domain:mattlakeman.org
(P.S. Your account of the genetic and cultural history of the Jews and Palestinians is very off. I can send you some of Razib Khan's substack posts if you actually care, but I don't think you do.)
By all means please do. I don't understand why you think I wouldn't care, unless you pegged me as running my argument due to some ideological stance that is very different from my actual one. The studies cited in this Wikipedia article seem to be broadly in line of what I believed, though.
So, if the Israelis just continue on this path another couple centuries they will own their land just as much as the Scots, English, or Palestinians do now.
That is not particularly at odds with my moral intuitions, though it is not quite equivalent to what I said - I think that direct descent from conquered and conquerors gives you moral license to reclaim much further into the future, and in the Palestinian case that descent is broken because the Jews only have this license against the Romans, who have long been expelled. The future is not now, though; the Israeli invasion is still very fresh.
4bpp
このMOLOCHだ！
3hr ago
Would Hezbollah even be anti-American without the American support for Israel? The situation may be different from Iran whose present political system emerged as a direct reaction against past American chicanery, but on the other hand even Vietnam, which got treated a lot worse than Iran, is basically friendly to the US nowadays, and the Taliban are also acting all conciliatory since their comeback. I'm sure that if the US wanted to be friends with Iran in a post-Israel world, they could do so quite easily by just promising to keep Saudi Arabia on a leash and pushing them to agree on mutually acceptable spheres of influence. The barriers would actually be on the US side, since it seems like the deep state can nurse very old grudges over matters such as BP and the embassy hostage taking.
NullHypothesis
3hr ago
Most carbs require some kind of processing for it to be edible. For grains, you have to grind it or boil it. Cooking can soften really tough pieces of meat to the point where you can chew and digest it. Cooking is probably what allowed humans to obtain enough calories to become, well humans instead of becoming just another low-intelligence primate. Things like salt and sugar are vital for biological function so we evolved to find those tastes pleasant, especially because they were so rare to find. So we evolved to find things that helped us survive taste better. Nowadays, we've gotten so good at extracting resources that many of these things that taste good are bad for us because we get way more than the body needs.
There really wouldn't be much, if any, "fat" people for our ancestors because our ancestors were much more active and food much more difficult to come by. Not only is procuring food labor intensive, but even basic home tasks such as making and washing clothes took a tremendous amount of energy. Bodies store fat because food was not something that was constantly available, especially during winter, but it wouldn't mean people were being fat to the level they are today. There is a theory that the reason Native Americans have such a high obesity rate is that since native Americans were not as reliant on agriculture, their bodies are better at storing fat for times of food scarcity compared to Europeans, where agriculture has been a part of their way of life for thousands of years.
There is also a social-cultural element of beauty, and there is a theory that plump women were considered beautiful by middle age Europeans. It could do with finding the upper class more attractive because it signals a higher social class rather than something that is purely physical based. It's like how more tanned skin is considered attractive in the West (because it's the rich that have time to go out to the beach and get a tan and the poor work low-level office or service jobs) while in the east lighter skin are considered more attractive (because much more of the poor work out in the field in the sun).
Jiro
3hr ago
Is NYC antisemitic now
I mean... yes? The left has a strong antisemitic contingent, and NYC is on the left.
Pro-BLM protestors and pro-Hamas protestors are, broadly speaking, on the same side. It took billionaires to stop pro-Hamas protests for the same reason that nothing could stop BLM protests--it's very hard to stop protests that are tacitly approved of by the establishment.
4bpp
このMOLOCHだ！
3hr ago
Yeah, as I already said in several parallel responses I'm already regretting reaching for that piece of polemic hyperbole. I don't actually believe that Hamas was de-escalating; I just think that any claim that Israel deescalated or showed restraint looks ridiculous on the face of it, in the "I only broke one arm of the angry toddler" way.
4bpp
このMOLOCHだ！
3hr ago
Yeah, it sounds like our moral intuitions are really greatly different. I don't know what was the trigger for that, but I felt visceral disdain for the whole notion of innocent civilians in a democracy for as long as I can remember - the whole thing just seemed like some sort of pickpocket's attention trick with moral responsibility where a large swath of people elects politicians to enact their will and serve their interest, but the voters refuse to take responsibility for their government's actions because they're just civilians and politicians refuse to take responsibility because they are just following the voters' will. As I see it, conscripted military in a democratic country are the ones who it is least just for someone attacked by that country to retaliate against, because they are coerced into doing what they do and often are not even allowed to leave before completing their service. The civilians who vote and their elected representatives, and to a lesser degree even those who don't vote but freely choose to stay and benefit, should be fair game.
From where I stand, this seems a totally bizarre statement.
Is it really that bizarre? As an intuition pump, what does the total morality thing say about obligatory meat consumption? Does the wrongness of the Inuit hunter who tries to kill the walrus to feed his family and the walrus that gores the hunter trying to kill it sum up to >=1? I would consider dodging this question by saying that the walrus can not be a moral subject to be a copout.
Hyperion
3hr ago
Liberal Democracy is basically only possible if people are some sort of creedal, Reformed Christian. You can have any creed you want, Episcopalian, Methodist, Catholic, Jewish, Buddhist, Atheist, etc. but you have to conform to the social and theological norms of Reformed Christianity. Shariah Law and Halakah just aren't compatible with Western society and can only be tolerated when they are tiny minorities.
sliders1234
3hr ago
GOP leadership seems to be completely capable of messing things up so maybe this bill does reach a point where it might pass. Then it won’t and we will see headlines about how Trump killed a bill to protect your privacy online. I think a lot of us on the right are becoming quite happy to have Trump as the sin eater. Granted it should not get to this point where the GOP is considering passing it. It should just be a bill that never gets to a vote in Congress
4bpp
このMOLOCHだ！
3hr ago
I thought we had enough previous interactions on other similar topics before that you'd know that I find the notion of "international law" to be somewhere in the class of Mohammad (PBUH) claiming that he received a revelation from God saying that Mohammad is his prophet and you must obey him, and so certainly whatever proportionality argument I make would not be intended as a reference to a "proportionality argument from international law".
Re: the other question, I think I responded to similar ones in parallel threads already. I leaned too far out of the window there and don't actually believe the Palestinians were de-escalating; I just don't think the Israelis were either.
flitter
3hr ago
Hmm good point.
If this is a serious problem maybe the company would require legal identification and/or a bank account demonstrating sufficient funds before they engage with customers. Which would be inconvenient for everyone if the policy was applied equitably.
Or maybe Red Lobster could cooperate with one of those governments that have a facial recognition based social credit score to identify non-cooperative persons.
This takes the time of the manager, plus whatever employee who has to testify
It's okay to take time and expense to punish wrongdoing. The whole basis of revenge is that it's kinda non-rational after the crime is already committed. But the ability to pre-commit to revenge means that rational agents won't mess with you to find out.
The higher levels should get far less usage because the threat of higher-level punishment prevents rational agents from non-compliance. I concede that this doesn't seem to be how current legal systems are setup. Also I'm not a lawyer and I'm just spitballing fantasy systems on an internet forum.
Hyperion
3hr ago
By that same argument the only thing that makes a land the ancestral homeland of someone is conquest + time. So, if the Israelis just continue on this path another couple centuries they will own their land just as much as the Scots, English, or Palestinians do now.
(P.S. Your account of the genetic and cultural history of the Jews and Palestinians is very off. I can send you some of Razib Khan's substack posts if you actually care, but I don't think you do.)
NullHypothesis
3hr ago
Butker's speech has got so many people up in a frenzy about the content that over 200,000 people have signed a "petition" on Change.org to get him removed from the Kansas City Chiefs.
What do these articles or the descriptions on change.org have in common? Creating a strawman of the content of his speech. The change.org petition description literally doesn't even give any examples of what he says, it just characterizes his speech as "sexist, homophobic, anti-trans, anti-abortion and racist."
Graduation speeches are for the people who are graduating, not for the entire world. He was giving a speech at a Catholic college to Catholic students, who presumably have Catholic values. The biggest criticism against his speech is in regard to his statement about women:
For the ladies present today, congratulations on an amazing accomplishment. You should be proud of all that you have achieved to this point in your young lives. I want to speak directly to you briefly because I think it is you, the women, who have had the most diabolical lies told to you. How many of you are sitting here now about to cross this stage and are thinking about all the promotions and titles you are going to get in your career? Some of you may go on to lead successful careers in the world, but I would venture to guess that the majority of you are most excited about your marriage and the children you will bring into this world.
I can tell you that my beautiful wife, Isabelle, would be the first to say that her life truly started when she began living her vocation as a wife and as a mother. I'm on the stage today and able to be the man I am because I have a wife who leans into her vocation. I'm beyond blessed with the many talents God has given me, but it cannot be overstated that all of my success is made possible because a girl I met in band class back in middle school would convert to the faith, become my wife, and embrace one of the most important titles of all: homemaker.
This statement is literally followed by a huge round of applause, so clearly, the audience listening to the speech, which includes women, was very responsive to his message to them specifically.
He never says women should only be a homemakers. In fact, he even acknowledges women can have successful careers. All he does is praise women who choose to be a homemaker and a mother. Butker is absolutely correct in his statements about women being lied to that pursuing a career is much more worthwhile than motherhood, based on the behavior and happiness of actual women.
hydroacetylene
3hr ago
Sharia law is not a great way to run a society, if produces broken people who can’t take initiative.
On the other hand, Turkey is a very nice place by middle income standards, and Islamism may well prove a fad.
SecureSignals
Civilization is simply a geno-memetic-techno-capital machine
4hr ago
No, it's mostly due to the belief that a renaissance of European identity would require a European religion of some form to replace Christianity. So they look towards the old European gods for inspiration. I have my own criticisms, I think their premise is correct but a "replacement European religion" will be some AI-generated cult rather than a pagan revival (maybe such a cult would borrow a lot of pagan aesthetics). But there is more substance there, they are obviously thinking with more sophistication than you realize. The glorification of the Indo-European chariot riders is not at all far removed from glorification of Greco-Roman civilization, as the latter pantheon was likewise, in essence, a glorification of the Indo-European chariot riders conquering and colonizing the world, imposing civilization onto humanity.
urquan
The end desire of the system is Kubernetes for human beings
4hr ago
Yup, I think that’s exactly what’s going on. The mainlines have collapsed.
I also would add that Catholicism, unlike mainline Protestantism, forms a strong cultural block unlike other forms of Christianity. I’ve known many Catholics who hate the Church and are essentially apostate, but if you ask for their religion, they’d say “Catholic.” What’s funny is the only person on the Court known for attending mainline Protestant services is Gorsuch — who was raised Catholic and is often still called Catholic, despite being lapsed and attending Episcopal services!
There’s a line in Leo DiCaprio’s Catch Me If You Can, where the main character, who repeatedly creates false identities, is caught by his fiance, whose immediate response to realizing her life had been totally manipulated was to ask, in tears, “You’re not a Lutheran?” Such a thing is unthinkable today, and was played for laughs in the 2000s even.
So it’s no wonder the court is considered made up largely of Catholics and Jews — they’re both faiths with a large cultural/ethnic component. That means the identification outlives the practice. The other member of the court is a Black Protestant, which is its own ethnic/religious fusion.
OliveTapenade
4hr ago
Yes, prior to Vatican II and especially prior to 1900 or so, the traditional Catholic position was basically that the state should formally endorse the Catholic Church, obey directives from the Vatican, and tolerate other religious positions either provisionally or not at all. Integralism is, broadly speaking, the traditional Roman position. If you ever get interested in the last two centuries of Spanish, French, or Italian history you will notice this causing a great deal of trouble. It's also responsible for a lot of traditional American (and Anglo in generally) anti-Catholicism. Taken seriously, it is the position that leads to drama like this.
However, Catholics, partly because of how extreme this position seems today, have largely been running away from it in the West, or have been looking for ways to reconcile Catholicism with American liberal values. Some have been more or less successful with this.
But anyway, if you dig into the European history a bit, 'discriminated against' is underselling it. This is/was a position that causes civil wars.
pairingheap
4hr ago
(Wait, 2rafa is a woman?)
PierreMenard
4hr ago
There are absolutely places where being a Zionist will get you punched.
When was the last time these billionaire Zionists got punched? Anybody doxxing them like Supreme Court justices?
No, it's not as radioactive as white nationalism, but so what?
Well, then that's why you see more white nationalism-adjacent discourse on the Motte than zionist content.
People who want to defend Israel's right to ethnic cleansing can just do so on TV panels, government offices, billionaire whatsapp groups, Fox News ads, SuperBowl ads, etc...
Meanwhile Tom Cotton has the audacity to suggest that perhaps the violence in American cities should be contained and everybody freaks out.
A few days later, The New York Times published an opinion piece by Cotton titled "Send in the Troops", arguing for the deployment of federal troops to counter looting and rioting in major American cities. Dozens of Times staff members sharply criticized the decision to publish Cotton's article, calling its rhetoric dangerous.[89][90] Following the negative response from staffers, the Times responded by saying the piece went through a "rushed editorial process" that would be reexamined.[91] Editorial page editor James Bennet resigned days later.
OliveTapenade
4hr ago
What surprised me most in the reaction was this amusing line:
Butker’s statement explicitly argues that there’s a correct way to be Catholic, even though in reality, most Catholics are supportive of abortion and LGBTQ rights.
Well... yes.
Yes, there's a correct way to be Catholic. It involves believing and acting in accordance with Catholic teaching, which is very clear on some of those subjects.
How is that controversial?
OliveTapenade
4hr ago
There are absolutely places where being a Zionist will get you punched.
No, it's not as radioactive as white nationalism, but so what? There's plenty of room for Zionism to be unpopular and provocative and something that might make Jews afraid without it being exactly as bad as the worst thing in modern politics.
The fact that Zionism is not yet as universally loathed as Nazism (though, again, there are certainly crowds people who think it ought to be) doesn't seem to prove anything, to me. Unless you're asserting that it should be?
You're also equivocating a bit between 'Jews' and 'Zionists', so I suppose I'll ask directly. Do you think that Jews should get punched just for being Jews? Or Zionists just for being Zionists?
(And to pre-empt any attempt to turn it around, no, white nationalists or neo-Nazis should not be punched either.)
It seems to me that by any reasonable standard Zionism is quite widely and publicly hated. I mean, anecdotally I know Jews who have been taking self-defence classes and buying more home security and avoiding wearing any outward signs of Jewishness in public because they're afraid of being harassed or possibly attacked. Some of those fears are exaggerated, in my view, but they're not totally unjustified.
PierreMenard
4hr ago
The mods were just following orders. Is it really anybody's fault that no one but Nazis can seem to follow pretty simple rules?
PierreMenard
4hr ago
A strange backwards situation in which the feeble try to tell the mighty what is allowed.
Interestingly, when one considers the relationship between the US and Israel, a straightforward interpretation is that the mighty would be the US.
Yet who is telling who what is allowed? Whose billionaires are broadcasting Superbowl ads and emptying their government's coffers to fight whose wars?
Was mid-century Germany justified in telling the feebler Eastern-European countries how to treat their civilians?
Goodguy
5hr ago
I think that most of the men who admire brutal chariot-riding conquerors are not thinking strategically, they just valorize virile amoral masculine strength for emotional reasons, in many cases I would guess because they feel inadequate as men and feel disconnected from modernity and so they are attracted to an archetype of brutal masculinity that has the extra advantage of pissing off politically mainstream people.
PierreMenard
5hr ago
And plenty of contexts where it's no problem at all or even a given. Not quite the same thing as being a White nationalist. Is it OK to punch a Zionist yet?
It would depend on how many people get these powers, how powerful these powers are, and what are the mechanisms for getting these powers.
This post makes me really miss the Heroes TV show. The Boys kind of scratched that more gritty superhero show vibe but it's just become too overt in-your-face in its political stances, at least seasons 1 and 2 were more nuanced about it.
Also, obligatory SMBC Superman comic: https://www.smbc-comics.com/comic/2011-07-13
More options
Context Copy link