domain:anarchonomicon.substack.com
faceh
3d ago
It would be nice if the incentives were aligned to teach the nerd some toughness that he is capable of learning along the way,
but it shouldn't come at a cost of putting thugs ahead. That would be a perversion of what I believe a society of legal adults should look like (i.e. it shouldn't look like a hunter-gatherer tribe).
I would certainly make the point that thugs will commit thuggery whether or not we give them the license to do so or not. I think the reason we want to toughen up the nerd is so they are capable of embracing ALL of the responsibility we might expect of an adult, including coming to the defense of their community if a bunch of thugs band together and try to take the things they feel they're being denied.
So yeah, we might want to have a test that exclude thugs from certain legal rights... but the larger question there is what do we do with them after the test, they're still around, and still able to act on their preferences, even if our legal system doesn't recognize their status.
The_Nybbler
In the game of roller derby, women aren't just the opposing team; they're the ball.
3d ago
Yeah, but everything's illegal in New Jersey. And there's a loophole:
As used in this section, "cloning of a human being" means the replication of a human individual by cultivating a cell with genetic material through the egg, embryo, fetal and newborn stages into a new human individual.
Note the "and". If you can skip the egg stage, you can clone away.
sammysoccer411
3d ago
What's any large company (say, over 10,000 people), in any other field than tech, that you positively like? If you're like me, you'd struggle to name one.
The issue here is that human psychology is wired for dealing with people. We like people who are strong and make the right 'I am your ally' sounds, and dislike people who fail these regards. The root of these instincts is evolution--the proto-humans that used these metrics to make the right intra-tribal alliances reproduced--and are thus deeply, deeply, deeply, wired.
An emergent property here is that people tend to really dislike those they find ingenuine. People whom make 'ally' sounds but don't follow through are not just enemies, but resource pits too. In my personal experience, I would say people dislike the ingenuine even more than they dislike pronounced enemies, although a citation is definitely needed here.
A large company can never make 'ally' sounds for too long. The charismatic founder must eventually leave, and profit incentives forever whittle away at any mission state, and there are too many employees for any consensus-making, so eventually all corporations must land, politically, in some spot between 'wishy-washy' and 'generic corporate positivity'.
But does this dislike make corporations 'evil'? I don't think that's entirely fair.
Corporations are amoral. They will always do exactly what leads to greatest increase in stock price, or their c-suite will be sued for not doing so. Amoral might not be 'good', and amoral is very dislikeable, but amoral is not evil.
What, for many, is fantastic about big tech is that it's a true 'nerd meritocracy'. This might be where the reverence you're seeing comes from. Most high-paying fields outside of tech place a high premium on social skills (sales, business, finance, politics, law) or else are not true meritocracies (academia, also law). For the smart but less socially-inclined, big tech broadly is high-paying (strong) and wants to hire people like you ('ally').
professorgerm
You shall love your crooked neighbor, with your crooked heart
3d ago
Remember just because academia creates a term for a thing it doesn't mean that's where it came from.
I might be low human capital an idiot but this sentence is sailing over my head in whatever point you're trying to make. How is creating a thing not where it came from?
Streetcorner shizos don't come up with multisyllabic nonsense like "cisheteronormativity," you need the carefully nurtured Ivory Tower Hothouse kind. Gotta be real smart to be that dumb, as the saying goes.
OliveTapenade
3d ago
I confess I'm pessimistic here. If I had my way we would just declare this whole field a crime against humanity and end it there, but the human race has generally been pretty bad at putting genies back in bottles. We mostly managed the first time with eugenics, but we may not a second time.
I don't have a whole lot to say about the Scott Alexander article either other than that this is another of the sporadic posts that remind me that, while I like some of his writing, I occasionally need to remind myself that he is, for lack of a better term, a moral alien.
marinuso
3d ago
We've had screenings for things like Down's Syndrome for a while, and we do not (in general) oppose abortions in those cases. Even countries that ban elective abortions completely tend to allow it in cases of malformation, which Down's Syndrome would count as. And then you just try again. This doesn't seem too different in concept, just a lot easier and more flexible. In this case, too, the only people who don't do this are certain religious people. The genetic material is still coming from the parents, they're not actually making 'designer babies' or superhumans or anything of the sort.
We're not getting Gattaca. The problem there was that they put DNA tests everywhere in their society. That's the dystopian bit. And who would have anything to gain by doing that?
I don't think we are even functional enough as a society. If we're getting a dystopia, we're getting "Brazil". (With perhaps some shades of "Demolition Man".) We kind of already saw this during Covid with the half-working tracking apps and the like. Both in the fact that the government's attempt at oppression frequently hurt random strangers by accident while not even really dealing with the actual dissidents, and in the fact that the general populace mostly just shrugged about it all.
sarker
It isn't happening, and if it is, it's a bad thing
3d ago
It's not clear to me if that's their current net contribution (given the ages of immigrants today) or their lifetime net contributions.
Maybe I was being a bit hyperbolic. My gripe is really that romantasy is being claimed as fantasy and is polluting IRL conversations on good fantasy books. But you sort of gave some ammo even to the hyperbolic argument. I love Joe Abercrombie, and I think Mark Lawrence is a good author. Neither of their earlier books are particularly woke. Some could even claim the opposite but as you pointed out they definitely have changed. And these are at least the upper echelon on fantasy authors. I went into the bookstore recently to grab "The Murderbot Diaries" and in that sci-fi/fantasy section I couldn't help but see how many slop authors or romantasy books absolutely filled the shelves. To the point that I had a hankering for some Steven Brust's Taltos and it was not there, crowded out for books on Fairy Magic Academy and R.F Kaung's tired racial rage disguised as historical fantasy. They had the more mainstream famous ones of course: Dune, GoT, Cosmere, and Kingkiller (Despite Rothfuss being too far up his own ass to ever finish it.) But not the greats: Pratchett, Erikson, Bakker, Wolfe, Brust, Gemmel, Cooke, etc...
Maybe I've gotten too old (figuratively, I'm in my early 30s), but I definitely remember roaming the wilderness of the library, in my youth, picking up weird, zany, interesting fantasy books based on the covers and the synopsizes, and them having actual quality and being enjoyable non-sloppy, non-political reads.
Edit:
Age of Madness trilogy (Joe Abercrombie)
I want to push back on the claimed wokeness of this one a bit, I read it when it first released, in 2021 so forgive me if my remembrance of the details are murkier. First off, the hyper-competent female character is literally a robber-baron sweat shop owner who is in a forbidden love affair with her stepbrother (The urbane prince). She is in no way portrayed as good person or even super competent (The whole riot arc in the first book?) since her "father" (Head of the CIA) pretty much runs the country and lavishes everything on her. I don't remember the young (18) country lord being racist. An arrogant bigot: Yes. He's also just a homophobe not a closet homosexual. Yes, his retainers were gay, he has a nasty reaction to it, but I don't remember ever thinking he was secretly into the retainers in any other way than a platonic male bonding way. The urbane, metrosexual, openminded prince gets the shit end of the stick by an astounding degree even if you end up rooting for him. He also bumbles through a lot of stuff and is essentially the trope of rich wastrel sons being useless. The whole burners/breakers plot is clearly mapped to activists being absolutely shit, not really wanting a functioning society and also secretly being funded by the head of the CIA to take down the big banks (Who are also trying to control society). And not in a way that maps onto our political climate neatly.
Rov_Scam
3d ago
When I took the bar exam I was curious about the whole proctor situation. I mean, who takes a job that works four days a year? They were all elderly and obviously retired, but I thought that maybe they worked for some kind of proctor service where they would occasionally work whatever exam needed proctoring. But then I asked one of them and nope, they worked two days in February and two in July. I then talked to the guy who was reading all the instructions and looked to be in charge, thinking that he might be a professional, but no, he got the job after someone saw him in a community theater production and thought he had a good speaking voice.
So for the New York thing, I do remember them talking about what would happen in case of an emergency, but it was more like a fire or something else that would cause the building to be evacuated, and they emphasized that that had never happened (I guess they'll have to change that language now). I can't remember if they said anything about medical emergencies, but they did emphasize that the test would not stop for any reason. A friend from law school whom I took the test with (in February, the day after a snowstorm) said that because the MBE is published only twice a year all states have to administer it on the same day to prevent the answers from getting out. Even beyond that, there are logistics concerns that make it really inconvenient to postpone anything, and there's a need to reassure students who have been stressing out about the test for months that things aren't going to be delayed and the test will proceed as normal regardless of what happens.
So you have proctors who are given very strict instructions, with no one from the Board of Bar Examiners present with the authority to grant exceptions, and you get situations like this. It seems like the proctors weren't given adequate training in how to respond and they doggedly stuck to the rules. To be fair, I don't know if yelling was the best response on the part of the students; I think a more appropriate instruction would be to quietly inform a proctor, with the main guy making a general announcement that there has been a medical emergency and EMS has been called. It said in the Reddit comments that Connecticut and Florida kept EMS on hand to deal with these situations, which seems like a good idea. Also, there was some mention of students deliberately not helping because they were worried about the test. Fuck that, if someone is going to die, having to retake it in six months isn't the end of the world.
While we're on the subject of bar exams, I had an idea when I took it called the Mount Everest of Lays. There may be more difficult situations to get laid in, but I haven't though of one that has the same combination of a necessarily limited time frame, situational inappropriateness (without being too inappropriate), and theoretical availability of women. The idea is getting laid on the evening between the two days of the bar exam with someone you met at the bar exam. The strategy would be to finish early, then hang around the room where they let you keep your stuff, waiting for an attractive member of the opposite sex to come in. You'd have an instant entree for conversing with a stranger, seeing as you both finished early. Then you'd see if she wants to go to lunch, or grab a drink, depending on whether it's the morning or afternoon session. Lunch would be ideal, because it's low-commitment and would allow you to establish a rapport before you asked her out for drinks later. Either way, after the first day of the exam you ask her for dinner and/or drinks and try to make your move.
It goes without saying that most people are incredibly stressed by the bar exam and invest a lot of time into studying for it. But it's also true that pretty much anyone who knows about prepping for it will tell you that you're better off not studying the night before the test, because after studying for two months you need to relax and not get too stressed. You can use this to your advantage since she might not have anyone in town to hang out with and distract her, and you can press the fact that she needs to relax all the way into bed. I will concede that this is an exceptionally low-probability play, but the theoretical framework is there. When I took the bar exam I finished early both sessions but didn't get the opportunity to hit on anyone. That's how I imagine it would go for most people.
Another fun bar exam story: One of the guys I was sitting next to was a little older and obviously neurotic. The rules specify what you're allowed to bring in with you and he had exactly everything you're allowed to bring in with you, including a plastic baggie filled with Certs or something like that. I rightly assumed that this guy was a bit more anxious than the average test-taker. Shortly into the exam, he consumed one of the Certs by biting it in half. I chuckled at the thought of quietly asking him to knock it off since it was keeping me from focusing on the test, which was guaranteed to make this guy feel somewhat ashamed for his minor breach of etiquette. A few minutes later, I noticed something else.
The Pennsylvania Bar Exam includes a practical component where you're given materials and asked to draft something—a brief, a motion, etc.—based on them. Every test prep service says that component should not be started until all the essay questions are complete, as it's really easy to get lost in the project and use up an inordinate amount of time. I glanced in his direction shortly after the test started and noticed that he immediately started on the practical section. Uh oh. I glance over again periodically to see where he's at with it. Every time he was still working on it. An hour in and he's still working on it. Two hours in and he's still working on it. Finally, with like 45 minutes to go, he finally starts on the first of three essay questions. I finish about ten minutes early and leave. As I'm walking to lunch, I break out laughing at the prospect of having stayed until the end to see how he finished. As I left he was frantically scribbling the beginning of the last essay. I wondered how he'd react if I had said "Man, you started the practical part first. BIG MISTAKE! You're gonna fail, dude.
I mean, seriously, how could a guy who is this neurotic not know that you save the practical part until last. Even starting it first, how could he be that oblivious to time management? Either way, had I actually said that, and made the earlier remark about the Certs, I probably would have put this guy on full tilt for the rest of the exam, and would have risked him having a heart attack and I probably would have failed myself after taking the time to render aid. Then again, for all I know he's been repeatedly failing the bar for the past fifteen years because he still hasn't figured out that you don't do the practical part first, and I could have tipped him off early and saved him a ton of trouble. Then again, the opportunity to get laid, how ever infinitesimal the chance, is worth more than causing unnecessary anxiety for laughs.
MadMonzer
Pedo! Pedo! Pedo! Out! Out! Out!
3d ago
It is pretty well-contained on Boardgamegeek. I avoid the political boards, and find less politics on the rest of the 'Geek than I do almost anywhere else. I recently read the CGE-bashing threads on Rainbow Gaming because they stopped doing guided tours of the Bedlam mental hospital 100 years ago, but the mods are good at keeping the board gaming forum and the mental hospital separate.
The culture that is Boardgamegeek needs to keep politics out of the main boards because there are a lot of conservative-leaning groups in board gaming - you have the grognards, a lot of Zoomer barstool conservatives, and the Mormons (The LDS Church encourage board gaming as a morally healthy way of keeping kids off screens). At the very least you need to grognards and the People of Hair Colour on the same forum in order to be the go-to place to advertise the big miniatures-based Kickstarters.
ThomasdelVasto
Κύριε, ποίησόν με ὄργανον τῆς ἀγάπης σου
3d ago
That is a fun fact!!!! It should be EVEN MORE ILLEGAL THOUGH! Nah joking, but not surprised.
It is surprising to me that cloning has been more legislated than trait based embryo selection. I suppose the wedge was IVF and selecting against major health issues like sickle-cell anemia, and now that wedge is being used to just push things open to full blown selecting for IQ, height, hair color, etc.
ToaKraka
Dislikes you
3d ago
You'd think we would at least have a discussion as to whether this should be legal or not
Fun fact: In New Jersey, cloning a human is in the same category (first-degree crime) as murder.
No_one
3d ago
Yeah.
Ivy league schools now have 'optional' video statements.. https://www.ivycoach.com/the-ivy-coach-blog/college-admissions/video-prompts-on-college-applications/
Man, do these people love to discriminate. Would be very funny if Feds mandated something like race/sex/background blinded tests and they could pick only based on test / essay results..
The first issue is that you're comparing the actions of an authoritarian dictatorship to those of a liberal democracy. If incontrovertible evidence came out that Putin had Prigozhin, such as the meticulous documentation you suggest, what do you think the repercussions would be for Putin? How would they compare with the repercussion faced by an American president facing similar allegations and similar evidence?
I don't think Putin would face much repercussions at all. How would that compare to an American president? Hard to say, and it probably depends on the president. Trump would probably be hung from a lamp-post, but Obama or Bush? There was already a case where Obama sentenced an American citizen to death, with no due process, and the execution killing his underage son, and there was zero repercussions for him. Or take MKULTRA, where we had incontrovertible evidence that the CIA was conducting experiments on unwilling American citizens, no one faced any charges for that either.
Prigozhin launched a rebellion against the Russian army during the middle of a war. This is not controversial.
Yeah, the reason why I took Prigozhin as an example is because it's so obvious and glaring, but the point I was making was different. If you had to convince a Putin supporter invested in believing it was an accident, that it was, in fact an assassination, you'd be having a hell of a time. He'd be doing essentially what you are, and characterizing any skepticism of Russian institutions as a "fever swamp". Any frustration or futility you'd be feeling trying to convince such a person is essentially how I feel about any attempts at making me take western "Liberal Democracies" seriously.
Now that intelligence agencies have been added to the mix, it's unclear to me if the theory is that the intelligence agencies had him killed to protect the powerful men who were being blackmailed, or if he was killed so he wouldn't reveal the existence of the honeypot scheme.
Either way, the whole scheme was a curious one, in that it evidently didn't target anyone in power, and seemed to serve Epstein more than any of the alleged targets.
Keep in mind that the person that "added them to the mix" was Alexander Acosta. This is the entire rub of the story, and much stronger evidence than anything you bring up.
The most reasonable explanation for what Epstein was doing, if it wasn't a honeypot, is that he was a whoremonger, USA's very own Petyr Baelish (although that might be an unfortunate comparison as he was a bit of a glowie himself), and as long he was providing company and entertainment without drawing attention, everyone involved was content not to ask too many questions, and just enjoy things. The problem is that he did draw attention to himself. His little prostitution ponzi-scheme came as no surprise to anyone who knows anything about the inner-working of that industry, outside, maybe, of just how much throughput Epstein has managed to achieve single-handedly. Which, I suppose, was his downfall, as the sheer scale of it exposed him. The police ended up with enough evidence to lock him for life, and possibly to chemically castrate him on top of that, if they wanted to. An open and shut case, if there ever was one, and if that's how the story ended, I wouldn't even raise an eyebrow.
But, of course, this is not what happened. Somehow he got away with a slap on the wrist, and the seven zillion clerks that had to process all the paperwork didn't find it appropriate to mention anything to anyone (which is where "it would have to involve practically everyone in the Department of Justice!" argument so bizarre). This alone is one of the biggest corruption scandals I have ever heard of, and even now, for some reason, we're talking about everything else about the case, but not it.
Anyway, a few years pass, someone digs out the papers, and it turns out there's more than enough there to hang him with all along, so the authorities go for another try, which is when he dies in suspicious circumstances, exactly as pre-predicted by the fever-swamp conspiracy theorists. Acosta gets asked why did he let him off the hook so easily, and he says "I was told the guy belonged to intelligence".
So let's say it was a suicide, what would I expect to happen with Acosta if this was all completely innocent happenstance? Oh, I dunno, something like his ass being set on fire in a way that would put Russiagate, J6, and all the Trump scandals to shame. What did we get? "The government has investigated the government, and has found the government free of any wrongdoing (other than Alex being a bit of a silly goose)". "Uh... did you follow up on that intelligence thing?"... "oh yeah, we asked him but he can't remember anything specific, nothing to see there!".
Absolute banana republic clownshow.
And the people who have been named...
Please, the man was operating for years and years. Even if it was a run-of-the-mill whorehouse, it certainly served more than the handful of people that were named.
ThomasdelVasto
Κύριε, ποίησόν με ὄργανον τῆς ἀγάπης σου
3d ago
While the Sweeney jeans add is clearly an overreaction to fake eugenics downthread, it does seem like real, hard, embryo selection eugenics is here, or at least right around the corner. Scott Alexander's article released yesterday, Suddenly, Trait-Based Embryo Selection, says:
In 2023, Orchid Health entered the field. Unlike Genomic Prediction, which tested only the most important genetic variants, Orchid offers whole genome sequencing, which can detect the de novo3 mutations involved in autism, developmental disorders, and certain other genetic diseases.
Critics accused GP and Orchid of offering “designer babies”, but this was only true in the weakest sense - customers couldn’t “design” a baby for anything other than slightly lower risk of genetic disease. These companies refused to offer selection on “traits” - the industry term for the really controversial stuff like height, IQ, or eye color. Still, these were trivial extensions of their technology, and everybody knew it was just a matter of time before someone took the plunge.
Last month, a startup called Nucleus took the plunge. They had previously offered 23andMe style genetic tests for adults. Now they announced a partnership with Genomic Prediction focusing on embryos. Although GP would continue to only test for health outcomes, you could forward the raw data from GP to Nucleus, and Nucleus would predict extra traits, including height, BMI, eye color, hair color, ADHD, IQ, and even handedness.
The gist of the article is that while the science is still in its infancy and there are a lot of challenges to overcome, these companies are not just selling vaporware. There's real embryo selection based on traits happening, that is going to be significant for babies being born now.
Of course this article is just another confirmation of science fiction becoming reality, but it's still shocking to see from my perspective. You'd think we would at least have a discussion as to whether this should be legal or not, but unfortunately given how crippled out legislative apparatus is, tech companies continue to just push ahead with zero fear of regulatory change. They're willing to take the risk.
Now I personally have religious reasons to oppose this sort of intervention, but even if you don't, it's not hard to imagine the insane societal consequences of allowing free for all designer babies. As one hyperbolic comment on the slate star subreddit says:
Yet another reason for people to not have kids.
This shit is so socially erosive. "Want a baby? Do you want a prole baby, made the old fashioned way? You don't know what you're going to get! It's like a loot box, could be pure crap. You should PAY US to make a cool designer baby, with a 34% increased chance of the ultra-rare and coveted phenotype High Functioning Autist. If you have a loot box baby, they're going to get crushed by Ultra-Rare HFA Baby"
Nuke it from orbit.
While this comment is pretty over the top, I still think there's a strong point here! Gattaca was a cautionary tale, not a user's manual. Then again, I suppose the general zeitgeist considers the prole class to be so whipped, and coddled with bread and circuses, that our materialistic transhumanist tech overlords can simply do whatever they want, even if it will end up condemning "natural-born" people to permanent servitude.
The culture war lines here would've been pretty clear a while ago, but now it's muddled. Will the religious right be able to turn their coalition against this? Will the left see this as inequality on steroids? Will an uneasy alliance be made to ban this technology from the light of day? Only time will tell.
I think this so-called "deal" is very silly. Obvious points:
- This is a public humiliation for von der Leyen, whatever the actual deal turns out to be. For too many MAGA supporters, that is sufficient for it to be a good deal for MAGA.
- Unlike the Japan "deal", where the Japanese authorities publicly disavowed the investment pledges the White House announced, the EU is being low key about the fact that there is no agreement on what the investment pledge actually is. But the White House explicitly say that the $600 billion investment pledge is additional to existing commitments, and the Commission explicitly say that it is a restatement of existing plans.
- The energy purchase pledge is fake. The EU Commission has no authority to make the Member States or European companies buy American energy they don't want to. And even if they did, the US lacks the physical capability to increase energy exports that much, and the EU probably lacks the physical capability to increase energy imports that much.
- As with the UK "deal", the EU announcement says that the US will cut steel tariffs subject to a quota arrangement to be agreed as part of the legally binding agreement. Unlike the UK "deal", the US announcement says that this will not happen. Given the political importance of steel tariffs, this would normally be sufficient to prevent ratification if this were a real deal.
- The non-tariff part of the announcement is very thin indeed - basically just paperwork reduction. Trump implied on social media that the EU would accept US manufactured goods based on US safety standards - both the US and EU announcements say this won't happen.
This is significantly further from being an actual deal than the UK "deal" was - the UK "deal" was thin but the UK and US announcements were sufficiently similar that you could imagine smart people who wanted to do a thin deal closing the gaps over the course of negotiating the legally binding agreement. This looks suspiciously like a kayfabe deal (similar to ones Trump did with Canada an Mexico back in March) where von der Leyen allows Trump to announce a yuge win while giving up very little of substance - the only part of the deal which is likely to actually happen is cutting EU tariffs on US manufactured goods from an average 1.6% to zero.
The other thing is that if EU is hoping to weather the storm and then it will be off
There are two ways this can blow over in less time than it takes to negotiate the legally binding deal (which, even if it is possible, will be of order a year). One is that the legality of the tariffs works its way up to SCOTUS who (correctly) say that the President does not have the authority to do what Trump is doing. The other is that the impact of the tariffs on US manufacturing (which is net hurt by the tariffs, both because there are higher tariffs on raw materials than on manufactured goods, and because tariffs hurt disproportionally hurt complex supply chains in general) and US consumers forces the final TACO. I personally rate the chance of SCOTUS overturning the tariffs at 75% and the chance of a TACO over the summer at 20%, for an overall chance of 80% that the political environment is completely different by the time the deal could be ratified.
No matter if 2028 is dem or rep year - this deal will be requested to be honored.
Midwestern MAGA (including Vance) or Dems will want to renegotiate the deal because they will want to change the underlying industrial policy (of promoting natural resource exports at the expense of US manufacturing). Continuity Trump will want to renegotiate it because Trump renegotiates everything as a matter of course.
even if it is implementation is botched as hell
The craziest thing here is that the Trump administration is trying to negotiate an accounting identity. Trump is bragging about securing $600 billion in investment pledges. But the whole point of the new approach to tariffs is to reduce the trade deficit, which is equal by accounting identity to net foreign investment in the US. The only way the EU can invest $600 billion in the US is by running a trade surplus, which is precisely the thing Trump says he wants them to stop doing.
If the deal actually happens, it would be bad for American manufacturing (partly because of the de-escalating tariffs, but most importantly because exporting $250 billion a year of energy will mean diverting energy away from domestic industry). But I don't think that bothers MAGA - as I say here, at the level of vibes MAGA want to go back to exporting natural resources like in the good old days, not to reindustrialise America. And if the deal actually happens it would be great for American natural resource producers.
And no one is brave enough to even propose retaliation.
Lets see what happens with China.
sodiummuffin
3d ago
The deal is one sided and quite good for the US.
One sided yes, good for the U.S. no. Fundamentally a 15% tariff is still just making the economy less efficient for no benefit besides some tax revenue that could to collected in less distortionary ways. Plus, unlike keeping tariffs that already exist which at least reduces disruption at the cost of long-term growth, new tariffs actively cause disruption. Pretty much the only possible advantage would be slightly increasing resiliency to trade disruptions, and even that isn't that likely because the inherent instability of tariffs imposed by the President without Congress means investors are unlikely to make long-term investments based on avoiding the 15%. Imposing tariffs without retaliatory tariffs in return is like if the U.S. bombed some EU factories and got them to agree not to bomb the U.S. in return, it's one-sided but that doesn't mean it's beneficial.
aqouta
3d ago
So the options you see for the Israelis are that they can do "diplomacy" which you cannot define, or some fantasy of the, nuclear armed, state collapsing into barbarism. I just don't think you've thought at all about this subject.
FarmReadyElephants
3d ago
Exactly. There is no alternative. China and Russia are the only other independent players in the world besides the USA, and China is the only one with a comparable size economy.
If a President decides to squeeze the imperial provinces, they will get squeezed.
Now, the genius move would be to build momentum with these trade deals to try to squeeze China in the near future. China also can't afford to walk away from the table. Let's see how it plays out.
Jiro
3d ago
This one isn't inherently silly. Sure, pointing to the name is stupid, but Ra's al Ghul is clearly a Fu Manchu imitation complete with daughter. And the fact that he was created by people with a good record dealing with other races doesn't mean they can't be wrong when it involves Asians.
ABigGuy4U
3d ago
To be fair, this is nothing new. Henry Ford, J.P. Morgan and J.Paul Getty weren’t particularly nice people either. And the old extractive industries had the same weird semi-sovereignty where one minute you’re overthrowing the Hawaiian monarchy and the next Mexico is nationalizing your oil wells.
Lizzardspawn
3d ago
If I was the EU, I would be working hard to secure other trade deals with other nations
What other nation nations? Witch China which we talk down to, with Russia which we hate, with India that will never develop, with Africa that is doomed, with south america that is firmly in US sphere of influence or with Australia, Japan, Korea that depends on US for protection, all while we are crybabies about bullshit like human rights.
We could create a potent anti US union - but we will actually have to do what other players do - play realpolitik. Not play "performative morally superior" just because a century ago some people did bad things.
DelendaEst
3d ago
I think even viewing it as "It's okay to be white" is a view you can only take a culture warrior whose Time To Fight bell gets wrung by the word genes.
The most straight forward interpretation is clearly "she is hot and slim and has large natural breasts" and her race is only relevant to the extent that you think white girls are/aren't hot. Moving from "she is personally genetically blessed with beauty" to "she is an aryan princess" is such a culture war brained move that it SHOCKS me how many people seem to think it was intended in any way.
professorgerm
You shall love your crooked neighbor, with your crooked heart
3d ago
Can you imagine if suddenly everyone started dressing in blue and someone writes an article about how concerning it is that young women are dressing in blue en masse? The only people who would care would be those who were against blue.
If the proportion of people wearing blue multiplied by an order of magnitude or more virtually overnight, that would be weird to not notice.
If wearing blue also resulted in a lifetime of medicalization, I would like to think people should care!
In reading some responses to yutes asking why Ozzy was such a big deal, I noticed the answers tended to follow the grug/midwit/genius bell curve.
More options
Context Copy link