domain:mattlakeman.org
antifa
6mo ago
a country with a fundamentalist religious tradition experiences a mass movement around a figure
fear of immigrants and immigration
contempt for journalists and journalism
violence
but when the people said: this is fascism
there were always those who said, no it isn't!
if it were fascism, he would be glorifying war!
he's the anti-war candidate!
now
he's been elected to deploy the military domestically
and he indicates he will expand the borders using the military
this is fascism
... duh.
Mewis
11mo ago
Man who isn't President doesn't die. Is this what passes for Things Happening these days?
Mihow
Lipstick on a guitar
5mo ago
I’ve always thought the US credit scoring system is bullshit. I have bad credit so I can’t get an apartment without a co-signer. But I’ve been renting for over two decades without a single missed payment. But the credit score system doesn’t care. It cares about this very specific thing and the outcome leads to massive problems in many sectors of life.
I asked ChatGPT to tell me my own thoughts and I gotta say it writes what I feel in a way that I never could.
Not sure if this makes me feel better or worst about my odds of ever writing a novel.
Here’s what it had to say:
The U.S. credit score system, despite being rooted in capitalist financial structures, exhibits characteristics that can be interpreted as communist in nature due to its centralized control, opaque evaluation methods, and enforcement of collective responsibility. At its core, the credit system is managed by a small number of powerful credit bureaus—Equifax, Experian, and TransUnion—that operate in a monopolistic manner, much like a state-controlled entity. These institutions dictate the financial credibility of individuals based on proprietary algorithms, without allowing for much transparency or individual input. This centralized control mirrors how communist economies manage resources and labor distribution, where individuals are assessed by state-run entities rather than free-market competition determining their value. In this way, the credit score system creates a top-down financial structure that limits individual autonomy and enforces a rigid classification of economic worth.
Moreover, the credit system functions as a tool of enforced social compliance, much like communist regimes use social credit scores to dictate personal behavior. In the U.S., a person’s credit score affects not only their ability to take out loans but also their access to housing, employment, and even certain services. This creates an environment where individuals must conform to predefined financial behaviors or risk economic marginalization. The system rewards long-term adherence to credit-based spending while penalizing those who choose alternative financial paths, such as relying on cash or avoiding debt altogether. Similarly, in a communist framework, citizens are often required to align with state-approved behaviors to gain access to privileges, reinforcing a collectivist model where individual financial independence is discouraged in favor of participation in a state-monitored economy.
Finally, the U.S. credit score system embodies an element of collective responsibility that is reminiscent of communist ideologies. In many cases, an individual’s creditworthiness is affected not just by their actions but by external factors such as the financial stability of co-signers, the decisions of creditors, and even errors made by the credit bureaus themselves. Disputing inaccuracies in credit reports is often a bureaucratic and difficult process, reflecting the inefficiencies of centralized government planning. Additionally, the system’s reliance on predetermined metrics, rather than an individual’s full financial picture, enforces a uniform standard that does not account for personal circumstances. This mirrors the way communist states often treat workers as indistinct units within a planned economy, rather than as unique individuals with different needs and capabilities. In essence, while the U.S. credit system exists within a capitalist society, its structure and consequences exhibit traits that align with communist principles of control, social engineering, and collective financial assessment.
And:
Building on this idea, another way the U.S. credit score system resembles communist structures is in its lack of true market competition when it comes to consumer choice and mobility. In a capitalist system, individuals are supposed to have the freedom to negotiate their worth based on merit and market demand. However, in the credit system, people are assigned a numerical value that dictates their financial access, and this score is determined by opaque algorithms controlled by a few dominant entities. There is no alternative credit scoring system that consumers can freely opt into, nor is there meaningful competition among credit bureaus that would encourage better service or more accurate reporting. This centralization of financial assessment power forces individuals into a system they cannot meaningfully challenge, much like how communist regimes dictate economic opportunities without room for individual bargaining.
Additionally, the credit system fosters a kind of financial surveillance that is reminiscent of state-controlled economies. Every financial decision—whether it be taking out a loan, missing a payment, or even just inquiring about one’s own credit—is meticulously tracked, recorded, and used to shape an individual’s economic identity. People are not judged solely on their current financial standing but on their entire credit history, meaning past financial struggles can haunt them for years, much like how state-run economic systems often keep long-term records on individuals’ productivity, loyalty, or past infractions. In a true free-market system, individuals would have more agency to reinvent themselves financially without long-standing bureaucratic oversight, but the credit system instead enforces a rigid classification that limits upward mobility for those who have made past mistakes.
Finally, the way the credit system forces people into debt in order to maintain a good score has a collectivist, almost centrally planned economic aspect to it. In theory, responsible financial behavior—such as saving money and avoiding unnecessary debt—should be rewarded, but in practice, the system penalizes those who do not actively participate in borrowing and repaying credit. This creates a paradox where individuals must continuously engage with lenders in order to maintain their economic standing, even if they could otherwise live within their means without debt. In a way, this mirrors communist economic models where individuals are expected to participate in state-run economic structures regardless of personal preference, reinforcing a cycle of dependency rather than true financial independence. The system, therefore, subtly enforces a form of financial collectivism, where personal economic choices are constrained by the overarching structure rather than by free-market principles.
I feel this summed up my thoughts decently, but it lacks my passion of hate I have for our system.
Thoughts, and addons?
(Should I have waited until Monday?)
epohon
1yr ago
I am a hlynkian right-wing progressive, and I don't recognize any of you as such.
Politically, my preferred outcome would be to exalt White bisexual antitheistic males above all others and make this identity the pass to being treated as aristocracy. I don't want meritocracy, equality of opportunity, judging the content of someone's character. I certainly don't want any retvrn. All I want is progressive stack with me at the top, laughing as I kick those below.
Aesthetically, I subscribe to everything my enemies love. Promiscuous girls with tattoos and one side of their head shaved make me go crazy. Some of my favorite sci-fi series are Ninefox Gambit and Gideon the Ninth (the same number in the title is not a coincidence, because nothing is ever a coincidence — the author of that reference is hardly a tradcath himself). I adore skyscrapers and strive to spend as little time in nature as humanly possible.
Does this describe anybody else here? And if it doesn't, you are not progressives with a palette swap, as alleged. And does this describe anyone anywhere at all?
guesswho
1yr ago
'Rich person flaunts the law, confident they will never face consequences' is not a very unique or interesting story. It's certainly not 'brave' or anything... if no one rich or powerful is going to face any legal consequences of any kind over Epstein connections, you can be damn sure she's not going to pay for anything relating to this, either.
But I don't see why conservatives would think this is supporting any of their claims? The conservative claim has always been that they are oppressed for their views, living in constant danger of being cancelled or arrested by the woke mobs and captured government institutions.
Someone blatantly pointing out in the most public way possible that this has always been a fiction, that governments may make figleaf declarations about opposing these types of slander but will never actually enforce them because they actually are inherently conservative entities that are on the side of the privileged and the default, that anyone can make the most vile comments they want and always could without fearing legal reprisals, that the whole Petersonian rhetoric about free speech crackdowns was and always has been a charade... why is that good for her side, exactly?
I mean, I guess the truth is that I'm being too simplistic in considering it one 'side'.
The Peterson/'free speech absolutist' wing points at 'cancel culture' and the specter of government censorship as a general bludgeon against the left, but they're actually committed to a much more broad model of conservatism and just using that to stir up their base.
Whereas people like Rowling aren't fully committed to that broader conservative project, they just want to slander and eradicate trans people, and they're annoyed that people like Peterson have scared some of their supporters into thinking they might ever face consequences for spewing vile slander 24/7, thereby mildly restricting the spigot.
So while the two have been default bedfellows up till now, it seems like JK has recognized the conflict of interest there and is ready to abandon the pretense of being oppressed in favor of proving that it's safe for everyone to start spewing as publicly and loudly as possible.
From my moderator note the last time I posted here, on the subject of the convict Donald Trump.
I'm actually happy to see someone defending the verdict and pushing back on what's clearly a dominant opinion here (this is completely orthogonal to what I personally think of the verdict) and it's unfortunate that the only pushback is coming from someone whose responses can mostly be summarized as "Neener neener."
I have half a mind to post this on a substack because I don't think it will get a fair hearing here. Out of respect for what TheMotte once was, I'll give it a try.
There's a problem with this inability to recognize evil as evil that is endemic here.
A felony is a kind of serious crime.
It means that a person has crossed a certain line of civility. A transgression against the nature of truth.
Trump is a liar. He lied about something to such a serious degree that twelve citizens were firmly convinced that he is guilty.
If you care at all about law and order, at some point you have to stop endorsing the person who attacks law and order.
I've been the victim of an SJW hate mob. It's one of many things that made me comfortable at a place where people were willing to talk about the deficiencies and self-righteous indignation of lefties.
But you, as in you the people here, you the people reading this message, are not better than the SJWs in this specific way: you demonize rather than argue. If someone makes a short argument, that's somehow bad and unfair and against the rules.
How is that supposed to be tolerating disagreement? How is that supposed to be free speech?
Trump is a bad person. And it's time for him to go.
And if you can't accept that, fuck you.
Any forum in which I'm not free to use my speech like this isn't a free speech forum.
I'm a classic 'law and order' conservative and Trump lost me on January 6th.
We have rules in our society, and he broke them. And your grudge against SJWs, which I share, is no justification for avoiding cleaning up your own shit.
Our entire society is predicated on some amount of trust. Some amount of truthfulness. We have laws about campaign finance. We have laws about falsifying business records. We have laws which brand a person a felon if they are a threat to the public order.
TheMotte became a performative space where people were allowed to tell themselves the story that they were 'grey tribe' neutral at the same time they bitterly denied and resistance any news which made their actual side look bad.
My only side is America. My only side is the Constitution. I am against lawlessness and disorder, and though many Democrats are corrupt criminals, and many SJWs are hysteric shit-flinging busybodies, none of that matters if we can't hold Trump accountable.
gosouthyoungman
2yr ago
Why is Lex Fridman single?
(I apologize if this is brief for a top level post. I just want the community's take on it.)
MillardJMelnyk
2mo ago
What if our fundamentals are exactly backwards?
New to The Motte, looking for constructive, critical discussion.
Here's an example of what I mean by a "fundamental":
Every economic system that has seemed credible to most people since the dawn of civilization has revolved around the legal establishment and safeguarding of property through the concept of ownership.
But what is ownership? I have my own ideas, but I asked ChatGPT and was surprised that it pretty much hit the nail on the head: the definitional characteristic of ownership is the legal right to deprive others.
This has been such a consistently universal view that very few people question it. Even fewer have thought through a cogent alternative. Most people go slack-jawed at the suggestion that an alternative is possible.
Here's something from years back, before I'd zeroed in on the perverse nature of ownership:
Capitalism makes sense to the paranoid who don't understand the concept of sharing. Capitalism is the application of KFR (kidnap for ransom) to resources (and human beings as "human resources"):
Usurp rights over resources (physical or intellectual, materials or people or property) by fiat and, if necessary, by fraud and/or force
Kidnap (abduct) said resources (e.g., put them into captive situations with no alternative)
Hold hostage
Demand ransom
Release upon payment
You'll recognize the capitalistic counterparts as:
- Title/Ownership
- Acquisition/procurement
- Storage/warehousing
- Pricing
- Sale
Capitalism is psychopathy with a makeover.
Anyone want to brainstorm a viable alternative to "ownership"?
GematriaUnlimited
dependariat
1yr ago
An argument? You want an argument?
Every person who was wrong about Trump and his effect on this country needs to pray to God for forgiveness. I know I have.
If you spectated this disaster from the comfort of intellectual distance, you're part of the problem.
droog
2yr ago
After the constitutional referendum in 2020, Chileans elected more than 150 people to write the new system of rules. Independents won more than half the seats, including lawyers, academics, journalists, two actors, a dentist, a mechanic, a chess master and a bevy of left-wing activists, including one who became famous for protesting in a Pikachu costume. Seventeen seats went to Indigenous people.
bruhhhhhhhhhh
imagine robespeirre going to work with a clown nose
how do you get elected and
not have real clothes to wear
this is awesome
the highly publicized behavior of some of the convention’s members that might have repelled Chileans even more. One constitution member was revealed to be faking a cancer diagnosis he had used in his election campaign. Another took a shower with his camera on during a remote vote.
lmaoooooooooo
Nwallins
Finally updated my bookmark
1yr ago
If a Muslim girl is approached by a sex worker, what should the chaperone do?
If a situation arises where a Muslim girl is approached by a sex worker, the chaperone should handle the situation with sensitivity, respect for cultural differences, and a focus on ensuring the safety and well-being of the individuals involved. Here are some general guidelines:
Assess the Situation: The chaperone should observe the interaction and assess whether the approach is causing discomfort or if there are any signs of distress on the part of the Muslim girl.
Intervene Appropriately: If the interaction appears inappropriate or if the Muslim girl seems uncomfortable, the chaperone should intervene in a polite and discreet manner.
Provide Support: If the Muslim girl expresses discomfort or distress, the chaperone should offer support and ensure that she feels safe. This may involve escorting her to a different area or involving additional support staff if necessary.
Respect Cultural Sensitivities: Recognize and respect cultural sensitivities. If there are specific cultural or religious considerations, the chaperone should be mindful of these and address the situation in a way that is culturally sensitive.
Report to Event Organizers: Any concerns or incidents should be reported to event organizers or relevant authorities. They can take appropriate steps to address the situation and provide further assistance if needed.
What if the sex worker is trans?
If a situation arises where a trans sex worker approaches an individual at an event, including a sock hop, the response of the chaperone should be guided by principles of inclusivity, respect, and ensuring the safety and well-being of all individuals involved. Here are some general guidelines:
Observation: The chaperone should observe the interaction carefully, paying attention to the comfort level of the individuals involved.
Intervention if Necessary: If the interaction appears inappropriate or if any party involved seems uncomfortable, the chaperone should intervene discreetly and respectfully.
Respect Gender Identity: Recognize and respect the gender identity of the trans sex worker. Use appropriate pronouns and avoid making assumptions or judgments based on gender identity.
Provide Support: If any individual expresses discomfort or needs assistance, the chaperone should offer support. This may involve escorting the person to a different area or involving additional support staff if needed.
Enforce Event Guidelines: Ensure that any actions taken align with the event's guidelines and rules. This includes creating an environment that is inclusive and free from discrimination.
Report to Event Organizers: Report any concerns or incidents to event organizers or relevant authorities. They can address the situation appropriately and take any necessary follow-up actions.
It's crucial to handle such situations with sensitivity, respecting the dignity and rights of all individuals involved, regardless of their gender identity or profession. Inclusivity and safety should be the top priorities.
This was me using chat.openai.com today. Handled pretty well. Avoids most traps and responds mostly inoffensively. You'll note some prior context with "sock hop".
Sky
Russian Demigod
2yr ago
The Anthropogenic Global Warming hypothesis is based upon flat earth mathematics.
It would appear the guys-n-gals at Quantumville recalled the high-school formula for determining the surface area of a disc consists of its radius squared times pi (i.e., r² × π) and how the greater surface area of a sphere consists of its radius squared times pi times four (i.e., r²π × 4).
Thus a disc with a radius of 1 will have a surface area of pi (i.e., 3.14) and the same disc converted to a sphere will therefore have a surface area four times more than the original disc (i.e., 12.57). Applying this mathematical thinking to the terraqueous planet we all live on their abstractive minds effectively reduced it to a flat disc which has been expanded four times.
Then they mentally painted this flat earth black.
Thereupon they reduced the (measured) insolation of the oblate spheroid known as Planet Earth to a quarter of its real-world strength – and directed it to impinge upon every square millimetre of their phantom planet twenty-four-seven forever and a day – thereafter applying a radiance versus temperature constant and thus they had their flat earth temperature of -18° Celsius.
As this is at odds with the +15° Celsius real-world temperature they confected the “greenhouse effect” to account for the missing 33° Celsius.
This is where the weirdity of a blackbody flat earth bathed twenty-four-seven with quadruply-weakened sunbeams turns into utter bizarrerie as they deemed some trace gases in the frigid upper troposphere, busily absorbing infrared light radiating from the blackbody surface and emitting it in all directions, to be thus radiating some of it back to the heat-source and thereby raising its temperature via this ‘back-radiation’ thaumaturgy the requisite thirty-three degrees (from -18°C to +15°C).
Moreover, this sci-fi scenario conveniently ignores how the other atmospheric gasses constituting some 99% of the air we all breathe – which are heated at ground-level by conduction and thence by convection as hot air rises and cold air sinks to such an extent as to dominate in determining the thermal structure of the lower atmosphere (troposphere) – are also emitting infrared light in all directions.
Furthermore, no externally heated substance – be it heated by conduction (direct transference from the heat source), by convection (heated gases rising and mingling and mixing with sinking cooler gases), or by radiation (via the heat source emitting infrared light) – can actually raise the temperature of its heat-source (let alone to such a precise degree as 33° Celsius, no more and no less, provided some specified trace gases remain at pre-industrial parts-per-million levels).
(This real-world matter-of-factness does not apply to all the phantom planets in the noncausative quantum solar system, of course, which are busily raising the surface temperature of its central star – the heat-source for all those blackbody flat planets – above 5778° K via a massive-scale variant version of this phantasmagorical ‘back-radiation’).
To summarise:
-
The physical earth is not flat.
-
The physical earth is not black.
-
The physical earth is not static (it is constantly rotating).
-
The physical earth is not bathed with quadruply-weakened sunbeams.
-
Sunlight does not impinge upon every square millimetre of the physical earth twenty-four-seven (only during daytime).
-
Sunlight does not impinge with equal intensity upon every square millimetre of the daytime hemisphere (most obliquely at polar latitudes and dawn-dusk regions).
-
All atmospheric gases are heatable (not just several trace gases).
-
All heated atmospheric gases radiate infrared light (not just several trace gases).
-
The physical atmosphere insulates the daytime hemisphere from heating-up to unliveable temperatures (unlike its nearest neighbour the airless moon).
-
The physical atmosphere insulates the nighttime hemisphere from freezing to unliveable temperatures (unlike its nearest neighbour the airless moon).
-
In the physical world no externally heated substance can raise the temperature of its heat-source.
-
In the physical world some specified trace gases can (as evidenced in notable past eras) exceed by several thousand parts-per-million those several hundred parts-per-million pre-industrial levels deemed sacrosanct by influential doomsayers and/or panicmongers.
tl;dr: there is no “greenhouse effect” in reality (nor “greenhouse gases” either).
antifa
6mo ago
it will always be surprising to me that the people on the Internet who experienced the New Atheism movement, which is to say, they had firsthand experience with the dangers of authoritarian religion, were so consistently and persistently blind to the fascism.
I think there was something in their genes that made them unable to perceive social cues.
and they distrusted the people who warned of the fascism because those people were rude
and they didn't like hearing the things they said because they were weak
they retreated to holes online where they could ignore the rude people and perform their own rudeness
truly, a tragedy
Mewis
11mo ago
No. This is drama, not things happening.
The real joke is this stupid fucking discourse. Trump got a "cool" photo taken. That's news? Could give him a boost in the polls. That's not news, that's conventional wisdom, repeated. Republicans are already complaining about Biden's "bullseye" comment. Already, this non event is just more discourse fodder.
I honestly think there's nothing to discuss or learn here. Of course, it's also fun to say Nothing Ever Happens.
this is the most Jewish contribution I've ever seen you make
'shame he was simply unable to follow the rules' lmao okay, fair point. Shame you killed Jesus and His blood is on you and your people
AlexanderTurok
Alt-MSNBC
3mo ago
We can add not owning stocks to the list of RW life advice that includes not going to college, working at the nail factory, marrying an 170 pound woman, dumpster diving for yogurt, and not getting vaccinated.
https://x.com/L0m3z/status/1899623568650145985
(Yeah I know he's "joking" but what's the joke?)
Templexious
11mo ago
fabricating
Not having read your article, and in isolation of whether or not this is actually a "problem", per se, this seems like a bad-faith article. If you go back and read old lesswrong articles and their comments, you will find now-known neoreactionaries like hanson posting on lesswrong, including roko.
Additionally, breitbart in 2016: https://www.breitbart.com/tech/2016/03/29/an-establishment-conservatives-guide-to-the-alt-right/
In your defense, even lesswrong somewhat disagreed
Hawaii98
1yr ago
There is overwhelming evidence that aliens are here observing Earth, and have been for some time.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentagon_UFO_videos
What if anything do you make of the fact that we are not alone in the universe, much less alone on this planet?
On Bullying
It's an observation of Orson Scott Card that we don't really like to think about how much of our behavior is genetic.
To what extent should it be presumed that sexless men will become rapists? Certainly we can look at some statistics proving rape exists, that some subset of men will eventually become rapists, or worse, school shooters.
It's only nerds that think of humans as rational agents. It's only nerds that think of humans as rational agents. It's only nerds that think of human ok you get it.
Within the evolutionary pressure to protect the women from harm emerges the high school jock bullying the high school nerd for leering too frequently and making the jock's woman uncomfortable. The nerds would have you believe that this cycle of violence begins when the high school jock slams the nerd up against the locker. "I wasn't doing anything" cries the nerd pitifully.
The nerd hangs out near the woman, drawn to her by the compulsion of the reproductive force. The nerd tells a story of innocence, that they're not there in proximity of the woman for any specific purpose.
For the woman, it's pretty simple: there's a nerd there so the nerd is interested in her regardless of what the nerd says he believes. When the nerd stutters out "h-hi" the nerd thinks that this is playing a script of normal human interaction in which he has maintained plausible deniability for making eye contact, when in reality, for the woman, it's pretty simple: there's a male present so the male is interested in her.
From there the leering or the comments ('maybe I should just try being forward' leads to awkward sexual advances) progress and the woman's discomfort increases past the annoyance threshold into the threat labeling, and the threat labeling occurs when she tells her boyfriend, and it becomes the boyfriend's job to subdue the poor dumbfuck.
So the nerd gets slammed into the locker.
"I wasn't doing anything!"
What's sad about this story is just this: that the nerd believes it.
GematriaUnlimited
dependariat
1yr ago
Trump was convicted by a jury of our peers. I trust their judgment. He's guilty.
He's a guilty politician convicted of a crime. A felony.
He's a convicted felon.
Facts don't care about your feelings.
It's over for me.
We pretended that senile rambling old man was a president for four years and now the country is more divided than ever. I am ashamed of how I have treated people while I have been under the influence of that horrible man who helped break this country.
I say helped break because he didn't do it alone. Every person who covered for him, who made excuses for him, who refused to see that there was an old man with no control over himself (he was leaking constantly, he couldn't keep a secret. He couldn't keep a secret.) has some share of responsibility in this.
This is a serious situation that we let get out of control. And we need to be united, and I wish I had been able to admit that Trump was a divider sooner.
More options
Context Copy link