domain:alethios.substack.com
My bias goes the other way I guess. I've seen so much shit fail at its one fucking job I'm hardly surprised anymore.
CertainlyWorse
No one is coming. It's just you.
22hr ago
I'm kind of the same. I don't effort post, but I enjoy being here and the people here.
I like that even the ones I disagree with are at least speaking my language.
George_E_Hale
insufferable blowhard
22hr ago
I love this site.
I don't contribute even remotely the same level of thoughtful and well-considered effortposts that many do, I disagree with shit tons of bad takes (that are almost always well-argued) and in some cases I just nod with awe at not only the intellect (by which I mean an ability to read, remember, and consolidate massive amounts of text, both discrete and historical) on display here at times. Fuck the haters.
Thanks to all for making my online experience richer, regardless of the timbre of your political sensitivities and whether they skew differently from my own.
Also happy birthday to that one Mottizen (you know who you are)!
CertainlyWorse
No one is coming. It's just you.
22hr ago
I'm giving allowance for the fact that what's on the tin isn't always what is installed or maintained. My main point is that it is likely that failures in a 'just so' way of the electronic security systems is possible, but unlikely.
TowardsPanna
22hr ago
Aha! Didn't imagine they could be swapped in and out.
benmmurphy
22hr ago
As an alternative we can have a system with losers but instead of the winners being chosen by merit we can use an alternative criteria like knowing the correct people or being born to the right parents.
quiet_NaN
22hr ago
In today's "old man yelling at clouds" news, it appears that leftist memes (e.g. on imgur) have taken to calling Trump a pedophile due to his connection with Epstein.
As someone who does not give a damn about Trump, but who cares about the language we use to describe reality, I want to object.
A pedophile, in my book, is someone who is sexually attracted to pre-pubescent kids. Often, the term might imply exclusive pedophilia, e.g. someone who is only attracted to pre-pubescent kids. This seems like the worst sexual attraction card to be dealt, while being straight, gay, bisexual, into MILFs, or into BDSM, or most other kinks means you have a decent chance of getting laid, the lack of adults who could pass as pre-pubescent means that there are no sex partners who could consent. If used as an insult, the unfortunate implication is that people are morally responsible for their sexual inclinations.
Naturally, there is an overlap with people who end up molesting children, which is rightfully considered a serious crime. It bears saying that a significant fraction of child molesters are not exclusive pedophiles but just men (mostly) with broader sexualities who use the opportunity of the power discrepancy between kids and adults.
In general, I think that power discrepancy is why we have age of consent laws. Using the age is obviously a crude approximation, I can think of situations where a 15yo having sex with an 18yo would not be problematic from a power discrepancy point of view, and also of situations where two 18yo having sex would be problematic from a power discrepancy view without being criminal. But still, one has to draw the line somewhere, and age is at least something which can reasonably be verified, while "would a judge like the power dynamics in that relationship?" is much more diffuse.
If we tie consent to age, then it makes sense to dis-emphasize physical development. After all, a woman consents with her brain, not her boobs. It might certainly make a difference if the defendant claims he was mistaken about her age or that she was the one who initiated sex (not that either defense would help much, likely).
To get back to Trump, I think it is pretty clear that he is not an exclusive pedophile. That guy paid for sex with Stormy Daniels, hosted beauty pageants and boasted about grabbing post-pubescent participants "by the pussy". Based on the women he married, "small and flat-chested" does not really seem to be his type.
He is also a sex pest. I can not imagine him going "Dear Jeffrey, this is very flattering, but I do not think it is appropriate. Look at that poor girl. She is a minor who possibly did not have a clear idea that she would be expected to do sex work here and is effectively trapped alone on an island with some very powerful people. Besides her being below the age of consent, this whole setting is intrinsically coercive. If you want me to fuck someone, please get an experienced sex worker of legal age for my next visit." Instead, he probably went "great, I will take the one with the bigger tits" and committed a particularly vile act of statutory rape.
From a culture war point of view, I can see why the left is pushing the pedo angle. It basically comes from qanon, where "oh, did I mention they also rape kids" was used as a boo light to drive home the fact that these were Bad people. MAGA pattern-matched Epstein to this, which was fair enough. Now that it looks like Trump might have been a visitor to Epstein's Island, the likely factually accurate claim "Trump is a sex pest who has no conception of consent and will happily commit statutory rape" is not going to do much damage. The American people have known that he is a sex pest with no conception of consent since 2016, and in their heart of hearts they also know that someone who is generally loose on consent will also not be a stickler for the rules as far as age of consent is concerned. By contrast, going "that pedophile world-controlling elite you were always talking about? Trump is their chairman!", or more shortly "Trump is pedophile" is obviously superior as an attack in the CW.
Still, a lot of epistemic commons are burned in the process, and I really don't like that.
fmac
Ask me about bike lanes
22hr ago
You're right
I struggle to call this a war though. It's insurgency whack a mole with a sprinkling of ethnic cleansing
Thanks for the insight. I'm still cynical enough to believe this is what's advertised on the tin and not stuff that means any of it works well, especially when administered by the human capital involved in prisons.
The fact that it slams at the one minute around midnight is a strong Bayesian update towards system error.
fmac
Ask me about bike lanes
22hr ago
Sure
My knowledge of the Vietnam war is shaky at best. My point is that insurgencies can win just by surviving and running out the clock
coffee_enjoyer
☕️
22hr ago
Everyone understands that combatants are killed in war. This is unremarkable and no reasonable person seeks revenge for war. What’s less remarkable is when an Israeli soldier purposefully shoots your daughter or sister in the head for no reason. Any young male who experiences this and wouldn’t seek revenge for it is the lowest of the low coward. Certainly my American ancestors who fought in the Revolution wouldn’t have submitted to that sort of rule. Neither would my Irish fifth cousins in the IRA. I would feel content knowing that my great grandparents who were ethnically cleansed from their ancestral home by someone born in Poland speaking a German dialect would look at me as a hero. (We can see how empathy goes a long way in explaining the Gazan PoV; this is an exercise.)
notice that bombing Nazis didn't create more Nazis. Why?
Both sides were bombing each others cities, for essential military reasons that likely reduced sum total casualties over the war.
There's significant context behind some of these theories, the main one is that SIG USA is widely believed to be gaming/bribing/conning the US military procurement tests.
Some readers here may remember the release of SIG USA's replacement for the M-16, which was "adopted by the US Army" before being quietly skuttled at the cost of several hundred million dollars. Keen readers may recall that I called all that long before it happened based on nothing but the claimed weight and chamber pressures. It was such an obvious lie that any expert in the field should have been able to spot it immediately. Is that because I'm smarter than the entire Ordnance Corps, or because I'm not being paid to lie?
Some things to keep in mind. SIG USA is not Sig Sauer, it's a spun-off triple-shell corporation built out of the old Sigarms importer. But now they manufacture, and they don't manufacture anything by Sig Sauer. They just license the logo so people will think this start-up gun company that somehow got a military contract in its first ten years is actually a bespoke european manufacturer.
Now, everything OP says about people being unable to reliably recreate the discharge is true. But equally true is some of the more damning stories, some with video evidence, that show 320s going off with apparently no input. The one that killed an airman recently wasn't even being worn at the time, it was in the holster, sitting on a table some feet from any people. There was also recently a case in the state police of my state had one go off, they sent it to the FBI labs, which were able to recreate the discharge, but not reliably.
In several trials mimicking movements similar to those made by officers in the field,like pressing the gun into a wall, jumping, or running, researchers were able to make the P320 fire without the trigger being pulled. In nine out of 50 attempts using a primed case, the pistol fired after only holster manipulation and sear release, indicating failure of the striker safety lock.
Maybe a 20% chance doesn't sound conclusive, and to be fair it isn't. But you can buy other guns that are just as good as the P320 that don't have a one in five chance of putting a round in your leg if the gun jostles just right in the holster.
In the case of the M-16, Forgotten Weapons has a great show on that, basically the corrupt Ordnance Corps tried to sabotage the first major run of M-16s, and they did. But they still couldn't get the shitpile M-14 back, so they reverted the design to the one Stoner told them to use, chrome-lined the barrels and the gun was fine ever after.
The thread I think you should consider is not the conspiracy theory, which was temporarily correct, but the deep corruption of military procurement, and the sort of dirty tricks that go on there.
coffee_enjoyer
☕️
23hr ago
Israel has been committing grave violations of international law since the King David Hotel bombing, the Nabka, etc.
they certainly aren't soldiers as the word is used in the field of international law.
Very few are complaining about the treatment of the actual men fighting Israel.
FlailingAce
23hr ago
Yes it does, it's one of few handguns that I know of with an on/off safety switch, and it's quite annoying. One of a reasons why military people I know who are issued the M17/M18 don't actually use it, and prefer a Glock.
RandomRanger
Just build nuclear plants!
23hr ago
If Israel had to buy its munitions (either in the short term or long term) it would impose more pressure to finish the war quickly, or in general do more diplomacy and less bombing. Easy to spend other people's money or take risks if your friends will bail you out, people are usually more frugal with their own money.
The US also helps Israel with key enablers that aren't really for sale - satellite surveillance, in-air refuelling, electronic signals gathering and B-2 bomber strikes. It would be impractical for Israel to try and replace what the US does for them, they can't afford a blue-water navy to put ships in the Persian gulf and shoot at Iranian missiles from there, nor can Israel really put much pressure on Yemen. Once you have a navy, using it is easy enough but if you don't then getting one is hard.
Israel could establish a stockpile of munitions purchased from overseas but it wouldn't be very economical or reliable compared to domestic production or getting resupplied straight from the US.
EverythingIsFine
Well, is eventually fine
23hr ago
I was struck recently by this article talking about how the underlying anxieties are more or less true in both the conspiracy and non conspiracy versions (powerful financiers getting away with stuff and having undue influence, etc) but here is how it phrased what it called the two notable holes:
For one thing, why did the conspiracy of wealthy sex perverts wait until Epstein was in prison to kill him, when it presumably would have been easier to do it after he was convicted and released the first time, or after the second time a grand jury was convened against him but before he was in federal custody? If you believe a group of powerful people killed Epstein to keep him from revealing what he knew, you have to ask why he didn’t die in a car accident, instead of during the three minutes
I mean, isn’t it a lot easier and less suspicious if he dies earlier? Aside from what I view to be some major logistical problems with a quick three minute in and out strangulation, though I admit I’m not well read in to the nitty-gritty. And:
The non-conspiracy version of events says just as much. In this version, New York’s Metropolitan Correctional Facility, the jail where Epstein died that a court ordered closed in 2021, simply didn’t work very well. The plumbing was leaking, and the building was falling apart. The camera system didn’t work right. The guards were overworked and understaffed and sat in the break room browsing the internet when they were supposed to be making their rounds. This story of institutional failure should be familiar to anyone who has been to a VA hospital or worked somewhere that got bought by a private equity fund.
Epstein literally attempted suicide a few weeks before, and actually did right about when he was denied bail and it became increasingly clear that the best case scenario for him still would involve lengthy amounts of jail time. He’s a billionaire, used to much nicer things, and was not in a nice prison. As far as suicidal logic goes, that seems pretty normal? And incompetence by prison guards is definitely my base expectation. Shit is boring, pay is often bad, and the job doesn’t attract the best.
atokenliberal6D_4
Defender of Western Culture
23hr ago
Right, so the comparison to the woke needs more justification (I'm sorry for the repetitiveness I've made this point before to you in the past, but I think there's some new aspects).
Most people I talk to in person who would describe themselves as woke seem to actually agree with me on at least the thing I called "individualism". Their belief is rather that the world is so far from achieving this that we have to do extremely drastic things in response. When they make mistakes, their mistakes are factual---that their extreme remedy is going to make the situation better than the status quo. These mistakes are not that hard to correct---no getting rid of standardized tests won't help because every other measure is even more skewed towards the rich, etc. In everyday life, I've found it very easy to argue/convince very woke people on most concrete policy issues relating to "individualism".
"Meritocracy" is harder, seemingly because the very woke that I know don't see its need---we already have enough, why do we need growth, why does it matter that jobs are done well, etc. However, in cases like medicine where you can argue that we don't already have enough you can argue in the same way. The "we already have enough" is also not so hard to argue against by just having them look up global GDP/capita and speculate on what sort of lifestyle that allows in comparison to what they're used to.
Conversely, a hypothetical group that actually accepts the ancestry-is-paramount interpretation of JD Vance's statement just disagrees on these values completely. There's no resolution to be had here.
Anyways, this is all theory. Since January, we can see how the comparison worked out in practice. I think even the worst 2020 wokeness was better for getting skilled people into positions in the US than the attacks on skilled immigrants from the Trump administration---the stories like this that keep coming out every few weeks and the chilling effect they create.
HereAndGone
23hr ago
May you all live under the same conditions as the benign and beneficent rule of the IDF. After all, you're not trouble-makers so you'll be fine, won't you?
I suddenly feel a need for the cursing psalms.
Psalm 10
10 Why, O Lord, do you stand far away?
Why do you hide yourself in times of trouble?
2 In arrogance the wicked hotly pursue the poor;
let them be caught in the schemes that they have devised.
3 For the wicked boasts of the desires of his soul,
and the one greedy for gain curses[a] and renounces the Lord.
4 In the pride of his face the wicked does not seek him;
all his thoughts are, “There is no God.”
5 His ways prosper at all times;
your judgments are on high, out of his sight;
as for all his foes, he puffs at them.
6 He says in his heart, “I shall not be moved;
throughout all generations I shall not meet adversity.”
7 His mouth is filled with cursing and deceit and oppression;
under his tongue are mischief and iniquity.
8 He sits in ambush in the villages;
in hiding places he murders the innocent.
His eyes stealthily watch for the helpless;
9 he lurks in ambush like a lion in his thicket;
he lurks that he may seize the poor;
he seizes the poor when he draws him into his net.
10 The helpless are crushed, sink down,
and fall by his might.
11 He says in his heart, “God has forgotten,
he has hidden his face, he will never see it.”
12 Arise, O Lord; O God, lift up your hand;
forget not the afflicted.
13 Why does the wicked renounce God
and say in his heart, “You will not call to account”?
14 But you do see, for you note mischief and vexation,
that you may take it into your hands;
to you the helpless commits himself;
you have been the helper of the fatherless.
15 Break the arm of the wicked and evildoer;
call his wickedness to account till you find none.
16 The Lord is king forever and ever;
the nations perish from his land.
17 O Lord, you hear the desire of the afflicted;
you will strengthen their heart; you will incline your ear
18 to do justice to the fatherless and the oppressed,
so that man who is of the earth may strike terror no more.
ZanarkandAbesFan
23hr ago
There are a lot of truly baffling statements in this post (Israel controls law enforcement in Gaza?), but I'll focus only on the most bizarre one:
They effectively have a monopoly on the legitimate use of force.
Oct 7th, and the war against Israel that Hamas has redirected all resources in Gaza towards, represent an Israeli monopoly on the use of force in Gaza. Right.
HereAndGone
23hr ago
I don't believe the Israelis. After all this time, I don't trust them, I don't think they're honest, and how they are cracking down (not) on the [settlers](https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c776x78517po0 who are literally and not metaphorically shooting people reveals their actual preferences, not what they're saying.
I'm going to light my hair on fire here, but Israel is imitating how Germany decided to deal with its 'Jewish problem': can we get any foreign country to take them off our hands? No, nobody wants a bunch of these guys because they are trash? Okay, let's solve this by taking their property, confining them in sequestered areas, and then shipping them off to camps - for their own protection, of course.
HereAndGone
23hr ago
You know, right now I'm listening to the news on the radio and it's another interview with someone about what is happening in Gaza.
I have two options:
(1) Everyone in the world is a lying liar who loves Hamas and wants to obliterate Israel. There is no starvation, no Israeli blockades, and the hard-core Zionists who want an ethnically Jewish state for an ethnically Jewish people are just lined up waiting with bouquets and gift baskets to hand over to the Palestinians once they take control of Gaza.
(2) Maybe, just possibly maybe, the IDF are fudging the truth about what they are doing and the Israeli government is being hands-off in hopes that the problem will solve itself - no need for a Palestinian state when there are no more Palestinians (be that 'encouraged forcefully to emigrate to other countries or dead of famine and disease').
I think Hamas are terrible and should disappear if at all possible. But when people are dying, I don't give a flying fuck about their politics. Even the most obnoxious hair-dyed queer tranny activist, if they were literally starving to death, I'd say "help them" and not "hur-dur, they should have picked the right side in the political fight". Stop people dying of starvation first, worry about rooting out the terrorists second.
What I'm reading on here is awfully like all the commentary about problems in red states, with gleeful gloating about "natural disaster/economic crash serves them right for voting for Trump".
ThomasdelVasto
Κύριε, ποίησόν με ὄργανον τῆς ἀγάπης σου
23hr ago
Thanks! Wow this is fun. Who knew.
As the highly official representative for "this place", I conclusively answer your questions with
Here's a suggestion: If you want to know what people here think on individualism and meritocracy, then just plain open a discussion about individualism and/or meritocracy. If instead you try to play semantic games with highly controversial public figures in order to attempt getting a blanket statement describing the ideological degeneracy of "most posters" here...I dunno, seems crooked.
But I don't care much about American politics, so I'm probably not the target demographic.
In summary, I just wished you had started a more open-ended discussion instead of laying out bait, no matter how openly you did that.
More options
Context Copy link