domain:putanumonit.com
JarJarJedi
4hr ago
If the Dems had a responsibility to actually report Biden's decline (and they absolutely did, IMO), then
There's no "if-then". The responsibility for corruption doesn't come from other guys being perfect, and a presence of other corrupt guys, true or imagined, can not excuse your own corruption. Dems lied voluminously about just every aspect of Biden's presidency, bar none, and they are responsible for this, and will be responsible forever and ever, and for all harm that it has done to the country, absolutely regardless of what Republicans ever did or will do.
P.S. And yes, Joe was totally and undoubtedly pocketing bribes from (or through, however you want to present it) Hunter. Stop living in denial, it happened. And there's really no reason to pretend otherwise anymore, Joe Biden is spent goods for the party. Relieve you conscience and accept the facts, at least in this small matter. Believing the truth is always easier than compounding lies. No lie can survive forever anyway, especially not in our age.
pigeonburger
4hr ago
No, I do realise all of that. But the forms and niceties are important, even if they are just pretending. If you pretend to tolerate the other for long enough, you start believing you do. And when enough people believe it, something magical happens (or rather, something terrible doesn't happen); your society becomes more stable and its constituents don't jump to civil war anytime they lose an election.
VoxelVexillologist
Multidimensional Radical Centrist
4hr ago
what you programmers call The Big O.
Somewhere in a coding boot camp, the drill sergeant is calling for a trainee to "Show me your Big O Face!" /s
Lizzardspawn
4hr ago
I am probably the biggest Trumpist here. Just to calibrate your priors.
JarJarJedi
4hr ago
You just knew the postman would come, rain or shine, and deliver the mail. You didn’t have to believe in him. He was just there.
Yeah, until the Postal Service goes on strike. There are a lot of things we believe in without critically analyzing them, just because our beliefs are never challenged. But that doesn't mean they can't be.
And if you didn’t believe in something, then it couldn’t help you.
I love Pratchett, but he is making an exact opposite of the correct point here (which is fine because guess what, he's writing fantasy). The sky works the same whether you believe in it or not. You can believe the sky is totally fake, but it won't change any practical result - you can still fly an airplane, enjoy sunbathing and get wetted by the rain. However, I am not sure the concept of "evolution" is the same way. If you're a biologist and you accept it, would your actions and results be different than if you did not? The sky is the territory. The evolution is a map. It may be argued it is a great map - so be it, but it's still a map. You can choose to reject a certain map and use another one - with better results or worse, but you can. You can't "reject" a territory - you can ignore it, but that'd be still just a change of a map (to a much worse one).
Rosencrantz2
4hr ago
I just suspect they need to be gladiatorial in Trump's image to win Trump's approval, and then when they're the candidate and perhaps need him a bit less, they will pivot a bit.
Tree
4hr ago
How would a no-nonsense engineer such as yourself tinker with this problem?
Because it's very tedious and time-consuming to go through his page, click on the link, and then upvote (you can't upvote from the user page).
One thing that's mildly more effective is sorting by new, so you land on a thread, and there's a good chance there are more comments of his upthread, and so you've saved a pageload or two, which feels great. It might possibly be related to what you programmers call The Big O.
Another idea I have is simply to ask him to make 20+ one-letter comments on some dead thread so I can really cut down on the time spent per upvote.
JarJarJedi
4hr ago
Vibes? Papers? Essays?
Diversity, inclusion and equity, of course. That's what they were promised when they signed up, and they reasonably expected nothing more is going to be demanded from them.
JarJarJedi
4hr ago
You can not reinforce all soft targets. You can reinforce a few military installations, but if your enemy is OK with terrorizing civilians, this is a perfect weapon of terror. Blowing up a truck can destroy a building, maybe a block if it's really big. But releasing a truckload of explosive drones can paralyze a whole multi-million city.
JarJarJedi
4hr ago
Great job for Ukrainians pioneering a completely new war tactics - and actually putting it on the radar of people that are supposed to think about such things. I mean there was a talk about this for a long time, but we all know talking theory and having a practical example differs a lot. Now I hope the US starts addressing the scenario of "50 Chinese container ships loaded with drones" as a real thing not as Sci-Fi scenario like "what if Martians attack D.C.". And of course, the less weapons Russia has, the better the world is, though this particular thing is of more symbolic than strategic meaning - God still sides with large battalions on the battlefield.
UwU
4hr ago
What if you believe that when you reach the finish line, there's a 5% chance that the track will blow up, but if the other guys reach the finish line first, there's a 10% chance the track will blow up. Also you believe the other guys don't take the risks seriously so they won't stop running. Is "sprint harder" a valid option?
chooky
4hr ago
It also seems like in times of peace you would just get protection rackets rather than legititimate security.
JarJarJedi
4hr ago
Nobody can "get" you a job as a doctor or a lawyer or a CEO (well, unless it's a CEO of a scam) without walking a long way there (I omit politicians because it's not a job like any others). You can't just "become" a doctor without studying hard for years, and if you're already capable of that, the wokes would just slow you down. The only thing the wokes can offer you is to pressure the system into devaluing your work by lowering the criteria. They still won't be able to make you a doctor overnight, but they will make people wonder whether your training had been as rigorous as the other folks'.
And I don't really see any way to get into the job market but beginner-level jobs (unless you win the birth lottery and your family is rich, at which cases again you don't need the wokes already). Maybe the message of "if you want to succeed, try working hard" is "pathetic" compared to "scream victimhood hard with me and get all the stuff for free" but the latter - unless you become a con artist and join the grifter class, which is not for everyone - is a lie.
It’s still kind of like paying truckers if they include at least one anti-tank weapon. America would have a heck of a time getting either to stand up against a serious military.
laughs in Dari, Pashto, Vietnamese, Irish, etc
Yeah I'm sure a country full of small arms and handheld ATGMs will be a cakewalk to conquer. Good luck holding onto it though. It's just a bunch of peasants, what are they going to do against the best military in the world eh?
faul_sname
Fuck around once, find out once. Do it again, now it's science.
5hr ago
... and that's bad, right? You see how the "think of the children" argument shut down critical thinking in this case?
The happens every time. Saying "think of the children" to mandate certain medical treatments does not go well. Saying "think of the children" to ban those same medical treatments will also probably not go well. Most puberty blockers don't go to trans kids, and most trans kids don't use puberty blockers, so the second-order harms of a bad policy here are likely to be larger than the primary benefits.
That leaves the door open for a good policy of course. Ha ha ha.
But they're couched as arguments over what is the minimum set of laws to allow diverse viewpoints and lifestyles. Even if in practice they can be the same, they are not presented as a naked "Ok, now that I have the backing of a majority you better adopt the lifestyle I want you to have or else..." I guess in a spirited debate it's possible to accuse the other side of doing it. But to resort to unironically, unashamedly doing it is crossing some serious lines.
But to resort to unironically, unashamedly doing it is crossing some serious lines.
You are perhaps more correct than you realize.
"The Country" has not defeated attempts to curtail religious liberties. Specific power blocs have defeated those attempts. To the extent that the Court has been involved, it has recognized political victories, not generated them. Absent those power blocs, neither the Constitution nor the Court will protect religious liberties for any significant length of time.
At every step from absolute liberty to absolute oppression, it is always possible to describe the negative space around current restrictions as "huge deference". Allowing Churches tax-exemption is Huge Deference. When that is removed, allowing them to hold meetings without the approval of an official censor will be Huge Deference. when that is removed, allowing them to meet at all will be huge deference. Not searching former congregants homes for banned materials. Allowing them to have children. Allowing them to live. All possible laws leave negative space, and any amount of negative space can always be framed as Huge Deference. It's not as though deference has a standard unit of measure, much less a volume equation.
[...]
There is no objective measure for "huge deference", "reasonable restrictions", "necessary protections", or any other such phrase. Such phrases are not pointing to a unbiased rule or a principled argument. They are a naked appeal to social consensus, and social consensus observably has had an unacceptably wide range of possible positions within our lifetimes, much less over the course of human history.
"The Constitution protects this" means nothing more than "this is safe so long as the right people approve of it". I observe that "what people approve of" is a fantastically malleable category; if we can go from the 2000s consensus on free expression to the consensus of Current Year, no principle is safe.
IGI-111
God was a dream of good government.
5hr ago
To be more specific, consider some regulation that says that you actually have to be able to explain and defend the algorithm in a court, and aren't allowed black boxes.
ToaKraka
Dislikes you
5hr ago
One failure mode of a good employee is where all your effort and good will for management is captured by your immediate supervisor, but then he doesn't advance you further up the ladder because you're so productive in your current role.
Some would call this a successful avoidance of the Peter Principle rather than a failure.
People in a hierarchy tend to rise to "a level of respective incompetence": employees are promoted based on their success in previous jobs until they reach a level at which they are no longer competent, as skills in one job do not necessarily translate to another.
IGI-111
God was a dream of good government.
5hr ago
they sure seem to be best modelled as capable of agency.
I disagree. For the same reason that I disagree that it was best to model Eliza as having agency.
You're training a statistical model to do something, and it does that thing. To model it as having agency would imply the thing starting to do things on its own that aren't just emergent properties of what you're making it do.
If you don't want unintended effects, don't train the thing on the whole of a culture you don't control. Calling it "rogue" is like calling a hammer evil because it hurt when you're hitting yourself with it. Stop hitting yourself.
bunkers
More like uncontacted tribes.
Realistic X-risk is mostly down to physical conditions making our biosphere unable to sustain the critical mass of human life, like somebody lobbing a big rock at Earth or some invasive lifeform eating all the oxygen in the atmosphere. And even those are somewhat survivable. Losing a war to a recognizable enemy doesn't even register.
Hence why I think the main mitigating factor is any kind of extra-planetary backup.
This level of victory really requires winning two (or really three, in this case) of the branches of government.
Under present conditions, this level of victory is what is known colloquially as a "coup-complete problem". We had ample demonstration of how Blue Tribe reacted to the president attempting to enforce what one might have imagined would be relatively uncontroversial laws like "don't burn down a federal courthouse" via armed federal agents during the BLM riots.
AmericanSaxeCoburgGothic
Happy to be here! Goal is to post the most exclamation points.
5hr ago
One failure mode of a good employee is where all your effort and good will for management is captured by your immediate supervisor but then they don't advance you further up the ladder because you're so productive in your current role. Usually this is remedied by switching jobs. Maybe I'm mediocre but mostly everyone I know of get Meets Expectations, usually because supervisors see it as a perfunctory task, instead of something that could be instructive. Not sure how it works in Australia, but in the US the pattern is usually a bad performance evaluation and an action plan for improvement once they decide to let you go. But sounds like you might get a better position if you get a new one.
FCfromSSC
Nuclear levels of sour
5hr ago
"The ability to coerce others " is exactly how Blues have wielded the Constitution for more than half a century, and arguably much, much longer. There was a time when I and others like me were foolish enough to believe that this was acceptable, because this was a power that both tribes shared equally: we must respect the enforcement of their rights against our desires, because they must accept the enforcement of our rights against their desires.
We now have conclusive proof that they will never accept the enforcement of our rights against their desires. Claims to the contrary were lies.
For further elaboration, see above.
FCfromSSC
Nuclear levels of sour
5hr ago
Envy is seeing what someone else has, hating them for it, and wanting to destroy it. It’s bringing someone low because you can’t stand seeing them up.
For values of "up" centered around standing on my neck, yes. Blues have insisted that the Constitution allows them to impose their values on me for my entire life. For most of my life, I accepted this because I believed our tribes were both operating within a concrete set of rules, and that honoring appeals to those rules by my opponents would ensure that my own appeals to those rules would likewise be honored. This belief is no longer supportable by the available evidence. All value expended in preserving "Constitutional norms" by my side was wasted for zero benefit. Blues will never accept Constitutional limits on their desires, and the Constitutional machine observably does not have sufficient horsepower to force them to do so.
My prescription remains the same as it has for some years now: a national divorce is the least-worst option available to us. Blues and Reds are not capable of living together, nor of sharing power with each other; attempts to do so will inevitably lead to constant escalation of conflict ending in large-scale fratricide. All attempts to arrest the escalation spiral to-date have failed, often at the cost of the social and political tools used in the attempt. Our institutions, structures and norms were designed to operate in an environment of values-coherence; that environment no longer exists, and it is the height of foolishness to fail to recognize this fact.
For those seeking additional context:
As I understand it, your complaint is that people are increasingly reluctant to accept the outcomes mandated by the rules. I doubt that you consider rule-following to be a terminal goal, so the argument would be that rule-following should produce superior outcomes, right?
Let's say we disagree strongly on how things should be, but we've agreed to follow a set of rules. A conflict arises. You follow the rules to the letter. I apply a novel strategy the rules didn't account for. I win. You have no grounds within the rules to contest my win, because I didn't break any of the rules as written. Changing the rules to account for this novel strategy is itself a conflict, and you're already behind on winning conflicts. Suppose this pattern repeats a number of times, and you now expect that you lose by attempting to play by the rules, and I win by playing outside them.
Let's say you believe this outcome is a problem. What are your options to resolve it? Attempting to improve the rules is not, I think, a workable strategy. The simple fact is that, contrary to Enlightenment ideology, there is no flawless ruleset available. You are never going to close all the loopholes. Rules are simplifications, abstractions, map and not territory. they have to be interpreted, adjudicated, enforced, and each of those steps involves human judgement and an irreducible loss of objectivity. Motivated agents will always find ways around a fixed ruleset, and the longer they stand, the more porous they become.
At the end of the day, it seems to me that respect for a ruleset requires either trust that the rules lack fragility, or trust in the other party not to abuse that fragility for their own advantage. Leaving aside questions of cause and responsibility, it seems obvious to me that neither side of the Culture War actually maintains confidence in either of these propositions. Under such conditions, why would one expect the rules to continue to operate in anything approaching a reliable fashion?
The value of the Constitution came when it acted as a hard limit on the scope and scale of political conflict. People understood it to put many tools of power off the table for most practical purposes, removing them from the normal push and pull of the political contest. When we vote, the Constitution means that we're voting on policy, not on our basic political rights. If we lose, we suffer the other side's policies for a few years, but our rights are inviolate.
Only, they aren't, and anyone who believes otherwise at this point is quite foolish indeed. Progressives and their Living Constitution ideology mean that all bets are off, and indeed we have seen abuses and usurpations committed and upheld that would have been unimaginable as little as ten years ago.
"They wouldn't do that...." Yes, they would, for any value of "that" that one cares to specify. Americans, Blue or Red, are human, and "that" is what humans reliably do. Presidential candidates have campaigned on the idea of taxing religions they don't like, and openly laughed at the idea of constitutional limits on their ambitions. The theoretical grounding is solid, and the underlying logic is simply correct. Where your "norms" are supposed to fit into this picture I really cannot say.
Turn back to your favorite histories, and contemplate the fact that for all our technological sophistication, nothing about our core nature as humans has ever really changed. Humans will inevitably human. We create systems to control and channel our nature, but what our hands make, they can unmake as well. The Constitution arose from a specific culture, and it worked due to a specific set of cultural norms and assumptions. That culture changed, the norms and assumptions no longer apply, and so the Constitution is dead. To the extent that common knowledge of its death has not proliferated, it serves mainly to fool people into making sacrifices that will not be reciprocated by those who caught on a little quicker.
I am not claiming that "both sides are unreasonable partisans, and they just need to be reasonable". I am claiming that our current system makes unreasonable partisanship the only viable policy option, and pointing out that anyone who expects anything other than an escalation spiral is lying to themselves. I am attempting to argue this from the outside view, ignoring any question of which side is right and which wrong, simply looking at the incentives. I obviously have my own opinion of who is right and who is wrong, and I've argued that further down in the thread. I am making this argument because it is common for moderates here to argue that the Culture War isn't that big a deal, that it's blown out of proportion, and that our existing systems are basically fine and simply need routine maintenance for everything to work out fine. I believe that such moderate arguments are dead wrong to the point of being actively dangerous, and I am attempting to communicate the basis for that conclusion across the tribal divide.
I have my own position, based on my own values and my own best interpretation of the facts. What I'm trying to show is that the larger pattern is obvious regardless of particular values or understandings of the facts: regardless of whether you side with Foster, Perry, neither or both, the situation is obviously unsustainable for our existing system. Rule of law requires common trust in the law and its application, and it, together with the rest of our sociopolitical systems, exist to constrain the scope and scale of civil conflict. These limiting systems have evidently failed, and those that remain are observably blowing out as the culture-war blast front washes over them in sequence.
As I see it, our current choice is between a near-total collapse in federal authority and semi-peaceful balkanization on the one hand, and large-scale fratricide on the other, with the latter being significantly more likely given our current social trajectory. I've been arguing this for a long time, this is just the latest data to illustrate the point.
None of this is new, surprising, or unexpected. I and others saw it coming a long way off. Some of us see what's coming next a long way off too. If you are a Blue living among Reds or a Red living among Blues, you should move.
HereAndGone
5hr ago
Well, sorta the other way round. Modern social justice movement grew out of Catholic beginnings. But I was more amused by Barrett being excoriated as a liberal when she was being excoriated by the liberals for being a fundie.
Don't make me quote "Orthodoxy". Oops, too late! Chesterton is talking about Christianity as a whole, but I think it fits the case of the Church as well:
I wished to be quite fair then, and I wish to be quite fair now; and I did not conclude that the attack on Christianity was all wrong. I only concluded that if Christianity was wrong, it was very wrong indeed. Such hostile horrors might be combined in one thing, but that thing must be very strange and solitary. There are men who are misers, and also spendthrifts; but they are rare. There are men sensual and also ascetic; but they are rare. But if this mass of mad contradictions really existed, quakerish and bloodthirsty, too gorgeous and too thread-bare, austere, yet pandering preposterously to the lust of the eye, the enemy of women and their foolish refuge, a solemn pessimist and a silly optimist, if this evil existed, then there was in this evil something quite supreme and unique. For I found in my rationalist teachers no explanation of such exceptional corruption. Christianity (theoretically speaking) was in their eyes only one of the ordinary myths and errors of mortals. They gave me no key to this twisted and unnatural badness. Such a paradox of evil rose to the stature of the supernatural. It was, indeed, almost as supernatural as the infallibility of the Pope. An historic institution, which never went right, is really quite as much of a miracle as an institution that cannot go wrong. The only explanation which immediately occurred to my mind was that Christianity did not come from heaven, but from hell. Really, if Jesus of Nazareth was not Christ, He must have been Antichrist.
And then in a quiet hour a strange thought struck me like a still thunderbolt. There had suddenly come into my mind another explanation. Suppose we heard an unknown man spoken of by many men. Suppose we were puzzled to hear that some men said he was too tall and some too short; some objected to his fatness, some lamented his leanness; some thought him too dark, and some too fair. One explanation (as has been already admitted) would be that he might be an odd shape. But there is another explanation. He might be the right shape. Outrageously tall men might feel him to be short. Very short men might feel him to be tall. Old bucks who are growing stout might consider him insufficiently filled out; old beaux who were growing thin might feel that he expanded beyond the narrow lines of elegance. Perhaps Swedes (who have pale hair like tow) called him a dark man, while negroes considered him distinctly blonde. Perhaps (in short) this extraordinary thing is really the ordinary thing; at least the normal thing, the centre.
You're not boned but it sounds to me like something has to change. Being 'badly burned out" and collapsing after every work day isn't sustainable. You shouldn't worry about being fired, you can always find a new job, you should be worried about actually severe burn out. Burnout where you can't work at all for a long time and possibly never being able to work full time in your current position again.
I don't know what you need to change but something clearly has to. You only have one body. Don't break it.
More options
Context Copy link