domain:mgautreau.substack.com
FirmWeird
Randomly Generated Reddit Username
12hr ago
Ok, now imagine a leftist just said the exact same thing to me
Why imagine? I am a leftist and just said that to you. I'm opposed to the social justice movement because I think it is both bad, ineffective politics and morally wrong (poor white kids should not pay the price for the crimes of robber barons in years past), but I am still a left-winger. To make my perspective clear, I believe that the optimal move would have been for the left to not actually go on the long march through the institutions precisely because of the incredibly predictable blowback that is currently taking place.
That obviously reality is the right struck first and how absurd it is I suggest they could possibly exhibit an underdog bias.
I have seen it happen in my life time. There's no absurd conspiratorial thinking here - this was done in the open and people loudly spoke about it. The Long March Through the Institutions took place and we have the statistical evidence with regards to discrimination against conservatives. The discrimination wasn't just pervasive, it was openly celebrated - there's no point denying it now. You're going to need much more rigorous evidence if you want to make the case that the right wing has been in control of academia for the past 40 years.
Good news, the answer doesn't even matter anyway if you choose the option to have principles!
Ok, my principles are that if you try to politicise academia in order to purloin the social credibility it has for partisan aims you deserve to be punished badly and cast out into the wilderness for the real harm you're doing to legitimately important societal mechanisms. So I actually do get to support the current punishment - though admittedly I do have to switch back when the conservatives start deporting people or getting them fired for voicing mild criticisms of the ethnic cleansing in Gaza.
Aging won't be cured by simply repairing damaged DNA
Uh, ackshully, that's approximately where the state-of-the-art on anti-aging is heading.
Sirtuins are involved in DNA repair, which allows cells to keep replicating accurately, which is what keeps you alive and minimizes the effects of 'age' as we understand it.
There's currently a LOT of research into Sirtuin activators for this reason.
This might be a part of the book that gets borne out really well in the end.
phailyoor
12hr ago
normie liberals - people don't like cancel culture or having to parrot meaningless diversity statements
Such people don't exist. The most "moderate" fringes of the enemy have still shown a voracious appetite for land acknowledgements, attaching black/brown/trans flags to everything, mandating everyone take the nlm loyalty oauth, cancelling nazis (everyone right of them), diversity quotas, and more of anything called "DEI".
There are no "normie liberals" who don't love all those things. If you think they do, then show me they exist.
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
12hr ago
But yes I realize that's long ago, so I gave you a current example of something happening right now as we speak by a high level Trump executive.
I've lost count of how many times I asked you how what Trump did violates any of the principles you supposedly hold, and how many times you ignored the question.
But also if we're going about who started it, wouldn't the older examples be better?
Sure. So back then I was pro-Rowling, and helped the left as much as I could. Then the left went full-censor, and now Trump is in power and cutting their funding for practices that are illegal in the left's own framework. How am I the one that started it, and not them?
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
13hr ago
Right, so if funding withdrawals exist, they should at least be done in a fair and freedom maximizing manner. How is this not what happened in the discussed case?
magicalkittycat
13hr ago
That's a funny example and something I knew from growing up as a fan of the books, not something I was sent. I live in a red rural area and remember stories of parents having freakouts about Harry Potter and Pokemon and stuff from some of the other children. One of my friends i would let play Pokemon on my Gameboy since he couldn't at home.
But yes I realize that's long ago, so I gave you a current example of something happening right now as we speak by a high level Trump executive.
But also if we're going about who started it, wouldn't the older examples be better? I don't think it matters who started it, but that seems like the proper thing to be focusing in on if it does matter.
magicalkittycat
13hr ago
Conservatives lost on every one of those three though, which shows they did not have any power.
They didn't actually, in fact part of the private school voucher initiative is to get kids into funded religious schools, schools that use programs like A.C.E, like my Southern Baptist friend had when she was growing up.
I live in a red rural area, I can assure you many of them don't see the fight as lost yet.
And environmental science? Odd then that the leader of the country doesn't believe in climate change and has targeted lots of funding cuts to climate science, including the termination of satellite data and missions regarding carbon dioxide in the atmosphere
If they lost, someone forgot to tell the president of the United States that.
Actually, Dr. Tao signed a letter asking for the stick to be deployed against his classroom.
Do you mean the UCLA white supremacy statement, this letter that says punishing a fellow mathematics faculty member for speaking out against diversity statements is wrong, or a different third letter? Or, do you mean that signing the first white supremacy statement was detrimental to his classrooms because its ideas are terrible? If if it's the last one I agree.
In the context of UCLA he is probably justified in not considering himself very political. That is emblematic of the cultural dominance and the ensuing blindness that follows. It's why I say, "Stick, good." However, the guy had the rug pulled out from under him. He didn't have it pulled because of who he is, what he said, or what he did. He had it pulled because UCLA attracted Sauron's gaze. He issues a call to non-action: "the luxury of disengagement is no longer a viable option." Crying foul is not an ideal response to any behavioral correction, but this isn't the most direct, targeted, or deliberate discipline.
I found some of the replies in Trace's thread frustrating. Like getting in a discourse time machine: smart, good natured people carefully walking around that which still cannot be seen. A mutual understanding of university culture and recent history does not appear to be forthcoming. I do not expect academia to kiss the ring of Trump. For that reason I am glad TracingWoodgrain's criticism of Tao went viral. Tao's position and sentiment is common enough, so a public critique is positive even if it does not garner significant agreement.
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
13hr ago
Heck some examples are ironic, like a school that tried to ban Harry Potter due to depictions of witchcraft back in the 90s. That's of course a funny example, but there's plenty that aren't so funny.
And the fact that they had to go back 30 years for an example doesn't give you pause? Was the person sending you this even alive when it happened?
magicalkittycat
13hr ago
You can not support something existing but also believe that if it does exist it should at least be done in a fair and freedom supporting manner.
magicalkittycat
13hr ago
"My own group"? LOL. When this all started I was an atheist libertarian
You don't think there's religious people who don't believe in evolution that are on your side of the left-wing/right-wing divide?
I agree with your general proposition that political alliances can not be split so easily to begin with and to blame you for the beliefs and actions of the religious evolution denier would be silly, but I also believe that of the many groups and factions that compose "the left".
You've been carefully ignoring all the examples of this that have been presented, instead demanding we ignore all that and continue to give them the maximum benefit of the principles they do not hold and did not grant to us.
Likewise I have been presented with tons of examples from leftists about conservative institutions and powerful elites censoring and oppressing people. Heck some examples are ironic, like a school that tried to ban Harry Potter due to depictions of witchcraft back in the 90s. That's of course a funny example, but there's plenty that aren't so funny.
The FCC's rules against "indecency" prohibiting even swearing. The radio stations that banned the Dixie chicks for opposing the Iraq war. Even now the director of the United States Office of Management and Budget has expressly said he wants to ban pornography through back door methods.
"We came up with an idea on pornography, to make it so that porn companies bear the liability for underage use, as opposed to the person who visits the website. We've got a number of states that are passing this, and the porn company then says 'you know what, I'm not doing business in state', which, of course, is entirely what we want," he continues. "We would have a national ban on pornography if we could."
So I have evidence from both sides, strong evidence of both sides. Both of them yelling "we didn't start the fire" as they both throw Molotovs.
Good news, you can know you didn't start the fire if you don't throw molotovs and side with principled free speech organizations like FIRE.
magicalkittycat
13hr ago
On the other hand, one way to assess one's understanding of reality is to make predictions about what one thinks is likely to happen next. I think I've done tolerably well at that, and so my confidence in my model has increased over the years. On this topic in particular, I think I have a great deal of reasonably solid evidence at hand to support the conclusions I'm drawing. Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe I'm entirely deluded. But I've made a considerable effort over a considerable period of time to get as good a picture as possible, and I don't think either is the case.
That's a great way to go about it, but it still has an issue. I'll call it the "9/11 truther effect" because I see it in conspiracy theories a lot. People will have some sort of low evidence idea in their head that is disagreed with because of a personal bias or issue of theirs, and then update later with the claim of "Ahah, I was right all along. This proves 9/11 was manufactured!" because of course, the standards and biased thinking that led them to believing 9/11 was fake to begin with also lead them to judge they are proven correct later.
I'll give you the same thought experiment I came up for with someone else.
With your knowledge as a rational actor aware that this self perception bias is both extremely common to the point of being basically universal and it's hard to see one's own bias, what would you place the odds of the neutral alien reality knowing arbiter choosing your side being correct when they check reality?
Ok, how about if we replaced you and your side with a third party discussion, with say a flame war between PlayStation and Xbox gamers or a flame war between Twilight fans. What is the odds the alien will say the Edward stans have the underdog bias vs the Jacob stans having the underdog bias?
I'd say equal, even if I'm one of the participants. Maybe my side started the shitslinging all along and I didn't know.
But good news, the answer doesn't even matter anyway if you choose the option to have principles! If you stick up for freedom no matter when and who, the alien won't rule against you no matter what. You can't be the one who started the shitslinging if you aren't slinging shit. Join the side of keeping your principles and you'll always be a winner in this alien court.
FirmWeird
Randomly Generated Reddit Username
13hr ago
The attorney general being a Zionist does not mean that "we all know" that she intervened in the case, let alone subverted the law on behalf of another Jew.
I can't help but feel you're being a bit sneaky here. I believe it is a safe assumption that someone working in the upper echelons of the Israeli government and reporting directly to Benjamin Netanyahu is a Zionist, and "let alone subverted the law on behalf of another Zionist" is actually substantially more plausible as something that everyone knows. You've switched between "Zionist" and "Jewish" as if they're the same thing in order to make your opponent's argument seem less credible, which feels against the spirit of the rules here to me.
Ok, now imagine a leftist just said the exact same thing to me. (...) That obviously reality is the right struck first and how absurd it is I suggest they could possibly exhibit an underdog bias.
Ok, I'm imagining it. It looks no different than the husband in his scenario striking first.
Tell you what why don't you show us how we should wrestle with our biases, by leading by example. How do you that everything you're saying isn't the result of bias? What steps have you taken to counteract it?
Good news, the answer doesn't even matter anyway if you choose the option to have principles!
Why do you keep saying some principle was broken, and then ignoring any response indicating that this did nit take place, or questioning you about it?
MotteThrow
13hr ago
Conservatives lost on every one of those three though, which shows they did not have any power. (Aside from maybe Anti-vaxx now but that's both a left+right thing and mostly only true after progressives destroyed public health credibility themselves.) Destroying academia is in itself counteracting left wing attacks.
magicalkittycat
13hr ago
Ok, now imagine a leftist just said the exact same thing to me (or how about instead of me, it's an alien arbitrator, a completely neutral third party so you don't even have to imagine you're dealing with someone possibly biased.) about the right. That obviously reality is the right struck first and how absurd it is I suggest they could possibly exhibit an underdog bias.
Certainly you can see in this scenario how to the alien arbitrator, you might not look any different than the leftists claiming the same thing. Maybe they go and look at the world and say "Ok, right wing you were correct and the left started everything". But maybe they look and say the right started it all and the leftist is correct.
With your knowledge as a rational actor aware that this bias is both extremely common to the point of being basically universal and it's hard to see one's own bias, what would you place the odds of the alien choosing your side being?
Ok, how about if we replaced "left and right" with say a flame war between PlayStation and Xbox gamers or a flame war between Twilight fans. What is the odds the alien will say the Edward stans have the underdog bias vs the Jacob stans having the underdog bias?
Good news, the answer doesn't even matter anyway if you choose the option to have principles! If you stick up for freedom no matter when and who, the alien won't rule against you no matter what. You can't be the one who started the shitslinging if you aren't slinging shit. Join the side of keeping your principles and you'll always be a winner.
FirmWeird
Randomly Generated Reddit Username
13hr ago
Of course, with Da Jooos, there's always some genius like Shaun King to get things started.
I always find people making mocking "Da Jooos" comments to be mildly annoying, and ultimately counterproductive when talking about cases like this. Nobody is alleging some kind of bullshit secret conspiracy here - the "conspiracy" is completely out in the open and not even being disputed in the slightest. You have an Israeli partisan for an attorney general, who was complained about massively before they were appointed, letting an Israeli official get away with extremely serious offences. They're openly proud about what they're doing and boast about it (well until they got attention for it and deleted their account) to boot. There's no need to mock people for being credulous antisemites in a case like this unless you want to make sure that absolutely nobody gives a shit about antisemitism in the future. After seeing people use "oh you think DA JOOS" are behind this too when people object to official actions by the Israeli government I just can't take people who participate in that kind of juvenile mockery of legitimate concerns seriously.
Surely people are Goodhart'ing it, but either they're not very good at it yet or they're not trying very hard.
They are, though. The insanely skewed citation distribution is exactly what you'd expect from people figuring the optimal way to game the system. You're not getting anywhere by autistically focusing on your own reaserch, and hoping others will find it interesting enough to cite. You band together, and boost each other up. There's little individual glory in it for most people, which is why it looks like "they're not very good at it yet, or they're not trying very hard", but that's the best way for them to keep a stable job until they get their big break.
You see this on literally every social network, academia is no different, and the original statement about how much citations which kind of scientist will get, implicitly assumes people won't figure out how these systems work.
DaseindustriesLtd
late version of a small language model
14hr ago
This is a funny post but
OK, he won a fields medal. Neat. Someone wins one every year.
is literally wrong. «The Fields Medal is a prize awarded to two, three, or four mathematicians under 40 years of age at the International Congress of the International Mathematical Union (IMU), a meeting that takes place every four years». So at most one person wins it every year on average. This level of ignorance of the domain suggests you can't really have valuable intuitions about his merit.
magic9mushroom
If you're going to downvote me, and nobody's already voiced your objection, please reply and tell me
14hr ago
While JT may well be opposed to everyone that went through college, I'm guessing the percentage that works for universities is much, much lower than 1/3.
That is fair, somewhat; I would anticipate the split among professors being somewhat more tilted (though not as much as you'd expect, at least among the STEM faculty).
However, I didn't say "college degree". I said "postgrad degree". As in, basic tertiary degree and then another degree on top (e.g. PhD, Masters, MD, and whatever law is).
magic9mushroom
If you're going to downvote me, and nobody's already voiced your objection, please reply and tell me
14hr ago
But people browsing would only need to read your post once instead of 6 times.
Gaashk
14hr ago
What is he angry about? Is there an alternative to his current setting that's feasible, and where he wouldn't be angry? Sometimes there isn't, but also sometimes there is. Anger is often meant to spur people into action, to change their circumstances. Teenage boys are often physically stronger than their teachers, and really can't express anger towards them. It will certainly get him fired quickly from many jobs. But, also, the extremely restrictive prison like environment of many schools, where they can't even leave campus for lunch, isn't inevitable.
I went to community college instead of high school -- technically I was "duel enrolled" as a homeschool student, but I wasn't really studying anything in particular other than the college classes. I was angry or shocked a couple of times, so I left, sat under a tree grumping for a while, complained to my parents, and then came back a couple of days later for the next class. As long as I did my work, nobody much cared.
I also taught at an alternative high school in a small town. The teens often just didn't come to class, probably two days a week. If they were angry that day, I wouldn't want them to come to class, they were better off going for a hike in the woods or something.
FCfromSSC
Nuclear levels of sour
14hr ago
Well, you could cut out the middleman and simply secede. Didn't work so well the first time, I'll grant you...
Outright dissolution of the union seems like a bad idea for a lot of reasons. A better plan is to deconstruct federal authority and the institutions from which it springs, such that the states can each have their way within their own borders. "sanctuary city" and "sanctuary state" ideology is an obvious strong movement in this direction, and has been developing for decades now. Flowering defiance of Federal law is a welcome and flourishing development; it cements the norm that federal law is and should be toothless, and it incentivizes those on the other side to do likewise.
If this continues and we are fortunate, the culture war might well be defused as the tribes sort themselves into mutually-exclusive borders and then more or less leave each other alone. An actual de jure breakup of the nation seems to me neither necessary nor wise; who gets the nukes?
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
14hr ago
You could, if you were able to point out where it happened.
Well no one should accuse you of being an unprincipled hypocrite.
With Trump I was only pretty sure he would commit to immigration (good) and tariffs (bad). I thought tariffs were dumb and it turns out I still think they are dumb. I had little confidence what he'd do with universities, how real DOGE would be, and so on. I was reasonably certain he would more effectively exert his will compared to 45, but was uncertain what he'd choose.
More options
Context Copy link