domain:astralcodexten.substack.com
sockpuppet2
19hr ago
by nature people love rightful royal power
What makes you think this? What proportion of people?
He has the head of the longshoreman’s union and the head of NATO writing effusive love letters that wouldn’t be out of place addressed to a Chinese emperor.
Do you think they think Trump has the Mandate of Heaven?
sockpuppet2
19hr ago
The Oct. 7 attack is going to be the tripwire that enables Israel to finally solve the Gaza Question with ethnic cleansing.
Has it? Was Israel unable to, before? Are 18+ months later, is Gaza being ethnically cleansed?
Israel is going to conduct a "brutal campaign against Gaza" which they "know Iran has to respond to."
In doing so, their retaliation against Gaza will knowingly provoke a retaliation from Iranian-backed militias against Israel.
How is this different than the pre-October 7 Iran-backed terror attacks?
This will give Israel an excuse to widen the conflict and "to do what they always wanted to do, which is bomb Iran's nuclear program".
Was the stated motivation state-sponsored terrorism, or progress towards nuclear weapons?
This will initiate war between Iran and Israel, and Israel will draw the United States into the war with Iran- Israel brings in the United States to "put Iran in check."
Bombing initiating war isn't much of a prediction, so let's focus on the US - was the US drawn-in by Israel or self-motivated and seizing an opportunity?
This will culminate in an end to the regime in Syria and an end to the regime in Iran.
When did the bombing occur, and when did the regime in Syria end?
This is the big play Israel is making.
Are we going back to the theory that Israel deliberately let the October 7 attack happen, to use it as justification for war in Gaza?
sockpuppet2
19hr ago
The culture of "MAGA personalities" and its intersection with dating/family formation dynamics that are a frequent topic of discussion in The Motte.
Nope, you and Caplan are both just wrong about what the "reasonable hawk" looks like. You are the ones missing a mood, namely "competing when the stakes really, really matter". Actively hemming and hawing over the acceptable costs of a desired, good outcome is retarded and maladaptive. The overwhelming majority of human beings, even highly intelligent ones, are not psychologically capable of the the level of sociopathic, rationalist autism required to attempt his "reasonable hawk" nonsense - and even one of those 0.0001% decouplers would rapidly find themselves dehumanizing the enemy because it's just wildly more efficient in terms of mental load.
Worrying about the feelings of a lethal, intractable enemy is the sort of luxury you spare for things you outclass on the same level that we outclass wolves and bears. And even then, the people who actually live in areas with wolves and bears are less sympathetic about it than urban fools.
anti_dan
20hr ago
That can amend the Presidential computation, but it doesn't change the Senate, and in the House there still will be like a floor of 195ish.
MonkeyWithAMachinegun
Dancing to Tom Paine's Bones
20hr ago
If you like that, then you will love Wickard v. Filburn,
I purchased this mousepad my 1L year.
I think the examples from Caplan are more like
"Ok I can just consider that it's the morals that we disagree with, that they are just people who I find to be monsterous in ethics but just assuming "disagreement = evil" is bad, so I should look at the logic I expect from aligned morals making that argument and see if people are doing that"
Unfortunately the actual examples Caplan gives in his piece are unconvincing and suggest a lack of moral imagination on Caplan's own part. Other people don't appear to feel what Caplan thinks they should feel, so he concludes they're insincere. But maybe Caplan is just wrong about they ought to feel. Maybe he's assuming that they accept facts and moral principles that Caplan himself accepts, and if he looked closer he would realise that they don't.
Well that's the question. "Do people disagree because of a different logic or evidence base, or do they disagree because they genuinely just do not care about or actively want to harm other people, which I think is a Monster behavior"
He looks at it and says "huh, this isn't what I would expect if they weren't monsters, this is behavior I expect if they were. Oh god, these people seem like Monsters"
sun_the_second
20hr ago
If "sinful" just means "harmful" then say harmful.
magicalkittycat
20hr ago
Bad analogy.
Caplan points out that they aren't somber about civilian deaths, but instead often cheer it on/laugh about it.
An explanation why that happens isn't a dispute if it is happening.
ABigGuy4U
20hr ago
Harris still cackled her way to 75 million votes.
There’s another upcoming structural wrinkle, and that’s the 2030 census and accompanying electoral college redistribution. Blue strongholds like California are set to lose electoral votes, and several increasingly red states like Arizona and Florida will be gaining them.
erwgv3g34
21hr ago
Okay, that helps, thanks. But it's still asking everyone to disable a warning in their account settings, versus asking the one user who is using this feature to stop. Plus all the people who are not logged in or have accounts. Plus it messes up archiving.
ABigGuy4U
21hr ago
Because America is gradually turning into Europe. All the land is fenced off and owned, there is no social mobility or opportunity for economic advancement, social class is passed generationally and rigorously guarded with shibboleths and rituals that go far beyond the money in your bank account, what you are allowed to do is constantly policed and often varies based on your class, top-down authority is lauded and self sufficiency and personal autonomy are frowned upon, all the lower classes hate each other because of 1000 year old ethnic grievances, people have effectively zero control over what their government does. What exactly does a having king change at this point?
TitaniumButterfly
21hr ago
Yeah, sorry, on my phone so I can't really give this the nuance it deserves.
We should distinguish between three different items here:
- Taking God's name in vain
- Swearing oaths
- Using impolite language ('swear words')
The first and second require way more foundation than I can lay right now. The third I just answered elsewhere in this thread, probably pretty close to this post.
TitaniumButterfly
21hr ago
People have been asking about my political ideology and this pretty much sums it up: the first-world is better than the third-world. It's a good thing that we're not burning witches anymore. But you all are so concerned with "third-world immigrants" you can't see the third-worlding occurring right in front of your faces.
I never understood how you could be so good at caricaturing this obnoxious persona until I saw the page where you explicitly catalogue your history of trolling people on reddit.
This is tiresome and it'll be a nice day when the mods finally get around to banning you.
sansampersamp
21hr ago
The DNC pursuing a perception of being a 'neutral leadership institution' is frequently at ends with its actual institutional purpose: getting democrats elected.
AlexanderTurok
Alt-MSNBC
21hr ago
Solid statistical evidence is a pretty recent invention, and its accessibility to the public even more recent. In the meantime humans live human lives and require human guidance.
People have been asking about my political ideology and this pretty much sums it up: the first-world is better than the third-world. It's a good thing that we're not burning witches anymore. But you all are so concerned with "third-world immigrants" you can't see the third-worlding occurring right in front of your faces.
ToaKraka
Dislikes you
21hr ago
it's really annoying
I see that you forgot to disable the warning for 18+ content in your account settings.
Lykurg
We're all living in Amerika
21hr ago
The alternative is you giving swords to their kid secretly, me telling my nieces and nephews that God doesn't exist and is made up, and so on and so forth.
I think some level of stating your opinion is a normal part of social relationships. I dont know if /u/Iconochasm's situation is like that, but handing the kid a foam sword there when youre talking with them, or saying you dont believe in god when it comes up, seems pretty reasonable. Dont do it in secret, dont make a plan for converting them, but expecting your kid to have zero exposure to the beliefs of a dinner guest seems pretty crazy to me. Yes, it will be a point of friction, of course it will be, but some level of friction is also a normal part of social relationships - interpreting any amount as a sign youre doing something wrong is a symptom of nerddom.
ToaKraka
Dislikes you
21hr ago
I was raised evangelical and converted to Orthodoxy and have never heard it suggested that swearing is somehow implicitly sinful.
Wikipedia cites Exodus 20:7 and Deuteronomy 5:11:
Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain; for the Lord will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain.
erwgv3g34
21hr ago
You are the only one that uses it, and it's really annoying. Just add "(NSFW)" to the text next to the link.
Since when is ('merely') signaling bad character harmless?
Propriety is a useful concept, as is reverence. Every minor decision we make, and word we use, directionally warps our character. It changes our own conception of ourselves. Offhand I can point to TracingWoodgrains as an atheist who recognizes the pattern and so refrains from foul language. (Though of course use-mention distinction applies to all of this.)
It is not good to regard ourselves as oppositional to order, propriety, or reverence. Instances where disruptiveness, impropriety, or irreverence are correct are exceptional and should always be engaged with deliberately. Never mind the value of cultivating verbal continence; of regarding oneself as holding to a standard other than the vulgar.
These arguments touch on Christian understanding but don't rely upon it. And they are only inward-facing. There's a whole additional side when it comes to the impressions we make upon others and how that can harm them and us.
gattsuru
21hr ago
On another hand, this can also look like an excellent example of a union leader’s ability to organize and lead not only anti-Trump/anti-ICE disruption efforts, but force Trump to respond/take him seriously, even as Mr. Huerta’s organizational turnout capacity supported larger protests and greater effect. Sure, some of the protestors got out of hand, but there’s no evidence they were linked to Mr. Huerta… right?
I will also highlight the Teamster delivering face shields to rioters. Could just be coincidence, but the timeline I have been able to figure out for the LA riots is really tight, and the LA-area Teamsters and SEIU are both known to work together and for 'energetic' protest. Even if the DoJ does seriously investigate things I dunno if it could be proven, so no way to know whether the early parts of the LA protest were waiting for something to start rather than were outraged and surprised by Heurta's arrest and spontaneously acted.
And, from the other perspective, I'll point to characters like Judge Duggan, or the various Try To Arrest Me, ICE politician protests, or to the Dem nominee for New York City mayor having Luigi fanboys high in the communication and outreach ladder.
But such norms are not laws, particularly when the norms derive from the discretion of often sympathetic enforcers who are no longer in the position to make the call.
Maybe, but I'll point out again that Lujan Grisham wasn't impeached, censured, indicted by a grand jury, called a fascist on national television or a nationally-syndicated paper, yada yada. She did technically receive a preliminary injunction, but it was immediately stayed. Fauci isn't under arrest. No lawsuit Carter Page could file would ever get to trial. Mahmoud Khalil is out on bail.
Maybe that'll change. Duggan could end up being the first swing of a very hard-hitting hammer. But every single attempt to bring these forces forward has a built-in time crunch. And there's a lot of ways to delay and slow and drop every single effort.
MaiqTheTrue
Renrijra Krin
21hr ago
What difference does it make if the fathers were opposed? This is human psychology and human nature does what human nature does. I think there’s something to the theory as unitary monarchs are probably the single most universal form of government in every culture that has ever existed. Other forms exist, but if you threw a dart at a chart of world governments, you’d very likely find some sort of unitary monarch in power. Most of Asian and European history is the history of monarchy and empire. We’re used to democratic societies, but historically speaking, they’re pretty rare.
Even the “love letters” are fairly normal across time. Welcome to the historical norm of most of human history in which your country’s fate is determined by whether or not they can appease the guy with the most powerful military.
The democrats do have a very unpopular wedge issue their party could easily fracture over- trannies. There’s a faction die hard opposed to any semblance of moderation that makes life hell for any democrats who say things like, you know what, schools shouldn’t keep this from parents.
More options
Context Copy link