domain:parrhesia.co
freemcflurry
2m ago
That sounds off. You'd want enough votes to win but why focus on running up the score beyond that?
100ProofTollBooth
Dumber than a man, but faster than a dog.
3m ago
Thanks for this comment.
I'd be interested in your opinions about the dynamics of Red/Blue tribe affiliation at the ultra high end of climbing. Obviously, there's a lot of crunchy types there, but:
- In Maru, the boys rip a cigarette after a hard day of climbing
- In the SufferFest series, you can tell Honnold pretty much wants to say "stop being a Pussy" to Cedar multiple times
- I get the vibe from a lot of elite male climbers that they're just as "rock out with your cock out" as any other athlete at the top of their field
aichanuwu
5m ago
I used google incognito and that came up as number 3. Number 1 was aljazeera and number two was NBC news sayinf that police killed black men at 6 times the rate of whites. Geographic differences may account for the difference but at least between yours and mine but I use this as a very rough proxy for the direction of attention.
Re the progressives blaming guns instead of police, I personally lump this into the 'guns bad' category with black-on-black killings being a tool to further the argument rather than black death being the driving force of concern. Given that most black deaths are pistols and progressives focus on 'AR 15 style assault rifle' for mass shootings, this lends (slight) credence to my observation.
Democrat congressional politicians did largely push back against defund, but that was the New Democrat Coalition. If you look at the voting record to condemn the calls for defunding the police, the Congressional Progressive Caucus was the main entity resisting calls for that. By and large democrat politicians have not clamped down on the crazy progressives within their ranks and who make up their voter base, and the sanewashing attempts have largely failed to resonate. It really doesnt help that there crazy progressives only aimed their ire at democrats, making it clear where the political alignment lies. While most actual democrat voters and politicians arent crazy progressives, the crazy progressives are all democrats. The louder they are, the more they taint the democratic brand. Starmer managed to cut out the corbynites, maybe Biden should exile The Squad.
EverythingIsFine
17m ago
Yeah I struggled with that one. I think that's one question where my phrasing isn't very helpful. Like, are candidates very prideful and ambitious? Obviously yes. But does it make sense to ask whether candidates run on pride or ambition as a major, primary factor, or is it just background or a catalyst for other reasons? I sorta imagined the question getting at the former, but maybe it's not a useful or informative question to ask (what does running on ambition alone even mean? I guess there's sort of 100% overlap with the other categories, perhaps)
vorpa-glavo
25m ago
The funny thing is, that this sort of damnatio memoriae never seems to actually work. Despite the best efforts of the legal system, we still know about Herostratus of Ephesus. (Though, of course, if wiping out the memory of someone or their manifesto was successful, we'd never actually know, would we?)
EverythingIsFine
33m ago
There's at least three groups among modern progressives. The "Resigned" are very liberal but don't really do much about it. They feel betrayed and left behind by the system and this depresses them and leads to apathy and inaction. There's the College Crusader who are usually white and well-educated, and very politically active, and have socialist sympathies. They are usually the stereotype, where they are in favor of equality and equity and want drastic solutions to accomplish it. They typically don't have much sympathy for opposing viewpoints. Economic and racial lenses on many issues are very common views. Then you have the Radicals. They are a bit harder to define, probably because as a demographic group, they aren't very big (Progressives broadly are only like 12% of US adults, using Pew's numbers). These are the people where actual Marxism might start showing up more overtly. And they are the only ones for which, at least in my opinion, Bolshevik comparisons should be made for.
Zooming out, and looking at one actual mass movement, BLM had broad appeal beyond conservatives because some of the core pieces of the message were generic enough for large parts of the liberal coalition to get behind, on top of a few highly-publicized cases of cops actually doing some pretty horrifying things (not all the time, of course as you note, but the cop kneeling on his neck is a pretty powerful image, whether you think drugs were a big factor in his death or not). But notice how ACAB and stuff specifically didn't actually gain much traction beyond Fox News which loved to use it as a very easy boo-outgroup target.
And when you get into the apparent apathy behind Black deaths, you actually do start to see a split, and not a new one -- it dates back to at least the Civil Rights era. You have some people who think that white people should do something about it -- but feel powerless, and thus redirect this energy into anti-gun and so a lesser extent, anti-police crusades. As noted, much of this group is white, and thus this is all they "can" do. You also have the more Malcolm-X style progressives who think the solution has to come from Blacks themselves.... but the problem? Blacks are rarely progressives. Most Blacks are vaguely generic establishment Democrats on the spectrum, or uninvolved in politics. Here you can see that not only are only 10% of Progressives (themselves only 12% of the total population) Black, but the density of Black adults falls much more among other Democratic sub-groups. So basically, white College Crusaders leave the problem to Black true-believers, but there aren't enough of them to make meaningful amounts of noise in the general space.
non_radical_centrist
44m ago
Your pinks party does sound rather leftist after that one paragraph. If you added another paragraph with what the Pinks would actually do about it, I think they'd sound a lot less leftist, since any sort of enforcement mechanism would be a hierarchy. I don't think the party that suggests throwing people in jail for trading poems would be recognizably more leftist than a party that is willing to just stick to currency abolition but otherwise lets people live free.
Your framework also doesn't work well for comparing parties that are different amounts of leftist on different issues. Lets say there's a country of Examplestan, in which everyone is a fervent follower of Examplestani Leftism. They all work hard to make Examplestan a better place, they don't use any currency and simply ask for goods and services but never ask for more than they need, no one ever coerces anyone or creates any sort of hierarchy within Examplestan. However, they think every human outside of Examplestan is less than a worm. They don't expand past their borders, but anyone who enters Examplestan from the outside is either shot dead or enslaved because of their ethnic impurity. Is Examplestan far right or far left?
You've already said your model fails at describing how far right parties are, at best it can try to calculate how not-leftist a party is. But it also cannot accurately assess any party which are left on some issues and right on other issues, since it can't asses the issues they're right-wing on. Which is many parties.
Where would it place something like Ba'athism? Or Peronism?
In my model, you simply would not try to compare them to Democrats or Republicans or Stalinists or Nazis, at least not in an international context. You can try to guess where a Peronist or Stalinist or Ba'athist would fall if you brought them into the context US election, or brought the US parties into the context of a specific foreign election, but you couldn't compare them in a purely international context. If you do compare them in an international context, that goes outside my model.
And I think trying to model them in an international context is a flawed endeavor doomed to fail, personally. There's a reason why people argue about whether Peronists and Ba'athists are far left or far right or if you need to bring a political compass in it whatever- I don't think it is possible to compare parties in an international way. I think people intuitively use the principles I've laid out when modeling domestic politics, without consciously knowing what those principles are. And people try to apply the same principles to international politics to come up for a label for Ba'athists or Peronists, but they can't draw an intuitive conclusion and start disagreeing with each other and even themselves about where such parties fall. They start making up rules like yours and try to calculate how anti-hierarchy a party is in sum, or a right-libertarian might say the more pro-freedom a party is in sum the more right-wing they are, or they might use some other model. Whatever set of rules they use, it doesn't work well, because it's an impossible to task.
Like we agreed as a guiding principle, any definition should match how people actually use the terms left and right. If people call the same party both left and right, then it's impossible for any definition that assigns each party to a single point on a line to function. I don't know whether people inside Argentina call Peronists left or right, but whatever they call Peronists inside their country, I'm sure it's internally consistent, although perhaps only for a single election and are not consistent across time even within Argentina. Same with Ba'athists in Syria.
Interesting, "who is killing black people" turns up result #1 for me: Black-on-Black Homicide - A Psychological-Political Perspective, result 2 is FBI statistics (where the first table shows clearly higher black-on-black violence), result 3 is a NAACP history of lynching, and #4 is a WaPo opinion piece about police killing Blacks. Why are yours so different? A quick search for Black mortality causes clearly shows homicide
The progressive explanation #1 is not police, it's guns. (Police is probably #2 though). I think most true progressives would say that about Black mortality more broadly, inequities in health care is the biggest culprit.
And according to Pew, even the most strident progressives in the Democratic coalition still less than 50% say they want police funding in their area to be decreased. Other Democrats are way, way less supportive. So I don't think this whole anti-police leftist thing is as prevalent as it's pitched here. In other words, it's a caricature of progressives, and so the whole thing feels strongly of straw-manning. Are there really no actual progressives left on this forum that I have to bring up points on their behalf, like an absent father?
NelsonRushton
1hr ago
It really kind of baffles me to imagine how they think that's actually supposed to work.
IMO this is the million dollar question. I think they are spoiled children grown up, and they absolutely take for granted the peace and prosperity "just happen" in an effortless, stable equilibrium. They think the only thing mucking it up is a few bad apples, and that if we can just put bullets in the backs of those people's heads we will get back to the Garden of Eden.
I don't really know what things were like in the 1910s Russia. Maybe the Tsars really were both incompetent and authoritarian themselves, and industry may have been dominated by a clique-ish elite who hoarded the wealth and kept the working-class down.
Basically, all of this is true. The question is how to move forward from it. They picked the wrong answer. Dead wrong.
EverythingIsFine
1hr ago
So in that model, an incumbent presumably starts to compromise any pre-existing moral principles (because of the incentive of winning) as long as the risk-weighted actions provide a net gain in votes. What about why people run the first time? Why some try to jump from House to Senate? A simple microeconomic model doesn't address these initial conditions, nor does it satisfactorily explain to what extent the incentive of winning distorts principles over time.
non_radical_centrist
1hr ago
Yes, they'd both support those policies, yet they would never actually pass a bill together with those policies. That disconnect from the extremes supporting the same positions but never actually working together is the core point I'm making.
AshLael
Just here to farm downvotes
1hr ago
Ambition or pride has to be close to 100%. Not quite literally 100, but high nineties. Even if people have other motivations as well, choosing to be the candidate yourself takes a lot of ego.
Anecdotally, politicians in my experience tend to be extremely vain.
Ask a progressive who is killing blacks, and they will inevitably say it is police who are responsible for black deaths.
Do you think this is a reasonable opinion? I think it is preposterous and obviously so. It is understandable for a single person in isolation to hold this opinion tentatively and weakly, but opinions aren't formed in isolation. If woke progressives actually cared about the health and safety of black people, some of them would find out for themselves that this isn't true; they would make noise about it because it is important; the people who hear that noise would make noise, and it would go viral. And/or the pundits whose job it is to know would find the truth of the matter and amplify it. If they cared, they would know; they don't know; ergo they don't care.
marten
1hr ago
they're usually cagey on details, but they talk about everyone living together in harmony and doing whatever it is they find personally fulfilling.
South Park nailed it: https://youtube.com/watch?v=ywVHF6Lltac?si=4DBzhyjxJT3tvYc3
dasfoo
1hr ago
Simply find examples of parties on opposite sides of the political spectrum cooperating to actively pass bills or do other positive work together, while centrist parties vote against it.
Both far left and far right would likely agree on official policies of banning books and jailing opponents of the regime, whereas the middle left and middle right would likely oppose those policies as policies. Even in the case of Trump, I think the middle left is convinced that he broke the law and would not sanction a policy of government jailing opponents "without cause."
EverythingIsFine
1hr ago
Haha, it's definitely not always true. But my general political background view is that working within the system works a lot of the time, with enough time. I think it's pretty evidence-supported by US history. I was trying to come up with a new nick for the new forum to disallow cross-looking, I knew a prolific redditor with a similar and memorable nickname, and I was at the time of the opinion that signifying prior inclinations in a username would be helpful information on the forum. So it was a deliberate decision, not an indication that I'm some sort of status-quo warrior. As I noted, there's a specific story of Menendez' political upbringing and it's far from being some "regular senator we thought was a saint turns out to be corrupt" -- a major needle-mover if true -- it ended up being "senator from corrupt state with sketchy personal history ends up being corrupt" which... just isn't all that surprising?
Please refrain from wasting space with a low-effort personal attack (the very definition of rule-breaking, I might add) if you don't have anything to contribute. Would you care to outline what your percentages might be, or at least of a particular category? Part of the point is to get a read on people's priors and see if I'm wildly divergent (or if they are).
haroldbkny
1hr ago
Well, Dawkins's point is that feminists ranting about how women are made to feel uncomfortable by men asking for coffee is trivial, and that if feminists really want to help women, there are actual third world problems they should be dealing with, not first world problems. My point is that being made to feel guilty or awkward over difficult situations is likewise trivial first world problems, and somewhat of a natural extension of participating in a society composed of layers of social customs built on top of animal instincts. Having to deal with other people is basically just a part of life, and so is having awkward social interactions.
The_Nybbler
Does not have a yacht
1hr ago
There is no implication here at all about white people
Indeed there is:
Segregation of white and colored children in public schools has a detrimental effect upon the colored children.
The implication is that the "colored" children have the right to benefit from the presence of white children.
EverythingIsFine
1hr ago
In Sweatt v. Painter, supra, in finding that a segregated law school for Negroes could not provide them equal educational opportunities, this Court relied in large part on "those qualities which are incapable of objective measurement but which make for greatness in a law school." In McLaurin v. Oklahoma State Regents, supra, the Court, in requiring that a Negro admitted to a white graduate school be treated like all other students, again resorted to intangible considerations: ". . . his ability to study, to engage in discussions and exchange views with other students, and, in general, to learn his profession." Such considerations apply with added force to children in grade and high schools. To separate them from others of similar age and qualifications solely because of their race generates a feeling of inferiority as to their status in the community that may affect their hearts and minds in a way unlikely ever to be undone. The effect of this separation on their educational opportunities was well stated by a finding in the Kansas case by a court which nevertheless felt compelled to rule against the Negro plaintiffs:
Segregation of white and colored children in public schools has a detrimental effect upon the colored children. The impact is greater when it has the sanction of the law, for the policy of separating the races is usually interpreted as denoting the inferiority of the negro group. A sense of inferiority affects the motivation of a child to learn. Segregation with the sanction of law, therefore, has a tendency to [retard] the educational and mental development of negro children and to deprive them of some of the benefits they would receive in a racial[ly] integrated school system.
Whatever may have been the extent of psychological knowledge at the time of Plessy v. Ferguson, this finding is amply supported by modern authority. Any language in Plessy v. Ferguson contrary to this finding is rejected.
We conclude that, in the field of public education, the doctrine of "separate but equal" has no place. Separate educational facilities are inherently unequal.
The ruling was that legal or otherwise fair separation is still often used to emphasize unfairness and is psychologically harmful to children, and that there are valid "intangible considerations" beyond mere obvious physical facts that make it impossible to satisfy the "equal" requirement. There is no implication here at all about white people, only that separation violates the spirit of the 14th Amendment (which amendment's history, they found, was not conclusive or useful enough to serve as a guide in interpretation). This specific decision also did not extend to areas other than public education, which is also an important point.
The_Nybbler
Does not have a yacht
1hr ago
So I don't know if this case moves the needle of "how much corruption is there" very much for me.
Yes, of course, your stuck prior is in your username.
hanikrummihundursvin
1hr ago
When I watch videos children victimizing others, be that students or teachers, I feel no need to "feign" outrage. When they grow up to push old ladies unto traintracks I am well past ever pretending. I am outraged at the scale of how bad brown people are. How bad they continue to be. There is no reason for so many of them to behave like this, yet this is what so many of them do. It doesn't matter if the victims are white, asian or other browns, as is most often the case. They just continue. America, Europe, Africa, it's all the same.
Trillions spent, countless manhours, endless work, all for nothing but another story of someone murdering their fellow man over a piece of chicken. Another rape, another robbery. Just the ever present squalor. Why can't things just turn out better?
I'm not seeing the hole in the logic. Every other racial group on the planet, as well as many African blacks, can come and succeed in America. They are surrounded by these homeschooled, publicly and privately educated native adults, who are so well liked and sociable that every nation on the planet has a seemingly endless supply of wannabe immigrants who want nothing but to live in their societies. Everyone except the relevant subsection of the American black can figure these things out.
I strongly object to your suggestion that Culture War falls by the wayside with real war. That isn't true. Our prevailing post-war American Mythos fundamentally revolves around the story of WWII and the Holocaust. Culture War gets racketed up during period of armed conflict, it doesn't go away.
I expect even the most radical of progressive American Jews to start frothing at the mouth and wrapping themselves in the Stars and Stripes, baying for blood.
Yes, at the outbreak of war in Europe American Jews started to froth at the mouth and wrap themselves in Stars and Stripes, baying for blood. That didn't lead to a "pause" in the Culture War it culminated in a complete reinvention of the American Mythos under the banner and ethos of pop-culture figures like Superman and Captain America, which were created by Jews with the conscious intention to redefine American Values in a way that accommodated their ethnically particularistic motives and, in my opinion, at the grand sacrifice of the legacy white American population and Europe as a whole.
My gut feel is that wokes don't actually care about blacks, they care about signalling to their ingroup. The public prayer is 'white people are evil' and one verse is 'blacks suffer only because of whites', among other increasingly convoluted and self contradictory shibboleths. They don't even listen to Jesse Jackson who sadly said that he was relieved to discover when people walking behind him are white because it means he isn't at risk. Progs were eager to cancel Bill Cosby and throw out his Pound Cake speech, Roland Fryer was unpersoned, Mcworther and Loury might as well not exist. The actual concerns of black people are irrelevant to progs, their usefulness as religious totems is. The BLM fist and Pride flag macbook stickers are the crucifix necklaces for progressives.
More options
Context Copy link