Oceans Yet to Burn
Month
one of the funniest things about the “kids are exposed to too much violence nowadays” arguments
is that people literally used to be executed in the town square and entire families would go out to watch these people be killed and it was a huge event and people thought it was great fun
joke: kids are exposed to too much violence
woke: kids arent exposed to enough violence
toke: the violence that kids used to be exposed to was aimed at building social cohesion and community spirit, whereas the violence of today’s mass media is premised on nihilistic individualism
I feel a bit uneasy about that hot take there Argumate, but I think you just passed the Ideological Turing Test for WrathOfGnon.
A good example of political correctness is the party line on Joss Whedon shifting over time.
One can try and stay ahead of the curve, hence the stern admonitions about the new Doctor Who being problematic because the lady is white.
But one can be politically incorrect by being too far ahead of the curve; much like trading the market one must be careful not to be too early or too late.
The trick is to never show enthusiasm for anything until you know whether it is problematic or not.
And be prepared to instantly disavow or recontextualise past opinions every time the winds shift; for this is in fact what political correctness means.
Political Correctness Limit Hypothesis: For any given item X, the odds of being declared problematic approach 1 as the time t goes to infinity.
I have it on good authority that not wanting me is an act of oppression.
If only Eliot Rodgers had waited a few years…
I’m sorry, but unlike me, he was a member of [OTHER GROUP] and I am a member of [CORRECT GROUP], therefore for him to want anyone is an act of oppression.
(Although more seriously that guy was fucked up. Don’t huff Incelthought, kids. You’ll go mad and blind.)
Didn’t the incels actually tell him off? At least some manosphere people did, asI recall.
Someone did. He was unsurprisingly accused of being an MRA or something along those lines, but of course all the MRAs thought he was nuts. There was some other group, but I don’t think it was incels.
We are still in the past right now, so our actions will still have more impact in the future.
It’s probably a ratio thing, where they’re smaller in scale but higher concentration of crazy, plus of course old cults are grandfathered in.
it ensures that your asks match population demographics and automatically correct any accidental unWoke terminology
aawb:
aawb:
hey some advice for young girls is don’t trust men. they know. they know what they do.
Don’t trust whom? Stephen Hawking, Prince Harry, your younger brother? Your friend who knew you since childhood? Elton John? Your grandpa?
There is no such thing as men in general when it comes to social interaction.lmao this is my favorite response
don’t trust prince harry
stephen hawking and prince harry teamed up to kill my grandpa so jot that down
guys op is a terf :/
(OK so @dubvictor let me know if you want me to delete this/are getting shit over the post and just want it gone. Also I’m sorry in advance, this turned into a bit of a novel.)
this. this is the reason that I say ‘casual man hate is bad, actually’; this is the reason I say “we really should not be making fun of people for things they can’t help, even if the things they can’t help are things that make them privileged”. it’s not because I’m a squishy moderate who thinks it would be nice if everyone was nice. it’s because this stuff directly hurts vulnerable people.
you ever notice how these ‘funny’, ‘relatable’ man-hate posts keep going around, right, and they get a thousand notes or so, and then someone notices, ‘hey, OP is a terf’. And everyone stops and goes oh because they realise, ‘hey, OP doesn’t actually mean men.’
…if you have a category of people that are Acceptable Targets- a group of people you can performatively hate, no matter what, to the point where you can advocate for their genocide and people will understand it’s ‘just’ a joke- asshats will go to whatever lengths they can to equate the people they hate with Acceptable Targets.
TERFs try to make trans women look like men, because for a lot of feminists, men are an Acceptable Target. ableist feminists try to write off their discomfort with ‘creepy’ autistic behaviour* by saying it’s ‘male-coded’ or ‘masculine’, because men are an Acceptable Target. racist feminists talk about thugs and racially-charged Stranger Danger stereotypes, and then they expect you not to call them on their shit because- you guessed it- men are an Acceptable Target.
and yes, trans women are women, trans women are not men, equating the two is wrong. but, like… just because they’re ‘not men’ in the abstract doesn’t mean they can’t get hurt by stuff that is directly aimed at them. on top of that, there are people who are men- who are also lgbt+, or disabled, or poc- who get hit with the splash damage. if you’re already told all day every day by the media and the people around you that you’re a terrible person who’s not to be trusted, how do you think it feels coming from a place that’s supposed to be ‘safe’?
when you say ‘it’s okay to make fun of this group of people for a thing they didn’t choose to be, because the thing they didn’t choose makes them privileged’, what you’re effectively saying is 'it’s okay if there’s Acceptable Targets, as long as they’re not people like me.’ whether or not you intend to, you’re giving carte blanche to the people who want an Acceptable Target so they can keep being bigoted in a socially acceptable fashion.
*I’m talking about, like, infodumping, not stalking. a lot of sexist creepy men will try to do the exact same thing in reverse and go “b-but i have a disability :( why are you being ableist :(”. and i’m not defending them, either.
wouldn’t the internet, a digital network designed with the sole purpose of sharing information more conveniently and accessibly, completely invalidate the basic premise of Fahrenheit 451??
the whole story is fucking pointless if it includes the ultimate plethora of knowledge and information, which’ll probably be government supplied
No, but it would necessitate a tonal shift.
Unusually for sci-fi, Ray Bradbury is a bit of a technophobe, and the real intended moral of the book is very, very close to boomer cartoons about youths on their cellumaphones, except about television.
The destruction of books was possible because people en masse did not even care any more.
I have it on good authority that not wanting me is an act of oppression.
If only Eliot Rodgers had waited a few years…
I’m sorry, but unlike me, he was a member of [OTHER GROUP] and I am a member of [CORRECT GROUP], therefore for him to want anyone is an act of oppression.
(Although more seriously that guy was fucked up. Don’t huff Incelthought, kids. You’ll go mad and blind.)
I have it on good authority that not wanting me is an act of oppression.
“[Ghost in the Shell] is a perfect overlapping of form and function. They speak directly to the audience and say “the patriarchal corporation made Motoko white because they consider it more marketable.”
The irony of the film is that people [online] have bought entirely into the corporate logic and are now arguing that ‘authentic’ Japanese identity is superior because it’s even more marketable - literally that the movie would have made more money with an authentic Japanese on the posters.
In this view, Cutter was bad not because he was using billions of tax dollars to vicisect people for profit, but because he failed to make enough profit for his shareholders. He was not exploitative enough - he did not ‘Think Different". Cutter’s sneering racism is unfashionable, and so his Caucasian deathbots were left in the dust by the burgeoning Japanese-Looking Fucktoy industry.”
An interesting response, though I believe the arguers actually wanted it for authenticity/racial representation reasons and only made the argument about money because they thought “be more moral (according to our morality)” wouldn’t be convincing.
I hope McCain takes the time left to him to reflect on the experiences he’s lived through - for someone to suffer through some of the worst of the pointless cruelty war has to offer, to then turn around and work to inflict that on others, is something I’ll never be able to comprehend
Hearing about his brain cancer got me thinking, though…I don’t know that the rest of the world would forgive the US if we had something like the Nuremberg trials for everybody involved in the last few administrations, the targeted drone killing program, the decisions to begin wars in various countries under false pretenses or completely without justification, Guantanamo Bay and all the rest of it, and brought the country back under some semblance of the rule of law
But I’m pretty sure they won’t forgive us if we don’t do something like that before too many of the war criminals involved start dying of natural causes without seeing justice under the international law we once championed
It took the memetic force of Donald Fucking Trump to get the Republicans to admit the Iraq War was a bad idea. Hypocrites that they are, the Democrats have mostly given the Obama Administration a pass, even though from what I’ve read Libya is now worse off. Although really the worst thing about all this is this shit doesn’t even work and they have the backbone for drone strikes but NOT the backbone to properly occupy Afghanistan and forcibly modernize it over one generation so that the “nation building” sticks. And forcibly modernizing the territory SHOULD be a lot more threatening than just wrecking it!
Remember “Mercy is racist” discourse
It’s racist for a Swiss person to perform surgery on a Japanese one
No no, it’s racist because humans can’t just decide to make some dude half-Omnic. Omnics have a long and complex history of oppression at the hands of humans, and -
It’s gonna suck when all the dudes start gene modding themselves to be taller, setting off the Basketball Arms Race.
the other day i made a joke about manlets to my brother and he just said completely dead pan “brother, we cannot ridicule those of a stature that does not match our own” and i can’t stop thinking about it. it was like he got possessed by a manlet sympathizing spirit
I dunno @ranma-official, it sounds like you might be taking punching down a little too literally.
I just find it amusing that every self-described leftist who accuses me of being a fascist invariably gets torn to pieces by other self-described leftists a week later, who then get torn to pieces in turn, and so on ad infinitum, like a bizarre political karma system.
This is either a bot blindly scraping things to promote an algorithmic t-shirt shop or some of that new wave of brilliant Facebook avant-garde and I can’t tell which
(the horse_ebooks question)
I, uh…
…what?
I don’t think it’s a bot, but I can’t think of who would sponsor it.
mitigatedchaos reblogged your post: A fact about NATO that to me seems to go strangely…
Well, how does one get people to become willing to literally fight to the death to support wishy-washy liberal multiculturalism and large-scale migration?
After all, under such conditions, one does not really own one’s country, or any country, and everywhere is just a multicultural blend, so the logical thing to is just leave whenever threatened until your back is against the wall and it’s reduced to one nation again.
Who will fight in the nation’s army if there is no national pride as all developed nations are in the debt of infinite sin?
Say what you will about Philippe Pétain, but at least he fought for the Third Republic.
This is something a bit worse than that.
In this world, only the willingness and ability to use force can ensure that an ideology is instantiated, even if it is in ways that are bound up in rules and procedures and called law.
Is that dangerous?
Yes. But it applies to every ideology, from the cruelest of the Second World War, to Human Rights.
If an ideology cannot even generate enough power to defend itself, then it will be replaced by one that can. That is why it is essential to construct ideologies that can create that power but which are still worth living under.
That’s fair, but I believe the United States has advantages in procurement, development, and air support, larger reserves of manpower and materiel, and more military experience than the Europeans.
In a non-nuclear confrontation with Russia, I believe only the Americans have the combined arms forces with the military superiority to roll back Russian positions in Poland and the Baltic states.
The United States has about 14,000 military aircraft, while Russia has 3,800. But the principal allies together have fewer aircraft than that: France has 1,300, Britain has 850, and Germany has 700.
Even if qualitative and personnel superiority allow the smaller allied forces to fight Russia to a draw – and the Russians will have combat experience that allies lack – I’m skeptical that Europeans will have the air superiority they need to advance on the ground.
On the ground, the United States has about 5,900 tanks and 41,000 armored fighting vehicles. Russia has about 20,000 tanks and 31,000 AFVs. The Europeans have fewer than that: France has about 400 tanks and 6,900 AFVs, Britain has about 250 tanks and 6,000 AFVs, and Germany has about 550 tanks and 5,900 AFVs.
I don’t have the technical expertise to evaluate those military numbers, but the Europeans are not prepared to fight and win a ground war against Russia without air superiority, and I don’t know how long it would take the Europeans to procure the materiel and manpower to reverse Russian gains.
They would need that, because Russia will have an enormous military advantage at the beginning of the war. NATO runs war games, and the outcome isn’t happy, even with US and European allies working together:
Across multiple plays of the game, Russian forces eliminated or bypassed all resistance and were at the gates of or actually entering Riga, Tallinn, or both, between 36 and 60 hours after the start of hostilities. Four factors appeared to contribute most substantially to this result.
First and obviously, the overall correlation of forces was dramatically in Russia’s favor. Although the two sides’ raw numbers of maneuver battalions—22 for Russia and 12 for NATO—are not badly disproportionate, seven of NATO’s are those of Estonia and Latvia, which are extremely light, lack tactical mobility, and are poorly equipped for fighting against an armored opponent. Indeed, the only armor in the NATO force is the light armor in a single Stryker battalion, which is credited with having deployed from Germany during the crisis buildup prior to the conflict. NATO has no main battle tanks in the field.
Meanwhile, all Russia’s forces are motorized, mechanized, or tank units. Even their eight airborne battalions are equipped with light armored vehicles, unlike their U.S. counterparts.
Second, Russia also enjoys an overwhelming advantage in tactical and operational fires. The Russian order of battle includes ten artillery battalions (three equipped with tube artillery and seven with multiple-rocket launchers), in addition to the artillery that is organic to the maneuver units themselves. NATO has no independent fires units at all, and the light units involved in the fight are poorly endowed with organic artillery.
Third, NATO’s light forces were not only outgunned by the much heavier Russian units, but their lack of maneuver ability meant that they could be pinned and bypassed if the Russian players so desired. By and large, NATO’s infantry found themselves unable even to retreat successfully and were destroyed in place.
Finally, while NATO airpower was generally able to take a substantial toll on advancing Russian troops, without adequate NATO ground forces to slow the attack’s momentum, there is simply not enough time to inflict sufficient attrition to halt the assault. Airpower is rate limited, and against a moderately competent adversary—which is how we portrayed the Russian Air Force—NATO’s air forces had multiple jobs to do, including suppressing Russia’s arsenal of modern surface-to-air defenses and defending against possible air attacks on NATO forces and rear areas. This further limited NATO air’s ability to affect the outcome of the war on the ground. Without heavy NATO ground forces to force the attackers to slow their rate of advance and assume postures that increased their vulnerability to air strikes, Russian players could meter their losses to air by choosing how to array and move their forces.
Russia’s tactical advantages make victory in the Baltics a fait accompli. That means that Europeans can only make victory in a protracted campaign, and I am deeply skeptical that the Europeans are willing to go it alone. I’m not even sure they’d be willing to do it with American help.
European electorates outside the Russian borderlands are also deeply skeptical of military action, even in defense. Only 18 percent of Germans, 27 percent of Britons, and 29 percent of the French are willing to fight for their country. The French and British establishments believe in the alliance, but I’m skeptical that the deeply pacifist German electorate is prepared for conflict.
If there were a political solution available – supposing the Russians install an amenable client government in the Baltic states, and offer a compromise peace with the Western Europeans – I am not certain that the Germans would hold out for something more.
Without Germany, without the United States, and with the Baltic states already under Russian occupation, I don’t think the Atlantic alliance has a leg to stand on, even if the Balts and Poles put up a heroic resistance. Even with the Americans and the Germans, the Russian fait accompli in the Baltics presents the allies with hard choices, as RAND points out:
A rapid Russian occupation of all or much of one or two NATO member states would present the Alliance with three options, all unappetizing. First, NATO could mobilize forces for a counteroffensive to eject Russian forces from Latvia and Estonia and restore the territorial integrity of the two countries. Under the best of circumstances, this would require a fairly prolonged buildup that could stress the cohesion of the alliance and allow Russia opportunities to seek a political resolution that left it in possession of its conquests. Even a successful counteroffensive would almost certainly be bloody and costly and would have political consequences that are unforeseeable in advance but could prove dramatic.
Any counteroffensive would also be fraught with severe escalatory risks. If the Crimea experience can be taken as a precedent, Moscow could move rapidly to formally annex the occupied territories to Russia. NATO clearly would not recognize the legitimacy of such a gambit, but from Russia’s perspective it would at least nominally bring them under Moscow’s nuclear umbrella. By turning a NATO counterattack aimed at liberating the Baltic republics into an “invasion” of “Russia,” Moscow could generate unpredictable but clearly dangerous escalatory dynamics.
On a tactical level, a counteroffensive campaign into the Baltics would likely entail the desire, and perhaps even the necessity, of striking targets, such as long-range surface-to-air defenses and surface-to-surface fires systems, in territory that even NATO would agree constitutes “Russia.” Under Russian doctrine, it is unclear what kinds or magnitudes of conventional attacks into Russian territory might trigger a response in kind (or worse), but there would certainly be concern in Washington and other NATO capitals about possible escalatory implications.
Finally, it is also unclear how Russia would react to a successful NATO counteroffensive that threatened to decimate the bulk of its armed forces along its western frontier; at what point would tactical defeat in the theater begin to appear like a strategic threat to Russia herself?
The second option would be for NATO to turn the escalatory tables, taking a page from its Cold War doctrine of “massive retaliation,” and threaten Moscow with a nuclear response if it did not withdraw from the territory it had occupied. This option was a core element of the Alliance’s strategy against the Warsaw Pact for the duration of the latter’s existence and could certainly be called on once again in these circumstances.
The deterrent impact of such a threat draws power from the implicit risk of igniting an escalatory spiral that swiftly reaches the level of nuclear exchanges between the Russian and U.S. homelands. Unfortunately, once deterrence has failed—which would clearly be the case once Russia had crossed the Rubicon of attacking NATO member states—that same risk would tend to greatly undermine its credibility, since it may seem highly unlikely to Moscow that the United States would be willing to exchange New York for Riga. Coupled with the general direction of U.S. defense policy, which has been to de-emphasize the value of nuclear weapons, and the likely unwillingness of NATO’s European members, especially the Baltic states themselves, to see their continent or countries turned into a nuclear battlefield, this lack of believability makes this alternative both unlikely and unpalatable.
The third possibility would be to concede, at least for the near to medium term, Russian control of the territory they had occupied. Under this scenario, the best outcome would likely be a new cold war, with the 21st century’s version of the old “inner German border” drawn somewhere across Lithuania or Latvia. The worst be would be the collapse of NATO itself and the crumbling of the cornerstone of Western security for almost 70 years.
If the Americans believe they must “trade New York for Tallinn,” or Rostock for Riga, or Calais for Kaunas, or Hampstead for Helsinki, I’m not sure they’d be willing to make the trade. So I’m a bit concerned. Yes, I’m a bit concerned about this, that, and the other thing, about events that might precipitate this eventuality, or perhaps something worse.
Americans and Europeans both might decide to “respect Russia’s interests in its traditional sphere of influence,” whatever that might mean for their six million Baltic allies.
Who would even notice?
@oliwhailHonestly, most of the people on the other side of the net neutrality debate are probably living in a completely different world from me. They have over a half dozen different options for ISPs, all of whom actually have to compete with one another to keep the customer happy.
Meanwhile I’m over here my little corner of Iowa, which in a duopoly in part because it’s LITERALLY ILLEGAL TO HAVE SATELLITE INTERNET.
said “Wait why in the world is it illegal” I mean I’m pretty sure it’s because Mediacom and Centurylink want it to be. I have no idea what the justification is though.
Probably building out the lines (and then not spending money on upgrading them).
In some countries, the government builds the lines and then rents them out. Those countries have cheaper internet access.
What really gets me is that they won’t even let local power cooperatives compete on this, when they’re demonstrably better. (In fact, local utility cooperatives seem pretty good generally.)
Never forget that the Market actively pays people to sabotage itself.
“the word nazi has lost all its meaning now, thanks, liberals” is a cold take because people called each other nazis for no reason for over 50 years. what concerns me is the devaluing of the word “violent”.
Well, there was a time when the word “Neo-Nazis” meant something at least. Not so much anymore.
But yes, this equivocation over the meaning of violence is quite deliberate. Definitely trying to exploit the taboo sane people have against punching people who aren’t literally punching other people.
Also, all political ideologies can claim that their enemies being in power is “violent,” because states have number of cops greater than one (or anarchist villages use locals instead of dedicated cops). Really don’t want to normalize this.
life hack if you live in a flood zone and are worried put a sign up that says ‘welcome to california’ and then it floods the water will see the sign, realize it’s in the wrong place, and leave
this can backfire because incoming bills can also realize they’re in California and increase 5x
Oh fuck, the foreigners have found out how dysfunctional California is. We gotta get a big tarp and hide it.
Speaking of independent prosecution agencies for police misconduct, we should have those. Can’t have the prosecutors that depend on the cops for all their other prosecutions, bad cops could retaliate to cover for their buddy by refusing to cooperate with later prosecutions. Otherwise at least try it in another jurisdiction.
this awaken the horse ppl thing sounds like the hippie swpl progressive version of white identarians with a heaping spoonful of noble savage stereotypes abt native americans mixed in
from their website, about white people
This land does not belong to us. It is not ours.
We don’t know the stories here.
Our ignorant bliss offends and desecrates.
We remain an enemy to all life.
I fucking love being a white colonist holy shit
whiteness is basically the most black metal thing in existence
I mean, I don’t really want to hop on the “YAY WHITENESS” train, but like,
From a strategic standpoint, positioning white people as “an enemy to all life,” seems like a really bad plan, like when that one vegan started calling people “bloodmouth carnist” which does, indeed, sound like a metal band.
If you present only two options, and present them as “be evil or be destroyed,” people are gonna pick the former.
You want whities lobbying for independent police misconduct prosecution boards, you don’t want them shopping for jet black uniforms with silver trim.
But he’s not a libertarian or KANG though
Not feeling well the past couple days. Have I been cursed by a Discourse Witch for my sins against Tumblr?
Hmn.
mitigatedchaos replied to your post: mitigatedchaos replied to your post: …
(also admittedly I am really tired right now)
thinking in equilibrium is hard and I’m not that great at it, either, but the additional insight I want to deliver is that technological innovation and capital accumulation responds to prices
Google invested in the driverless cars because it can create profits in the captured markets. That’s a Schumpeterian process: capital and labor for technological innovation is scarce, so rational firms allocate capital and labor where the captured market can deliver the greatest profits.
By necessity, that doesn’t happen “all at once”, as you suggested earlier. There are only so many software and intelligence engineers to go around. Google had to pay them dearly:
For the past year, Google’s car project has been a talent sieve, thanks to leadership changes, strategy doubts, new startup dreams and rivals luring self-driving technology experts. Another force pushing people out? Money. A lot of it.
[….]
A large multiplier was applied to the compensation packages in late 2015, resulting in multi-million dollar payments in some cases, according to the people familiar with the situation. One member of the team had a multiplier of 16 applied to bonuses and equity amassed over four years, one of the people said. They asked not to be identified talking about private matters.
[…]
It’s unclear how much the payouts cost Alphabet, however, Chief Financial Officer Ruth Porat talked about it during an earnings conference call with analysts in early 2016.
Operating expenses in the fourth quarter of 2015 rose 14 percent to $6.6 billion, “primarily driven by R&D expense, particularly affected by expenses resulting from project milestones in Other Bets established several years ago,” Porat said, according to a transcript. The CFO wasn’t specific, but one of the people familiar with the situation said the comments referred to the car project compensation.
Google is the most powerful firm in the world, but Google does not have limitless resources, and those resources are prudent enough to command their marginal product. Google already had an endowment here: detailed, comprehensive, machine-readable routes for every navigable roadway in the world; alongside efficient photograph recognition software.
Google, and competing firms, can make a coordinated push where the technology is right, but there are real resource constraints that limit the ‘revolutionary’ impacts of their technology. Technology doesn’t just develop itself, especially capital- and labor-intensive technologies like this one. Not yet, anyways. And not anytime soon.
Google isn’t making surgeonless-surgeries or builderless-buildings or teacherless-teaching, because there aren’t the profits in those markets to justify the costs of the technology and capital investments needed to undercut market incumbents – Google doesn’t have detailed, comprehensive, machine-readable databases of surgeries, building plans, or problem sets which it can process at nominal cost – which suggests that dramatic innovations in those markets aren’t just around the corner, either.
It takes work to do these things. It’s not going to happen all at once unless these are perfect general purpose technologies, with trivial adaptation and marketization costs. I don’t think that’s what they are.
The other constraint is that Schumpeterian innovation profits depend on market prices and incomes. Acemoglu makes them straightforwardly reflect factor prices: falling relative wages induce labor-augmenting demand, falling relative rents induce capital-augmenting demand.
But if you’re working from a model where capital elastically substitutes for labor, I think the equilibrium conditions look different. If your technology is so impressive that it materially reduces labor incomes by substituting for labor, then it will reduce the profits from the goods and services your technology produces.
Less demand for driverless cars means less people can effectively demand drives, right? That really cuts into your bottom line, doesn’t it? Why would you invest in capital-augmenting technology if the relative returns to that capital-augmenting technology are so low? Why would you develop a driverless car if no one could afford to drive it?
Even if you have dramatically different understandings of what the constraints are, I think you have to work out the equilibrium conditions, the individual, marginal choices they emerge from. Why would individuals and firms keep doing the things that get you to that outcome?
I’m not actually entirely averse to thinking of all production as a product of labor. It’s in search of the equilibrium in a closed system with labor that I devised a heuristical model I am adapting for the OTV game concept, because I wanted to figure out prices for a setting in the transhuman space future.
Of course, not all goods respond nice and linearly to labor (especially WRT time), e.g. land vs waitressing, so it doesn’t necessarily hold that, if differences in productivity between workers are sufficient, the price for someone’s labor cannot fall below the minimum in terms of absolute resources that they need to survive. Indeed, this already happens for sufficiently low-productivity workers, workers during famines, etc.
Anyhow,
But maybe I’m missing something here, since my own econ education didn’t go all that far.
mitigatedchaos reblogged your post: @poipoipoi-2016: So what just happened with Trump?…
Conservatives and others on the right have down-prioritized it because they thought the whole Trump-Russia thing was bullsht.
Which is why the reporting should change their minds, but won’t. It’s difficult to get someone to understand something when their politics depends on them not understanding it.
Probably doesn’t help that Hillary seemed hyped for war in Syria, which could have lead to war with Russia, both of which are pretty terrible.
I have nothing but contempt for this canard. It imagines a fantastical risk of conflict over a small, irrelevant Middle Eastern country, while ignoring the grave risks of nuclear war over treaty allies in Europe, which Trump’s election has substantially heightened.
But even if you did believe that, Clinton’s foreign policy is irrelevant now. Trump’s foreign policy is not.
Well, that is the difficulty with oppositional politics.
I wonder if in multi-party systems, the standard for “better than the other guys” is higher. Probably not.
So what just happened with Trump?
I seem to have missed the good bits.
The news of the night is Jeff Sessions lied about the nature of his conversations with Sergei Kislyak, but this post is about the whole elephant.
As I said to @deusvulture, I think most people don’t know why they should care about the issue and why they should care if the facts are sufficient to support the pleaded claims.
Everyone on Tumblr, from reactionaries to conservatives to libertarians to liberals to the left seems to have the same indifference to the issue, and it mystifies me. I don’t know enough to write an airtight account of the controversy, but no one else seems to know the stakes at play.
I know that the stakes are pretty high, but everyone else seems to think that there are no stakes at all.
Conservatives and others on the right have down-prioritized it because they thought the whole Trump-Russia thing was bullsht.
Probably doesn’t help that Hillary seemed hyped for war in Syria, which could have lead to war with Russia, both of which are pretty terrible.
“Really. Where the fuck do you live? 123 Degeneracy Apartments, 1400 Degeneracy Street, Borough of Degeneracy?”
“Actually, it’s Degeneracy Avenue-”
(via rationalists-out-of-context)
…indicates knowledge of the importance of price information.
@mitigatedchaos it isn’t dodging anything. I’m looking at actions and deeds regardless of who they come from.
Plus I’m not sure what your overall point is. Nobody is tolerant of everything. We wouldn’t have opposition to tyrrany if that was the case. Having a bit of intolerance doesn’t negate being pro-diversity.
My point was laid out in the original post: it is entirely normal for people not to want their culture replaced, this is not a unique evil of vile Trump voters which crawled up out of a cave somewhere, and people on the left are the same way.
What I’m trying to explain is that when you lose cultural dominance, you don’t just lose cultural dominance over the little things like what music plays in the local bar. You lose them over the big things as well. It isn’t your culture’s decision anymore. And that can hurt.
Liberal/Progressivism itself has a sort of meta-culture which the Robert E. Lee statue violates. But if our hypothetical confedernecks establish themselves as a majority, then the progressives don’t get to make that decision anymore. Laws follow culture, not just alter it.
Some hostile cultural aspects can be neutralized without really trying to, but they aren’t all so vulnerable to liberal social atomization. My concern, in part, is that since you don’t understand just what it is you’re trying to do, you won’t be able to summon the political will to do what is necessary for your plans.
imagine if StackOverflow answers were written like recipe blogs
TeamCity build fails because of TypeScript - TS2304 and TS7006
I love the fall, don’t you? Nothing lifts my spirits like the crisp crunch of dry leaves underfoot as I walk through the local park with Casper, my corgi dachshund cross. The faint tang of wood smoke from the nearby cottages takes me back to my childhood camping trips in the Yukon. We used to grill sausages on sticks over the campfire and heat up our hot chocolate in tin mugs as the evening chill settled in around us.
The other day I was chatting to Susan about TypeScript. We go way back Susan and I, ever since we dated the same guy in college without knowing it, at the same time, oops! But although Chad was a jerk I ended up with a friend for life, so who’s laughing now!?
Anyway Susan was telling me about the TypeScript project she was working on in TeamCity, when the build failed-
Wasn’t big enough to justify a full post since my followers have already seen the post on my feed.
You can just block quote it and tag me, like
oh look a quote here lol
Supposedly there’s some official way to do it, but eh.
Regarding that topic, while I don’t believe all Robert E. Lee statues were erected in the name of white supremacy, one in the news for being removed recently was.
So if rednecks putting up a Robert E Lee statue bothers you even if they’re not actually racist per se but because it’s symbolically racist and offensive, then it’s just part of their culture you don’t approve of, which makes you uncomfortable, which was the entire point of using rednecks as the example in the first place. Respecting such things is itself part of culture.
And if you’re assuming it means they’re actually racist, then that delves into more harmful/threatening territory.
(Yes, I know not all rednecks are like that, but I saw how libs/lefties responded to the election, including btching about rednecks, and that post is intended to have libs/lefties that say “HOW COULD ANYONE EVER BE OPPOSED TO DIVERSITY?!” stop and notice that they, too, don’t actually terminally value diversity.
And thus while it may be worth the tradeoff, the opposition are not actually a bunch of weird evil people being evil to be evil.)
Also, when it comes to race and politics in this country, I would like to point out that we have not tried having social policy that does not actually suck.
You mean learning history affects your present worldview?
Gonna be honest here - I no longer trust calls for “inclusiveness” and “diversity” from anyone who isn’t at least Rationalist-Adjacent.
One cannot trust, for instance, that people won’t attempt to overwrite the race of ancient Egyptians (which varied over time, but included people that look a lot like people there now, Greeks, etc) with whatever they prefer.
To clarify, we have a post arguing they were all black until the 7th century, and another post apparently arguing that the Egyptians were, uh, slavs or something. I won’t claim to be an expert on it, though - I’ve just noticed that this has long been a point of contention.
One can’t trust the /pol/acks either, of course, and whoever posted an image of contemporary Macedonia as what Egyptians looked like.
…Which is why I specified the rat-adjs, since IME rats/adjs tend to operate in good faith usually and are less likely to treat such issues as a political football to win points with. (Although I don’t see them discussing Ancient Egyptian migrations much, admittedly.)
Wasn’t big enough to justify a full post since my followers have already seen the post on my feed.
You can just block quote it and tag me, like
oh look a quote here lol
Supposedly there’s some official way to do it, but eh.
Regarding that topic, while I don’t believe all Robert E. Lee statues were erected in the name of white supremacy, one in the news for being removed recently was.
So if rednecks putting up a Robert E Lee statue bothers you even if they’re not actually racist per se but because it’s symbolically racist and offensive, then it’s just part of their culture you don’t approve of, which makes you uncomfortable, which was the entire point of using rednecks as the example in the first place. Respecting such things is itself part of culture.
And if you’re assuming it means they’re actually racist, then that delves into more harmful/threatening territory.
(Yes, I know not all rednecks are like that, but I saw how libs/lefties responded to the election, including btching about rednecks, and that post is intended to have libs/lefties that say “HOW COULD ANYONE EVER BE OPPOSED TO DIVERSITY?!” stop and notice that they, too, don’t actually terminally value diversity.
And thus while it may be worth the tradeoff, the opposition are not actually a bunch of weird evil people being evil to be evil.)
Is anyone else bothered by how many news sources have begun referring to “the Russians” instead of “the Russian government” or “Russian officials”? It seems xenophobic. It’s troublesome to me that “the Russians” have begun to take on a sort of evil and alien aspect in many Americans’ minds.
You didn’t notice this in Hollywood movies before?
Wasn’t big enough to justify a full post since my followers have already seen the post on my feed.
You can just block quote it and tag me, like
oh look a quote here lol
Supposedly there’s some official way to do it, but eh.
Regarding that topic, while I don’t believe all Robert E. Lee statues were erected in the name of white supremacy, one in the news for being removed recently was.
So if rednecks putting up a Robert E Lee statue bothers you even if they’re not actually racist per se but because it’s symbolically racist and offensive, then it’s just part of their culture you don’t approve of, which makes you uncomfortable, which was the entire point of using rednecks as the example in the first place. Respecting such things is itself part of culture.
And if you’re assuming it means they’re actually racist, then that delves into more harmful/threatening territory.
(Yes, I know not all rednecks are like that, but I saw how libs/lefties responded to the election, including btching about rednecks, and that post is intended to have libs/lefties that say “HOW COULD ANYONE EVER BE OPPOSED TO DIVERSITY?!” stop and notice that they, too, don’t actually terminally value diversity.
And thus while it may be worth the tradeoff, the opposition are not actually a bunch of weird evil people being evil to be evil.)