being thrown down a flight of stairs - to become an accomplished pianist, nationally ranked tennis player, and class Valedictorian by time he left high school to attend Harvard via scholarship

Thriving among the nation’s intellectual elite, Vivek became President of Harvard’s Political Union (as a conservative!), won the Ivy’s prestigious Bowdoin prize for his senior thesis, and graduated summa cum laude with a degree in biology whilst working for top hedge funds in the biotech investment sector, all while moonlighting as as a rapper (Da Vek) and making club appearances as an amateur stand-up comedian while publishing scientific articles in the nation’s top papers and founding a 7-figure networking business. Upon graduating, Vivek made partner at a major hedge fund while simultaneously attending Yale Law School on a lark, having earned $15M by the time he graduated with his J.D. with a scholar’s grounding in the principles of Constitutional governance

Shortly after, Vivek founded a revolutionary biotech company that created a paradigm shift in pharmaceutical development. Developing an ingenious business model that leveraged market forces to determine the promise of various drug candidates (by spinning off a new company for each treatment and holding IPOs) he cut through the pharmaceutical bureaucracy to develop 5 FDA approved drugs (including life-saving treatments) in under a decade. His company, Roivant, is now worth over $9 Billion(!), with Vivek maintaining an approximately $650M stake

Vivek left his company following internal and external pressure to make a corporate statement in favor of the controversial - and in his view - socially corrosive #BLM movement, during a period in which nationwide race riots killed dozens, caused $2 billion in damages, and coincided with an enduring crime surge with an immediate ~30% homicide increase that represented the largest year-to-year murder spike in our nation’s history. Choosing to stand on principle rather than genuflect to the reigning hysteria, Vivek went on to write 3 best selling books in 18 months exposing the pernicious spread of radical left wing ideology throughout the corporate world. One such book shone a light on the ESG movement by which asset managers BlackRock, Vanguard, and State Street leverage the assets of everyday Americans to force partisan political agendas across the nation’s corporate boardrooms. Not satisfied to merely expose this undercovered movement, Vivek started his own asset management firm, Strive, that serves as a counterbalance to the major institutional players and their attempts to politicize the very free market itself. (Strive currently approaches $1billion under management.) Simultaneously, he founded another company, Chapter, to help citizens navigate the federal bureaucracy with regard to Medicare, all while raising two young children with his loving and accomplished (surgeon!) wife

A fearless iconoclast, intellectual titan, and charismatic orator, Vivek has now taken on the audacious goal of becoming our country’s next President. Swearing off Super PACs and institutional backers, Vivek has self-funded an ambitious campaign, seizing upon earned media to make a name for himself despite virtually no ad expenditures by appearing on a litany of podcasts and programs across the political spectrum. This young and daring patriot - the first millennial to run for President - boldly aired his policy briefings as almost daily podcasts to give every day Americans insight into how the political process truly works. With a uniquely invigorating platform, full of heretofore unthinkable ideas, Vivek has thrown conventional political wisdom to the wind in the name of running a campaign centered on truth and national revival

Encouragingly, this dazzlingly bright young maverick has found his message resonating with the electorate, surging to third place in the all important race for the 2024 Republican nomination. Polling ahead of sitting senators, former governors, and even a former vice president, Vivek as a Hindu, dark-skinned political neophyte has already achieved the impossible and situated himself as the arguable heir apparent to the American nationalist movement

Tonight he makes his true debut on the national stage and makes his case to take on the political establishment, impose constitutional limits to a federal bureaucracy run amok, and restore a unifying sense of national purpose. Excited to watch - stream on Rumble at 9pm Eastern

https://rumble.com/v3ak5c2-fox-news-republican-presidential-primary-debate.html

Wow you really got shit on here

I thought it was a lovely and passionate write up and all the negativity shows the worst this place can give

I think the reason there is such a strong negative response is that most regulars here are terrified of this becoming a place to wage the culture war, rather than discuss it. If we start allowing passionate screeds directly in favor of political candidates, the walls between this place and the rest of the political internet will start crumbling very quickly.

The fawning tone is undeniable, but on the other hand, users on this site wage the culture war often. It is just usually with a more negative tone/perspective. The truth is that users on this site are far more comfortable with wholly negative criticism because it can be passed off as analysis. Never mind the fact that critical analysis is far child's play next to strong positive claims.

There is a growing miasma of pseudo-intellectual sneering here, perhaps because of its connection to another site. At least this user leaned the other way. At least there was something earnest about his post. It is something this userbase really lacks these days.

The fawning tone is undeniable, but on the other hand, users on this site wage the culture war often. It is just usually with a more negative tone/perspective. The truth is that users on this site are far more comfortable with wholly negative criticism because it can be passed off as analysis. Never mind the fact that critical analysis is far child's play next to strong positive claims.

This is actually a very fair point, and I am trying to fight against the perpetually negative, usually right-coded sneering and literal calls for violence against leftists. I don't think fawning over a candidate this hard is the right way though.

I'm as earnest as the next guy, I mean hell look at this post I made recently. That being said, I think there's a tasteful way to be earnest, and I think this post went well overboard in terms of earnestness.

We also want people to have a little nuance - if the post kept the same earnest tone but at least admitted some faults, I would see it in a much more positive light.

I appreciate the response, and I hope you keep posting here and help us fight against the miasma of negativity. Every comment counts.

Vivek is decimating Pence on live television, lol.

To be honest, I am not sure that Republicans are ready to elect an Indian no matter how qualified he is, though. To governor of Louisiana, sure, but not to the Presidency.

But who knows, I did not predict that Trump would win the 2016 primary either.

I am not sure that Republicans are ready to elect an Indian no matter how qualified he is, though.

Then they will be rightfully punished for it, choosing people based on just their skin colour instead of their abilities is textbook racism and deserving of correction. Lets see if 4 more years of the Democrats knocks some sense into their mind.

  • -11

Then they will be rightfully punished for it, choosing people based on just their skin colour instead of their abilities is textbook racism and deserving of correction. Lets see if 4 more years of the Democrats knocks some sense into their mind.

What do you think would be the difference between 4 more years of Democrats, and 4 years of Vivek?

Vivek wouldn't hand out untold amounts of money on failed lower class "uplift" programs that have been nothing more than black holes for the past few decades.

Yes he would. Best case scenario he would lower the slope of increase, which would already be condemned as "austerity".

The supreme court nominees.

Aren't you the most racist indian on this board? Don't I see you slagging off white people every quarter? I would think you understood racism. Game recognize game.

Firstly I am not racist. I dislike "white" (read Western) modernity, nothing against white people as a group (apart from wanting to see them reduced in size, but again this is only because they disproportionately support progressive western modernity, if they did not believe such BS I wouldn't mind them at all). Most of my friends are even white!

If anything my prior on a random white person being prosocial on small personal scales is higher than my prior on a random person from any other race. If my house catches fire, I would prefer white firemen came to the rescue assuming I knew nothing else about them. The vast majority of the great stuff accomplished by humanity over the last 1000 years was the work of white people, and for that I am grateful.

At an individual level an average white person is probably better than an average non-white person, but at the group levels the beliefs and actions of white people are damaging to humanity in a way that the beliefs of non-white people (who I must add are not a monolith, some of their beliefs can also be extremely wacky, but thankfully the powers behind those beliefs are not strong enough to enforce them on the world, unlike the beliefs of white people) are not. I am against progressive "whiteness" as a concept, I am not against white people at all. No different to how it's possible to be against Zionism without being anti-Jew.

The problem is that on a macro scale the ideology they disproportionately have come to believe is bad. The roots of it stem from taking the idea of equality (a good useful idea, when applied properly to limited domains) and running away with it. Equality, like fire, is a good servant but a bad master. Unfortunately whites have destroyed the culture they used to believe in and replaced it with what I see as this perversion of Protestant Christianity.

They say that tradition is like a legacy codebase: half of it is superfluous and the other half is mission critical, and it's very hard to tell which half is which. Whites over the last 100 years have taken the cleaver to their old belief system (the liberalism of Locke and Mill tinged with Christianity) and in my opinion have throw out all the good stuff while keeping all the bad. And now this bad stuff, unchained from everything else which was keeping it in its place, is wrecking havoc on the world. Even worse, it's memetically very viral and is spreading from whites to everyone else. This ideology is corrupting, like cancer it spreads and then destroys whole societies if not cut at the root before it gets too big.

Unfortunately for white people the cancer has metastasized and now there is no hope of rescuing them as a whole from it. Just like in the olden days if a society adopted norms that performed badly in the real world they got conquered by someone else who probably had better norms (given that they managed to conquer you, probabalistically their norms are more likely to be in tune with the world than yours). And thus the cancer would die and not spread to the rest of the globe. These days we have moved on from violent conquering (a good thing I may add), however the cleansing effect it had is still a good thing and something the world could do with a replacement for.

Fortunately one byproduct of your twisted society is collapsing birthrates, this along with your misguided desires to take from those who create stuff to give to those who only have it in them to consume means you are beholden to more and more people from overseas with different belief systems coming to your lands, working and settling there. This means that over time this wicked culture is going to be replaced by something more in harmony with reality. It's slower than destroying the bad ways with the sword through violence, but I like to think that humanity has moved beyond that point in our cultural evolution now. Love (higher birthrates), not violence, is how the world is going to flush away your maladjusted social contract in the 21st Century.

Eventually it will be replaced by a system that is more in line with humanity flourishing, one where those with the vision to create great things are the ability to do so are not hampered by "what about all the poors?" and that is what I wish to see most of all, not just my people or your people, but all of humanity flourishing as we begin to embark of the next stage of the story of our species where we seek to banish disease and death, travel to the stars, learn about the fundamental structures at the heart of the universe and so on.

So yes, that is what I am against, not "white people", not "white people" at all inasmuch they are not acting as agents for promoting "progressive modernity" or even "reactionary small town conservatism" (which are the two ends of the cline modern Western discourse takes place on). I certainly would not call that "racist".

Vivek is not a viable candidate. The guy hasn’t really ever done anything. We have this idea that “where the candidate stands on the issues” is the most important thing. It isn’t.

  1. The issues tend to change radically. Trump was elected in 2016. At the end of the day, it turns out the biggest issue over his term was COVID-19. No one heard of it in 2016. Ditto W in 2000 re terrorism. Biden with inflation. Obama didn’t have any major surprise under his watch.

  2. It is therefore more important to understand how a candidate reacts to new challenges. What is their approach? What is their default? How competent are they in handling changes?

  3. Part of that approach is what kind of team do they build. W failed because he built the Dick Cheney and Donny Rumsfeld War Band. Biden struggled because Ron Klein was super progressive. What record do we have of the candidate building in the context of government a successful team?

  4. Based on all of that, Vivek isn’t a serious presidential candidate because he has no record. Maybe instead of running for president he should try running for governor or congressmen.

  5. More importantly, we the voting public decry the state of our political straits. Yet we continue to fall for style over substance.

‘Well qualified’ does not mean the same thing to the Republican base as it does to the OP- at the very least, his academic achievements mean nothing.

He recently posted a video of him playing tennis (shirtless!) and he looks pretty “mid” as the kids would say. Granted maybe he hasnt played tennis seriously in since high school. But im happy to have a young and not overweight president again.

I was getting a bit excited about Vivek but then he started slobbering Israel's dick and talking about how we have to be tough on China for some reason (Why, so they stop sending us cheap shit? Or for some kind of ethical reasons that he did not bother to mention?) and I lost all interest in this debate because he was the only one even remotely interesting.

As someone who doesn't believe China is the next big evil to be contained, this makes a lot of sense to me: https://newrepublic.com/post/175020/vivek-ramaswamy-thinks-us-let-china-invade-taiwan

tl; dr: The United States currently has a strategic interest in Taiwanese semiconductor exports and so will defend that interest. Once we have our own domestic manufacturing capacity, it makes no sense to put American lives at risk to intervene militarily in any dispute between the mainland and Taiwan.

I'm not a strict isolationist, but I think we're involved in too many conflicts that aren't at all in our interest and where it's not even clear we're doing any good. If we're going to kill our own children to intervene in a foreign conflict it ought to be Nazi or Imperial Japanese level of evil, and victory should be well-defined and plausible.

Who is the next big evil to be contained in your view?

I'm going to go with unknown. The world is relatively stable and peaceful. ISIS was the most recent brutal and evil group that had a chance of controlling large amounts of territory and expanding outward, but they were defeated.

The United States is most capable of any other player of wreaking mayhem far from their own shores. Currently there's not sufficient will to do so at scale, but I have little faith that will remain so. The population is vulnerable to demagoguery and blaming foreigners for their troubles and the incentives for politicians to engage in that are great. There's also a big chunk of people that think war is great and are ready for it right now, either with Russia or China.

Not the OP, but "none for the moment" is always a possible answer.

The perfect is the enemy of the good. Perhaps you should accept that no one will ever pass your purity tests and, if they do, they will be unelectable.

He can slobber Israel's dick all he wants for all I care.

He did proffer some extremely-subversive-by-republican-standards ideas that aid to Israel should be mildly reduced, that the US shouldn't provide billions of dollars to a rich country, that the US should pursue its own national interests: https://www.jpost.com/american-politics/article-755250

I expect the powers that be frightened the hell out of him for that one, compelled him to change course. In terms of sycophancy to Israel, he's nowhere near the heavyweights like 'Grand Marshal of the Salute to Israel' Trump and 'we're gonna go after anti-semitic countries' DeSantis.

I was always under the impression that the aid to Israel was mostly about them not shutting down the Suez again.

Pretty sure it's Egypt that makes that decision not Israel. Aside from the occasional boat oopsie.

Egypt is also the second largest recipient of military aid, and they're much larger a nation than their adversary in Israel.

Aid to Egypt increased enormously after they signed a peace treaty with Israel, as a sweetener. Likewise with Jordan IIRC. Keeping Suez open certainly had something to do with it, yet the primary factor in US ME policy seems to be whatever is most advantageous for Israel. If US just wanted to be friends with Arabs, secure Suez and secure oil, they wouldn't support Israel at all.

the primary factor

What would it take to convince you otherwise?

Obviously if we hung Israel out to dry on anything important. But since that seems pretty unlikely, is there any way you might be convinced that Israel really is the most practical ally in the region?

They’re relatively westernized. They aren’t Islamic fundamentalists, which has made Americans nervous since at least the Iranian Revolution. (Though we put up with the Saudis, so it can’t be too much of a dealbreaker…) Most importantly, they owe their security to us in a way that none of the other ME states can match.

I also wouldn’t underestimate the wedge that is Palestine, at least on the left. While my understanding is that the neoliberal, pro-Israel wing still dominates foreign policy, there’s at least some tension going on. If there’s a point where we really break with Israel, that’ll probably be it.

Practical ally? In strategic terms, there are two groups.

The Arabs/Islamic world, with population about 600 million in MENA alone. They have a lot of oil. They have a lot of useful bases. They have Suez. They have the power to create all kinds of problems for the US, by allying with US enemies like the Soviet Union, Russia and China.

Israel, population 10 million. No oil. Barely any useful bases, at least compared to the rest of MENA. They're better at fighting and high technology, yet the only people they fight are the Arabs (and usually do so with US equipment). They're hated by about a third of the world, see pic related (https://mapsontheweb.zoom-maps.com/post/693544044241076224/most-disliked-country-in-each-nation-2022).

Why on earth would any sane, unbiased strategic thinker choose to ally with Israel over the Arabs? The US wouldn't have any enemies in the Arab world if it weren't for Israel, that's by far the biggest problem with US-MENA relations.

Israel is the absolute worst ally the US could possibly have. And the alliance is the most one-sided alliance you could possibly imagine. On no occasion has Israel actually contributed troops to a US war. They soak up huge amounts of resources (consider the economic impacts of the Arab Oil Embargo caused by Arab hatred of the US-Israeli alliance), incite enormous amounts of anti-US sentiment, get free US equipment, billions of dollars in aid. They sell loads of US technology to China, they lure the US into stupid wars like Iraq with false intelligence and their political influence.

More comments

He said he went to Harvard on scholarship? I’m fairly certain non of the top 15 schools offer academic scholarships. Though need based exists. And only the ones that play D-1 sports offer athletic scholarships. Possible he got a private scholarship of some sort.

Fwiw I’m not a huge fan. He lacks experience and does have some grifter qualities. I’d still vote for him if he’s the one who can beat Trump in a primary. Desantis is far more battle tested for the governing part. But Vivek is far better at running the circus and entertaining that a lot of the gop base seems to want.

I do think against Biden he would win the election and be against the ideologies I don’t like. The gop base in my view would show up. 1.35% of America is of Indian descent I assume he would get 90-100% of that vote. Plus, better performance with all middle/east and Asian voters which in tight elections should be enough. And do better with other PMC parts of the current dem coalition.

Vivek might be the leading VP candidate now. They will want to add color or a female for the spot. I don’t see Desantis wanting to be Trumps VP. It just seems like career ruiner unless you are a grifter.

Ivy league is D1 but does not offer athletic scholarships. Yes need based and many merit ones exist at harvard and other ivies. All the top Ivies and Stanford and other elite schools boast about how high % of their students receive at least some aid

I am seeing zero merit based scholarships from Harvard.

https://college.harvard.edu/financial-aid/how-aid-works/types-aid

https://scholarships360.org/scholarships/ivy-league-scholarships/#:~:text=Harvard%20does%20not%20offer%20any%20merit-based%20aid%2C%20and,you%20might%20qualify%20for%20almost%20a%20full%20ride.

This one says no merit based scholarships. Based on parents job descriptions he would not have been eligible for need based scholarships. Though Wikipedia said he got a post grad scholarship from some Soros foundation so maybe that’s what he referred to.

I just assumed that saying he got a scholarship to Harvard was boasting about how smart he was at that age, to be academically able enough to win a scholarship to a prestige institution. Not that he needed the money or whatever to get in.

The details do seem to be fuzzy; the Soros Fellowship that helped pay for Yale Law School is clear and traceable, but the 'Harvard scholarship' isn't defined anywhere, so maybe it is confusing the Fellowship to Yale with him going to Harvard:

Ramaswamy’s opposition to affirmative action has been one of the main pillars of his presidential campaign, alongside his fight against “wokeness.” He has criticized race-based admissions as a “cancer on our national soul” and pledged to end them if elected president. Curiously, Ramaswamy received substantial support from the Soros Fellowship for New Americans in 2011 during his time as a graduate student at Yale Law School, according to The Daily Beast. The fellowship, backed by the family of George Soros, is intended to provide opportunities and equity to immigrants and children of immigrants, aiming to level the playing field for historically marginalized groups.

Despite receiving support from the fellowship, Ramaswamy seems to have attempted to distance himself from it. The media reported, citing a Mediate story by Isaac Schorr, that he paid to have information about the fellowship removed from his Wikipedia page. This move raises questions about the candidate’s discomfort with his own association with a program that aligns with the very principles he opposes.

The fellowship’s selection process reflects a holistic approach, considering factors beyond just academic grades, aiming to support students who have overcome obstacles and demonstrated potential for success. This approach bears resemblance to the admissions process used by institutions like Harvard, which considers various aspects of applicants, including race, to create a more equitable environment, the Daily Beast reported.

all middle/east and Asian voters

His ancestry might get him fewer votes from Chinese-Americans than if he were just another white guy. There's some animosity there, especially among tech workers. Indians are overrepresented in management roles and will sometimes reward their other Indian friends while scapegoating their Chinese workers.

Maybe I still think on net it would be a plus maybe more for not Chinese and some Middle East.

Dunno man. Seems overqualified for the job. It will be a waste of his talents.

Weird flex, but OK.

I’d never heard of this guy until @sliders1234 gushed about him last week. While I didn’t find his posturing super impressive, that’s because I’m not the target audience.

I wish him the best of luck picking over whatever scraps of media attention Trump leaves around.

To add a brief note: For quite a few weeks now, Vivek has been neck-and-neck with DeSantis as the second most probable Republican presidential candidate on PredictIt, and pulled ahead a bit in the past few days.

A first generation American, Vivek was born to industrious immigrants who came to this land with nothing and went on to become a geriatric psychiatrist and engineer / patent attorney, respectively

Vivek seems to say this a lot but it's a bit stolen valour, he shouldn't get to trade off his parents' achievements. He had a sufficiently privileged upbringing to go to a private high school, so the whole 'American Dream' thing won't wash for him. But I guess 'I went to a private school from which 99% of students go to college, which has a $100 million dollar endowment and which has won a federal award for its excellence' doesn't sound good on the debate stage.

He's an impressive guy anyway, so why bullshit like this?

Vivek’s giftedness shone through from the start, overcoming severe bullying - to the point of being hospitalized + needing surgery after being thrown down a flight of stairs - to become an accomplished pianist, nationally ranked tennis player, and class Valedictorian by time he left high school to attend Harvard via scholarship

You forgot that he also is Six Degrees of Separation from the Global Catholic Conspiracy because he attended high school run by - JESUITS!!! and the current pope is a JESUIT!!!! 😁

Ramaswamy attended public schools through the eighth grade. He then attended Cincinnati's St. Xavier High School, a Catholic school affiliated with the Jesuit order, graduating in 2003. He was class valedictorian and a nationally ranked junior tennis player.

Witnessing the death of journalism and good writing in real time:

[a Catholic school affiliated with the Jesuit order]

less wordy correction> [a Jesuit high school]

Makes me think of Easter-worshippers instead of Christians again.

The journalist/author in this case might have assumed that many of his readers wouldn’t know that Jesuit=Catholic.

Does anyone really believe a person who was never in government can do much of anything? The federal government is just so different compared to a company. Crazy to think success in one area suggests success in the other because the skill set is different.

Is Vivek an inspiring person? Sure. Is he a good candidate? Not if your goal is real progress when in office.

As President, it matters less what that particular person thinks, and more how much risk they're willing to swallow. There's no shortage of bright-spark admin-law scholars and lawyers who can come up with wild schemes to accomplish just about any policy in any direction - the question is, does the decisionmaker at 1600 Pennsylvania have the guts - and the cat-herding skills - to actually pick something and push forward with it?

It isn’t just about risk taking. It is also about navigating administrative beyond just the legal aspects but having a trusted group of people working for you as opposed to undermining you.

Interestingly enough, RDS fits both of those bills. He had a real profile in courage moment with covid. He also built a very solid team in Florida.

Vivek? Who the fuck knows. It is a lot easier to campaign and say “I would do XYZ” as opposed to actually having to make the decision to do XYZ.

Trump can’t hirer the best people. And that is a major problem. It might have been Hannania but someone said if you work with Trump it’s the last job you get. Someone like Kashkari made a career following Paulson as a high level aide under Bush. You do that for Trumps treasury security your not getting the revolving door back to Pimco or Goldman Sachs.

I don’t know if Trumps base realizes how big a problem this is. You need allies like that to get shit done.

Exactly. So true.

I didn't watch the debate (mostly because it's in America, I'm not, and I didn't know it was on last night) but reading the accounts of it on our national broadcasting service, I'm laughing and kicking myself for missing this.

The serious bit - I think Mike Pence's only chance is to sell himself as the Defender Of Democracy over the whole Jan6th kerfuffle. The only problem there is (a) the Democrats will still paint him as Second Next To Hitler because of being Trump's VP and his conservative, Christian, views and (b) for the Trump and don't support Trump personally but love how he drives the libs wild types, he's now someone who's a turncoat. He's not really able to portray himself as reining in or holding back Trump, and even if he did follow the rules and resist the pressure, that's not a strong enough image of him to overcome the negatives.

The semi-serious part - DeSantis may be holding back waiting to see who will emerge as the contender against him and then go on the attack, but I still think this was the wrong election for him and waiting for 2028 (if God spares us all) would have been better. I know the argument for going now, while he has momentum going, and that waiting will just dissipate anything he has built up but my opinion is that taking on Trump right now is the wrong thing to do. Better for him to wait until Trump really is out of the running and done with, and let the Culture War cool down a little. If there is a backlash against woke starting, he'd be better positioned next time to take advantage of that by building up more wins as Governor of Florida. In 2028 he will still only be 52, young enough to run. By running now, I think he's going to be the new Mitt Romney: shot his bolt and no chance later.

Abortion, and they're all trying to shuffle around that. Cue Nikki Haley leaving herself wide open for the view, expressed on here as well, that if pro-lifers reeeeellly believed it was murder, they'd put the woman in jail, and so if they don't, that means they don't reeeeellly believe it's taking a human life, it's reeeellly about punishing women for exercising their sexuality:

"Can't we all agree that we're not going to put a woman in jail or give her the death penalty if she gets an abortion?" said Ms Haley, the only woman on the debate stage. "Let's treat this like a respectful issue that it is and humanise the situation and stop demonising that situation."

That's not going to help her; the pro-choice side will still hate her for supporting any kind of limitation on abortion and paint her as a gender traitor etc. and if she looks to be weakening or mushy on the pro-life side, then that loses her support there. I'd kinda like to see Nikki selected as again, it would be a difficult angle of attack for the Democrats to go after a minority-descent woman after all the "vote for the First Female Ever", but they'd go for her on social issues like abortion I suppose.

Now the fun part. Oh Vivek, I had no idea you were so feisty! 😁

Mr Trump had a fierce defender in Mr Ramaswamy, who called him "the best president of the 21st century" and vowed to pardon him if he is convicted of federal crimes.

I almost want to see him be the serious contender, because I do want to see the Democrats grapple with trying to attack the Republican nominee without falling into the pit of accusations of racism or attacking a minority person. While he is rich, cis, het and male, he's not white or Christian, so that removes an angle of attack. I guess they would have to hammer on the "rich entrepreneur who doesn't care about the poor and sick", there's a mini-maybe scandal on his Wikipedia page about boosting and hyping an Alzheimer's drug, cashing in and getting out before the thing tanked (as expected because GlaxoSmithKline had sold it off as a no-hoper):

In 2015, Ramaswamy raised $360 million for the Roivant subsidiary Axovant Sciences in an attempt to market intepirdine as a drug for Alzheimer's disease. In December 2014, Axovant purchased the patent for intepirdine from GlaxoSmithKline (where the drug had failed four previous clinical trials) for $5 million, a small sum in the industry. ...Axovant became a "Wall Street darling" and raised $315 million in its IPO. ...Ramaswamy took a massive payout after selling a portion of his shares in Roivant to Viking Global Investors.

...In September 2017, the company announced that intepirdine had failed in its large clinical trial. The company's value plunged; it lost 75% in one day and continued to decline afterward. Shareholders who lost money included various institutional investors, such as the California State Teachers' Retirement System pension fund. Ramaswamy was insulated from much of Axovant's losses because he held his stake through Roivant. The company abandoned intepirdine. ...Axovant attempted to reinvent itself as a gene therapy company, but dissolved in 2023.

But right now? Trump is still the 800lb gorilla they have to wrassle before they can get the nomination.

I know the argument for going now, while he has momentum going, and that waiting will just dissipate anything he has built up

The other argument for going now is that Biden is just an incredibly weak candidate who will not inspire voter turnout, and the only person who can almost certainly lose to him, and can inspire Dems to turn out, is Trump.

2028 will be a whole different ballgame, and the Dems currently have a shallow bench, but if Trump wins the nom, then Biden likely wins re-election, which means 4 more years for Democrats to attempt to shore up their electoral odds.

Oh, and for a fun bonus, if Trump wins the primary but loses the general in 2024, he is STILL ELIGIBLE TO RUN IN 2028, so if his health permits he very well could CONTINUE to be the 800 pound gorilla.

This seems to be a quandary, but not one that suggests waiting on the sidelines as the wise choice.

I think you also need to run when you can run. And being number 2 poll position the last few years meant it was time to take a run.

Also Trumps not going anywhere anytime soon. We will have a Trump in the primary for the next 20 maybe 40 years. If Trump wins POTUS you’ve got Donald Jr in 2028. Or Ivanka. Potentially even Kushner. I was going to say surprisingly we’ve never had this before. But the last 30 years Bush and Clinton’s stuck around.

If Trump squeaks a victory in 2024 I think Kushner would be an entertaining development. What would leftist Jews do? As far as I know the Jews have never had one of their own in the seat of power in a major country (besides Israel). Zelensky in Ukraine is the only one I can name in a European society.

Kushner has no chance. He isn't very bright or charismatic.

Wow, it’s almost like the shadowy class consciousness is overstated.

We will have a Trump in the primary for the next 20 maybe 40 years.

The life expectancy of a 77-year-old male is 9.3 years.

The probability he dies in the next 10 years is 45.6%.

The probability he dies in the 5 years after that is 51%.

How many of those are 300 240 lbs?

I’ve been morbidly curious about this ever since he took office. The best medicine on the planet handled his COVID alright, but I’m not sure how much can be done in the case of heart failures.

He isn't 300 lbs. 250 maybe.

Oh, I guess you’re right. 245 as of his last White House physical, and he claims to have lost some since then.

The Fulton county jail says he’s 215 pounds.

More comments

Those probabilities count those who are on deaths door. Not someone whose still active and still mentally lucid.

Though I think it was fairly obvious a chose “a Trump” and not “Trump” then said 40 years and talked about his children to mean that he will have Trump incumbency for a while. If he wins 2024 you just run Trump Jr in 2028 with Sr. still running rallies. And probably living in the White House if they would win 2028.

Though I think it was fairly obvious a chose “a Trump” and not “Trump” then said 40 years and talked about his children to mean that he will have Trump incumbency for a while

Fair enough, my bad.

Trump seems to have an very good genetics, and his father lived to 93. So I'd give a food chance of him making to 90. Past that it all depends on how good the medicine gets in the meantime...

He has a few kids that could act as his blood boy (I apologize for putting that thought in your head)

The joke re; blood boys is that it's dilution of old plasma that helps according to more research.

All you need to get the effect is donate plasma. Or so it seems from the experiments on mice.

"a trump" meaning counting his kids

Disraeli would be your guy. Technically converted in childhood, but, you know.

There were a couple of Jewish PMs in early 20th century Italy, and iirc one in interwar France.

Benjamin Disraeli, British PM and founder of modern British conservatism :)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benjamin_Disraeli

With the caveat he was baptized at 12 but ethnically Jewish.

I don't see Dem voters turning out for Biden against Trump but not for Biden against DeSantis, because of all the scaremongering (I mean, advisories about 'don't travel to Florida if you're black or gay'?)

Four years on, I could see DeSantis taking on Newsom (I'm wincing as I type that, the beige versus the beige Clash of the Hairdos) with a good chance.

The whole question is that if someone other than Trump wins the nom, does Trump throw any weight behind them.

If he does, then I think they, particularly DeSantis, has a solid chance at winning with the GOP base, + Trump coalition, + dissatisfied independents in their corner.

The Democrat base is, to my perception, exceptionally weak right now.

The problem for Trump is that he energizes Dems AND alienates some % of the GOP and independents, and thus is the one guy that might bring out Dem voters without similarly engaging the GOP and independent coalition.

I admit I cannot see what Trump can say or do to make his case to the nation for a second term.

Four years on, I could see DeSantis taking on Newsom

The main positive there is that it could be a decent revisitation of the different approaches to Covid mitigation, and maybe we as a nation can actually demonstrate a preference. But having that conversation 8 years after the fact is far too late, if you ask me.

The whole question is that if someone other than Trump wins the nom, does Trump throw any weight behind them.

Lose gracefully? Donald Trump?

I don't know what that would even look like, because it's yet to happen. I'm genuine and serious here: could you describe just what this would look like from him? If there is any one man I can't ever, not once, picture being second fiddle to anyone, it would have to be Trump.

The other argument for going now is that Biden is just an incredibly weak candidate who will not inspire voter turnout, and the only person who can almost certainly lose to him, and can inspire Dems to turn out, is Trump.

and further down the thread

The Democrat base is, to my perception, exceptionally weak right now.

If the American right genuinely thinks this, they are high on their own supply and deserve to lose. I am not American and don't see the vibes that you guys are relying on, but I can see the election results. Biden won in 2020 on a record high turnout - if that is "a weak candidate who will not inspire voter turnout" then I want to see the kind of Dem landslide that would result if they find a merely mediocre candidate. Midterms and even more so special elections are all about base mobilisation (because of the generally low turnout) and the Democrats significantly overperformed in 2022, and are killing it in off-cycle elections so far this year.

I am guessing here (as I said, no access to the vibes) but it isn't hard to see two reasons why the D base should be unusually energised right now.

  1. January 6th, and more broadly Trump's attempt to remain in office despite losing the 2020 election. Even if Trump is not the nominee (and as far as I can see only a medical catastrophe or a SCOTUS decision that he is disqualified under Section 3 of the 14th amendment can stop him), the R primary electorate seem determined to double down on this. From the perspective of anyone who thinks that the 2020 election was not, in fact, rigged, and that the Trump campaign knew this, 2024 is a Flight 93 election because the Republicans are no longer committed to the idea that a Republican president should leave office after losing an election.
  2. Dobbs. I have posted before pointing out that the history of countries other than the USA is that abortion is a sufficiently important issue that in countries where abortion is "on the table" for democratic politics, the median voter ends up getting what they want. The Republicans are more out of step with the medial voter on this issue, at just the time where Dobbs makes it a matter of democracy.

A few points:

I think you may be somewhat underestimating the impact that the COVID election law changes had on turnout. Democrats are typically low-effort voters, and so gained hugely from the expanded access. Not sure how many of those changes are still in effect, but something to find out.

Good points on Jan 6 and Dobbs. I think some who are immersed in the conservosphere forget just how big those points are to the rank-and-file voters.

Additionally, I think conservatives have a habit of underestimating just how many blue-tribers the country has at this point. Like sure, they're mostly in a few cities or whatever, but it's probably 65-75% of the population of the country by now. The red tribe is vastly outmanned currently, though demographic trends will shift it back in 80ish years or so barring major cultural or tech changes. Blue-triber conservatives, meanwhile, tend to forget that they functionally don't exist as far as democracy is concerned.

Umm… blue tribe is a cultural distinction undergoing ethnogenesis. Not a generic terms for the democrat’s base. It’s a minority of the country, more of one than the red tribe, it’s just that their preferred candidates semi permanently win the minority votes- even though many of those minorities have more culturally in common with the red tribe.

I disagree on a few core points: I understand blue tribe is their own thing separate from the Democratic party, hence my point about blue-tribe conservatives.

The majority of the country watches, listens to, eats, drinks, and generally has the values and preferences of blue-tribe. First generation immigrants do not, but second-generation do by a massive margin. Perhaps the one major exception is LGBT issues, but that does not disqualify them completely.

Minorities may have a fewmajor cultural differences with blue tribe, but they align far closer than they do to red tribe. Immigrants typically are not at all supporters of the small-government, pro-gun, pro-christianity, pro-self-sustainability, pro-private-property-rights, anti-elitist, anti-intellectualist value set of the red tribe. AADS are probably the closest match, but they try very hard to signal that they are not of the red tribe, and red tribe does the same in return.

Do minority groups behave exactly the same as blue-tribe whites? No, but they aren't meant to. Many cultural groups have different roles for different classes of people, and blue-tribe is no exception.

1.) Eh, it's not that. For one, we saw big-time turnout in the 2020 election from both sides. Ya' know, the whole Trump gained x million votes that his supporters like to crow about. Ironically, the Right, by eschewing mail-in voting has fallen for the same false idea that my fellow lefties fall for, that all non-voters are just lefties who refuse to vote, when in reality, most non-voters are either people who truly don't care or are weirdos with deeply right and left-leaning view (like, actually deeply believing abortion is murder, but also that we should have single-payer health care), and thus, not voting for anybody.

What's actually changed is the type of voter each party has. Well the idea that the Democrat's are now the party of the elite is overblown by people who dislike the Democratic Party (and this include a group of leftists), it is true there is a shift that a group of low-turnout voters moved over the GOP, while high-turnout suburban voters moved over to the Democrat's, and that's actually one of the big reasons for the overperformance of the Democrat's in the midterms and in basically every special election.

As people have joked about before, there are McCain/Romney voters who in 2036 will be full-throated behind the AOC/Beto ticket.

2.) I agree with that number, if you go by the definition of Red Tribe this website seems to use, which would not include people like some of Trump's closest advisors. But, I do agree this is substantively a center-left country, and a few lucky EV wins (Bush in 2000, Trump in 2016) along with great timing on SC Judges dying have given right-leaning people an overrated view of their own support within the country, and we're seeing this in backlash to Dobbs.

Like, on the abortion issue, the basic thing is the median voter may not agree with an ultra pro-choice person like me on late-term abortions, but they have zero trust that the GOP will pass reasonable laws, and it doesn't help every single Republican politician has suddenly decided to love federalism after spending decades talking about the need for national abortion bans.

But, I do agree this is substantively a center-left country, and a few lucky EV wins (Bush in 2000, Trump in 2016) along with great timing on SC Judges dying have given right-leaning people an overrated view of their own support within the country

Only ever paying attention to Presidential elections is going to give you a really warped view of the country and the electorate.

First: if you think the US was a center-left country in 2000, you're just lost. I wouldn't even know where to begin.

Second: Republicans controlled at least one chamber in 39 out of 50 state legislatures in 2016 and had 31 governorships (and would win 3 more that year). The US was still a center right ght country in 2016, it's just that the Trump years have caused a lot of center-right people to question their convictions just enough to be willing to vote for what at least looks like a sane Democrat over Trump or a Trump affiliated Republican.

if pro-lifers reeeeellly believed it was murder, they'd put the woman in jail, and so if they don't, that means they don't reeeeellly believe it's taking a human life, it's reeeellly about punishing women for exercising their sexuality

I think this is arguably a form of what Scott called the non-central fallacy, aka "the worst argument in the world". There are plenty of instances of taking a life that aren't generally or universally reckoned to be murder (self-defense most obviously, but also killings in war, assisted suicides). Likewise, we understand there to be different moral shades attached to murder; many would choose not to incarcerate a domestic abuse victim who kills her spouse, for example (depending on circumstances). I think it's perfectly consistent to say that abortion is taking a life or even a form of murder without committing to the idea that women or doctors who perform it should be incarcerated.

But even on here we have had people putting forward "I can't understand why if pro-lifers are serious they don't want the woman imprisoned" argument, so it clearly works for a sub-set of pro-choice or people who could be persuaded to vote on abortion 'rights'. They don't really mean it, it's all about control and imposing their religious zealot bigot morality on others.

Look at the outrage over the woman in Britain who lied to obtain medical abortion pills to terminate her pregnancy well into viability and over the legal limits and was sent to prison for committing a criminal offence. It was only a 'late-term abortion' and shows the need for decriminalisation and doing away with archaic legislation. Now law-breaking is no reason to condemn the 'safe, legal and rare' late term abortion (which we've been told is not something that ever happens and is not the correct term to use):

The mother of three had admitted illegally procuring her own abortion when she was between 32 and 34 weeks pregnant during the COVID pandemic.

The termination was eight to 10 weeks later than the 24-week legal period for having an abortion in England, Scotland and Wales.

Following the Court of Appeal ruling, Labour MP Stella Creasy said: "The relief that this woman can go home to be with her children is tempered by the knowledge there are more cases to come where women in England being prosecuted and investigated for having abortions under this archaic legislation.

"That's why we need decrim now."

The case has galvanised the pro-abortion movement.

Last month, thousands of abortion rights activists marched from the Royal Courts of Justice to Whitehall, demanding an end to the criminalisation of abortion, following Foster's sentencing.

Clare Murphy, chief executive of the BPAS, said on Tuesday that she "echoes the judges' statements".

She said the court had "recognised that this cruel, antiquated law does not reflect the values of society today" and urged parliament to decriminalise abortion as a "matter of urgency".

I'm only half-joking when I say next it'll be "decriminalise infanticide now".

I'm only half-joking when I say next it'll be "decriminalise infanticide now".

There have been straws in the wind for quite some time:

https://www.thefreelibrary.com/Proposal+to+decriminalise+infanticide+in+the+UK-a0126316373

https://www.liveaction.org/news/maryland-decriminalize-infanticide-birth/

Going back to the 19th century, Jeremy Bentham argued that infanticide should be decriminalised, since it couldn't always be prevented, and so one could only reduce the harms involved.

I do want to see the Democrats grapple with trying to attack the Republican nominee without falling into the pit of accusations of racism or attacking a minority person.

When Larry Elder run in CA against the lily-white Newsom, it wasn't a problem at all. They just defined him as "blackface of white supremacy" and were done with it. You shouldn't assume their hangups about race and identity are anything that should be taken at face value, as sincere axioms sine qua non - of course they can declare a black person a literal racist hitler, if that's necessary to keep the power. And they've got many PhDs in racial studies who would be glad to explain to you, with abundant quotes from highly peer-reviewed sources, why it is a scientific fact.

That was California, though. "Forget it, Jake, it's Chinatown". Trying to do the same on the national stage and win over all the minority voters while you're simultaneously claiming to be the party of brown people while attacking a brown person might be a bit tougher.

Or maybe not - he's the wrong sort of brown person, Indian rather than Hispanic/Latinx.

Clarence Thomas grew up in crushing poverty in Jim Crow Georgia without indoor plumbing and he's the most popularly maligned man in Washington. Trust me, they'll find a way to attack the finance bro Brahmin with a history of shady pharma shenanigans.

Right on cue: https://twitter.com/NBCNews/status/1694896172853293076

I guess there's one conclusion here: Vivek is serious enough candidate to qualify as literally Hitler. Which is a prerequisite for any Republican candidate of any importance since 1940s. So congrats to him on that.

And of course, it won't stop "moderates" from claiming that Reds just need to stop backing these loonies, and just compromise back to a "center" defined arbitrarily by their enemies.

Status independence or bust.

It's not surprising to be that Dems are claiming that again and again - "if only you nominated a normal non-extremist candidate, we wouldn't call him Hitler, but you always nominate Hitlers!". This is a simple and time-tested tactics - "we're not political or ideological, we are just defending common sense from those crazies". The oldest trick in the book. What is astonishing there are still people on the red side that fail to see through the con. How many years of this happening again and again, with literally every single candidate, one needs to understand the pattern?

The oldest trick in the book.

Why does it only work one way, though?

There was a comment yesterday about Democratic voters being motivated by Trump and by abortion rights, with voters not trusting Republicans to not write insane abortion laws. That's probably a reasonably accurate analysis. The necessary question, though, is whether that perception is due to the actual insanity of Trump and Republican abortion laws, or because of the perceptions of Trump and Republican abortion laws created by the Blue consensus machine.

"Moderates" want things to be normal and peaceful, and Blues can deny them normality and peace arbitrarily. Scott and other "moderate" blues often have stated how they want a "functional" Red establishment to moderate the crazier Blues. But what Red interest is provided in providing them that moderation? The moderate Blues have no interest in Red values at all, and will never concede to tolerating them if they don't absolutely have to. Providing such moderation just advances Blue dominance and further bricks Red interests out of any hope of actual power.

The relationship is abusive. The solution is, at best, to leave.

Why does it only work one way, though?

It doesn’t. Lots of people think Obama was a socialist.

As for why reds are generally less successful than blues at it, it’s because of who controls the media.

The necessary question, though, is whether that perception is due to the actual insanity of Trump and Republican abortion laws, or because of the perceptions of Trump and Republican abortion laws created by the Blue consensus machine.

One might, for example, compare the abortion laws promoted by Republicans with ones common in Europe. After all, European policies could not be made by insane MAGA Trumpsters? One could check how many countries practice "no limits up to the moment of birth" abortion, and for those that have term limits, what the average terms are and how they relate to Republican proposals. But the US mainstream press is largely completely disinterested in that discussion. Because it is almost completely owned by one tribe, and for that tribe it is more convenient to present any Republican policies as utter insanity which no normal people would ever discuss.

they want a "functional" Red establishment to moderate the crazier Blues

And I believe them. But when it comes to actually doing that, turns out that each move of the Reds to "cooperate" is met with vigorous "defect, defect, defect, defect!" on the Blue side. Try to make late terms abortion limited, by any reasonable term? Maybe let's try to find some middle ground here? Nope, no restrictions at all, Roe gives us this power and we intend to use it to the max. Well, how is that working for you? Try to find solution to a migration crisis? Nope, any border is racist, we'll refuse to follow the law and call it "sanctuary". I can hardly remember a moderate cooperative move for Republicans where it ended up with them not getting the shaft. What exactly is the point of keeping conceding? I'd get if it were in the interest of peace - this smells an awful lot of blackmail, but to heck with it, if we get peace - but there's no peace. It only gets worse.

The crazy thing to me is how he persuaded investors to hand him $400m to develop a drug he bought for $5m that had failed four consecutive clinical trials at GSK. Four! Yeah yeah, due diligence at big funds is nonexistent but even so, that this didn’t raise eyebrows (or that he had a good spiel when they brought it up) is actually impressive.

I almost want to see him be the serious contender, because I do want to see the Democrats grapple with trying to attack the Republican nominee without falling into the pit of accusations of racism or attacking a minority person.

Look at Sunak (or Patel, or Braverman) in the UK; Indians are already whites in the Anglo countries, the left just goes on as it did.

Perhaps Vivek is the master dealmaker that Trump styles himself to be.

The crazy thing to me is how he persuaded investors to hand him $400m to develop a drug he bought for $5m that had failed four consecutive clinical trials at GSK.

Fast talking, enough bafflegab about biotechnological improvements, and people willing to throw money at anything at the time - look how Elizabeth Holmes funded Theranos even though it should have been clear she couldn't do what she claimed. 'GSK are too big and too spread out over a whole range of possible drugs, we can instead focus everything on this one drug and get it through'.

Indians (and other Asians) are whites when it comes to the spoils system run by elites, but not when it comes to anything that has to be approved of by the masses. Asians won't easily get into Harvard, because the masses don't get to decide who gets into Harvard, but anything which requires telling voters that an Asian is white isn't going to work very well. The closest the left can get is claiming that the Asian is some kind of Uncle Tom, which is related, but not quite the same.

(The UK may be different on this; I don't know.)

So far his debate performance is reinforcing my negative view of him. Great ideas but way too much slick, fast talking car salesman suspicious overeagerness.

Really? I find him pretty charismatic. Maybe my grifter alarms are less fine tuned than others here.

I don't think he's uncharismatic. Good grifters and great salesmen are charasmatic But he's a salesman not a showman (like trump) and he's clearly a pushy fast talking one at that.

We always complain that are political leaders are in shambles but then try to pick politicians based on…how electric they are? Vivek has no record and therefore is per se an invalid candidate.

Let’s look at people who actually have records that can be judged and see if those records suggest they are strong candidates.

He speaks like someone who did a lot of college/school debate and/or went to toastmasters or a similar thing. The problem is that advice or support for people who are bad at public speaking often involves essentially teaching them to adopt the mannerisms of a radio shock jock / car salesman and while the most charismatic people can pull it off some of the time, the less of a natural you are, the greasier it becomes.

I'll also add that being a good public speaker matters far less than you think it does socially. I've got the hyperlexic flavor of autism. I'm a decent writer and an excellent public speaker - probably top one percent or so if you're looking at a general population sample. In college, I moved my speech professor to tears with an impromptu speech on love, of all things. This buys me a tiny bit of social inclusion, but a 400lb deadlift would get me as much or more.

I think it matters but it’s very profession-dependent. The verbal IQ savant who is lazy and feckless but who has the ultimate gift of charisma can do well in a handful of professions, but certainly not most of them.

Is that how debate watcher or primary voter will read him, though? I think Vivek did a lot better than everyone else from that perspective. These voters are the kinds of people who listen to the radio and buy those cars, anyway.

Yeah he's smart and well spoken on podcasts, but his combative look is not good. Though maybe his early Trump impression is resonating. It's hard for me to say... In other news wtf is Pence or Christie's goal here?

I get that several on the stage are going for the 'hope everyone in front of them drops dead" strategy, but these two are basically just here to telegraph how out of touch they are with the party.

Drudge's post debate poll had Christie coming in second after Ramaswamy as the winner of the debate. So a far right news base, at least the over 50,000 of them that participated so far, seem to think Christie did a good job. Not as good as Ramaswamy, but a bit better than Haley and Desantis, and way better than anyone else.

https://poll.fm/12675305/results?msg=voted

He seems like a nice enough guy but has no experience in politics and the right desperately needs people who have experience in the beast. DC types will run circles around him (and always do when entrepreneurs get elected to high office); sure, he’s smart, but so are plenty of them, and they know how everything works.

I did just see his plan for an eight-year term limit on government positions. Cute, but not without some dramatic consequences.

I think he could do ok. He’s less repulsive to the PMC than Trump. It would all come down to how good he is at delegating and hiring the right operatives. Barr would work for him and probably be more effective. Dig up a few more guys like him. Lean on McConnell. Get a few up and comers than Desantis is developing like Chris Rufo.

It wouldn’t be easy. But all he would need is the right Chief of Staff to get it done.

Who, among the Republicans, best represents the ability to control the swamp? I don't think it's possible, frankly. The deep state is deep blue.

Who, among the Republicans, best represents the ability to control the swamp?

DeSantis, but only relatively.

And that is the sad thing. The republicans are going for razzle dazzle over substance.

It's not impossible. You take control of hiring, bring in a bunch of people loyal to you over the mob, and spread them out. Use them to identify who's blocking you, and fire them for cause (i.e. insubordination). Keep going until most of the paper-pushers cave (remember, only some of them feel strongly enough to risk their jobs, but a lot more will go with the flow and/or have a chain of command going through a troublemaker; rip out the first and the second and third will mostly play ball). It's not easy, but it's possible.

Of course, the thing is that it doesn't have to be the POTUS who's capable of doing that. The POTUS just needs to seriously want it done, understand the basic plan, and be able to identify people who can do it.

You take control of hiring, bring in a bunch of people loyal to you over the mob, and spread them out. Use them to identify who's blocking you, and fire them for cause (i.e. insubordination). Keep going until most of the paper-pushers cave (remember, only some of them feel strongly enough to risk their jobs, but a lot more will go with the flow and/or have a chain of command going through a troublemaker; rip out the first and the second and third will mostly play ball). It's not easy, but it's possible.

So are you ready and able to knock down the laws that require merit based hiring so you can choose a Hillsdale grad over a Yale grad? There are a lot of laws that prevent a return to the spoils system of old and doing this would require getting past them.

Very few of those laws give credit to the school one attends. The required degree counts not the institution that granted it. There was a scandal about employees with degrees from the unaccredited schools a few years ago.

This is what Trump wants to do with the schedule F stuff and, technically, he now has experience in politics.

I'm doubtful about his competence to actually accomplish it, though.

Trumps second admin is probably going to get staffed out of the Texas state government, which has plenty of people with the ability to implement that. I’m not so sure he’ll hang on to them, though.

Hi Vivek, nice to meet you!

(Leaving aside the arguments made within, this came across as rather fawning to me.)

At any rate, he'd have my vote if I was in a position to do so, he seems saner than the overwhelming majority of Republican candidates, and I think his claim to believe in God is one of those useful lies to the voter base rather than anything he sincerely believes in. If we were to ding politicians for being slightly two-faced, we'd have to elect only those who had half their face mauled by a pitbull to compensate.

I think his claim to believe in God is one of those useful lies to the voter base rather than anything he sincerely believes in

This is the second time I've seen this idea expressed. It's been funny both times because both times the commenters were praising Ramaswamy while they dismissed his statement realpolitik, not realizing they, you, are insulting the man. There's a reason he said "God exists" besides actually believing it, it's the idea he could have said without lying: "The Christian Church was foundational to modern civilization and remains the moral basis for all popular discussions of ethics, including those among individuals on the left whom espouse belief in obligate Christian treatment of others and not only sin but original sin and the perpetual atonement thereof. I forever reject their Godless branch of Christianity."

His religiosity would remain ambiguous, and were he an atheist it would mean he is not the sort of man to open a key political statement with a lie. "I'd totally vote for that [not-too-clever grifter]" isn't much for praise.

I'm no proselytizer, I'm not the right material for it and this isn't the place, not with its certain decorum. Decorum like I must be charitable, that I must take your comment as made in earnest and good-faith and originating from reason. Good-faith enough, yes, but the problem I face reading so much of the by-atheist, on-atheism comments here, like you saying Ramaswamy couldn't possibly be religious, is they do not originate from reason. You say this of Ramaswamy because of the solely emotional importance apropos your self-concept that intelligent men ought not be religious. Yet it takes little searching in our past to uncover rich fields of brilliant and highly religious men; it takes no searching at all to see the greatness of western civilization, directly resultant from biotruths Christianity identified and curtailed where degradative and saw flourish where beneficiary. What else is this but the final testament of transcendental intelligence? What would someone counter with, "appeal to tradition"? It worked then, it doesn't need to now, because now we "know better"? Okay--for its know-better Godless Christianity, Western Europe and the UK have maybe 25 years before war returns when the movements that rose a century ago rise again for bloodshed that will only be stopped with whichever side achieving permanent victory. At least we knew better.

There's a reason he said "God exists" besides actually believing it, it's the idea he could have said without lying: "The Christian Church was foundational to modern civilization and remains the moral basis for all popular discussions of ethics, including those among individuals on the left whom espouse belief in obligate Christian treatment of others and not only sin but original sin and the perpetual atonement thereof. I forever reject their Godless branch of Christianity."

His religiosity would remain ambiguous, and were he an atheist it would mean he is not the sort of man to open a key political statement with a lie. "I'd totally vote for that [not-too-clever grifter]" isn't much for praise.

I'm confused here. Are you saying the second statement is what he actually believes and that "God Exists" is a way of representing it? Or that he would just say the second statement if he didn't actually believe God exists?

Yeah that was verbose.

Ramaswamy is a very smart, very successful guy who takes positions like "climate change is a hoax" and "we should give Israel less money." He knows what he's saying, he has a real ethos and speaks from it. Opening a list of tenets with "God exists" is endorsing religion, and since this is the US, it's endorsing Christianity, and he knows this. Why would he lie about what he personally believes while nevertheless endorsing the church when he could just not lie and endorse the church? Unwilling or unable, either would disqualify him.

climate change is a hoax

This is a distortion of what he said, which is that the climate change agenda is a hoax. It's a statement about the policy prescriptions, not temperature measurements.

They're the same statement, his is the more intelligent way of phrasing it. This is my whole point: he shows clear care in framing his positions, meaning he could endorse Christianity without lying about what he believes.

I think there are actually real and serious differences between "climate change is a hoax" and "the climate change agenda is a hoax". Admitting that climate change is a real and serious problem that needs to be fixed and our current solutions won't do the job is incredibly different to "climate change is a chinese lie designed to hurt the US manufacturing industry".

"Hoax" is the critical term. He didn't say "the climate change agenda is profoundly misguided and by design can't solve its claimed problems." He said it's a hoax, a malicious deception, the same "we don't need to do anything about it" as just saying climate change is a hoax. The reason he didn't say "climate change is a hoax" is because he didn't want that floating around as a weaponizable quote but you reading that into his tweet is the benefit anyone could see coming from his particular phrasing, something that is once again my entire point in this line of discussion.

Meanwhile, his stated policy does say he thinks it's closer to the "Chinese lie" side of hoax.

Drill, frack & burn coal: abandon the climate cult & unshackle nuclear energy (Heading 02)

I didn't claim he couldn't possibly be religious, I'm only claiming that based on what I know of him, I find it rather unlikely.

"I'd totally vote for that [not-too-clever grifter]" isn't much for praise.

A white lie (you can't get much whiter, since if he becomes president he's legally obligated to not mix religion and state beyond the tiny extent that's become normalized, like swearing on the Bible and saying "One Nation Under God" and the like) doesn't make him a grifter in my eyes, and overall his policy positions align with my classical liberal with libertarian sympathies better than any other candidate I'm aware of.

I claim he's no more genuinely religious than Trump, or even Obama. That's functionally atheist but for a few lies to the proles as far as I'm concerned.

You say this of Ramaswamy because of the solely emotional importance apropos your self-concept that intelligent men ought not be religious

Leaving aside oughts, the more intelligent simply are less religious. I have my own reasons to think that religion is a waste of one's currently limited time under the sun, but that's a fact.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religiosity_and_intelligence#:~:text=In%20a%20sample%20of%202307,and%20fundamentalism%2C%20but%20not%20spirituality

In a 2013 meta-analysis of 63 studies, led by professor Miron Zuckerman, a correlation of -.20 to -.25 between religiosity and IQ was particularly strong when assessing beliefs (which in their view reflects intrinsic religiosity), but the negative effects were less defined when behavioral aspects of religion (such as church-going) were examined

A high IQ UMC Tam-Brahm first gen immigrant is pretty unlikely to be a strong or even real believer in any religion, and I can forgive the fib needed to make the the Republican base not lose their shit over electing a Hindu, at least by birth.

Aw man, cmon, what is the western culture war but a religious schism? Those high IQ people--specifically those within who would describe themselves as ideologically congruous with the modern American left--don't believe in God, transubstantive atonement (exactly) or afterlives as such, but they believe in sin, original sin and metaphysical moral obligation. They are Godless Christians, they view the world with fundamentally Christian moral framing, they act essentially as Christians act, insofar as they are Godless, they judge others for their failing to behave as what they consider proper of Christians. They have holy days, religious celebrations, sacraments, saints, martyrs, heretics and blasphemers (and the punishing thereof) and excommunication. They are recognized by the state and they hold tremendous power within the state. I am not being strict with terms or pedantic; in fact referring to them as "still technically irreligious" would require severe equivocation.

The relevance of this is in rebuke of the idea that "greater" intelligence relates with a proportionate decrease in religiousness when the evidence shows firmly it does not. They still take the impossible as possible in faith, they still need and yearn for religion and the moral guidance it provides. You're a smart guy, all of this is an understanding I know you're capable of reaching through reasoning. Why then doubt this of Ramaswamy?

You fired off a comment asserting he's a lying atheist with no effort to substantiate your belief until called on it. If you were seriously considering his religiosity it would be in your first comment and I would have felt no reason to reply. Your initial low-effort is consequent of your belief that he couldn't possibly be religious, something that shows again in your response as you again fail to consider how you could be wrong. I could be wrong for the exact reasons you list, but I understand how this would make him unsuitable for the highest office.

Look at what he's said and find another serious candidate other than Trump who even comes close. There's not one, but the strength isn't just the novelty of those positions from someone with a radically different image than Trump. There's strength in the intelligence his specific words indicate he possesses. Where you see a "white lie" or "fib" I see someone who is deeply considerate of and articulate on many matters save one and your attempt to excuse that one inadequacy is poor.

As I said to another, if his "God exists" statement is a lie, it means he is either unable or unwilling to endorse Christianity in a way so as to not lie. If he is unable to endorse Christianity without lying then he is significantly less intelligent than I assessed, and if he is unwilling to endorse Christianity without lying, all of his positions must be reevaluated within the maximally cynical frame. That he is making a play for pure power and is at risk of shedding all stated positions for political utility. His strength as a political figure comes in honestly presenting himself to the movement that has formed around Trump as of the like mind with them. Any willingness to lie for political gain is a grim indictment of his leadership, regardless of a "protection" against being Hindu-coded.

On that, I can't ding you for having the larger-world image of the United States, but as someone who lives in deeply red, deeply Christian America, the idea of evangelicals still being a meaningful demographic in the electorate is a bad joke. It's insulting, really, every time I've been subjugated to the inanity of unironic usages of the term "Christo-Fascism." The Church has no power. Past that, political lines are swiftly approaching pure "because fuck the outgroup" motivations. If Ramaswamy is on the ballot there is not a meaningful number of Republican voters who would pass on him even if he were known as a Hindu or an Atheist. If he goes all-in on supporting Trump and for whatever reason the latter is unable to run, between Trump's support, the (R) beside his name and being up against Biden as a non-Trump face, he'll steamroll the general with no whit of obstacle from his personal beliefs regarding religion.

There is an extremely high chance he's on the ballot come November 2024. If he is, he will be the next President. That's why this is so important. We're not quibbling over the positions of an obscure candidate, he's the frontrunner after Trump which means after 2024 he also has a very good chance of winning in 2028. Everyone here should be looking as seriously as I am at what the man who has the highest chance of being if not the 47th, the 48th POTUS, is really saying.

his claim to believe in God is one of those useful lies

What makes you say this? Plenty of Hindus actually believe in God, as do plenty of American conservatives.

Among 2nd generation Indian-Americans, I literally don't know a single one who believes that Vishnu, Shiva, Kali, etc. all exist as separate entities. They're more or less panentheists that sometimes pray to a one of the Devas (usually Shiva or an incarnation of Vishnu) as the personality of The Absolute. Sometimes they don't even do this and their beliefs are indistinguishable from New Age spirituality (which ofc is heavily influenced by Hinduism).

As far as I'm aware, all candidates for President at least present as religious, even if in practise they're agnostic or atheist. I don't know if it's viable to run as an openly atheist candidate, but I suspect not.

Most UMC/PMC Indians abroad are "culturally religious", without any true belief. This is also true back home, but to a different degree. You can just be a de-facto atheist and pass as Hindu, there's no need to show up to temples on Sunday.

Given everything I know about him, I strongly suspect he's just going through the motions, not that anyone can say for sure.

As far as I'm aware, all candidates for President at least present as religious, even if in practise they're agnostic or atheist. I don't know if it's viable to run as an openly atheist candidate, but I suspect not.

Did Bernie bother at all? Wasn't my impression.

I don't remember him speaking about it, but that's not the same as being an overt atheist.

In this case, he needs to convince the majority Christian Republican voter base that despite being born a Hindu, he has a relatively palatable theology.

I think he would be in a lot more trouble on this issue if Trump wasn’t such a front runner. Right now there is a significant part of the GOP that would really prefer not Trump but will vote for him. I think this especially includes the big-money backers (Musks/Griffin) and probably mosts of the conservative PMC (I guess like me). Since Desantis has flatlined there is a significant look at whenever gets momentum.

If Trump got a heart attack tomorrow I think this would be a much bigger issue.

Still remember the day I "came out" as atheist in my Hindu family and they just shrugged it off as if it was no big deal. I even had an angry 'neo-atheist' phase for a couple of years before realizing that Hinduism just sort of accepted Atheism at face value.

My mom was like, "I need you to visit for festivals, be a good person and just join your hands with the family every once in a while. You can talk to whoever you like in your own head, just don't get angry when I ask my Ganpati to bring you good luck." Hell, I thought my dad was irreligious my whole life, until my mom told me he was deeply religious, but he did not feel worthy of praying to ask a God for good luck ! Turns out he'd pray by himself daily, just in non-visible spaces.

Hinduism is funny that way. It's lack of scripture allows it to be something and nothing at the same time. Yet, when it is around, you can tell. If a group of heterogenous people strongly self-identify under a common umbrella of Hinduism, then who am I to disagree ?

Indians abroad are "culturally religious", without any true belief.

This is an unfair accusation, because it quietly defines religion from an Abrahmic lens. Being culturally religious is what Hinduism is all about. Both Dharma and Karma are defined within a localized context of your profession, family & conditions. So, it is hard to have any uniform optics for Hinduism. If a person lives a Dharmic life with an awareness of Karma, then they're Hindu. Even if it has no ties to a specific God.

Yes, I understand that this means a person who performs Hindu actions with Hindu intentions, will be Hindu irrespective of which religion they follow. Hinduism doesn't require mutual exclusivity in tribal associations. As the head of the RSS (India's largest political Hindu organization) says, "If you are born in India, you're Hindu. You can be a Muslim-Hindu, Christian-Hindu or an Atheist-Hindu. Just gotta align your intentions and actions. A lot of spiritual atheist rationalists appear pretty Hindu to me.

I've been an atheist since the age of 5, I've only prayed earnestly once in my life, and that's to Krishna when my mom was pregnant because I was looking forward to a baby brother.

With how he turned out, I immediately turned atheist /s. (Still love him tho, even if his ADHD is even worse than mine)

My parents are mildly religious, they observe most festivals, visit temples on vacation, and idly contemplate going on pilgrimage to those random ass holy shrines up in the Himalayas (it would probably kill their backs).

Even then, when religion simply didn't take in me, because even at that age I could see that no religion was a remotely good fit for both the world around me and the behavior of its denizens, they never forced me to pray, at most I was dragged along to a bunch of temples and forced to sit glumly during some festivals until I got a little older and refused to attend whatsoever.

Nobody forced me to practise, nor did they care particularly much.

Most Hindus I've met have been entirely chill about it too, nobody has tried to proselytize to me, or made my life difficult in any way.

I'm not aware of any major religion that's more cool with atheism, barring perhaps Buddhism, but that's just a distant cousin.

I'm not aware of any major religion that's more cool with atheism, barring perhaps Buddhism, but that's just a distant cousin.

Does Taoism or Confucianism work, if either count as religions?

I suppose they do, but even if I write a Cultivation novel, I'm no expert on either!

we'd have to elect only those who had half their face mauled by a pitbull to compensate.

How about Bell's palsy? "It's true, that I speak on one side of my mouth. I'm not a Tory, I don't speak on both sides of my mouth."

Come on now, that's not Vivek, that's his mother writing that 😁

I think his claim to believe in God is one of those useful lies to the voter base rather than anything he sincerely believes in.

I don't think that's necessarily so; his family is Tamil Brahmin, there's no reason he can't be a Hindu syncretist because there is the tradition that 'all gods are emanations of the one God who is behind all of reality' so yeah, he can say he believes in God with a sincere face and he doesn't even have to deny Jesus because within all the strands and traditions and philosophies that come under the umbrella of Hinduism, Jesus as a divine avatar to the West isn't impossible. Your god is your god and my god is my god, but the Brahman lies behind and above it all.

I don't know his family background so I'm only noodling around based on what is on Wikipedia, but if his family are Tamil Brahmins from Kerala, they could be in the Iyer tradition, and that's founded by a non-dualist (the only reality is the transcendent God, and the 'self' which we think experiences the world is ultimately not different in essence from that God) - I'm just pulling bits and pieces out, I'm sure the real version is a lot more complicated:

The central theme of Shankara's writings is the liberating knowledge of the true identity of jivatman (individual self) as Ātman-Brahman. ...According to Shankara, the one unchanging entity (Brahman) alone is real, while changing entities do not have absolute existence. Shankara's primary objective was to explain how moksha is attained in this life by recognizing the true identity of jivatman as Atman-Brahman, as mediated by the Mahāvākyas, especially Tat Tvam Asi, "That you are." Correct knowledge of jivatman and Atman-Brahman is the attainment of Brahman, immortality, and leads to moksha (liberation) from suffering and samsara, the cycle of rebirth. ...According to Shankara, the individual Ātman and Brahman seem different at the empirical level of reality, but this difference is only an illusion, and at the highest level of reality they are really identical. The real self is Sat, "the Existent," that is, Ātman-Brahman.

...According to Alf Hiltebeitel, Shankara established the nondualist interpretation of the Upanishads as the touchstone of a revived smarta tradition:

Practically, Shankara fostered a rapprochement between Advaita and smarta orthodoxy, which by his time had ...developed the practice of pancayatanapuja ("five-shrine worship") as a solution to varied and conflicting devotional practices. Thus one could worship any one of five deities (Vishnu, Siva, Durga, Surya, Ganesa) as one's istadevata ("deity of choice").

Panchayatana puja (IAST Pañcāyatana pūjā) is a system of puja (worship) in the Smarta tradition. It consists of the worship of five deities set in a quincunx pattern, the five deities being Shiva, Vishnu, Devi, Surya, and an Ishta Devata such as Kartikeya, or Ganesha or any personal god of devotee's preference.

So Jesus is your personal god? No problem with that! You believe in ultimate God, I believe in ultimate God, whatever version we worship as our personal God doesn't matter that greatly.

It's quite fashionable these days for many Hindus to Abrahamic-wash their religion, passing off our hundreds of thousands of deities as manifestations of Brahman/God, as you right put it. This is particularly true for the more aggressively proselytizing brand of Hinduism, which smooths over theological differences by saying it's all good, you're just invoking one of the many facets of God when you pray to Shiva or Vishnu.

I still suspect that he is, at heart, an atheist or agnostic. I've heard that it's still taboo for a presidential candidate to be an outspoken atheist, so his protestations to the contrary don't convey all that much information. I suspect that, like most of the PMC/UMC, rich Brahmins are mostly LARPing rather than holding sincere beliefs, especially when you consider the rest of his life.

Not that it makes a big difference, Hinduism is undemanding enough that you can pretty much do whatever you like without the Hindu card being withdrawn, including being a nastik (a sect of Hinduism that denies the existence of gods while still holding other spiritual beliefs). An Atheist Hindu is actually not a contradiction in terms, though I strongly suspect he's just the former.

No way to prove it, of course, but I'd still bet on him just saying the lines that make a nominal Hindu palatable to a Republican audience, especially if using the monotheist doctrine.

My girlfriend is Hindu and told me that the Hindu gods are all manifestations of one god. Is that not a traditional belief? Is that just a result of Christian influence? She put this forward as though it were a standard Hindu belief.

No it is not.

It's one interpretation that's been an around for an extremely long time. Though it might be so that it's popularity in modern times might in some level be a result of the long term influence of the Muslim and then Christian rule over the subcontinent in recent centuries, but much of Hindu tradition and the majority of Hindus are polytheistic in nature.

I don't think he's necessarily being insincere; we're all judging by a Judeo-Christian template, but I don't see that it's impossible for the guy to be agnostic but spiritual-not-religious or "some kind of great impersonal cosmic force out there, sure". I don't think we can make confident pronouncements on "he's too smart to believe in deity so he's lying to the normies/trying not to spook the Republican Bible-bashers" about someone who comes from the background of a particular sect of Hinduism which is non-dualistic.

You're welcome to disagree, it's not like I have a way to prove my suspicions myself!

Oh, I'm not saying that doesn't play into it, but it's hard to know! How Christian is Obama, really? Happy enough to go along with Michelle and pick a suitable church to attend, or genuinely convinced, or just playing along for the black vote? Without being able to read his mind, who can say?

When he says ‘god is real’ he means ‘I’m assimilated, not a savage who worships the contents of your dinner plate’. This is very important for someone named ‘Vivek Ramaswamy’ running in a Republican primary.

I think much the same. It's a meaningless platitude to appease the Republican voter base who might otherwise worry about statues of Ganesh in the White House. Being nominally monotheistic lets you brush a lot under the carpet.

Yeah I've got to say, the persona strongly appeals to me.

Trump may occasionally say things that I sort of agree with, and say them more directly than most people do, but he's still fundamentally an idiot who is pandering to idiots. He's created too much enmity in the deep state to be viable at all, so he's a lost cause to do anything even if he wins.

Hah, agreed. When I heard him talk about energy independence I almost stood up and started clapping. He's got the techno-optimist rationalist policy slate down pat.

Was his energy dependence really any different compared to bog standard Republican energy indepedence?

No idea. Are any of them actually pro nuclear? That was the big thing for me.

Well, except for the spirituality and all the statism.

I don't know if this post is a parody or not, but I have to ask how anyone looks at Vivek Ramaswamy and doesn't clock him as an obvious grifter.

What's the grift? He's already pretty rich. I'm not clear what the angle is that would be better than just building another company. If the "grift" is that he doesn't really want to be a politician and is just pretending to be a politician so that he can get political power, I find that I'm puzzled.

What's the grift? He's already pretty rich.

That's never stopped anyone before. It certainly hasn't stopped Trump from shamelessly bilking his supporters.

Ramawamy strikes me as being at least as insubstantial as Trump (probably moreso, especially given that I think he's also significantly smarter). For as changeable as career politicians can be in their never ending quest to keep their jobs, they usually (contra the fatuous cynics) do have core values and goals they actually care about. I don't think Ramawamy believes anything. If he attains the White House, I expect him to accomplish nothing. Not because he was sabotaged by the "deep state" or stymied by congressional gridlock but because he doesn't care about accomplishing anything.

(Also, as a guy with zero experience in governing he's liable to be as competent as a child put behind the controls of a fighter jet, but that's tangential to the grifter aspect).

What's the grift? He's already pretty rich

The next step in the pyramid after money is power and admiration of the masses. But it doesn't really matter. In fact, a selfless adherent to an idiotic ideology is far more dangerous than a mere grifter. Or, as immortal C.S. Lewis said:

Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.

I'm going to be more concerned with the power-seeking nature of the career power-seekers on stage with him. If the claim is simply that politics is a grift, I don't disagree, but that's hardly an indictment of the only guy there that wasn't part of the swamp for decades.

Hard to say DeSantis was part of the swamp for decades

Decade, singular anyway. We may differ on the quality of his pre-political life.

I think being a jag attached to navy seals isn’t your paradigmatic example of the swamp.

I don’t think standing up to…pretty much everyone in 2020 re covid isn’t very swampish. Nor was actually fighting back in the culture war with schools in Florida or fighting with Disney.

I just see very little evidence he is part of the establishment. I do think he has the wrong people telling him how he needs to run his candidacy and needs to just be himself (which honestly is someone who is a bit of a dick but a relatively honest one).

I think the person talking about Vivek being the only person not ensconced in the swamp or whatever is being silly.

But, look into DeSantis pre-2020. He was deep with the Club for Growth, Chamber of Commerce, Koch Brothers, etc. Which is ya' know, what you do if you're a rising conservative star, but he wasn't some independent go-getter and hell, his SuperPAC currently has backing from every right-wing billionaire not on the Trump train.

More comments

I think signing on the R ticket and declaring we give too much money to Ukraine and Israel is a really bad way to grift. If you’re alleging he is in it for pure personal gain, that’s the last thing he would do. That’s alienating establishment political apparatus and pro-Israel donors.

I think signing on the R ticket and declaring we give too much money to Ukraine and Israel is a really bad way to grift.

That's an absolutely exceptional way to grift. People like Trump and Kari Lake have been doing it for years and raking in the small dollar donations by the millions for years.

When are you people going to realize that you are the establishment. You are the power now, so every time you sneer about the establishment neocons what you're actually doing is sneering as the heel to the face. The """"establishment"""" is terrified of voters that think like you do and have been bending over and spreading wide for almost a decade to try to please you. All they've gotten for it is cascading electoral failure. As someone who likes it when Republicans win, I'm not very happy about that.

I think signing on the R ticket and declaring we give too much money to Ukraine and Israel is a really bad way to grift

Why is it bad? For Ukraine, it is increasingly becoming blue-coded issue, so running against it on a red ticket is at least a safe bet. Jews are dominantly voting blue, and big Jewish donors are already spoken for anyway, nobody of them would have any interest in some start-up nobody that they had no idea of his existence a month ago. So he loses nothing. On the contrary, in this very forum we can witness a certain group of people who, let's say, do not harbor any warm feelings towards Jews, and thus would gladly support somebody dunking on Israel. This group may not be huge, but it's still some money. Again, from the fundraising angle, maybe not the best strategy ever, but certainly a solid one. If he already going for polarizing candidate - which he seems to do anyway - taking positions with significant unserved red audience is not a stupid move, grift-wise.

Do people ever purposefully sell their social currency among the highest status to purchase social currency among the lower status? He works in pharma finance. Pro-establishment Jews and pro-establishment gentiles are his clientele, colleagues, and social judges.

My point is pro-establishment Jews vote Democrat, so Vivek, being a Republican candidate, can have no currency with them. To gain any possibility of their approval, he'd have to run as a Democrat for starters. Since he doesn't, he has to address some audience where he has a chance.

You're not grifting off big name donors, you're grifting the rank and file schmucks.

Why would you grift from the poor when you could grift from the rich? Makes no sense.

Too many people already on the rich's teats. Hard to distinguish oneself, especially when they insist on things like "respectability" and "experience" in their circles to join the establishment.

Much easier to just skip the entire cursus honorum and the years of ass-kissing and dues-paying it demands.

Theory: There are more of the poor, and they might be easier to grift and less likely to sue you.

The Jordan Belfort story.

The rank and file also love Ukraine and Israel, at least based on the people I know.

That's if you assume the end goal of the grift is to get elected, rather than to get enough attention that he gets a permanent podcast presence.

I don't much care if all this stuff is true and I suspect Americans won't either. Certainly not Republicans, unfortunately. Red anti-intellectualism or, perhaps, anti-smartassism is real; you'd better be able to own the other guy in a debate, but you cannot make it look as if you're showboating at the expense of your diploma-less audience. Ben Shapiro with his quick debate bro tongue is Facebook meme material, not POTUS material, likewise for a clever, dweeby man like Vivek. He needs edge other than apparent competence and sharpness, or #1 and #2 to do themselves in.

It'll be funny if he makes it, though. Imagine Vivek vs Kamala (as Biden declines further): total Brahmin victory. A tiny (there are, what, 2 million Tamil Brahmins?) subrace bred for verbally justifying their authority in a casteist society seize political power in an antiracist democratic society. What could be more surprising?

Edit: Wiki on his drug adventures

In 2015, Ramaswamy raised $360 million for the Roivant subsidiary Axovant Sciences in an attempt to market intepirdine as a drug for Alzheimer's disease.[31][39] In December 2014,[40] Axovant purchased the patent for intepirdine from GlaxoSmithKline (where the drug had failed four previous clinical trials) for $5 million, a small sum in the industry.[32] Ramaswamy appeared on the cover of Forbes magazine in 2015, and said his company would "be the highest return on investment endeavor ever taken up in the pharmaceutical industry."[32][39] Before new clinical trials began, he engineered an initial public offering in Axovant.[32] Axovant became a "Wall Street darling" and raised $315 million in its IPO.[40] The company's market value initially soared to almost $3 billion, although at the time it only had eight employees, including Ramaswamy's brother and mother.[32] Ramaswamy took a massive payout after selling a portion of his shares in Roivant to Viking Global Investors.[32] He claimed more than $37 million in capital gains in tax year 2015.[32] Ramaswamy said his company would be the "Berkshire Hathaway of drug development"[3] and touted the drug as a "tremendous" opportunity that "could help millions" of patients, prompting some criticism that he was overpromising.[32]

In September 2017, the company announced that intepirdine had failed in its large clinical trial.[32][41] The company's value plunged; it lost 75% in one day and continued to decline afterward.[32] Shareholders who lost money included various institutional investors, such as the California State Teachers' Retirement System pension fund.[32] Ramaswamy was insulated from much of Axovant's losses because he held his stake through Roivant.[32][40] The company abandoned intepirdine. In 2018, Ramaswamy said he had no regrets about how the company handled the drug;[40] in subsequent years, he said he regretted the outcome but was annoyed by criticism of the company.[32] Axovant attempted to reinvent itself as a gene therapy company,[42] but dissolved in 2023.[32]

In 2017, Ramaswamy struck a deal with Masayoshi Son in which SoftBank invested $1.1 billion in Roivant.[32] In 2019, Roivant sold its stake in five subsidiaries (or "vants"), including Enzyvant, to Sumitomo Dainippon Pharma;[43][32] Ramaswamy made $175 million in capital gains from the sale.[32] The deal also gave Sumitomo Dainippon a 10% stake in Roivant.[44][43]

While campaigning for the presidency in 2023, Ramaswamy called himself a "scientist" and said, "I developed a number of medicines."[32] Although his undergraduate degree is in biology, he was never a scientist; his role in the biotechnology industry was that of a financier and entrepreneur.[32]

In January 2021, Ramaswamy stepped down as CEO of Roivant Sciences and assumed the role of executive chairman.[43][44] In 2021, after he resigned as CEO, Roivant was listed on the Nasdaq via a reverse merger with Montes Archimedes Acquisition Corp, a special purpose acquisition vehicle.[45] In February 2023, Ramaswamy stepped down as chair of Roivant to focus on his presidential campaign.[32][46]

Ramaswamy remains the sixth-largest shareholder of Roivant,[32] retaining a 7.17% stake.[47] Roivant has never been profitable.[45]

etc. I'd say this is not worse than I expected but it's certainly not the miracle success story you've painted. If anything, I'd say it calls for investigation.

While campaigning for the presidency in 2023, Ramaswamy called himself a "scientist" and said, "I developed a number of medicines."[32] Although his undergraduate degree is in biology, he was never a scientist; his role in the biotechnology industry was that of a financier and entrepreneur.[32]

That sounds like a non-insiders take, and indeed in the citation I just see assertions that his undergraduate degree can't afford him the title of "scientist." To support the idea that he doesn't do any science you could have interviewed former employees and had them say that Vivek was just a money guy, he never came to any lab, didn't even seem to understand what the scientists were up to. Those NYT authors don't have any such quotes.

Given that his companies have been unusually successful in their industry, maybe that's partly attributable to him getting his hands dirty.

He’s at least as much a “scientist” as Jill Biden is a “Dr.”

It'll be funny if he makes it, though. Imagine Vivek vs Kamala (as Biden declines further): total Brahmin victory. A tiny (there are, what, 2 million Tamil Brahmins?) subrace bred for verbally justifying their authority in a casteist society seize political power in an antiracist democratic society. What could be more surprising?

Oh man, this may be the most hilarious turn of events in history if it does happen. I love the narrative arc here, utterly ridiculous.

What would be even better is if he turns around after winning and goes full race-realism - says he won because he's genetically superior. It'll never happen, but man the irony there would be impossibly thick.

Stuff like that was so normal during 2021. I don’t even know how so many people were silly funding these companies. He actually reminds me a lot of Chamath who I believe basically blew up anyone who invested in him but got out very rich.

Is literally every famous Indian exec Brahmin class? I couldn’t verify Chamath. But looks like Nooyi and Nadella both Brahmin.

Brahmin itself doesn’t mean much since there are 70 million of them, it’s the dominance of the Tamil Brahmins specifically that’s particularly interesting.

I actually had to look that up last night to find 4-5% of Indians are Brahmins.

If we are going to be discussing Indian politicians since they seem to be running then I feel like we need a long post on what to know. I’m picking up a little.

Many but not all are Brahmins; my impression is that most who are not Brahmins come from some small, obscure (outside India) hyper-specific prestigious jati.

Vivek himself hails from a specific subset within Tamil Brahmins, Kerala Iyers of Palakkad. There can't be more than, like, 80k of them (probably more like 10k); I think it'd be amazing to discover that any other prominent American can be traced back to that tiny endogamous community.

Scrolling relatively large (compared to their population) list of notable Iyers, they tend to be actors and entertainers, not heavyweight STEM geniuses.

Well, these skills are exactly what democratic politician needs. The free and democratic world better get ready for total Iyer domination.

I guess this is about what I expected. Never made any money, never added any value, screwed over every investor he ever had, got out with the best part of a billion dollars. But that’s the thing, actually successful entrepreneurs rarely have the skillset for politics.

Sounds like the Republican Andrew Yang. I expect he'll perform similarly.

Vivek is vastly more charismatic and personable than Yang. He's everywhere, on everyone's podcast, all the time for a reason.

And he's also not afraid to get partisan and defend say...Trump against the lawsuits/speak well outside of his experience (e.g. foreign policy) which may be bad for a professor or someone appealing to professors but pretty good for a political candidate, especially in the GOP.

The reading list of someone who really vibes with Vivek's points about America may be very similar to someone that was a fan of Yang's, but Vivek will probably play better with the TV watching class

Now I want him to join Yang's Forward party and try to run for POTUS that way against Biden and Trump. Would be hilarious to see, especially in the very low likelihood that he gains any sort of significant following.

Now that's a ticket I'd kill to see! 🤣

Their backstories rhyme, but Yang is playing to Grey Tribe superegos. Ramaswamy is a next-gen populist, a Shift to Trump’s Puzzle.

My surprise at seeing a The Last Battle reference here (what fraction of the commenters are familiar enough with it to recognize the reference, I wonder?) was quickly accompanied by confusion at how the analogy is supposed to work. Puzzle is a mostly-unwitting tool of Shift all along, not an independent conman who is superseded by a better one...

I’m glad anyone got it! Very much an imperfect analogy but it felt right somehow. /u/zeke5123 has the core of it — that Vivek will end up using Trump as a figurehead to advance his own ends and ambition. Maybe I’m overestimating Vivek and/or underestimating Trump, but for all his animal cunning, I still see some confused generous boomer in Donald, whereas Vivek is all 2nd gen migrant ambition and ruthlessness. There’s also the fact that Puzzle is vastly more virtuous than either of them, but as I say, it was mostly a vibes-based analogy.

Rabadash? I would say Trump is a fool who thinks he is the great Tash himself! At least Rabadash was a rightful and legitimate heir unlike Trump.

lmao

LOL. I regret that I have but one upvote to give for this comment.

I too had a similar reaction to the analogy. Puzzle wasn’t just a tool of shift, but was a good hearted Donkey concerned more about others than himself. That doesn’t describe Trump.

I guess maybe the thought is Trump will nominate Vivek as his VP and Vivek will bamboozle Trump into doing what Vivek wants?

what fraction of the commenters are familiar enough with it to recognize the reference, I wonder?

You'd be surprised! Some of us alternate between Lewis, Chesterton and Tolkien quotes on a regular basis 😁

I too am a member of this club. (Actually, although I quoted Lewis in my top level comment downthread, I'm not sure if I've actually quoted the others in my few Motte posts yet. It's only a matter of time, though.)

What struck me so strongly is that the reference was just dropped in with no explanation, as one might a Biblical or mythological allusion, or a reference to some other ubiquitous cultural touchstone. The implication that the readers would be expected to actually follow the reference absent a citation was... well, about the only place I'd be confident of that landing for most of the audience is in a Lewis society.

We're a higher class of annoying fighters on the Internet here! 😁

TLB is a bit of a deep cut. But I actually think it is the best book in the whole series.

I'll be honest; I assumed they were name-dropping rappers.

I feel like Vivek is more of a salesman and Yang is more of an engineer.

I haven't seen much from Vivek so far, but what I have seen is mostly him iterating the populist right's position on every issue. He's very articulate about it. He's very direct about it. But I get a strong sense that he's just saying what the populist right wants to hear.

Yang, on the other hand, was out there pushing weird-sounding solutions for real, or future problems. Automation taking jobs? UBI!. Police using their gun too much? They should have a purple belt in BJJ. These don't sound like things you'd say if you want to be popular, but I get a sense that he was genuinely trying to come up with ideas to solve stuff.

Looks like another one of the many, many golden boys who had success and decided that 1) all problems have solutions and 2) they know how to figure them out. I predict he wouldn't even do well enough to be crushed by Trump. Though maybe he'll attract some of "like Trump, but not a boomer, because boomers are so passé" audience. I don't expect this audience to be huge.

a campaign centered on truth and national revival

Oh, that's a relief. I was thinking for a minute he's going to run a campaign based on lies and destruction of the nation, as all other candidates always do, but looks like he found the golden recipe here. It's a pity nobody ever tried to run a campaign based on that before, but now I'm sure his success is assured.

Looks like another one of the many, many golden boys who had success and decided that 1) all problems have solutions and 2) they know how to figure them out.

Marginally better than the people who:

  • Throw up their hands and say we should wallow in stupidity and despair because it's hard
  • Capitalize on feels > reals to grift off the masses

Technocrats are unelectable, sure, but it doesn't mean we should stop trying.

Sure thing, there are many things that are worse than a technocrat golden boy. But when doing something like electing a candidate for president, we're not limited to consider only worse things, we actually can consider better things.

Throw up their hands and say we should wallow in stupidity and despair because it's hard

The problem is not that things are hard. The problem is when people try to "fix" things without realizing how hard they are and why they are hard. Each problem has a simple, clear and wrong solution. And that's the one the golden boy would rush to, breaking through all Chesterton fences on the way. Should we admire him for his zeal, can do attitude and energy? Maybe. Should we entrust him with our destinies because it's better than wallow in stupidity? No way.

Capitalize on feels > reals to grift off the masses

Saying it like it is is a great quality. The problem comes when you start thinking that what you think it is is really what it is. Because more often than not, that's not the case, and lack of epistemic humility, combined with a healthy disdain for status quo and a bias for action, can lead to great things - or to spectacular epic failures. I'm not sure that "exploding lottery ticket" is the right model for a future President. And if we need somebody explosion-prone, we already got Trump anyway.

Technocrats are unelectable, sure, but it doesn't mean we should stop trying.

I'm not sure we should even start, until they unlearn phrases like "science is settled" and "trust the experts".

Are you his campaign manager?

I might wind up supporting him, but a lot of your information is (at best) misleading. “Moonlighting as a rapper” is actually just occasionally singing the lyrics to Eminem at coffee houses. “Came with nothing” means being a landed aristocratic Brahmin-born engineer with a degree from India. He’s an “accomplished pianist” in the sense that he can hit some keys with graceful mediocrity. I’m too lazy to fact check everything but I’m going to assume large Ramaswathes of it are wrong, and I find the adulation a bit Ramaswarmy.

Funny, and I was intentionally leaning into grandiosity above, but I do think you're underselling things a bit. He actually had a rap persona 'Da Vek' that he wrote / freestyled his own oft political lyrics for in front of large audiences, it wasn't just occasional karaoke -

During his time as an undergrad at Harvard, Ramaswamy had a side-hustle as a libertarian-minded rap artist who went by the stage name “Da Vek" [...] In 2004, he got word that Harvard was doing an open call for student performers to be warm-up acts for Busta Rhymes, who that spring was to perform at the school’s Lavietes Pavilion. Ramaswamy took a shot. It was the first time he tried it. And it worked. According the the school’s paper, 3,000 students attended the event, which was advertised as the “hugest concert in Harvard history.”

The 'accomplished pianist' language comes directly from The New Yorker's profile of him, ymmv with how impressive you suppose that may actually be. Here's a longer video where he seems to be able to play reasonably complex pieces purely from memory - agreed that it doesn't seem like professional level, but surely on par with Clinton's famed saxophone skills at the very least?

(Obviously these are somewhat trivial asides, but I think they reflect a genuine innate multi-disciplinary talent indicative of high g)

As for his parents' financial circumstances, couldn't find much on their background but Vivek and his brother Shankar (a doctor who graduated from Harvard and Brown and also went on to found a billion+ dollar company) went to majority-black public schools in Dayton, Ohio until the violent incident upthread and Vivek talks about how he had to go with his dad to night classes for law school as a kid because his mom worked extra hours and they couldn't get a sitter. Seems like a relatively humble background, at least in comparison to his Ivy League peers, and the extreme upward mobility aspect is undeniable

To be fair he may have been a lot better in his schooling days. I played for more than a decade growing up and havent touch a piano regularly for years. If i were to play something I would actually choose that exact song and id probably play at his level in the video at best

If i were to play something I would actually choose that exact song

Really? Bach's Prelude in C major from the Well Tempered Clavier is significantly easier to maintain a regular flow in if you haven't played in a long time and sounds nicer too if you ask me.

I haven't played piano in 15 years or more, and the piece I would go for would be Rach prelude op. 3 no. 2. Sometimes familiarity beats everything else?

Yeah, familiarily definitely helps (I personally would go for Liszt's Liebestraum No 3 due to familiarity, plus also the beauty of that piece can be appreciated by everyone, no matter how base they may be), but the prelude is easy enough that you should just be able to sight read it at a decent tempo with high accuracy if you used to be good, and also the arpeggios are such that even if you miss a note for a neighbor it'll still sound OK.

Maybe, but I also see no evidence anywhere that he was ever an “accomplished pianist”. This phrase has a very specific meaning that is unevidenced. It doesn’t mean that you’ve played an instrument for a decade, but have won competitions or appeared in legitimate productions.

Thats fair, and im not saying im was ever at that level either of course. Tho i assume to a normie “accomplished pianist” means playing difficult pieces, not necessarily “next Lang Lang”

Funnily enough it was Lang Lang who cemented Alla Turca’s status as a meme song.

Are ye all taking OP seriously? I thought it was clearly tongue-in-cheek and indeed was slagging the guy off with the adulation, but maybe that's me reading it through an Irish lens, where this kind of praise would definitely be intended to be read as "this fella thinks the sun shines out of his arse so I'm going to mock him relentlessly".

I keep forgetting that for Americans, all their geese are swans and they'd read this kind of piece as not satirical but genuine 😁

Yeah for a forum supposedly comprised of high-IQ individuals, a little indirect humor seems to go over quite a few heads here. Poe's law and all that, but the OP seems obviously just a kick-off for discussion of Vivek.

“A little”?

The OP was blindingly obvious humor.

Much of the good discussion requires taking it at face value - responding point by point to some of the ridiculous exaggerations, for instance.

But taking the sentiment seriously:

Tonight, mainstream audiences around the nation will be introduced to Vivek Ramaswamy - multi-disciplinary genius, serial entrepreneur, modern renaissance man, and nigh-messianic wünderkind who in this commenter’s humble opinion offers our beleaguered country’s best hope of national redemption

... is ridiculous. No single person is all of those things, on the entire planet.

Maybe I'm wrong and this wasn't meant in jest. But I don't think so.

Let me rephrase.

It was so obviously ridiculous that it made people confused and/or disdainful. "A little" humor is one thing. This much sets off alarm bells for a troll or, possibly, a zealot. Someone who is burying their opinion behind irony and comedy. That's hard to engage with, and it's also not Speaking Plainly™. Just because this guy wanted to imitate the Navy Seal copypasta doesn't mean he's actually looking for a good discussion.

It's less effusive than most "mainstream" media coverage of the Obamas over the last 20 years.

I know you can point to the old “thrill up the leg” and other bits of purple prose, but you’re still being pretty hyperbolic.

Uh...

You've gotten reported twice in the ten minutes this post has been up. I immediately recognized you from your mountain of AAQCs back in the old country, but this is apparently just your third post here on the new site, and it reads like artificially-breathless marketing copy, to the point that I immediately checked to see if this was copypasta. At minimum, even though you never outright say "vote for Vivek!" this seems like a pretty clear example of recruiting for a cause.

You're free to make your case for Vivek, of course, but phrases like "multi-disciplinary genius," "dazzlingly bright young maverick," and "young and daring patriot" are, in their own brightly-smiling way, egregiously obnoxious--it's pure, unapologetic rhetoric of the kind people use to subtly build consensus and conformity. I did hesitate to even say anything; given how often I'm forced to moderate a black-pilled flame-out, someone making a positive case is automatically a breath of fresh air. But this doesn't read like @Sizzle50 making a good argument, this reads like @Sizzle50 writing ad copy.

Don't forget "paradigm shift".

Seriously, are you all believing this post on face value, or am I crazy?

As an Irish person, this reads like a textbook example of slagging though less affectionate, you can slag someone off for being a feckin' eejit. But everyone is reacting as if it's VOTE FOR VIVEK VIVEK OUR SAVIOUR BESTEST GUY EVER. Meanwhile I'm going "Oh, that's harsh, even if he deserves to be mocked". EDIT: It's the very excess of the praise for mundane accomplishments (e.g. playing the piano), if they're even accomplishments, that denotes it as slagging. Piling Pelion on Ossa for the wonderfulness of the marvellousness of the amazingness.

Talk about cultural disconnect!

A case this week highlighted that we haven't quite found the line where insult as compliment becomes insult as insult. A pipe-fitter from the UK was awarded €20,000 because his Irish colleagues abused him. They read out negative football results about the English team in the World Cup, sang rebel songs and whenever a dangerous job came up said 'send the Brit in'.

The man took it all as personal assault. The people doing it probably believed their actions to be nationally acceptable: we take pride in beating the English. Ray Houghton is still a national hero because of his goal against England in Euro '88. Christy Moore even wrote a song calling Houghton's goal 'revenge for Skibbereen'. Sure it's only a bit of craic. We don't really mean any harm.

Because insulting each other is so much a part of what we do, we find it odd that someone could object. But lots of people find offensive what we find normal; a colleague of mine was recently at a two-day meeting in New York. Early on, he realised that one of the Americans in attendance was an obnoxious, distant, dislikeable pain in the arse. But, because he had to get the best out of him, he spent the first coffee break trying to establish what was wrong.

Turned out to be simple. One word: 'Jaysus'. Every time my colleague said it, the American flinched because he regarded it as blasphemy. In a situation like that there's no point trying to explain that 'Jaysus' is used by the Irish in a way that has shag all to do with the man upstairs. No point explaining that even Irish priests use 'Jaysus' willy-nilly. No amount of argument would change the American's mind about what he saw to be blasphemy.

The bolded part is what gets me into trouble here all the time 😁

EDIT EDIT: I love ye all, lads, but there's no denying ye can be dry shites at times.

The man took it all as personal assault. The people doing it probably believed their actions to be nationally acceptable: we take pride in beating the English. Ray Houghton is still a national hero because of his goal against England in Euro '88. Christy Moore even wrote a song calling Houghton's goal 'revenge for Skibbereen'. Sure it's only a bit of craic. We don't really mean any harm.

Context matters too. I work with a bunch of different nationalities and the Franco-Brit ribbing took on a distinctly different tone to me as the ratio became more and more unbalanced.

It would still be speaking unclearly.

Seriously, are you all believing this post on face value, or am I crazy?

I don't think you're crazy, and I definitely thought about addressing that angle in the mod message, but I didn't immediately see a good way to do that without wandering into my own substantive thoughts on the matter.

The thing about writing this sort of post as satire is that Poe's Law looms large. "You didn't get the joke" is a response that transforms the initial problem into a clearer one--a violation of the "speak plainly" rule.

"Dry shites" is the name of my Ska band.

I felt the same way reading it, I wasn't sure if it was parody.


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