domain:nfinf.substack.com
TheAntipopulist
Formerly Ben___Garrison
2d ago
For one thing, they feed into a sense that the people who are writing the comments are like athletes in the middle of an arena, fighting it out to the cheers of the audience.
This is a pretty good analogy.
I write contra-MAGA opinions on here all the time, and they get upvoted more often than they get downvoted.
Care to share an example or two of this? My experience has been stuff like this conversation, where I said I doubted that Biden was pocketing bribes.
I've had contra-MAGA posts that go slightly positive if they're very high effort, but the difference between me posting that and say, posting an antifeminist piece is that the contra-MAGA post will be like +50 | -45, while the antifeminist piece will be +50 | -2 or something.
Quantumfreakonomics
2d ago
If there's one thing we learned about the Democratic establishment in 2024, its that they love themselves more than they hate Trump. Very possible that those in charge decided that the hit to Trump wasn't worth the risk to themselves or their friends from bringing additional scrutiny upon the Epstein story.
Amadan
Enjoying my short-lived victory
2d ago
There is a problem here, and the problem is you.
The problem, specifically, is that you post a lot of these kinds of sneering borderline kinda-making-a-point-but-mostly-just-sneering comments, and increasingly people are getting frustrated and angry and snapping at you, and then we have to mod those people (because you are not allowed to attack someone) and it's starting to look very much like this is your game.
Sometimes we ban someone not because any one post was terrible but because their overall effect on the community is so negative that there seems little value in allowing them to keep throwing shit. We don't like to do it; it's very subjective. We can't read your mind. Maybe you really are sincere about everything you say, you believe you are making good, valid points, and your manner of expressing yourself is just so off-putting and against the grain here that it drives people crazy. But we've warned you enough, and you keep doing exactly the same thing, that I suspect you know what you're doing and you're doing it on purpose.
So I'm telling you now: stop it. Or I will propose to the rest of the mods that you should be banned under our catch-all egregiously obnoxious category.
Iconochasm
2. Bootstrap the rest of the fucking omnipotence.
2d ago
The metaphor is wrong because in the typical understanding, the actions we should take against "invasive species" should be extreme, up to and including eradicating them from the "invaded" area.
The metaphor is specifically telling you not to put yourself in a position where you would have to take extreme measures to remove the invasive species. Have you ever read an account of an adoption gone wrong? In the worst cases, it sounds like the stuff that makes family annihilations seem understandable. And just to get ahead of the obvious criticism, the worst such story I've ever come across involved adopting a pair of Eastern European girls, who proved to be violently uncontrollable wrecking balls on the lives of their adoptive parents.
TheAntipopulist
Formerly Ben___Garrison
2d ago
Some are evidently hardwired to care more than others.
Sure. I would have been right there with you thinking it was silly to care about downvotes if they didn't soft-censor your post like they do on Reddit. But then at least a portion of my views started diverging from the dominant thought paradigm on this forum, and the downvotes for well-researched posts started feeling pretty obnoxious.
EverythingIsFine
Well, is eventually fine
2d ago
Honestly I don't think domestic life is going to be too awful. The real shock for the US is going to be the precipitous decline in US foreign policy influence. At some point this century, Americans are going to wake up to some kind of rude and jarring awakening to how (relative to the past) impotent the influence has become.
Iconochasm
2. Bootstrap the rest of the fucking omnipotence.
2d ago
I find it impossible to believe that if there were some hint of damning evidence about Trump in Epstein's files that it wouldn't have gotten leaked during either of the last two elections. There is just no conceivable value that the Dem establishment would have held high enough to cause them to refrain.
Much more believable that the juicy parts of the relevant hard drives and data were "accidentally" thrown into an incinerator in 2019.
they feed into a sense that the people who are writing the comments are like athletes in the middle of an arena, fighting it out to the cheers of the audience
B A S E D
Karma, even temporary/only per comment, is for parasocial dweebs
I'm struggling to wrap my head around this. Not the fact that this is the thing that seemingly broke his base, but that so many people, including liberals, are shocked that this broke his base.
"He lies all the time, why should this be the thing that makes them change their minds?"
Are they this bad at modeling the other side? I'm not on that side and I can model it.
The old chestnut about the American right vs left is that they hate each other because the left thinks the right is stupid. Team Red is used to taking those sneers from the overeducated professional class, and let's face it, certain ideas from the wonk class tend to disproportionately negatively affect Team Red anyway. Then along comes Trump, with his "poor man's idea of what a rich man should be", telling them literally everything they already believed - that they were getting fucked, that they were getting a raw deal, that the wonks sold them out and they're corrupt. Of course he got elected. They tried to kill him!
The excuses made around the Epstein mess are whoppers of such tremendous scale that they signal Trump, and by extension, his administration, think the population of America, including his base, are so dumb that they struggle with object permanence. What did you think his base was going to do? They're used to being called stupid by the people who hate them. What they didn't expect was being treated as stupid by the guy they helped put in office as an act of revenge against the people who hate them.
I'm gobsmacked at it myself. An even halfway competent liar would have made some excuses about it being useful as international blackmail (something the more realpolitik-minded would respect if the concessions were good enough). Alternatively, release doctored files that are not obviously doctored; if they could edit Epstein's jail camera footage in an act of blatant gamesmanship and have it not be revealed as obvious until recently it would be trivial to placate a majority of people who aren't so deep in the conspiracy hole they're halfway to Australia. Never in a million years would I have expected a response like "the evidence doesn't exist, Pam is doing a great job, why are we still talking about this?"
There's a Calvin and Hobbes comic where Calvin tells his mother that aliens have landed and that she needs to go out to confront them while he guards the cookies in the kitchen. Her response is perfect: "Calvin, just how stupid do you think I am?" Hardcore salt-of-the-earth dirt and potatoes Red Tribers pride themselves on seeing the world as it is, unlike the idealistic Ivy Leaguers/Tech-utopian Tribe who see the world as they wish it to be. 'Don't piss on my head and tell me it's raining' applies; the same thinking can be applied to the disaster over immigration and almost every other cultural flashpoint.
This reminds me a lot of the Korea Park Geun-hye scandal. What killed Park in politics wasn't the fact that she was corrupt, or that she was giving political and pork barrel kickbacks to people she was in cahoots with. What killed her was the reveal that she was in thrall to literal cultists and possibly of unsound mind. The Trump base doesn't care too much that he's corrupt, or lying. He could even have been named in the Epstein files repeatedly. He could even have released them and nobody would have cared as long as what was in there was sufficiently incendiary that it took down half of Capitol Hill! But to lie so comically badly that it reveals that Trump thinks you're stupid, just like all those Blue Tribe assholes... what the fuck did people think was going to happen, that this would become another case of Teflon Don?
Of course, I could be totally wrong and the last few credulous people in America that totally believe Trump when he says there's no evidence and take him at face value can only come to the even worse conclusion that the DOJ filled with people he handpicked is completely incompetent, and man hung himself/a woman is serving two decades of jailtime on charges that weren't real.
EverythingIsFine
Well, is eventually fine
2d ago
Despite my expression of annoyance with Duverger's Law in another comment, I do admire the way it selectively encourages people who are bad at math to disenfranchise themselves. Though this is another way in which plurality fails "democracy's equally-critical job of convincing your voters that they were the ones who picked the leader", the "democracy's job of trying to pick a good leader" thing is important too. It may be for the best that people who can't hack game theory end up with less influence over mechanism design.
Gave me a nice chuckle. Honestly, one of the things I admire about Approval Voting is that - on an individual level - there's almost no such thing as regretting your vote. The simplicity is refreshing. Vote for two people, even if you prefer one? The non-preferred one wins, but you still voted for them, so your vote "worked" as intended. Don't like someone? Don't vote for them. Like someone so much that you wouldn't be happy with any other? That's fine too, vote for them only! "I am okay with X person elected or I am not" is admittedly a little reductive, but is that really worse than the current system? I voted for Gary Johnson in 2016 as a protest vote, even though I infinitely preferred Clinton to Trump. Strategically, I felt a little bad about it, but it seemed like there was no other way to be seen. Even then it was a little out of character for me, an avowed moderate and work-within-the-system type, but I guess it does represent how bitter I was feeling about the way Clinton wrapped up the primary with a little bow (not even re: Bernie, I was more annoyed with how she preemptively pushed all other candidates out before the primary even started via a combination of threats and influence peddling. Plus, I guess, I hate her as a person, so that too)
Amadan
Enjoying my short-lived victory
2d ago
This has not gone unnoticed. But you still can't just attack people.
math and geometry ditto (honestly you shouldn't bother remembering theorems - you should be able to quickly prove them on the spot when needed)
I think it would be quite mean to ask a high school student to figure out/invent how to derive the Taylor series of a function ab initio.
solowingpixy
the resident car guy
2d ago
FWIW, as a 2/3 Trump voter (albeit in a red state, so I knew my vote didn't matter and just thought it would be funny if he won the popular vote) I'm generally bored with the Epstein stuff and wouldn't be surprised if he was in it or if he was covering for others in his circle.
I mean, he's more Ross Perot and Bill Clinton than he is Pat Buchanan (so the immigration restrictionists should be expect to be betrayed), even if he was clever enough to ape the latter for politics' sake.
JarJarJedi
2d ago
First of all, people are punished for imaginary crimes all the frickin time. Starting with the sitting president, who has been punished (or there was an attempt to punish him) for imaginary crimes at least half-dozen times, maybe more. And downstream from that, down to declaring parents who want to know not even what happens in the upper regions of the system, but in their own local school - domestic terrorists, and making a task force to find some imaginary crimes they can be prosecuted for. This is part of the deal too - while the patricians virtually never get prosecuted for anything - unless they cross another, more important, patrician - the plebeians are getting prosecuted left and right for utter bullshit.
But second of all, the crimes of Epstein are not "imaginary". He was known as a convicted criminal since 2008, and the exact nature of his conviction was also known since then. Moreover, the materials of his and Maxwell criminal cases strongly suggest that his operation was not uniquely tailored to satisfy one single person, but was wider. And also common sense suggests that at least some people who associated with known criminal who did not exactly hide his proclivities used his criminal services. One can not claim, obviously, just having any business with Epstein means they were part of the criminal business too, but at least it is plausible that there is more than one person that consumed those services. And there are witnesses that claim they know for a fact such persons exist.
And if it is plausible, the inferior people would like the people who claim they are there to protect them (or at least The Law), and given enormous powers to do so, will actually do at least a proper investigation on the matter. We know they can do that - this happens in drug cases, this happens in terrorist cases, this happened on Jan 6 where the FBI deployed immense resources to find every last grandma in Alabama who were in the vicinity of the Capitol on that day, and put her into jail. They have the powers. They are not using them. The inferior people are wondering - why? What is happening here? You answer is "you are just a bunch of dumb idiots and nobody is going to explain you anything because you are dumb". This answer is not very satisfactory.
Amadan
Enjoying my short-lived victory
2d ago
A few things.
First, nobody likes a flouncer. You would not be the first to decide this hive of scum and villainy is too much for you and crash out. And that's entirely fair. This place is not for everyone. But if you think loudly declaring you will take your marbles and go home will effect a change in the status quo... no, it probably won't. We allow people with unpleasant views to say their piece if they can stay just this side of attacking individuals or groups. That's by design, it's because we want to have a place where you can actually be exposed to someone able to make an argument for a point of view you might find reprehensible. I do not like racists, blackpillers, incels, white nationalists, accelerationists, Holocaust deniers, and our various other deplorables, but where else can I go (except a forum specifically dedicated to those views, which would be nothing but unfiltered bile and rageposting) to hear what they actually believe and engage with them?
"But I don't want to engage with racists!" you say. And again: fair enough. Maybe this place is not for you. But what is it you want, exactly? For us to be less racist, collectively? Then be one of those who pushes back. For us to not allow people to be racist? Might as well just demand we ban all the deplorables, right?
Second: @WhiningCoil earned a number of reports on that post. He gets reported a lot as he descends further into his bitter nihilistic hole. He's been temp-banned many times under his various alts since he first started blackpilling hard on reddit, so it's not like his seething rants about how much he hates (an ever-expanding range of people) have gone without consequences. That post (and several others of his) are in fact still sitting in the mod queue because I decided I was not going to be the one to make a decision about them.
Borderline posts about how much you hate your enemies are, well, borderline, and whether we decide they cross the line depends a lot on how a particular mod reads the particular wording. Outright saying "Black people are a violent invasive species" would be unambiguously cause for a ban. Saying plainly "I hate black people" would get a lot of reports but would actually be allowed. You are allowed to hate people here! Making a nasty innuendo is, well, borderline. Same goes for a lot of the various posts we get about Jews Jews Jews.
As for the upvotes, would it surprise you to know that many of our most heated, reported, and ban-baiting posts also get heavily upvoted? The more spicy your screed about how much you hate Those People, the more likely that a lot of other people who also hate Those People will upvote you. Yes, that means we have a lot of haters here. You'll notice quite a few people also downvote those posts, though, so it's not one-sided.
So yes, this site is "tainted by racism." We have racists here, and they aren't banned just for being racist. That is intentional. The intent is not to be a haven for racists (though we've certainly been accused of being just that), but to be a place where people can say the things they can't say elsewhere, and then have to defend it. I only wish more people like you would muster the wherewithal to argue back instead of just getting indignant and leaving.
That seems like a bad way to judge a metaphor? If you say "wolf in sheep's clothing" or "fox guarding the henhouse" that has very little to do with the typical way farmers respond to animals threatening their own animals (shooting them).
For reference, the quote in question:
It's all well and good to want to plant seeds, and failing to plant your own, nurture what you can find. Just make sure you aren't nurturing some virulent invasive species that will leave the land barren.
Whether accurate or not, I think the crux of the metaphor would be the idea of carelessly planting something that is destructive to the other plants/environment (particularly because they aren't well-adapted to dealing with it), not any particular response. The focus is on the planting/nurturing, on some poor gardener who thinks all seeds are the same (e.g. is a blank-slatist regarding nurture/nature) and then is left with the consequences, not on what he should do afterwards.
hydroacetylene
2d ago
Or the Epstein files have been destroyed and they don't want to admit it.
Primaprimaprima
...something all admit only "TRUMP", and the Trump Administration, can do.
2d ago
My Trump-voting mother has been saying "of course Trump's in the Epstein files too" for like, years now? Quite a while at any rate. At least some segment of his base just took it to be common knowledge and wouldn't view it as a big revelation even if it was "confirmed".
EverythingIsFine
Well, is eventually fine
2d ago
Yes, this is mostly Harris' fault, although her advisors were always quick to blame Biden. Most notably, she asked to be put in front of something significant, and Biden gave her immigration. Then, she turned around and complained about being put in charge of a "no-win" type of issue, and sulked about it. Biden's advisors then got mad and thought she was being ungrateful. However, you could perhaps imagine a world where Harris actually took that lead on immigration and pushed for more border enforcement - might that have deflected later attacks by Trump against her? Actually, quite plausibly. Instead she did some tours of Central American countries to try and pressure them to stop the flow and tried her best to dodge media attention about it. (Ironically this was at least mildly effective, as far as I'm aware, but selection bias means that it's hard to take credit for this kind of thing).
At any rate, the bad feelings about the immigration assignment meant that Biden's camp dragged their feet about giving her something else. She was also eventually put in charge of "voting rights" (federal level) as a portfolio, but IIRC they never managed to pass anything. Instead she just spent the whole time accusing Republicans of various things, which I think most people easily tune out. If she had managed a win there, maybe she could have talked about it more.
Gaashk
2d ago
I'm going to go ahead and support the metaphor.
Consider ailanthus. Imported to New York when air pollution was so bad and green spaces so rare that almost nothing else would grow (c.f. A Tree Grows in Brooklyn). Now it's endemic throughout the country, integrated into a ton of rather harsh towns, cities, and as roadside hedges, and it's not going to be eradicated. Even if it could be, people would be upset about it, because it's providing privacy and shade.
Consider the Siberian elm. Planted during the Great Depression to provide shade when, outside the river valleys with high water tables, it was pretty much the only tree that would grow. And it's edible! Now there are canopies in the high desert with nicely kept, mature elm trees, but also weedy wild elms. They aren't going anywhere. People would be upset if all those old, shady elm trees disappeared, though the roadside volunteers aren't always welcome.
Now consider malaria and heatstroke in the old South...
Primaprimaprima
...something all admit only "TRUMP", and the Trump Administration, can do.
2d ago
But groupings mix and blend like crazy
So do colors, clouds, emotions, religions, languages, etc... but there's been no mass political movement to try and convince the public that these things "don't really exist".
Quantumfreakonomics
2d ago
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Of course Trump is in the Epstein files. It was deniable 2 weeks ago ("two more weeks" guys finally get a win), but there is really only one reason everyone in the administration would suddenly get cold feet and display the same suspicious nothing-to-see-here attitude at exactly the same time. They didn't just want this quietly ignored, they wanted this GONE.
TheAntipopulist
Formerly Ben___Garrison
2d ago
If you don't want to be fixated on vote tallies, the site shouldn't have vote tallies thrown in your face on any post over 1d old.
deluxev2
2d ago
I only bring up Condorcet as if we are going to be doing ranked choice ballots we have all these other better options. Options where counts can be aggregated from different polling centers and that provide better mathematical guarantees. I don't think later-no-harm is a good outcome. If a candidate B becomes more popular with a subgroup, but doesn't reach the threshold of being their first choice, candidate B should be more likely to win the election. I'd much rather have monotonicity, so that rating a candidate higher makes them more likely to win.
I'll grant that your threshold choice is inherently tactical, but I think it is a much better brand of tactical than other things that fall under the label. In IRV, tactical votes are misrepresenting your preferences to the voting system. You have to lie about who you actually like and dislike. In approval voting, you are compressing down the vote to provide as much information as possible to the voting system. It is a "true preference" that you like everyone you voted for more than everyone you didn't. It doesn't reward liars, it rewards those in touch enough to know roughly the bounds of possibility for this election.
But yeah, I guess there are some real selling points of IRV:
-a lot of the other ranked choice methods aren't clone independent which is definitely a problem that needs a solution
-you can just walk in and list your candidates in order and be voting "optimally for your desired outcomes" a good chunk of the time.
I still think ranked methods aren't worth the cost (really try it, with a group of even 5 people trying to decide what to do, ranked methods are demolished by approval voting in terms of implement-ability, then extend to the entire country). IRV among them is particularly bad for counting but is among the better set of election properties and especially explain-ability.
(Also, you've been a great conversation partner, kudos and gratitude)
Is there a way I can use that somehow? I'm a professional programmer, but I don't do a bunch of stuff in CSS...
More options
Context Copy link