domain:kvetch.substack.com
ulyssessword
31m ago
...on a word-by-word level it’s pretty clear.
I didn't even finish the first sentence before finding "...his thought is more than ever enabling us to see in a new way the horrors of..."
What are your standards for unclear writing??
OliveTapenade
43m ago
I wonder if it might be worth nuancing 'pro-Intifada', 'pro-Hamas', and so on?
It seems to me that many of these protests are, yes, genuinely opposed to the existence of the state of Israel, and supportive of 'decolonisation' interpreted to mean 'Israel should not exist and all Israeli Jews should leave and find homes in other countries, and if they refuse, they are legitimately the targets of lethal violence'. But the rhetoric and justification given for this is so radically different to the rhetoric and justification of either Hamas or any on-the-ground Palestinian resistance movements that I think the gulf is worthy of recognition. For the American campus protester, what Hamas or Palestinians actually want is close to irrelevant - their politics are not so much pro-Intifada or pro-Hamas they are anti-coloniser. Israel is a 'coloniser', which makes them the bad guys, which makes the opposite of Israel the good guys.
If nothing else, the campus protest ideology is not the ideology of the Hamas charter, or even the revised one. I don't think the protesters are reading that charter and unironically agreeing with it. (Though I grant that the revised, 2017 version seems calculated to appeal more to liberal Westerners.) Almost none of them are Muslims, for a start. It's something different, and must have its own origins and influences.
jeroboam
48m ago
I am also curious and PM'd the user. I am 90% sure he's talking about Bogleheads because we live in a boring world, but hopeful for something better.
faul_sname
Fuck around once, find out once. Do it again, now it's science.
1hr ago
Ctrl+0 will get you back to the 100% zoom setting.
magic9mushroom
If you're going to downvote me, and nobody's already voiced your objection, please reply and tell me
1hr ago
Similarly, leftists were in favor of free speech and questioning authority when it was beneficial to them, but now that their institutional capture is more entrenched, they don't need those things anymore.
But something about this explanation rubs me the wrong way. It paints a purely structural view of the formation of ideologies, and ignores the role of the individual completely; you will hold the views that you must based on your relational position to other political actors while taking into account your rational self interest, and that's that.
The nuanced version of this is less concerned with individuals changing their minds and more concerned with generational succession and coalitional realignment.
In essence: SJers were never liberals (they're clearly six-foundation rather than three-foundation), but while they were weak their immediate goals coincided with liberals' and they needed liberals' help to achieve them, so the coalitional rhetoric catered to liberals. Now that SJers are more numerous and powerful, and have already picked the low-hanging fruit, they have run out of common goals with liberals, and don't need the liberals to maintain a shot at power, so they kicked the liberals out of the coalition so that they could pursue their more illiberal goals. Meanwhile, the Moral Majority is no longer a majority and now needs the liberals, and also their most immediate goal of reversing SJ excesses is shared with liberals, so they've started including liberal things in their rhetoric.
oats_son
1hr ago
This post is good! Yes, that all makes sense. It doesn't really convince me to believe, but it's not totally at odds with reality, like how fundamentalists see it. I may have just talked to too many fundamentalists, but to be fair, that was my only perspective on the bible for pretty much all of my youth.
Catholics don't believe that scripture is infallible? Infallibility is a strong statement to make, and admitting that men wrote it is kind of conceding a lot of ground. I guess I don't know what you're supposed to base your belief on here, if men wrote it and it may not be accurate to what God actually wanted us to know. How would inspired word look any different from some random jackwagon writing whatever he wants?
To that end, is there anything solidifying your belief in day-to-day life? I asked a couple Christians if there is justice in this life, or if it's only reserved for the afterlife, and both of them seemed pretty stumped by what I thought was a simple question. To me, it seems pretty obvious that life is randomly cruel to everyone, Christian or not, a world of chaos, untamed and wild except for where men have tamed it. If someone created it, they're either not paying attention to it, as if they wound up a wind up doll and walked away from the table, or they never cared much about it in the first place, an apathetic god that lets the chips fall as they may. You probably disagree with that, and if you do, I'd like to hear it.
I have so many random theological questions (does the suffering of animals mean anything?), but maybe some other day. Or some other thread.
TowardsPanna
2hr ago
a finance board more oriented toward long-term investing
Where can this board be found? :)
magic9mushroom
If you're going to downvote me, and nobody's already voiced your objection, please reply and tell me
2hr ago
If you could also work 40 hours a week to be able to pay for my house that would be great too!
I would remind you that none of your interlocutors AFAICS are advocating that women work full-time jobs as well as do all the domestic work. They are suggesting that women be stay-at-home mums.
The motte is honestly far to serious most of the time. Lighten up people!
It's serious because jokes and sarcasm have a tendency to escalate into yelling matches. This is actually to some extent written into the rules.
magic9mushroom
If you're going to downvote me, and nobody's already voiced your objection, please reply and tell me
2hr ago
An interesting barometer here is Brexit and the Scottish independence question. Obviously Brexit went through, and from what I can tell there's zero English interest in even something relatively mild (like sanctions) if Scotland actually votes to secede. I don't think that this rules out punitive actions or even military action against seceding states, but after a clear referenda I think it is politically trickier.
On the other hand, the Catalonian independence referendum that got declared illegal by Spain and people arrested for voting, while the rest of the EU gave zero fucks.
sliders1234
2hr ago
I mean a clean bill where we close the border. And not the I claim asylum bullshit.
Ben___Garrison
2hr ago
nobody is going to buy or create a fake account because they want to do something good for the original community.
I don't think this is necessarily true. Reddit has a lot of silly or dumb rules... that's part of why this site decided to separate in the first place! I'm fine with Onlyfans sloots slinging their wares on the proper subreddits if that's what they want to do, and I really haven't seen much of an issue with pornspam on unrelated subs. All purchased accounts that I saw advertised on NSFW subs.
I'll believe political manipulation via bought accounts is a problem when I see actual evidence, but so far it's mostly been lacking. At least, I don't think it's much of an issue in comparison to the stuff the Reddit admins themselves are already doing via biased moderation policies.
Why can’t we just have a clean bill that closes the border?
I presume you mean "close the border to illegal immigrants". I agree that would be the best, but it's like saying "why don't we make murder illegal". It already is illegal, it's just a question of enforcement. This bill would have beefed up enforcement.
You say the golden triangle. The south is richer than they have ever been. There is always going to be some excuse. America will always be richer than every where else so there will always be economic demand.
I presume you did an autocorrect error and meant to type "Northern Triangle", not golden triangle.
The causes I listed aren't excuses, they're explanations that lie on a continuum. It's like judging the performance of a CEO based solely on the stock price, when you really need to understand the whole underlying environment to make a proper judgement. If the company grew by 10% but the rest of the sector grew by 50%, the CEO probably screwed up. Similarly, extraneous factors affect enforcement at the border.
I prefer Trump over the bill because I know the bill does nothing when the wrong party is in power.
You keep saying this but that doesn't make it true. At the very least this bill would have given more money for enforcement and closed an obvious loophole that illegals were abusing to enter the country. If Biden actually used the bill to its full effect (which he said he would) then it would have done even more.
FirmWeird
Randomly Generated Reddit Username
3hr ago
Reposting something popular is pretty common, and I don't think it's particularly harmful even if it's a little annoying to see the same thing (but how many of us even remember Reddit posts from years ago)?
I think that there's a big difference between reposting good content and reposting someone else's post wholesale while pretending it is an original contribution for ulterior motives (political or pecuniary). Technically you're right when you say that it isn't particularly harmful, in the same sense that when you come home to find a thief picking the lock on your front door it isn't actually harmful because you were going to open the door anyway. Those accounts cause only minor problems when they're being created, but think about what happens when one of those accounts actually gets sold or otherwise activated - nobody is going to buy or create a fake account because they want to do something good for the original community. Whether they're trying to shape opinions/discourse or simply sell a product, they still cause damage to the social fabric and cohesion of whatever community they start sprouting up in.
sodiummuffin
3hr ago
The posters on HackerNews, ever blinkered, theorize that this is some sort of effort to farm karma in order to promote products. That theory is almost certainly not true. There is minimal commercial value to Reddit accounts.
I've repeatedly encountered sophisticated repost bots making non-political posts, though never an entire thread like that. For example, I've seen bots that will post on /r/videos copying the top comment on the linked Youtube video, to get upvoted posts that are harder for Reddit to recognize as copies. In one case people noticed the comment was strange because it mentioned the year, which wasn't the same year the Reddit comment was made. That does not seem like something you would go to the bother of programming if there was no value in it. Reddit's spam filters treat accounts differently if they have an organic-seeming history of upvoted comments, so people who sell Reddit accounts want a way to create those at scale. Reddit might also treat real-seeming accounts differently when it comes up voting, so upvote-buying services might benefit from such accounts as well.
drmanhattan16
3hr ago
The argument is that this is how they gain provenance. Since people are suspicious of new accounts, gaining karma and age by commenting is the solution. The bots don't care who they are copying, only that there is someone to copy.
Secondly, the fact that a person can go into another's history doesn't mean they will, and it doesn't mean that you'll be able to pick out a pattern. What if an account just belongs to someone who is both deadset on the products they like and genuinely provides them as support. No one is out here saying "Product X rules!", the examples on HackerNews literally involved "talking" about the issue and what is supposedly "good" to use.
No_one
3hr ago
Majority of people don't have careers, and never had. Being a grocery clerk, factory worker, some low paid service sector employee or lowest rung bureaucrat or manager or something else for 30 years isn't a career. It's a job.
A lot of markets become mainly bets on how the creator will decide to resolve it rather than on what the question is purportedly about.
Yes. I've seen problems arise even with fairly 'objective' markets because even if you can measure a given phenomenon with precision, people might still mistrust the sensor doing the measuring. The market asks "what will be the high temperature in Miami on [date]" and we have to consider whose thermometer? Is it calibrated correctly? Are there any conditions that might throw it into an unexpected/error state?
So now the question is somewhat less about climate conditions and more about the quirks of the measurement system.
In theory you could solve this by attaching a reputation market to the system, so that a given resolution source can have their 'trustworthiness' rating impacted if enough people suspect they're fudging numbers or intentionally writing ambiguous questions/resolution criteria.
But that's just yet another system that is susceptible to gaming.
Augur had a seemingly solid system for avoiding this, but probably couldn't handle the volume, being dependent on Ethereum.
I am literally a practicing attorney and I have had my mind blown at some of the rules-lawyering/munchkin behavior that has come out of the space.
Ironically this perhaps goes to show why sports betting is so popular, because sports rules are uniformly understood, well-defined, and the bets are set on easily determinable outcomes like "Who won" and "what was the score", outcomes which are rarely ever walked back after the fact.
I speculate that we'll see some kind of AI-based solution arise and different markets will become popular with different segments of the population based on the quirks of how, say, Kalshi's AI resolves questions vs. Polymarket's Vs. Manifold's.
In this case prediction markets might not actually 'solve' the issue of people having different reality bubbles, but at least there'll be some competition.
ArmedTooHeavily
3hr ago
Bud: what the fuck?
fishtwanger
3hr ago
Where do I even go in 10 years?
We're on a site five steps removed from a LiveJournal called squid314, and I certainly wouldn't have predicted this back in April 2014. Scott had been doing SSC for about 14 months, the events that would result in GamerGate were still playing out, and I don't think /r/slatestarcodex was even around then (June 2015?).
I'd posit something like "the openness of the system can only be in proportion to the quality of the general population". As the population gets worse, more gatekeeping is required. Unified logins, generic codebases, and modern web design are on average bad signs; single-site authentication, custom codebases, and archaic design are on average good signs. A lot of commercial web design is to make it easy and attractive for anyone to participate, and in a way, I think we want the opposite. We want people who value the content enough to step outside the path of least resistance.
But there's also the problem of keeping population growth above replacement.
BahRamYou
4hr ago
I've been wondering if the dark web might ever become useful for that, just as something that raises the barrier to entry and keeps idiots away.
Alternatively we could paywall sites, even just like $1 to keep away spammers and low effort bullshit.
gattsuru
4hr ago
I would... not be so sure the administration can avoid it if Biden wanted. See the Kincaid v. Williams denial of cert (starts at page 39) from last year as an example of what's going to start coming down the pike in earnest: a very broad law with expansive reads of standing, on a matter extremely sympathetic to progressive-leaning and left-leaning judges, and where individual private actors can bring a private right of action with staggeringly high penalties, and a ton of opportunity to forum shop.
Philosophically, there's a fun question about the difference between sending in the troops and charging 150k for each violation, but there's a point where the practical difference gets pretty small, and it happens pretty quick when the target's main assets will also be the tools necessary to not comply.
sliders1234
4hr ago
Why can’t we just have a clean bill that closes the border?
You say the golden triangle. The south is richer than they have ever been. There is always going to be some excuse. America will always be richer than every where else so there will always be economic demand.
I find it interesting you did not try saying these are real asylum seekers.
I prefer Trump over the bill because I know the bill does nothing when the wrong party is in power. Biden could have stopped this but chose not to.
No_one
4hr ago
You think people won't want to actually have kids with their beloveds?
Sure, we can't rule out at some point genius autistic developers might create some AI models based on a combination of their personalities and some fantasy waifus of there.
But how's that something that's remotely relevant now ?
No_one
4hr ago
I really can't rule out someone making AI waifus that'd .. work as advisors to boys.
Certainly once AI gets (suppose AIs were as good at people as socially adept people, but of course had more data..) better, that'd probably work.
But who'd pay for all that compute ? We generally don't do things to solve problems but to help ourselves.
People argue in favour of Urbit a lot with this exact reasoning.
More options
Context Copy link