domain:experimental-history.com
professorgerm
clutching my imitation pearls
7m ago
Tim Walz style "black pepper is too spicy" is a racist joke, shibboleth, and tribal signal.
"That fascist deserved to get shot in front of his kids, let's do it again" may be a tribal signal, but it's not a joke. Wearing a symbol of terrorism is a tribal signal, but also not a joke.
I, for one, am not such a free speech advocate that I would be opposed to banning all of it. The only stumbling block is that, as we already see, enforcement would be wildly biased in favor of the left's shitbirds having no consequences.
Iconochasm
2. Bootstrap the rest of the fucking omnipotence.
9m ago
It's especially hilarious because they do show trashy, low class, black-coded people and every one of them is a wigger and it's still as cringy and lame as a white principal trying to "rap with these kids" in 1990 because not a single person involved in the production has ever had a five minute conversation with a black person who did not have a college degree.
MaiqTheTrue
Renrijra Krin
16m ago
I mean it is pearl clutching if the support for Hitler is a very small portion of the Young Republicans. You can find crazy people in any population of people. There are blacks who believe the Natiin of Islam’s Yacuub theory. There are outright communists on the left. There are Christian nationalists who want to make other religions illegal. I find the isolated demands for decorum to be a bit silly simply because it’s always the right who has to justify and denounce its crazy people while the left gets a complete pass. Yes, Nazis are a problem, yes we should denounce them, but im still waiting for democrats to be forced to answer for: communists, woke crazies, “the resistance” (who insist that the current administration is “the regime” to be opposed at all costs), and anti-religious zealots. It doesn’t happen. It’s just the right told to denounce crazies. Kamala was never asked about groups like “Refuse Fascism” that posit that MAGA is fascism. They are never asked to tone down the rhetoric or denounce crazies as the price of being seen as respectable. Why should the GOP be asked to pre-smear itself with craziness (by calling attention to it) when it’s so one sided? It’s the “have you stopped beating your wife” thing on a political scale. To answer is to smear yourself.
professorgerm
clutching my imitation pearls
16m ago
If a leftwing group chat made jokes about the Holodomor, Mao or Pol Pot, this would make me very much disinclined to trust them with any power, as they have clearly not learned from the past.
Jokes on you, nobody else cares! I mean, I agree that they absolutely shouldn't be trusted with so much as town dogcatcher. But that hasn't stopped anyone to the left of Mitt Romney in my lifetime. Praising communist psychopaths gets you elite university professions and has no negative consequences.
Iconochasm
2. Bootstrap the rest of the fucking omnipotence.
18m ago
Your brothers are crazy and I've never seen a single indication that you even think it's a problem. You just engage in pure "arguments as soldiers" arguing.
But by all means, show us the way. Demonstrate some policing of your own side.
Corvos
18m ago
I think there is a crisis of earnestness, people are absolutely allergic to being serious which creates this sort of “Haha just joking….unless?” aspect which rightly scares people. In part I blame Trump for the degradation of seriousness as a virtue in American politics, but perhaps he was more a effect than a cause.
Surely the crisis of earnestness is downstream of the fact that the overton window was tiny for a very long time in regards to subjects people really cared about? Trump and the current irony-drenched commentators succeeded because they were able to parley common opinions such as
'maybe driving blue-workers' wages down with illegal immigration is hurting them'
and
'maybe white people aren't responsible for everything bad that happens to people of colour and everything bad done by people of colour'
past the censors. The earnest people were stomped on repeatedly until everyone except the most quokka of quokkas got the message.
professorgerm
clutching my imitation pearls
19m ago
It's somewhat older but had a resurgence when AOC was doing her Green New Deal schtick, which was called green but was mostly about wealth redistribution and spoils for the preferred groups.
Iconochasm
2. Bootstrap the rest of the fucking omnipotence.
21m ago
And that rhetoric has, in fact, recieved an enormous amount of lattitude, to the point where it's users can't even recognize a moment (say, immediately after a political assassination driven by said rhetoric) to settle down and have an ounce of respect.
Though I guess I can understand why leftwingers would assume this was water-testing for literal violence - it's what they do, after all.
professorgerm
clutching my imitation pearls
22m ago
Where does endless escalation lead and tit for tat reprisals?
Cooperate-bot is a good way to lose forever.
Are we expecting some kind of come-to-Jesus mutual disarmament moment or just escalation until Civil War?
There needs to be a sufficiently-influential and popular figure that can actually, credibly lead the first move. Unfortunately, no one like that exists on either side, and neither side believes they need to be the one to produce that figure. There's no longer a messianic organizer, an MLK or Billy Graham, that can credibly speak to and for enough people.
I have to recognize it is always possible to conjure self-serving reasons why “this time it’s different.”
I started reading Nussbaum's From Disgust to Humanity yesterday, and was immediately struck by how self-serving and blinkered liberal usage of the disgust concept is. Indeed, it is always possible, and this circles back to the lack of the messianic figure.
I think peace requires you to put aside the different river instinct and recognize it is similar enough
Is public versus private similar enough for these purposes? Or is this, as an anti-parallel to recognize one can always conjure self-serving reasons as to why it's different, a desire to conjure a self-serving reason why it's not? Jay Jones is much more similar than the Kirk commentary, and I think lumping them together weakens your broader point for that reason.
We don't have to go fully braindead and think that Lawrence v Texas means public indecency laws are moot.
2D3D
38m ago
The military is the most racist and sexist and homophobic culture that is also the gayest race blind society in practice (except the USN which is race segregated by shop). Still sexist as fuck but thats the reality of kinetic capality being inviolate.
ControlsFreak
54m ago
I'm not sure why we'd assume a continuity of ancient atheism and modern atheism.
I don't know that I would. But I think that's kind of not my point. My point is more that I saw the reasoning as being, "Look at these people, having an Ethics and Politics; that's Christian!" (Yes, that's a simplified caricature.) I don't think that qualifies it as being a "Christian heretical sect".
In general, I should probably make an effort post on what it would be to be a "______ heretical sect". Tentatively, I would expect that one would find some folks in that sect writing within the context of the tradition that they are being heretical from. I think it likely that you would find them claiming that what they are doing is that tradition, while others in that tradition are saying that their work is actually heretical. I highly doubt that if we go look at the folks who developed the frameworks for wokism and the like, we will find them writing, "Jesus Christ is our Lord; we are doing our best to follow Him as we find guidance in the bible. Here are the parts of the bible that support our woke doctrines and guide our sect."
There may be other ways to argue that folks are a "______ heretical sect"; thus the need for a larger effortpost. But that would be, I think, the top-tier type of evidence.
Consider New Atheism: their moral critique of Christianity was that it was a) unnecessary and b) insufficiently universalist
I think you put a lot of stock in the universalist axis, and I don't think it's that load-bearing. Again, it's a bit of a superficial relation. Not quite "Hitler was a vegetarian", but yeah, I think we can find a range of views on the universalist axis across all sorts of traditions.
Criticisms of the morality of the Old Testament God are born of the same impulse that gave us an actual, clear Christian heresy like gnosticism: the god of the Hebrew Bible, at first blush, fails by the standards of the New Testament/NT-inspired modern morality.
Oh boy. This one takes a whole lot more actual theology, but I'm not really sure how it's germane to the question at hand of the provenance of wokism.
The other claim is that science can fill the role religion plays as an arbiter of truth, a moral authority and a source of meaning and the sense of the numinous. I see no reason for these to be basic atheistic assumptions. A lot of our debates are about principles. And truth doesn't have to be numinous.
This is a within-atheists fight between sects, which I wrote about:
I've observed plenty that The Ethics was always a sore spot for Internet Atheism; they just couldn't figure it out, and they ran off in a bunch of different directions with mutually-contradictory sects, some trying to prop up some form of "science-based" "objective" version and others often running headlong into naive meta-ethical relativism. Interestingly, you see both forms in Wokism, depending on how hard you scratch and how far up the priesthood you inquire.
orthoxerox
If you can read this, you're using a custom theme
55m ago
I do find it funny/trendy when people label "eating a late breakfast" as intermittent fasting.
Why not? A late breakfast and an early dinner is the easiest form of IF.
Primaprimaprima
Aliquid stat pro aliquo
57m ago
You've probably been hearing that we're in an AI bubble. I think that's both loaded and reductive, and I'd like to take some time to help people understand the nuances of the situation we're currently in, because it's deep. To be clear, I am pro AI as a technology and I have an economic interest in its success (and for reasons I'll discuss, so should you), however there is a lot more going on that I don't agree with that I'd like to raise awareness of.
AI capital investments are running far ahead of expected returns, and the pace of investment is accelerating. Analysts estimate AI-linked activity drove roughly 40–90% of H1-2025 U.S. GDP growth and 75–80% of S&P 500 gains. If it wasn't for AI investments, it's likely the United States would be in a recession right now. According to Harris Kupperman of Praetorian Capital “the industry probably needs a revenue range that is closer to the $320 billion to $480 billion range, just to break even on the capex to be spent this year.” It sure sounds like a bubble, however thinking of it as just another bubble would be doing a disservice to the magnitude of the dynamics at play here. To understand why, we have to explore the psychology of the investors involved and the power circles they're operating in.
The elites of Silicon Valley have cozied up to Donald Trump in a way that's unprecedented in the history of modern democracy. They've lined the pockets of his presidential library foundation, supported his white house renovations, paid for his inauguration and provided a financial lifeline for the Republican party. Between Elon Musk, David Sacks, Sriram Krishnan, Peter Thiel and his acolyte J.D. Vance, Trump has been sold the story that AI dominance is a strategic asset of vital importance to national security (there's probably also a strong ego component, America needs "the best AI, such a beautiful AI"). I'm not speculating, this is clearly written into the BBB and the language of multiple executive orders. These people think AI is the last thing humans will invent, and the first person to have it will reap massive rewards until the other powers can catch up. As such, they're willing to bend the typical rules of capitalism. Think of this as the early stages of a wartime economy.
[...]
I'm going to say something that sounds a little crazy, but please bear with me: from a geopolitical perspective, what we're doing is a rational play, and depending on how valuable/powerful you expect AI to be and how hostile you expect a dominant China to be, possibly a near optimal one. If you're a traditional capitalist, it probably looks like a bad move to you regardless of your beliefs about AI; you're going to need to put those aside. This is not a traditional economic situation. We're in an arms race, and we're veering into a wartime economy, or at least that's how the powerful view it.
[...]
Returning to the traditional capitalists, I'd like to note that they aren't wrong; this AI push is unsustainable (for us). I'm not sure how long we can run our economy hot and directed before the wheels come off, but my napkin estimate is between 5-10 years, though it's likely we'll lose the political will to keep pushing before that point if the AI transformation is underwhelming and we still have a democracy. To further support the traditional capitalists' position, if AI unwinds at that point having under-delivered, the economic damage will probably be an order of magnitude greater than if we had just let the bubble deflate naturally. This will be exacerbated by the favorable treatment the administration will make sure the Oligarchs receive; we will suffer, they will coast.
Where does all this leave us? For one, you better hope and pray that AI delivers a magical transformation, because if it doesn't, the whole economy will collapse into brutal serfdom. When I say magic here, I mean it; because of the ~38T national debt bomb, a big boost is not enough. If AI doesn't completely transform our economy, the massive capital misallocation combined with the national debt is going to cause our economy to implode.
I don't have the expertise needed to evaluate the economic arguments, so I'm mainly posting this here to solicit feedback on the linked article.
It's probably too late to avoid a future of "brutal serfdom" regardless of what happens, even if we reach singularity escape velocity. Power will do what it always has done, which is centralize in the hands of a few to the detriment of the many; turning every human into a cyborg god won't change that (you simply have the problem of organizing the coexistence of cyborg gods rather than the problem of organizing the coexistence of baseline humans). To think otherwise is to implicitly rely on a Rousseauean (and anti-Hobbesean, channeling Hlynka) presupposition that people are basically good and just and suffering is merely an incidental byproduct of material lack, which we have reason to be skeptical of. The second half of the 20th century provided what were probably the most fertile material and social conditions for freedom that have ever been seen in human history; regardless of wherever we're going now, we're leaving freedom in the rear-view mirror.
cae_jones
1hr ago
FWICT, the right believes that Trump is in the process of trying to rig the elections by:
- Deporting illegals, since many on the right believe that places like California and Oregon actually have been making it possible for them to vote.
- Pushing for more gerrymandering, claiming it's in defiance of far more extreme democrat gerrymandering.
- The VRA is currently before SCOTUS, and if gutted, could lead to the loss of several majority black districts in the South.
Additionally, the Putin loophole does not seem to be addressed in the 22nd Amendment. I think Trump running as Vance's VP as a backdoor into a third term would go against the spirit of the 22nd, but whether it's actually forbidden would be something the courts would have to decide.
ActuallyATleilaxuGhola
Axolotl Tank Class of '24
1hr ago
My wife and kids are my meaning generator. The low COL area is where some of my extended family lives, and it is religiously, politically, and culturally compatible. Job market is meh, but I've been working remote for years now. I should probably just take a lower-gear tech job and just ride it for a while.
ToaKraka
Dislikes you
1hr ago
Interesting article: Renault–Geely engine unit speeds up as EV shift stutters
When French carmaker Renault and China's Geely carved out their combustion-engine operations in 2022, the venture looked like a footnote to an outdated technology. Now, Horse Powertrain has a new lease of life.
The joint venture aims to become the world's top engine maker by 2035, betting that legacy carmakers pivoting to EVs will still need suppliers to make combustion engines for them as the energy transition stutters.
Pitching itself as a one-stop shop for automakers, producing everything from hybrid engines to the small combustion units that extend range in plug-in EVs, Horse is targeting annual revenue of 15 billion euros (17 billion dollars) by 2029, up 80 % from 2024, according to a Reuters analysis.
Giannini says Horse is currently the world's no. 3 engine maker, with 17 engine and transmission factories previously run by Renault, Geely Holding, and Geely unit Volvo Cars, including eight in China.
Horse's [CEO Matias] Giannini expects 50 % of new cars to be EVs in 2040. Others predict more. But, even then, tens of millions of new hybrid cars will still need engines.
"Let automakers concentrate on their transition to EVs… while we support them with highly efficient hybrid engines and transmissions," Giannini said.
Renault expects to save 2 billion euros in engine development by 2030 via outsourcing to Horse, and Giannini is pitching those savings to new customers.
Horse currently produces over eight million engines and transmissions annually for more than 15 automakers, including Renault, Dacia, Volvo Cars, Nissan, Mitsubishi, and Mercedes-Benz.
According to a source close to the matter, Horse is pursuing about 100 projects across all its products and markets—from cars to boats, construction equipment, and drones.
Geely and Renault own 45 % of Horse each. Oil producer Saudi Aramco owns the remaining 10 %.
Horse itself is betting on new technologies, including plug-in hybrids (PHEVs). It has also launched a suitcase-sized combustion engine for extended-range electric vehicles (EREVs), which use a small engine to boost an EV's range.
I feel like the premise is false. Consumption takes a very small amount of resources.
The question real question is: would you be fine living in a low COL area with all the social isolation (moving away from family and friends) and lack of services that entails? Otherwise the question should be what amount of money for consumption do you need per year in order to be satisfied, to which the answer for me is almost nothing.
I don't work in order to be able to consume more, I work to pay for my house and as a meaning generator.
Corvos
1hr ago
Used to be common, maybe these days a bit less so as ‘Reds’ stopped being a thing 95% of people could agree are bad.
Often indicative of deeper beliefs
It can be that, but it can also be the complete opposite. For example, I trust myself to not engage in immoral behaviour, therefore I do not walk on egg-shells around moral subjects (this scares the shit out of some people, though)
Homosexuals might find it easier to joke about how gay they are, but as will straight people who have overcome any fear of being thought of as gay, because they know for sure that they're not. As with the Horse Shoe Theory, the correlation is curved.
A lot of people with dark humor have been victims of the things that they joke about, by the way. I find it quite distasteful when people who haven't experienced such things accuse them of being insensitive, which is often what happens. Too much morality is performative, and I find this whole situation to be another instance of people point fingers at others in order to feel morally superior and score virtue signaling points, or at the very least it's a reaction prompted by fear (rather than goodwill, taste, actual concern, etc)
You could argue that some jokes are bad taste, but I think this depends on a lot of factors, and that most of them are hard to judge from an outside perspective. Once you know a person well, you will be able to tell their real attitude towards things that they joke about, and the mindset which prompted the joke.
Edit: Extra thing of note: If somebody is a bad person, it's better for everyone if they show it than to hide it. For this reason, I see no point in punishing speech even if it's vile.
SkoomaDentist
The Greater Finnish Empire
1hr ago
How do those countries handle cases of "odd jobs" and stuff like that? If you're a farmer that makes money by, I dunno, selling grain, how does the government know how much was sold? Or if you sell goods/services direct to consumers?
A farmer already has a business, so those would be handled the same way as any other business transactions. Selling small scale goods / services requires reporting the income if it exceeds a small threshold, but that's still fairly easy and can be done online. If it's more substantial, you may want to start a business. There are also services for people who do occasionally freelancing gigs that charge a small percentage fee to act as their official employers, so the client doesn't have to deal with paperwork and the person doesn't have to deal with the extra complexity of starting up a business.
FtttG
2hr ago
I had heard of it before, but using "watermelon" in reference to pro-Palestine types seems overwhelmingly more likely.
MaximumCuddles
The world-spirit texting on the toilet
2hr ago
While this is true, amongst the young it’s mostly used to describe pro-Hamas types on social media who use the watermelon emoji because it has the same colors as the flag of Palestine (🇵🇸 🍉)
When I think of a watermelon in a political sense I think of what you’re describing, a commie using (often fake) concern for the environment but only when it pits them against their favored enemies.
Browser
2hr ago
I've literally never heard of this interpretation as a fairly lively culture war reader. Either Palestinian watermelon emojis or 'black people like watermelon' feel overwhelmingly more likely
Fellow former liberal here. I also would had been offended by those chats 10 or 15 years ago. These days, I just shrug. When the left wing stopped being about tolerance and acceptance and started being about finding a new group of people to hate (e.g. how the illiberal left hates men who date in other countries[1]) I became a lot more jaded, cynical, and apolitical.
[1] I have a lot of real world female platonic friends, and they all universally support me living in another country and dating women there. The only people in the real world who at all opposed me dating in another country are both men: One straight man and one gay man.
Is "I've rewritten the dictionary so I can't be racist" really an acceptable reason to call them not racist, though?
That whole "whiteness doesn't mean white people" thing was loathsome racist gaslighting and that 'deflection' does not change the state of reality.
More options
Context Copy link