domain:astralcodexten.substack.com
Fruck
Lacks all conviction
10m ago
This is why David Hogg was called a jackass for trying to primary fellow democrats as DNC chair. It was an explicit break from the premise of the DNC as a neutral leadership institution for democrats anywhere. The value of a reputation of neutrality is that people don’t expect neutral actors to be that sort of backstabber, and they don't make plans to backstab the neutral actors either. It reduces internal coalition tensions.
Of course, if you thought the DNC was neutral before Hogg you were mistaken. They have learned since Clinton made a joint funding agreement with the DNC that effectively gave her control of the party for her run against Sanders in 2016, leading to the wikileaks emails that showed key DNC officials suggesting strategies for the Clinton campaign to use against Sanders and Donna Brazile feeding Clinton debate questions. Primarily they learned not to use email to discuss that sort of thing. That's how you maintain neutrality!
What always struck me as weird though, was that people act like the DCCC are somehow separate from the DNC, despite both being commanded by the party leadership. So when the DCCC blacklisted vendors from supplying Justice Democrat candidates like AOC on behalf of the incumbents, that's somehow different from if the DNC had done it. It's a real "Clark Kent wears glasses. Superman doesn't wear glasses. How are you confusing these guys?" vibe.
Wohlfe
18m ago
I would just recommend you take your time travelling on highway 101, it's such a beautiful piece of the country. If you can swing it, I'd recommend not cutting through Portland and going the long way down 101 before heading east through Salem. Tillamook is a nice little afternoon getaway if you're big fans of dairy products, Astoria is a cute cozy little city, and the area around Tillamook Bay is wonderful (if a little touristy).
Tree
21m ago
A handful (effectively: 1-2 that are very close to each other) of ideologies dominating the mass-media ecosystem seems to fit right into my model, and "dissidents" buying a SocMed is far from a contradiction.
-
Imaginary bailey of 100% strong mind control : everything is controlled by one ideology, no dissenting centers of power. People have no independent minds, they just receive the transmissions the elites send, when they deem something not worth censoring.
-
Imaginary bailey of 0% mind control: people vote and buy only in accordance with their intimate conviction, deep desire, and pure, untainted knowledge. you cannot buy any influence at all. censorship never works. The centers of power perfectly represent the ideological population distribution.
-
The mottes, our true positions: golden middle of enlightened centrism, haggling on 20-80% mind control. Land of on the one hand, on the other hand.
This conversation is each of us arguing against a bailey the other doesn't actually wish to defend.
For example, it would be silly to try to represent the population's beliefs 1-to-1 (using a stringent form of ideological AA) in, say, hollywood, or newspapers. Is this not obvious? It's one thing to occasionally force a woman or a conservative in to make sure there's a little bit of everything, and prove they are not excluded, it's another to force equal representation. AA devolves into completely unmeritocratic fixed roles for everyone, without regard for ability or interest: the 8th employee must be a 30 yo black creationist, 9th a 50 yo redhead anti-vax woman, etc.
I don't think I heard anyone tell me they want to reward the company for a particularly well-made ad
If you see attractive people on a boat drinking Trademark, or a 4x4 Trademark driving though the wilderness on TV, it can move you, and if so, it does add to your enjoyment of the product later. Thank you michael jordan for making me feel like michael jordan when I put on these michael jordan shoes.
It can also inform you of a sale or a new product that alone can meet your peculiar needs, but that's standard ad apologism.
The deeper question is whether the ad can just totally subvert your 'true wishes', or if it is limited in its effects, can even in some cases bring you something positive, or reveal your true wishes. The same goes for political influence: I don't think you can convince people of anything, censor anything, buy any idiot the presidency. There are limits to what this mind control/nudging can achieve.
VoxelVexillologist
Multidimensional Radical Centrist
31m ago
It missed its chance to be the one and only 10th Amendment precedent.
Terracotta
53m ago
Some things aren't worth taking risks on, especially when the payoff is low, the risks are enormous, and my disposition is the catalyst for those risks
Well, it's not like you're signing the marriage license by asking a woman out; you could just enjoy learning about her and having a fun time together, day by day. I totally get the masochistic appeal of shutting oneself away in proud, bitterly high-minded self-isolation. But in the meantime you do miss out on the opportunity to share some potentially good (or at least interesting) company, to appreciate somebody's good points and be appreciated by them in turn.
As for overweight women, well, that is just prejudice. I'm in the USA. Our fat is a special kind of fat, and the fatter that fat gets the more viscerally I am repulsed by it.
You doubtless know that this means being viscerally repulsed by like 80% of adult men and 75% of adult women in the country, and as a smart guy you probably realize that such big feelings must be coming from a bunch of your own and your parents' stuff, not just from the bodies in front of you. Sometimes I look at old photos of working people, and those people are also tragically less beautiful than they should have been, through a similar combination of too little sleep, poor-quality food, shitty jobs, contaminated surroundings, illness, sorrow, sin and old trauma. I'm not sure any of us is all that beautiful, inside or out, but it would be hard to feel this stressed by it, and I'm sorry you're dealing with this.
I've really appreciated how reflective and fair-minded your responses are here; thank you! Hope better days are ahead for you.
SnapDragon
1hr ago
pusher_robot
PLEASE GO STAND BY THE STAIRS
1hr ago
Yes, I think generally similarly-sized SUVs have a higher vehicle curb weight, which cuts into towing capacity. Trucks also generally have much better rear visibility.
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
1hr ago
I would say it's a massive rabbit-hole with the outcome being far from certain. How do you determine "equal protection under the law" for people who aren't the same? We're kind of debating it with the trans stuff right now. Does a man have a right to women's facilities, explicitly demanded by various "equality acts", for example? Some people say "yes", other's say "men are not women, so a law demanding the creation of women's facilities does not demand that men are given access to them". I would say that whatever the answer is, it's not written in the constitution, and we should stop pretending that it is.
MaiqTheTrue
Renrijra Krin
1hr ago
And you often do the same in war. Sun Tzu says that exactly— where you are weak you want to look strong and where you are strong, you want to look weak such that your enemy attacks where you are strong and not where you are weak.
But the biggest part of poker is the fact that it’s one of the few games where the entire point is that you have incomplete knowledge. And therefore a lot of the strategy is about using the odds and psychological power to make the most of the cards you have. This is how both war and politics work. You don’t know what the other guy has or is going to do, so you act to maximize your odds based on tge cards you have. Trump seems to be pushing hard on the “I have really good cards here, you better agree to this ceasefire or im going to take it all.” It’s not a check, it’s a raise. Agree or get more of what I just did to you.
Who promised you this? I wouldn’t even want it that way.
Seems like an implication of "is contradicted by dissenters buying a piece of media to fight back against the mind control". A handful (effectively: 1-2 that are very close to each other) of ideologies dominating the mass-media ecosystem seems to fit right into my model, and "dissidents" buying a SocMed is far from a contradiction.
Politically, or, consumerismically?
The latter is a more obvious example, I think
For everyone else, they enjoy ads, it’s like good art to them, they’re more than happy to reward companies that evoke such joy with their purchases.
Well, I will give you points for originality, I haven't heard that theory before. I kinda doubt that personally. I know there are some ads that are fun and creative, but the general sentiment towards advertising seems to be negative, and regarding even the positive ones, I don't think I heard anyone tell me they want to reward the company for a particularly well-made ad.
Tree
2hr ago
I for one don't think we have a neat equal distribution of ownership of mass-media between various ideologies.
Who promised you this? I wouldn’t even want it that way.
if mind control doesn't work, why would you say so much money is being spent on marketing?
Politically, or, consumerismically? Compared to the power of the citizen and the GDP he controls through the state, the political ads and lobbying don’t represent that much money.
For consumption goods, I know everyone thinks ads don’t work on them, but they mostly don’t work on me (also, adblock). For everyone else, they enjoy ads, it’s like good art to them, they’re more than happy to reward companies that evoke such joy with their purchases.
netstack
Texas is freedom land
2hr ago
I would say that marriage is firmly under “equal protection under the law.”
self_made_human
C'est la vie
2hr ago
Trust me, I feel second-hand embarrassment about the whole affair. It's somewhere between performative, maudlin and plain old cringe. Even if they'd wanted to showcase the undersung colonial experience, in the War museum, how hard could it be to find something to showcase that has something to do with war?
netstack
Texas is freedom land
2hr ago
He certainly has his moments.
Especially speaking off the cuff. It’s a gift.
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
2hr ago
As I understand it, Virginia v. Loving says yes
No, I don't care about rulings, I mean the actual text of the actual constitution.
The_Nybbler
In the game of roller derby, women aren't just the opposing team; they're the ball.
2hr ago
Indeed, by the standards of Middle Eastern ceasefires, this one seems to be holding together OK. Iran fired off two missiles (most sources say both were intercepted, one says one hit a residential building), Israel dropped two bombs in response (and told Trump they would have dropped more if he hadn't yelled at them, quick thinking on Netanyahu's part), and nothing more. Also no Houthi attacks on shipping, no closure of the Straits of Hormuz, and no bombing of Iran's oil terminals
netstack
Texas is freedom land
2hr ago
As I understand it, Virginia v. Loving says yes.
I will admit that I’m not an expert. But I don’t think the dissents rejected the idea that marriage was a right protected by the 14th. They were more concerned with 1) whether the historical use of the term included the opposite-sex qualifier and 2) whether the due process clause protected positive rights in addition to negative ones. Or maybe that was just Thomas?
FCfromSSC
Nuclear levels of sour
2hr ago
Looks to me like Trump imagined that because the US is large, it has magical powers to compel others to do what it says.
Trump appears to be compelling others to do what he says. Israel's airports have just resumed full operations. Iran is telling the Saudis that they're ready to resolve their differences with the US.
I’m getting a strong feeling that this is the same exact thing as happened with Russia and Ukraine. Wasn’t he supposed to end that war? What happened there?
Trump does not actually have magical powers. He has considerable power, but exercise of that power comes at unknown but significant costs. So far, ending the Ukraine war is beyond him. We'll see how it goes in the future, though.
Mihow
Lipstick on a guitar
2hr ago
Great write up
I’m a Heat Dolphins & Marlins fan and I wish I enjoyed hockey
I really only watch Dolphins games and Redzone and only follow the other two online, Heat daily & Marlins on occasion (even tho I like watching baseball the most - it’s the most exciting sport)
I wish I were a Panthers fan - the last three seasons would’ve been fucking insane to watch
The point is, 'mind control theory' in its strong form, is contradicted by dissenters buying a piece of media to fight back against the mind control.
I don't see that as a contradiction. For one, the purchase was kind of a fluke to begin with, the way I remember it, the TDS brigade was convinced they were owning Elon buy forcing him, via the court system, to buy it. Other than that, while competing interests may balance themselves out, the "balance" is far from guaranteed, I for one don't think we have a neat equal distribution of ownership of mass-media between various ideologies.
Are we just haggling about the price? I could just as easily say "Sure, you can fool some people some time, but you can't fool all the people all the time....".
We very well may be. I don't hold a maximalist position. Look, here's me arguing for limits to the power of propaganda while expressing sympathy to the position that "propaganda works".
Though to point out it's something more than haggling over the price: if mind control works only on a "some of the people some of the time" basis, why would you say so much money is being spent on marketing regularly and continuously?
But what they ultimately wanted to achieve, more than anything else they ever wanted before, was preventing Trump from getting elected, twice, and they failed at that.
They failed, twice, to exercise control at the point where exercise of control is the absolute weakest and most difficult to execute: control over highly protected and highly legible choices made by dozens of millions of Americans in secret, all at the same time. And of their numerous attempts to forestall these choices, many failed by very thin margins or in very temporary ways.
There’s this contradiction at the heart of anti-establishment movements – according to their own central myth, they are doomed rebels against the all-powerful, entrenched evil forces of the establishment, the cathedral, the megaphone, the elites, and so on.
Anti-establishment movements do not have a central myth that they are doomed. Their central myth is that entrenched evil forces are a clear and present danger that must be fought with maximum effort, right now. "Winning" means removing that threat and preventing it from re-emerging, and electoral victory is not the end of that effort, but rather the beginning. You have to actually wield power to un-entrench the elites from their positions and entrench yourselves or your allies therein, or you'll be right back where you started when the electoral winds inevitably shift.
"Don't be ruled by people who hate you" is the proper foundation of political thought.
kky
2hr ago
If we follow your logic at its word, the natural conclusion would be the total collapse of the Democratic Party.
Right now, the fringe elements of both parties are wildly unpopular. The question for most elections is who comes across as the most repulsive and who successfully tamps down on their extremists in public messaging. Since Democrats are better educated and hooked into their politicians, this has turned into a real advantage for the Republicans. The Democrat extremists are able to effectively pressure and primary politicians into following their worst ideas, which have a lot of salience right now.
So we have a civil war right now, between the Democrats from the Reagan days who want to relive that heady sense of resistance like they were young again and the young progressives who have been educated into mind-meltingly unpopular ideas. Out on the distant fringes are the swing-state Democrats like Fetterman who are effectively untouchable by the party mechanism but equally have no sway over it. Whoever wins is going to win based on their ability to signal #resistance to the equally extreme base, as voters on the edge increasingly disengage with the party. But the party does not compromise on its least popular tenets, and in fact broadcasts them as a matter of principle, and the way things are going, will stand absolutely no chance in upcoming elections (only exception being the presidency if Trump does something dumb like defy the law to run for term 3 and scare the normies way too much).
So we should expect to see evaporative cooling concentrating the heart of the overeducated party, keeping seats where urban Millennials and Xers dominate and hemorrhaging the rest. And then, probably, the Blue Dogs try to create their own party and recapture the many voters who really don’t like Trump but can’t find it in themselves to vote D.
There was a moment, after this election, where I wondered to myself: is this when the Dems will figure out what’s happening? Is this where they Sister Souljah the woke out and start trying to win elections again? But that moment passed in a heartbeat, and the old party mechanisms reasserted their dominance. I think this is a general pattern, not just for democracy but for every kind of human organization, where the mechanisms of power become too cleanly rationalized, too stable, and the possibility of an internal coup vanishes. The existing order loses the possibility of making mistakes and being replaced from within, as they control all the needed feedback mechanisms and are not vulnerable to it. It’s at this moment that the levers of power cease to be representations or formalizations of the real sources of power, and become sources of power in themselves. When that happens, the power structure itself is in dire jeopardy, as it’s lost all connection to reality and has become a sort of ouroborus, swallowing its own tail and growing smaller and smaller.
I suspect that part of this self-consuming behavior is related to class divides like the educational alignment of the parties, but that’s probably enough on this for now.
Tree
2hr ago
Do you disagree with the theory that Elon Musk buying Twitter was a pivotal moment for Trump's second run?
Can't have hurt him. The point is, 'mind control theory' in its strong form, is contradicted by dissenters buying a piece of media to fight back against the mind control. There's the sarcastic quip about 'build your own banking system'- well, him, and through him, people who agree with him, did buy their own media system.
Sure, they can't control the entirety of society at will, 100% of the time, but engineering does not require 100% accuracy, just predictability.
Are we just haggling about the price? I could just as easily say "Sure, you can fool some people some time, but you can't fool all the people all the time....".
gattsuru
2hr ago
No.
The problem is that there are enforcement of laws that people disagree with, which have very overt parallels to matters where the other tribe received broad victories, which any reasonable reading of the text of the law would not permit, and where defendants either lose in court or never have a fair day to start with. It's a problem when the Constitution seems a scam, and where the BATNA looks like a direct improvement on the very measures that negotiated agreement is advertising itself on.
While I think there are real concerns about what happens to the GOP Post-Trump, yeah, the Dem's issues are structural and the alliances they've forged by being maximally divisive on sex, on race, on religion, on class, and on age too, I guess, mean there's no way to please each of these disparate groups.
In fact, the post-Trump era might be harder on the Dems because opposition to Trump was like the one thing that united them!
Dems can't run another stodgy White Guy for President. I mean, they can, Biden proved that the party can get everyone in line and on task if needed, but it is impossible to imagine the guy who has the political juice to win the primaries at this point.
Likewise, Dem leadership is ossified and they've hamstrung any new blood from acquiring much power. AOC is popular but she's also been ground down by the party machine. Pelosi et al. will grip the reins of power right up until their dying breath. Trump, by elevating Vance, is giving the 'new Generation' a generous toehold on power which they can use to climb up.
David Hogg was stupid about it, but he had the right idea that there needs to be enough of a shakeup that young upstarts can compete for influence in the party and identify talented candidates. Kinda how Obama got into power (which, ironically, was probably what prompted the party to lock down that issue so Hillary could win next time).
On top of that, I don't see any possible way the Dems can attract young male voters back. They've gone way too far out on the "men are inherently evil" limb. Can't reel that back in without pissing off the unmarried white female demographic that is their backbone. But any guy who looks and sees how they force any popular young Democrat male through a struggle session, like with Harry Sisson, will balk at anything they say. There's NOTHING to offer them.
Whomever they nominate, it'll either annoy their base, or it'll alienate the median voter.
And all this is before we talk about how the extreme progressive wings are demanding concessions constantly.
More options
Context Copy link