domain:amphobian.info
MathWizard
Good things are good
1d ago
I don't think there have been any prominent "calling it" moments like this. The four most similar cases I can think of where someone is/was crying wolf about their assassination and it didn't happen, but if it had died (or do die) there would definitely be retroactive conspiracy theories are Donald Trump, Elon Musk, Julian Assange, And Edward Snowden. So if you're being maximally harsh you could call it 1/5. But none of these have had quite the same level of strength. Everyone believed that Epstein had dirt on prominent politicians that he had not yet spilled, which made getting rid of him quickly a priority. People hate Trump and Musk for public reasons and while killing them would remove them as an annoyance, it wouldn't keep any politicians out of jail. Assange and Snowden already leaked their secrets and assassinating them would just be petty revenge, it wouldn't unleak the secrets. Assassinating any of those four would increase the risk of a politician going to jail, not decrease it as in Epstein's case (conditional on the probability of getting caught being less than the probability of him spilling the beans). Additionally, the U.S. government has never had one of those four in custody in a way that would provide such an easy opportunity to off them. And, while I don't pay a ton of attention, nobody has been warning about the potential for assassination attempts on these four except for Trump, who has in fact been the target of attempted assassinated multiple times (though not necessarily by a conspiracy unless you count stochastic terrorism). So depending on how you categorize it we're either 1/5, 2/5, 2/2, or 1/1. Personally I'd go with 1/1, since Epstein was (as far as I know) unique in circumstance of being in a prison with known incriminating evidence on (probably multiple) politicians.
JarJarJedi
1d ago
Does this place actually overwhelmingly support JD Vance's statement?
"This place" can't support anything, not unless we form a representative government and give it the rights to represent us in this matter. That's certainly not what I am here for. I think if you want to talk to people, talk to people. If you want to fish for a sweeping statements like "this place is full of X", whatever X is, please don't. Yes, for some values of X it may be true, but it's not the point of the thing.
I personally think Vance's statement makes sense - if somebody traces their ancestry from before the Civil War they certainly should not be excluded when defining what "America" is.
Is this statement actually anti-individualistic and anti-meritocratic as defined above?
No. This statement does not say America must only be hereditarian, it says common history must not be excluded. I think this is true - while for a startup nation, bare idea may be enough, for the nation with 250-year old culture history is a big part of it. True, 250 years is not a lot, some nations measure in millenia, but it's enough to consider it seriously and not throw it out, especially because of momentary partisan considerations.
A few weeks ago, J.D. Vance made a statement that citizenship in the US should be based on ancestry instead of individual choices and beliefs:
I don't think you are describing the content of this statement properly. The proper description would be that Vance thinks just individual choices and beliefs are not enough to make somebody an American, but being a part of ancestry that created the culture we now call "America" may also be considered as a factor. If you lived somewhere in Galapagos Islands and you've just read the Declaration of Independence and you thought "actually these guys have some pretty decent ideas!" that doesn't automatically make you an American. You can become an American, and maybe you will, but you are not yet are. I don't see anything wrong with this claim.
Moreover, Vance specifically said he does not have the answer to the question of what is an American, and only calls to begin working it out. Presenting it as he already prescribed the "ancestry" answer gives me the strong "fine people" vibe. This is not a good way to conduct a discussion.
Are the above interpretations of meritocracy and individualism reasonable and consistent with anti-individualism and anti-meritocracy being very bad things or are they just word games?
No, the definition of individualism does not exclude considering the individual's history or culture. No person exists as an island, people are social animals, and being a social animal means being part of the culture. And culture is rooted in history and ancestry. True, history and ancestry does not define the individual, as doesn't genetics or, in general, any wide-area criteria - it's impossible to define an individual by metrics that count in millions. But that doesn't mean those are to be completely ignored. Cultures exist, and individuals are heavily influenced by them. That does not deny the fact that the individual has to be evaluated on their personal merits, at least when it is possible. But one also has to realize these merits do not come from nothing. Ancestry is not the destiny, but it's often the foundation.
The tools you have described are indeed powerful, but they are secondary to defining the goals. To illustrate that, let's abstract them out and define a quality called "awesomeness". The person is more awesome if they are more efficient in achieving whatever they want to achieve. Looks good so far? Now, do we want to have more awesome people? Do we want to make immigration policy depend on awesomeness - the more awesome you are, the higher your chance for a citizenship. Before you answer, consider an awesome drug addict, an awesome psychopath, an awesome flat Earth cultist, an awesome Islamic (or, if you wish, Christian) fundamentalist. Does "awesomeness" looks as good as before, or do you want to put something in front of it? And if so, what exactly?
(@OracleOutlook had a similar response so I hope this works as a reply to both)
First, since citizenship in certain countries has such a huge material impact, it is a "reward" whether people want to think of it that way or not. I think your argument boils down to saying that citizenship has some extra, special qualities that make thinking of it as a reward misleading word games.
The special quality you're focusing on is an analogy to family membership. There are two reasons why I think family membership is special
- An ideal family is supposed to provide unconditional love and support---it's an insurance policy in the world that no matter how much you screw up, you'll always have something. In particular, you should never worry about being completely disconnected from other people.
- Families are very small sets of people. Due to Dunbar-number effects, morality in small groups (that our instincts are perfectly optimized to handle and where you actually personally know everyone you're interacting with) is very different than morality applied to broader society. Tons of things are ok in family settings that would be horrible corruption in a corporation---since our instincts are so finely tuned in the small-group case, we just feel the exact cases when its ok and when it's dangerous.
Of these two, only the first really applies to citizenship---that's easily resolved by rules against making someone stateless. So with that one exception, it should be fine to reason about citizenship as other rewards, particularly positions in other sorts of large organizations. Sacrifices happen in these too!
Are there other important special qualities of citizenship over other material rewards that would change this?
P.S. I'm not sure it's reasonable to say that genetic similarity is the best way to judge if you can relate to someone. Here, education, values, and interests seem to matter much more. It's way easier for me to relate to a random mathematician of any race than a random person of the same race as me. I don't think this is that unusual---at the very least, having a college degree is probably more relevant to relatability for you than race.
atelier
Jimmys: unrustled
1d ago
The nineties was a wild time but it was widely recognized that supervisors fuck their underlings was coercion. The Republicans had nearly used expulsion to remove a sitting US Republican senator at the beginning of Clinton's 1st term.
professorgerm
You shall love your crooked neighbor, with your crooked heart
1d ago
Refusing to step on a trap isn't incompetence.
The only way to win was not to play. Given that the question would surely come up in cases shortly after her nomination, too, it was an unfortunate fumble.
Also seconding Arjin that a simple question becoming a trap is a symptom of a much larger problem. It might be a loaded question but it's hardly "yes or no, have you stopped beating your wife?" The culture that loaded that question by hollowing out language created its own issue.
But that's something I'd frame as a failing of charisma more than intelligence.
I didn't say it was a failing of intelligence either; the implication is that it was a failing of skill defined generally. Charisma is a good suggestion for a narrower term; I'd also accept wisdom or to be playful, dexterity.
I think KBJ is quite smart, less of an institutionalist than ideal but I liked the KBJ/Gorsuch pair-ups from last term.
FlyingLionWithABook
Has a C. S. Lewis quote for that.
1d ago
Yeah, I can’t blame you: after all, I don’t believe the UN or Hamas. This war is one of those situations where we won’t really know the truth of what’s going on until it’s a decade or so later and people have had time to investigate. Maybe three decades later, wait for enough people to die who would otherwise be embarrassed.
FiveHourMarathon
Wawa Nationalist
1d ago
So... Instead of the sloppy but intuitive test of "does she look old enough" one would now have to literally ask if she has a license?
faul_sname
Fuck around once, find out once. Do it again, now it's science.
1d ago
Let's say you currently live in Botswana. You could move to Lesotho, where you'd be 95th percentile, or to America, where you'd be 40th percentile. I think most people in that situation would still choose America, even though there's no substantial difference in switching cost between the two options.
Corvos
1d ago
The same was true of Jimmy Saville:
The BBC allowed all manner of creative swearing and graphic insults to air during The Thick Of It.
But there was just one line in all of the scripts that made executives so nervous they insisted it be censored, creator Armando Iannucci has revealed.
The excised line, spoken by Peter Capaldi’s fiercely foul-mouthed spin doctor Malcolm Tucker was: 'That's inevitable. It's as inevitable as what they'll find in Jimmy Savile's basement after he's dead.'
'The BBC lawyers said you can't say that,’ Iannucci told an audience in Melbourne
Although Savile died in 2011, between seres three and four, the extent of his sexual abuse of children only began to emerge in September the following year, a month before the final episode aired.
Everybody in TV knew. And were performatively shocked later on, of course.
ThomasdelVasto
Κύριε, ποίησόν με ὄργανον τῆς ἀγάπης σου
1d ago
I did debate in high school and it helped me reason quite a bit. Having to argue for both sides of a resolution is an excellent way to teach genuinely flexible thinking.
My hypothetical plan for killing the guy would basically be "contact some organized criminal enterprise that has associates already in said prison, and guards already on the payroll, and arrange for there to be a window where those associates can access the cell just long enough to strangle the guy and leave without being observed."
I assume that targeted hits in prison are an order of magnitude or so more common than hits outside of it (in the U.S.). So we just need means and opportunity.
Ironically putting him in prison allows you MORE control over weird variables, rather than having to arrange for him to be suicided outside of prison, where he has some freedom of movement and can set up countermeasures, AND you will have to do a lot more cleanup of evidence.
faceh
1d ago
A decently strong guy with a bit of Jiu-jistu training could do it, too.
Rear naked choke to render him unconscious, then string him up to actually die of strangulation.
FCfromSSC
Nuclear levels of sour
1d ago
The history of "credible accusations" against Bill Clinton has been noted for a long time, as has the long history of influential democrats running interference for him and attacking his accusers, starting with his wife. Around 2020 or so, the dissonance was bad enough, and the Clintons declined enough in influence, for a few prominent Blues to tentatively begin asking the uncomfortable questions out loud. A cynical person would note that this was only after the Clinton political machine had well and truly collapsed, but still, one might plausibly argue better late than never.
And yet in 2024, he was back to headlined the DNC during a national election.
Likewise, the "credible accusation" of rape against Biden turned out not to be quite credible enough.
I've talked a few times about topics where there's not much left to say, where the entire conversation is essentially pre-scripted from the start, and there's no real room for charity any more. This seems to me to be a good example of the type.
Throwaway05
1d ago
I'm not going to listen to a six hour long podcast, if their is any evidence that isn't circumstantial and isn't just "that sounds weird" feel free to send it along.
But my point is that it isn't reasonable to think some of that kinda business was going down, it's that it's also perfect reasonable to be unconvinced.
Almost every conspiracy theory that turns out to be true was also widely known in the relevant communities just underreported (ex: Weinstein being a sex pest).
This matches more to conspiracy theories that turn out to be untrue.
faceh
1d ago
Very interesting take on it.
MAYBE if we coordinated well as a civilization we could test everyone before they are allowed access to the free-range internet. If they fall into the slop and gambling and scammy side of things, we restrict them to the Kiddie pool. "You can access Streaming Sites, Facebook, and play multiplayer video games. You can send and receive e-mails and you have access to porn if you're old enough, but you are intentionally unable to ever transmit your financial information to anyone."
(I will grant that this is just begging for a larger censorship regime. Remember I'm already doing magical thinking that we could have civilizational coordination to safely protect kids and the vulnerable)
In truth, women have a much stronger preference for dominance than men have for submissiveness.
The charts you linked are about sex. What people do in the bedroom is often different from their general behavior or personality.
It’s not at all hard to find women who are generally ‘dominant’ or decisive in life, but like to be dominated in bed.
I don’t disagree with your point that ‘servile’ is a bad description for a life partner, but I don’t think that’s the evidence for your argument. I believe you're collapsing men's preference for agreeableness with preference for sexual submission.
thejdizzler
1d ago
I'm so sorry to hear this!
aqouta
1d ago
Welp, 9 week visit went poorly, we're probably going to have another miscarriage, we'll know for sure in a couple weeks. I looked up the odds, seems like there is only like a 30% chance the problem is some kind of chromosomal thing that makes us totally inviable.
We found out a couple weeks ago my sister is expecting her second in January, they would have been similar ages. We're going to another baby shower in a couple weeks. This really sucks.
ZanarkandAbesFan
1d ago
If the IDF offered food and a trip out of Gaza for the family of anyone who accurately reported Hamas hiding spots I bet they would win fast.
Knowing where Hamas are hiding has never been the IDF's problem. It's been trying to target Hamas members while causing as little collateral damage as possible, given that Hamas invariably hides among large clusters of civilians. But for something closer to your example, the Israelis have for almost a year been offering $5 million to any Gazan willing to return a hostage (I assume helping to return a hostage carries a similar reward). As far as I'm aware, they've had no takers.
The_Nybbler
In the game of roller derby, women aren't just the opposing team; they're the ball.
1d ago
I feel like genocide and ethnic cleansing are different ways of slicing the same flavor of activity by severity.
Certainly not. Dividing a nation and moving all members of one ethnic group to one half while moving all members of another ethnic group to the other is "ethnic cleansing", but it is in no way genocide. However, this is not happening. Gaza is already basically "ethnically spotless". The only ethnic cleansing Israel did in Gaza was in 2005, when it removed its own settlers (often by force), and I don't think that's what anyone means by it now.
Ethnic group: Palestinians
Religion: Muslims
There are very few non-Palestinians and/or non-Muslims resident in Gaza, but those who exist have been moved around with the rest.
TowardsPanna
1d ago
I'll re-check against a group of enemies.
Did notice it was considerably quicker to take down one of those white giants when using this Ash though.
The_Nybbler
In the game of roller derby, women aren't just the opposing team; they're the ball.
1d ago
Additional Protocol I, Article 54
Israel has not signed Additional Protocol I. (and the US has not ratified it). Hamas, of course, ignores such things entirely as applied to itself.
Israel has been doing all those things for months. The vast majority of structures in Gaza are destroyed or damaged.
More options
Context Copy link