BANNED USER: personal attacks
>Unban in 3d 09h 13m
Belisarius
.
No bio...
User ID: 2663
Banned by: @Amadan
Belisarius
.
10mo ago
Vegans can be successful athletes but it is more effort to do so. I dunno if one can be among the best athlete and a vegan.
Vegan protein tend not to have all protein amino acids and protein is less bioavailable. So it requires more effort to make sure you are eating different vegan foods that have a complete set.
Realistically effort matters a lot of how averages of people behave. So you are likely going to get a less athletic population on veganism. Plus veganism from what I know would be a bad idea for young children.
In general there is a danger of malnutrition with veganism which can be overcome with effort and knowledge. Since people can not be expected to have the knowledge and make the effort, this does mean that wider adoption of veganism would result in more of such problems.
And this is not entering issues about animal fertilizer, logistics, and more.
Yes but veganism can also be bad outside of the direct moral issue. The refusal to care about second order effects and the broader consequences of an ideology over the more direct ethical rights issue is a general weakness of left wing ideology that claims it advocates for the rights of a certain group. Which rights can also undermine the rights of others. Maybe not as much tactically, but when it comes to getting desirable results for humanity as a whole it does matter. Tactically, unfortunately many people are susceptible to myopic vision and getting bullied by this kind of moralism. I am not against moralism myself, but I oppose myopic moralism.
The onus should be on vegans to convince us that humanity adopting veganism is realistic, workable and good. Not only as an end point but also that the process will be successful and not more akin to say the communist project of ending "exploitation of workers" and promoting a "classless society".
It is hard for me to oppose some weaker suggestions like reducing animal cruelty in factory farming, but I am much more suspicious of more ambitious left wing movements in general, including veganism in particular.
I think you make a valid point but we should be very careful not to abuse the concept of Chinese robber fallacy which becomes the fallacious way to operate. This can be used as a slogan to shut down investigating the reality of things by assuming that negative conclusions are fallacies.
Negative criticisms about various groups can be accurate and those who contest them might have a positive bias, or be misinformed, or just unwilling to admit to what is inconvenient. And you are going to find political partisans at any side promoting different claims, and pointing at bad behavior of their outgroup. And that will include those who act in line with the facts.
It is possible to convince people of negative facts about other groups based on propaganda, but it is also possible for people to pattern recognize politically incorrect facts that are negative about other groups. For example most people don't think the Chinese are robbers but many more think the Chinese in China might follow unscrupulous practices in their manufacturing processes.
There is a finding in psychology research of stereotype accuracy as one of the most replicable effects in it. https://spsp.org/news-center/character-context-blog/stereotype-accuracy-one-largest-and-most-replicable-effects-all
So, we can't conclude a priori whether we are dealing with propaganda or pattern recognition of pervasive problems by those who pay more attention and such problems. Although some claims might be more likely to be one or the other.
I don’t think they’re saying that. I think they’re saying that, whatever one’s personal opinions on the conflict, it’s become clear that it’s ‘us’ or ‘them’. Two state solution is dead. Either there will be an Arab Muslim state of Palestine or a Jewish state of Israel. Both sides are clearly aware of this, neither is happy with a compromise position. So the only remaining questions are firstly whether to fight or surrender, and secondly what must be done to win.
No, the above poster was pretty clear with what they were saying and you shouldn't be sanewashing them. This motte and bailey with the kind of genocidal language and the more vague "its about what must be done to win" is tiresome.
A Jewish Israel already exists. They have won at expense of Palestinians plenty already. Maybe tomorrow you will be calling for them to win some more and promoting the dilemma of Syria, or Lebanon vs Israel. Why expect that the Likudist great Israel project will stop at Gaza?
The question in practice isn't whether it will become an Arab Palestine, but whether it will continue with illegal settlements, mass destruction in gaza that has lead to some of the highest casualties per capita for time of conflict in modern history, blockade, shutting down electricity and food supplies. While many of Israeli elites use the most extreme language about how they support warcrimes, of how they are dealing with animals, how they are to destroy Amalek. Really the question is whether Israel will seize more land and succeed in a second Nakba.
Obviously, almost the entire world agrees that ceasefire is a better move and compromise than Israel continuing this course. You are promoting the fallacy of a false dichotomy here. If people support Israel commiting ethnic cleansing through a very murderous conduct against the Palestinians, they should say this outright. And should stop framing their extreme nationalist and racist preference at expense of Palestinians and in favor of Jews as being about having no alternatives which is false.
Incidentally, lets assume for the sake of discussion that both Palestinian leaders (in Gaza) and Israeli leaders are fanatics and many of their people have been fanaticized in turn in said direction and their dream is the destruction of the other party. In that scenario, we don't really have to adopt fully their perspective and preference. In terms of what pressure has to be enacted, it shouldn't actually respect and allow the desires of Likudists or of Hamas to be realized.
French Algeria is not a good comparison, because the French have a France.
Eventually the French will not have a France in the current trajectory and unlike the Israelis they are politically not pro French today in the way Israelis are pro Jewish.
We don't live in a world that the argument in favor of respecting a people's right to exist as a majority in their own homeland is taken for granted. Or to continue to exist in general without demographic replacement and threat of persecution in their own homeland. Especially not by the pro Jewish lobby in western countries which has an isolated sensitivity to the possibility of Jews being oppressed that it doesn't apply to various other groups such as Palestinians, or indeed the French. Do you support France remaining French and the homeland of the French people?
In accordance to the person you are responding to, Israel's occupation makes it unsustainable, especially as Palestinian demographics increase. So the Jews living in Israel have the option to remain to Israel but abandon settlements and the occupation and still have a homeland. Stopping the settlements doesn't stop Israel from existing.
There is also the option of a transformation of Israel into a civic state that is multi-ethnic that grants equal rights to Palestinians even if eventually the Jews become a minority. Jews can have equal rights and live there. Another alternative is a state that is even suspicious of Jewish nationalism in the manner western societies are more anti their own ethnic group's nationalism than those of minorities and is pro mass migration. This wouldn't be a genuinely equal and just society but it would fit with the template of what mainstream liberalism and most influential Jewish ngos support in western countries and under their definition would be anti-racist.
Either scenarios can be be opposed to legitimately, if one consistently oppose such experiments by having reasonable worries in other cases, but not if they aren't. But the first scenario especially does exist in the table as an alternative.
The important issue is that Israel as a Jewish majority state can coexist with respecting the rights of non Jewish minorities in Israel and in Palestine. So it is a false argument to claim that Israel's current course is about its existence, when it is about an extreme nationalist agenda to dominate non Jewish Palestinians, ensure demographic dominance in the future as well and get control and land. Religion and the idea that all of that land and more is God promised land is also not irrelevant to this conflict. It would also be nice if Israel tried to police some of the religious intolerance towards the Christian community living in Israel and punish those spitting on them.
It's not like the poor people of Gaza are held hostage by Hamas. Well they are practically if things like a good economy and future is of concern, but I don't think Gazans want all that more than they want the destruction of Israel. They want Hamas, they still think Oct 7 was a good idea given Israels retaliation, they spit on dead bodies of abductees. Palestinians are maxed out in their antisemitism. In a sane world they would have been eveporated yesterday. They are practically a death cult that is a ticking timebomb and a stain on the middle east.
You are calling for an eradication of a people and yet you are attacking them for their extremism. Clearly you demonstrate an extremism of far worse proportions here and by going that far are demonstrating the wrongness of your position. I highly doubt when you have such a pro mass murder position today, with so little to excuse it you would be more sympathetic to Israelis if you were in the Palestinians position.
This is why most of the world and majority of American youth is against Israel's attrocities and support's ceasefire.
To address what you mention just bellow about the woke.
The problem with the woke is that they are unjust, are racist extremists, have no sense of proportion, have a never ending grievances, explore ethnic issues in the most ridiculously one sided propagandistic manner, don't respect their hated ethnic groups rights and so on and so forth. Actually the zionist ADL types are an important part of it, but granted there can exist those who are more negative of the Jews who also can be part of it. It is your logic here that follows that template whining about Palestinian antisemitism being maxed out while you support their eradication when you say they should had been evaporated yesterday. And of course, like the woke you make no effort to understand any nuance, as if Israel has not been just minding their own business respecting the Palestinians rights, while you are painting it as if Palestinians launch terrorist attacks just cause they are evil.
What is going to happen since you respect power so much, is that this kind of extremism that is indecent will come with a backslash and people losing respect and opposing those having such positions. And this is an understated way to put it.
Personally, I can't but be affected when I see the destroyed homes and the footage of the dead children. To trivialize genuine disgust at civilians being destroyed in one of the worst 21st century atrocities by comparing them to the woke, is promoting a manipulative and false argument. Sympathy over the nonsense promoted by the woke is not warranted. However, precisely because people like you promote their destruction the Palestinians deserve our sympathy in opposition of this agenda and in support of Israel stopping the war.
People are not going to be convinced by this kind of rhetoric which appears unhinged. A picture says a thousand words and the world is going to be increasingly angry at those who commit and support these atrocities.
I consider it negative on Jews but not Anti-Jewish because the term has been abused to an extreme degree by one sided complaining and excessive complaining where it isn't warranted without any sense of proportion. Of course if you search for the Talmud and the Torah you can find far worse. Including against non Jews in general. One of various examples: https://www.sefaria.org/Jerusalem_Talmud_Kiddushin.4.11.7?lang=bi
See 257 reference which says:
Rebbi Simeon ben Ioḥai stated: Kill the best of Gentiles
Also, Christian Zionist Judeo-Christian interpretation of Christianity and the general movement is anti-Christian and promotes a mentality servile to the Jews so a version of Christianity if one takes it as Christianity has anti-Christian elements. The Bible includes the Old Testament which does have some extremely racist passages favoring genocide and mistreatment of non Jews and Jews lording over others as God's chosen people.
For the bellow passage and the quote one could interpret it as meaning perhaps the Jews of this incident. A pro Christian interpretation would be that it is about the Jews but precisely because Christ's Godly way is more moral than how the Jews interpret their tradition. Frankly as a Christian who isn't very literalist about everything in the old testament, nor very religious (I have a complicated relationship with faith) but it is still my culture and religion, and my people, especially a subset of them I can't but see a difference between the New Testament and Old Testament, with the first advocating a more merciful morality than the later. In general, it is better if certain passages of the old testament especially are not taken too seriously by anyone through interpretation. While there are quotes in the old testament too that are wise like Thou shalt not kill.
But no reason for Christians to allow themselves to be psyopped in letting others dominating them and mistreating them which is different than the historical Christianity. Of course, while I want Christians to stand up for themselves and not tolerate Anti-Christian hatred and haters, if Christians go full Old Testament, that wouldn't be ideal from a more universalist ethical point of view and not my preference.
So here it is one, see especially John 8:44:
You can read it from the beginning in the bellow link.
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%208&version=KJV
19 Then said they unto him, Where is thy Father? Jesus answered, Ye neither know me, nor my Father: if ye had known me, ye should have known my Father also.
20 These words spake Jesus in the treasury, as he taught in the temple: and no man laid hands on him; for his hour was not yet come.
21 Then said Jesus again unto them, I go my way, and ye shall seek me, and shall die in your sins: whither I go, ye cannot come.
22 Then said the Jews, Will he kill himself? because he saith, Whither I go, ye cannot come.
23 And he said unto them, Ye are from beneath; I am from above: ye are of this world; I am not of this world.
24 I said therefore unto you, that ye shall die in your sins: for if ye believe not that I am he, ye shall die in your sins.
25 Then said they unto him, Who art thou? And Jesus saith unto them, Even the same that I said unto you from the beginning.
26 I have many things to say and to judge of you: but he that sent me is true; and I speak to the world those things which I have heard of him.
27 They understood not that he spake to them of the Father.
28 Then said Jesus unto them, When ye have lifted up the Son of man, then shall ye know that I am he, and that I do nothing of myself; but as my Father hath taught me, I speak these things.
29 And he that sent me is with me: the Father hath not left me alone; for I do always those things that please him.
30 As he spake these words, many believed on him.
31 Then said Jesus to those Jews which believed on him, If ye continue in my word, then are ye my disciples indeed;
32 And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.
33 They answered him, We be Abraham's seed, and were never in bondage to any man: how sayest thou, Ye shall be made free?
34 Jesus answered them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Whosoever committeth sin is the servant of sin.
35 And the servant abideth not in the house for ever: but the Son abideth ever.
36 If the Son therefore shall make you free, ye shall be free indeed.
37 I know that ye are Abraham's seed; but ye seek to kill me, because my word hath no place in you.
38 I speak that which I have seen with my Father: and ye do that which ye have seen with your father.
39 They answered and said unto him, Abraham is our father. Jesus saith unto them, If ye were Abraham's children, ye would do the works of Abraham.
40 But now ye seek to kill me, a man that hath told you the truth, which I have heard of God: this did not Abraham.
41 Ye do the deeds of your father. Then said they to him, We be not born of fornication; we have one Father, even God.
42 Jesus said unto them, If God were your Father, ye would love me: for I proceeded forth and came from God; neither came I of myself, but he sent me.
43 Why do ye not understand my speech? even because ye cannot hear my word.
44 Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it.
45 And because I tell you the truth, ye believe me not.
46 Which of you convinceth me of sin? And if I say the truth, why do ye not believe me?
47 He that is of God heareth God's words: ye therefore hear them not, because ye are not of God.
48 Then answered the Jews, and said unto him, Say we not well that thou art a Samaritan, and hast a devil?
49 Jesus answered, I have not a devil; but I honour my Father, and ye do dishonour me.
50 And I seek not mine own glory: there is one that seeketh and judgeth.
51 Verily, verily, I say unto you, If a man keep my saying, he shall never see death.
There is also the bellow quote from revelation 2:9.
I know thy works and tribulation and poverty (but thou art rich), and I know the blasphemy of them that say they are Jews and are not, but are the synagogue of Satan.
These are examples that I recalled. This isn't necessarily a list of everything that might qualify.
Belisarius
.
11mo ago
This is looking for a loophole and a gotcha to justify attacks on Christians which are anti-Christian.
Christmas is particularly Christian and to the extend it has been de-Christianized it is still attacked on the basis of Christian origin and being too Christian.
Are people opposed to Christmas because of its celebration of consumerism anti-Christian?
But that isn't the primary argument you have used against Christmas but that it is Christian and it is religious bigotry for not equal space to be given to other religions and not undermining the Christian one. So it isn't correct that opposition to Christmas is mainly about anti-consumerism.
Oppressing the majority and being intolerant to their culture and religion for the sake of accommodating minorities is not a good idea if one wants to combat religious bigotry. It actually what you do if you want to enforce it, and that is why conquering religions did just that on majorities they conquered.
What you suggest is not the end of bigotry but the elevation of it by an oppression of the majority by an alliance of minorities. AKA progressive stack religious edition the anti-Christian version.
In the case of an atheist allying with religious minorities against the majority then you still got bigotry of the atheist and the religious minorities. Not only are atheists not exempt from bigotry, but in the modern world have been some of the worst participants in it, with Christians being often the victims.
And if someone has the goal of an atheistic state oppressing all religions, you got an oppression there too. Both that and nor not allowing the majority the right to celebrate their religion are a case of a worse value system and not a better one.
Moreover, like non Christians have their own countries and there is no agitation of this nature, so do Christians have theirs. In fact there is no agitation of this extend about avoiding actual mistreatment of Christians neither in Israel nor in Muslims countries the two examples you mentioned. There is some by the Christian community in Israel but not much attention by those eager to complain about religious bigotry. Albeit, the worst state about mistreating Christians is one of the Muslim ones and not the Jewish one. Maybe Pakistan.
I guess a final point to be made is that experience with the progressive movement and identitarians who align with it tells us that even one-sided multi-culturalism has not been the end point. In fact we see some double standards even now and it is rather plausible that once Christian religion has been even further delegitimized, this will be enforced savagely with the tactic of associating Christianity with evil oppression and hatred, while there will be more tolerance towards other religions like the Jewish and Muslim ones you mentioned. This fits with the general pattern of an alliance of minorities against the majority. So if Christians want to avoid bigotry, the last thing they ought to do is listen to the Anti-Christians.
This is valid about plenty in modern Christianity but historical Christianity wasn't like this. If you study the history of Christianity and many of the Church's fathers although not as tribal for their own group and hostile to outsiders as the Jews, they were pro Christian and against non Christians. They saw as Christians the new chosen ones. And had plenty of negatives to say about the Jews both related to religious dogma and in general condemning what they saw as a bad character and behavior in the Jews. Especially against Christians.
It is no accident that this Christianity that is more like this exists is in a more progressive, secular age and in addition to the progressive ideology, we also had the influence of Jewish organizations playing a part too.
Its like quoting the passages in the old testament that are extremely pro Jewish, or even Jewish supremacist, but not the parts in the new testament that are negative towards the Jews.
Scofield bible is also a part of modernity and not part of historical Christianity.
It is a choice to focus on such quotes, while Christianity has other quotes and history one can focus upon. So, there is something that can be found in Christianity to promote such narratives, but it is a choice to focus upon this exclusively. And no accident that often non Christians did this.
To be fair, it matters more what is the current Christianity, or what calls itself that than historical. It still would be wrong to write off all modern Christians as self-flaggelating or pushovers towards the Jews. We should try to separate the faction that are with those that aren't. It is also true that the later can claim more authenticity.
This is a gross misrepresentation of my post, and you especially shouldn't be accusing others of not reading the posts they reply towards when you do that.
I disagreed with the above post of course. The point is that NYT and the establishment gets a lot of important things wrong and doubting them and buying into reasonable claims that are seen as conspiratorial would make you have more correct view of the world. That is because the establishment lies in favor of its agendas.
Whether "great replacement isn't happening", race, crime, war (iraq war the most notorious, even back in Vietnam with Torkin incident), or really partisan fake news (see Russiagate) are just some examples of categories you will find plenty of lies.
That even people like Alex Jones can get important things correct. The Iraq war and the rise of authoritarianism in response to war on terror are not insignificant issues. They are very important.
To think that this is an arguement for Jones being accurate in general, or me being a fanboy of his, when I said that he peddles BS too, is clearly inaccurate. Another short arguement was that in important ways some of the kooky nonsense can be less harmful than believing fanatically in current thing propaganda and doubting that instead.
You promoted in the past the lab leak theory as a conspiracy theory for example, and it was a case of you getting it wrong since it is at worst a plausible theory. A lot of irrationality of our times is on irrational extreme dismisal of valid issues.
If you want to be better than even the Alex Jones of the world, you ought to be more humble about reality and stop painting things that reflect negatively on the American elite as false by default and part of conspiracy theories. Suspicious right wingers have been for the most part proven more correct for their suspicions than those booing them over the years.
And even those who get things wrong too, but also get things correct in an important way the sentiment of questioning power is more valuable than not questioning it, so I wouldn't be too condemning. And my problem would be more that by including the more indefensible claims, they erode the value of things that are true in their arguments. We don't live in an age of overt paranoia against elites but in an age of lack of sufficient accountability.
The NYT and the American establishment lie and trying to manipulate people so commonly that being reasonably suspicious and willing to believe plausible conspiracy theories makes you have a much more accurate version of the world.
It isn't gambling to not trust them but it is gambling to trust them. With bad odds. Going full Alex Jones means you are going to doubt the NYT when they peddle some of their BS but also buy into some of Alex Jones BS. In 2002 for example, if you listened to Alex Jones, he argued this:
To Jones, the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11 were part of a larger move to eliminate civil rights and control the populations, including Americans, more effectively. The possibility of war in Iraq, to Jones, is part of the attempt by what he calls the New World Order to dominate the world.
“The government needed a crisis to convince the people willingly to give up their liberty in exchange for safety,” Jones writes in an introduction to his latest, two-hour film, “The Road to Tyranny.” https://www.mcall.com/2002/12/20/voices-from-outside-the-mainstream-weigh-in-on-iraq-war-threat/
Which would suggest against the Iraq War, neocon domination and authoritarian measures like the patriot act. Which isn't insane, but an example of Jones leading people in this instance to a more reasonable place than the establishment.
Having known people who believe in ghosts and aliens, they tend to be less dangerous for the world than those made to follow fanatically the new current thing. Whether it is war related, or a different agenda.
Belisarius
.
11mo ago
Scott Alexander has recently argued in favor of Effective Altruism after the new scandal of effective altruists trying to oust Sam Altman from Open A.I.
His argument starts by focusing about how different factions attack EA from different perspectives that are contradictory. That those on the right call them woke and those on the left call them fascists and white supremacist. The point seems to be implying that they are going to be attacked anyway by all sides no matter what, so we shouldn't take seriously such criticisms. Then he mostly focuses on an estimated 200,000 lives saved in the developing world.
My problem with this is that it obscures something that isn't a mystery. Which is that EA's politics align much more with the Democratic establishment than with the right and there isn't any substantial confrontation of what that means.
The biggest donor of Effective Altruism according to my short research and claims I found in the effective altruism forum from 2022 where he participated in such discussion is Asana CEO Dustin Moskovitz.
Asana, his company contributed 45 million in the 2020 election and he also had an important contribution in millions in the future forwards pac
https://www.opensecrets.org/2020-presidential-race/joe-biden/contributors?id=N00001669 https://www.opensecrets.org/news/2020/10/pro-biden-super-pac-darkmon/ https://www.cnbc.com/2020/11/02/tech-billionaire-2020-election-donations-final-tally.html https://bluetent.us/articles/campaigns-elections/dustin-moskovitz-cari-tuna-democratic-donor-2020/
If one looks at open philanthropy or the EA forum and searches for controversial cultural issues there can be sometimes a small dissent but they follow the liberal party line for the most part.
Lets look at open philanthropy, an EA organization and Dustin Moskovitz organization. Scott certainly wants to give credit to EA and open philanthropy for promoting YIMBY.
However this organization has also funded decriminalization policies and pro migration policies.
https://www.openphilanthropy.org/focus/criminal-justice-reform/ https://www.openphilanthropy.org/focus/immigration-policy/
I wonder if the well funded caravans of migrants we see in some areas of the world have to some extend to do with funding related to EA.
Recently there has been a mini EA scandal where one individual expressed HBD views in the past but this was made a thing and he was condemned by many in the movement, but not entirely unanimously. https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/8zLwD862MRGZTzs8k/a-personal-response-to-nick-bostrom-s-apology-for-an-old
Basically, this individual wrote an email 26 years ago that used naughty language to make the point that you should use less offensive language when arguing for race realism.
Then he apologized due to pressure and argued:
What are my actual views? I do think that provocative communication styles have a place—but not like this! I also think that it is deeply unfair that unequal access to education, nutrients, and basic healthcare leads to inequality in social outcomes, including sometimes disparities in skills and cognitive capacity. This is a huge moral travesty that we should not paper over or downplay. Much of my personal charitable giving over the years has gone to fighting exactly this problem: I’ve given many thousands of pounds to organizations including to the SCI Foundation, GiveDirectly, the Black Health Alliance, the Iodine Global Network, BasicNeeds, and the Christian Blind Mission.
Then there is Open A.I. and Chat GPT and effective altruists have been influential in Open A.I. Chat GPT has liberal bias. https://www.foxnews.com/media/chatgpt-faces-mounting-accusations-woke-liberal-bias
Another thing to observe are the demographics of effective altruists.
They are only 0.9% right wing and 2.5% center right. With majority being of the left with 40% center left and 32% identifying as left. But that is identification. Just like Biden could be identified by some as center left while by others, including myself as far left. They are also 46% Vegans. 85.9% are Atheists.
https://rethinkpriorities.org/publications/eas2019-community-demographics-characteristics
I haven't encountered any group with such small representation of right wingers that actually is fair when promoting a political agenda towards either the right wing, or groups that are more seen related to the right. However, effective altruists are much more concerned about the lack of sufficient racial and ethnic diversity than ideological diversity when you search their forum.
Climate change and veganism are two issues that could well lead to hardcore authoritarian policies and restrictions. Considering the demographics of EA and the fact that Peter Singer is an important figure in it and helped coin the term, I do wonder if on that issue the EA influence would be for them to impose on us policies. When dealing with the moral framing of animal liberation movement activist like Singer we see a moral urgency. Like with all identity movements, to elevate one group such as animals you end up reducing the position of another group, such as humans. Or those who aren't vegans.
The issue is that these networks that are reinforced based on EA might already have as part of their agenda to promote their political agenda.. And these networks that developed in part due to EA and put like minded ideologues together to organize can also expand even more to promote their political agenda outside the EA banner.
It does seem that at least a few of the people involved with effective altruism think that it fell victim to its coastal college demographics. https://www.fromthenew.world/p/what-the-hell-happened-to-effective
My other conclusion related to the open A.I. incident as well is that the idea of these people that they are those who will put humanity first will lead to them ousting others and attempt to grab more power in the future too. When they do so, will they ever abandon it?
Scott Alexander himself argued that putting humanity first is the priority and he had some faith on them thinking rationally when they tried to oust Sam Altman, even though he invited them inside. He might not agree with their action necessarily but he sympathizes with the motive. https://twitter.com/slatestarcodex/status/1726132072031641853#m
That this action is dishonorable matters because like with Sam Bankman Fried it continues the pattern of important ethical issues being pushed aside under the idea that effective altruists know best.
This means that Sam Altman won't be the first. It also means that we got a movement very susceptible to the same problems of authoritarian far left movements in general of extreme self confidence to their own vision and will to power. This inevitably in addition to the whole issue of hell paved with good intentions encourages the power hungry to be part of it as well.
It does seem there is an important side to it which is about people donating in more unobjectionable terms but in general effective altruism it isn't separate from a political agenda that fits with a political tribe. That should be judged on its own merits without the 200,000 saved in developing world being accepted as an adequate answer for policies that affect the developed world. The short version of all this is that if you got a problem with leftist/far leftist NGOs, you should consider the effective altruism movement and some of its key players to be contributing in the same direction.
The goverment having secret spies all over the place, especially in important organizations like twitter, is actually plausible and on some level true. There are agents of the goverment promoting censorship and it is hard to ascertain where certain of the biggest NGOs, private organizations, intelligence services, and parts of the bureaucracy like FBI begin and end.
In general, things that are true, or plausible are called conspiracy theories all of the time.
The mechanism of this can be seen with the Nordstream attack. The theory that the Russians did it was not called a conspiracy theory all that commonly, but the theory that America did it was called a conspiracy theory. Even though the later is much more likely than the first.
Another issue is that we have exaggerations being treated as a reason to not take serious things that are much more plausible. For example is the WEF running everything? No. Do they promote certain agendas and try to put their own people in positions of power? Out of their own words.
So yeah, there are true conspiracies, plausible ones and some more kooky claims. And there isn't a shared wise humanity that will accept the validly of all that belong in the true or plausible categories. Plenty of people would dismiss them if they go against the establishment.
There is also a conspiracy to promote ridiculous conspiracies and focus on them. But such tactics can be taken by fewer people as well who are inclined to do so. Is there a conspiracy to do so? Well, if there are people who work for an organization who promotes these claims, yes it will count as such.
Cass R. Sunstein and Andrian Vermule argued that the best way to combat conspiracies promoted by supposed extremists was to flood those spaces with ridiculous conspiracies. https://chicagounbound.uchicago.edu/law_and_economics/119/
For example, instead of talking about Epstein who according to an Ex Mossad agent he was part of Mossad, promote, or focus upon reptilians, q-anon or aliens. https://7news.com.au/the-morning-show/jeffrey-epstein-was-a-mossad-spy-says-investigative-journalist-dylan-howard-c-595812
There are those who promote these theories, those who bite into the bait, and then those who overly focus on them and dismiss more legitimate issues. And once this tactic has started working as a result we will also observe people who do the second on their own and others who dismiss legitimate issues on their own, thinking that they are promoting what is true in accordance to their belief, rather due to some other motivation. We will also see people booing the concept also because they do side and support American elites for example and due to opposing scrutiny.
I am not part of the dissident right although there are some ideas where there is crossover, as is to be the case to anyone opposing the prevailing racism of our time and standing for the rights of groups associated with the right. Your crossover with the woke is quite much closer though.
And obviously the people who agree with the woke like you, do not allow victimhood politics for right wing identity groups but you do tolerate and allow it for left wing identity groups, and you directly attack those opposing this distinction. Your ideas fit directly with the woke. Your constant attacks towards any victimhood/identity politics for white people in particular is obviously racist especially when there are no white identitarian groups with substantial influence, and much more of other groups with said influence which promote a racist agenda. This is a very extreme and also very ahistorical agenda. It has only been promoted as the way to eliminate tribalism among moden far left and American liberals, who often don't realize how radical they have been.
I deliberately argue that unlike the woke we need to actually try to separate legitimate victimization with illegimate excess promotion of a group as victims where it is unwarranted. That accurately recognising victims and perpetrators is a key aspect of justice, which is undermined by various people not just you who try to argue that caring about victims of the wrong tribes is inherently evil and is dissident right-esque as you try to portray it. Which is a blatant circular argument. Its evil because you define those arguing it as evil.
In reality the moderate position that is in line with justice and the truth is that identity groups associated with the left, need to knock it off with their victimhood politics and hatred and come to tolerate and compromise with respecting the rights and identities of groups associated with the right like white christian straight middle class men. And of course those who have a self hateful mentality which is blatantly unjust should do likewise for their own group.
I even argued against right wingers adopting the same mentality as the woke and gave specific reasons of why, rejecting the claim that it is slave morality for the right to adopt that kind extreme supremacist tribalism. My specific argument was that it was unjust, caused unnecessary conflict and was a totalizing vision. So unlike you, I manage to distinguish my position with an extreme one in favor of any group. And I leave room for moderation for left wing associated groups too. I do think that both tribalism to a point and promoting legitimate victimhood to a point is justifiable for different groups and also explicitly for any identity groups associated with the right.
Especially those associated with the right, in the time where progressive extremism that disregards their rights is the more pervasive movement.
What is satirical is how you twist things and paint yourself as someone in the middle or as a "conservative" who somehow focuses much more on attacking the right than the left. Especially when the left wing tribalism is dominating by denying the right wing groups any legitimacy, which is an agenda that you completely fit into. In your David French-esque world it is Hlynka and those fake conservatives like the Torries who actually implemented the far left agenda in policies such as hate speech laws, mass migration, intolerance to native identity politics and AA that represent the true conservatism, while actual opponents of it are "woke"!
Apparently, these ideas are too incoherent for various people here to give a damn, which is convenient for those like you who try to muddy the waters.
Either various people here have a problem with their comprehension. And they tend to be those who previously have shown the same lack of comprehension and promoted this concern trolling argument. Or they actually can comprehend this distinction fine but like to pretend they don't.
In any case, the argument in favor of concern trolling white people, Christians, right wingers, men, whoever, is a blatantly false and easy to undermine through basic logic. The fact that so far it hasn't been sufficiently attacked and ridiculed is itself insulting for those who failed to do their duty and weaken a horrible argument that is pretty key part of the worse behaviors in politics today. There is clearly in certain spaces a shameful lack of conviction in areas where strong conviction is fully justifiable, but would challenge the basic premises of the woke/progressive stack faction. Worse than that the excess of conviction exists in trolling those who actually try to undermine these pervasive today fallacies.
I have had the exact opposite opinion about you being a reactionary poster both here and when I read your posts in the other forum. Plus we got in a fight in the past over the Israel issue.
Look, if I work to make arguments and you people just throw incoherent, "booing the outgroup" and other insults, you don't give anything of value to work with, because there is none.
Part of this is a complete lack of charity and the most insanely unfair criticism. If you want me to be more concice that is one thing.
My general impression of this forum and motte before it (I lurked here before posting) has always been that a decent amount of people here are the same as any reddit with their groupthink and attacking right wingers. Just unpleasant vicious intolerant extremists hating on those who they don't see as part of their political tribe with a few exceptions they learned to tolerate. And trying to abuse all dirty tricks in the book to enforce groupthink and destroy discussion.
Which is to be expected when majority are liberals and is an offshoot of the rationalist blog. The mainstream of liberalism and prevailing sentiments among what one sees among rationalists are full of these mentalities. Get off your high horse.
Plus, maybe you found an opportunity of allowed person to attack. Again, I have seen this mentality from you people to be vicious and shit towards others, and I really see no point in treating it as having anything of value.
Its cowardly conformism through and through. Congrats on the quality discussion of ideas that several people who have deliberately promoted stupified discussions that ignored the obvious, have oh so randomly chosen to focus upon, over actual arguments of issues directly addressed relating to the culture war. Insulting me is you managing to discuss the culture war productively.
I tend to see him as a genius warmonger general who had a greedy imperialist mentality and someone who seemed to restrain some of the worst aspects of the French revolution in terms of internal politics and be much less of a fanatic in his direct rule than that. His regime was still authoritarian though. In terms of internal French politics, the France influenced by the French revolution could have had much worse leadership than Napoleon and he helped bring a unified code of law with the Napoleonic Code which is relatively sensible. But of course if I remember correctly, the Napoleonic wars did cost Europe 2% of its population which is pretty bad for those who have to deal with it.
Just reading the man's quotes and it is obvious he was a brilliant, narcissistic and philosophized man. And even with his narcissism he could also be wise and even self critical at times too. https://www.goodreads.com/author/quotes/210910.Napol_on_Bonaparte?page=1
But at the end of the day he was strongly motivated by his own glory. As some of his quotes also suggest. He is a modern version of Alexander the Great in that way. A less successful one of course.
Belisarius
.
11mo ago
Instead of responding to anything of substance you just throw some false accusations. If 2 days pass and you haven't come up with something that addresses the actual post, it is better if you say nothing.
Dude, you attacked me and then you claim to play defense and try to frame it as you being someone motivated to reduce inflammatory claims when it isn't true.
This dishonest game of defecting and then pretending you never defect and just spin after spin, might have something to do with why people have a problem with your faction.
Why should supporting hate speech laws deserve “beef?” If this community just banned people for endorsing bad ideas, we’d still be on Reddit, because 95% of our users would be gone. Instead, the Motte aims to allow the most degenerate, reactionary, humanist, traditional, secular, surreal opinions.
One man's boo the outgroup that is negative towards the progressive movement and wokeness ADL, Soros, civil rights movements or even the behavior of Jewish establishment and tries to articulate it is the other person's tolerance of bad ideas when they hate white supremacists, white identitarians, right wing identitarianism, support hate speech, or even dehumanizing the palestinians and approving of attrocities against them and so on.
People are allowed here to concern troll right wing identity politics and they are not vilifying the outgroup but we are not allowed to argue that this is racist. Nor that it leads inevitably and promoted by a faction that we see in practice tolerate or outright themselves promote excessive victimhood for the ingroup. Nor to connect it with the progressive identitarian movements in general, and to argue against them all.
Because this isn't merely an idea, but "booing the outgroup"! Conversely the people here who think the other side are racists like you do are not booing the outgroup! So one side has carte blache to vilify the opposition and spin it self as good, lets call them the progressive side that tries to put sometimes a bit of limited hangout. That can include in it the Bill Maher types. This side consistently frames the opposition to it as racist. Even more so certain branches of it. A direct opposition is not allowed, but I guess if you accept some of the progressive's framing that tribalism for the right wing side and victimhood is bad period, maybe you would be allowed some space... But not if you directly oppose it as a bad ideology and argue that it would be good for society if it lost influence, even if you qualify it to think that equal racist supremacist movement on the right wing dominating would also be bad.
Maybe just maybe you who supports censoring your opposition and aligns with the progressive stack movement are trying to censor your opposition.
Reddit is another forum that was ruined by left wing pro progressive stack anti right wing moderation and those who run it also pretended that this was reddit just banning people who break the rules and right wingers break the rules more.
Personally, I think speaking truth to power and criticizing sacred cows and movements that have captured power and vilify and mistreat classes of people, based on false dogmas is necessary. As someone who has studied the history of your movement, I know of the consistent viciousness that they close ranks and has treated any dissent and enforced conformism. It is why it is especially important for people faced with the demand for struggle sessions to not be discouraged when dealing with such people. They should know with what they are dealing with.
Conversely, there is something both cowardly and obscene with siding with groups like the ADL and left wing establishment as they abuse their power to enforce lies and punish dissent, and discriminate, harm and vilify their ethnic and right wing outgroups. Whether in the most overt manner. Or in the slightly more indirect manner of their protectors and fellow travelers who demand that they are allowed to defect, align and support this but for us to pretend that this isn't the case. That demand that any treatment of this phenomenon is wishy washy, of course.
But somehow this concern trolling doesn't exist when it comes to clearer denouncation of right wing historically more pervasively seen racist supremacist movements, or ages. Nobody will be treated to vilify the outgroup if they argue that Jim Crow was anti black, but it sensationalizes as boo outgroup to call MLK and his movement as antiwhite. To attack the KKK does not sensationalize instead of the much more relevant ADL or George Soros which does sensationalize you. To attach dissident right wing identitarians somehow doesn't result in accusations of vilifying the outgroup. Hell, even when I argue that Jim Crow age was anti-black, there is no care in the world.
The daft utopian dogma that condemning as bad particular factions is evil and intolerable (which vilifies those accused of doing it) is obviously not enforced consistently but concern trolling the outgroup. I am also not aware of any society that it has existed and enforced consistently.
Both you who are more transparent at it, and obviously Amadan and others of this mentality want submission to your false and blatantly prejudiced ideological vision of who are the good guys (who ought not be criticized) and who are the bad guys (which you are allowed to sharply criticize) and hide under platitudes of people "booing their outgroup".
I mean you are an ADL supporter who supports hate speech laws and have never gotten any beef with it from any moderator for it. It is fair to bring it up when you post here to attack me.
Obviously you take the negativity towards the woke for their racist extremism and its hypocrisy personally because you do share that ideology and you resent the valid criticism and want to silence it as this movement has always done.
Yeah, that's what I mean. "Everyone who disagrees with me is just in the enemy camp, hater!" is not how you argue here.
This is hypocritical when you attacked me here in such a vicious manner as being hateful for disagreeing with you about the progressive movement and arguing that the woke movement and those who concern the outgroup are unjust.
There are factions that have negative influence that I am going to be critical towards. If you want me to be pro woke, that isn't going to happen. And yes, of course the mainstream liberals have treated their outgroups as the enemy. To demand that I then treat those who follow that politics as non woke, is to demand to distort reality to your satisfaction. It matters what are the pervasive politics of dominant movements. Why should I lie about the civil rights movement? About the ADL? About George Soros? About any of that?
If the truth sounds terrible in your ears, then you probably should react less and try to learn more, and show some respect to your outgroup that you hate and vilified in your mind for bringing valid points that are taboo to your prejudices.
Your reaction has been a blatant attempt at character assassination and censorship because you judged negativity against woke and progressive extremists and deeming it a bad faction that shouldn't have pervasive influence as "hating the outgroup".
I provided arguments and explained why concern trolling the outgroup and not allowing victimhood for it and promoting excessive for your favorite left wing groups is in line with wokeness.
Instead of arguing in favor of your ideology you try censorship.
I am not insulting you, I am telling you that you need to improve your manner of posting. This should mean something to you because repeated warnings for this type of boo outgroup ranting may result in a loss of posting privileges.
You are hardly an independent party to this when you have done yourself what I argued against which is to promote with fanaticism excessively the victimhood for your ingroups and downplay strongly the victimhood of your rightwing outgroups. You abuse your mod position to advance your political agenda. It is not an improvement of my manner of posting to distort the facts so I promote a more positive picture of those who concern troll the right wing outgroup, or promote a more positive picture of the progressive movements or particular branches of it that you are especially sympathetic towards and are even more authoritarian and SJW about.
You might be trying to play a political game where you try to advance certain agenda where the only space that is treated as legitimate is the one of the limited hangout of progressive extremism that still has its double standards, still censorious to opposition and promote claims "that there are no woke people in the motte", but that is promoting a lie. I am not going to pretend that we are dealing with a few kids at college, and that the progressive movement has not been this. But the core substance of my post has been about an arguement that you want to silence, which has been of substance, that concern trolling the right wing outgroup is blatant racism.
Your demands for censorship and for others to say what you want, else you will slander, hate them and censor them is a part of the problem of what the world is facing today. Many Amandabs working within different institutions have brought things to the current point.
I doubt you can accurately describe my politics. I hate few people and like a lot of people who very much do not share my politics.
Your politics are not a mystery and you are certainly a hateful and rude poster who abuses their moderator position to get away with insulting and being rude against others. And certainly more so with the progressive slant you have against non progressives. You also use the tactic of slandering and denouncing others to win arguments by pretending that posts that include work to substantiate claims are inherently without value.
Clearly, you are insecure about your idea you constantly promote of your moral superiority and moral inferiority of the people you argue with that you typically insult and call all sorts of names, often some sort of racist.
Someone like you can't cope with those who don't respect and accept your false framing of the moral hierarchy, which is why you make an inadequate referee if the goal is to promote something even handed. You know which includes saying things you don't want to hear, that contest the falsity of the morality of those who concern the right wing outgroup and have such double standards as you also have, and are therefore obviously an unjust, cruel faction if one bothers to analyze it. But for the role you do have, you do fit quite well.
Of course there is a coherent argument there.
Which is that concern trolling the outgroup that it should not show victimhood is promoting injustice for X and Y and Z reasons. Because recognising victimhood accurately is a core component of justice and the progressive extremist movement has denied this to the outgroup and promoted excessive for the ingroup. And then explaining how this movement has operated historically with all its components.
It is a gross misrepresentation to claim that my post boils to claiming my outgroup is evil and I don't make a coherent argument. I explain why this movement has been unjust in this manner. It might not be the argument you would like, especially because you fit with said progressive movement of having double stadnards and have consistently promoted the victimhood of the progressive ingroup and downplayed of the progressive outgroup. Hence your attack and denunciation.
There are plenty of groups that I have disliked throughout the years and been critical off. Progressive extremists/woke are one of them but I have been willing to be critical to right wing groups showing the same extremism although of course i consider it a mistake to prioritize this in the current circumstances. I even qualified and been consistent of it that restraint is a key part.
This idea of "hating on the outgroup" is an excuse for authoritarianism from you ironically who hates your outgroup of course and you certainly have been very willing to hate on those not sharing your progressive politics often enough. Its a way to undermine any valid criticism to promote a limited hangout for the progressive extremist movement. The suffocating constraints of the political commissars, the Amandabs of this world is how we reached the current situation.
The progressive extremism that needs to be condemned and not tolerated is a harmful movement, that we would benefit from its sharp criticism and it been replaced in influence by a more moderate ideology that lacks its one sided tribalism for their favorite groups and their complete disregard for respecting the group rights, and the groups it self that they deem as oppressors. That is the truth, and also what is just, no matter how you try to spin it.
Your insults and slander were expected and mean nothing to me.
** By the way I am disappointed not in you, but in someone else here not addressing the central claim about since wokeness does not respect any victimhood for the outgroup and promotes excessive victimhood for the ingroup, justice requires to actually respect victimhood for right wing associated groups. Because the pervasive concern trolling and arguments I have seen here and elsewhere was against promoting victimhood for right wing associated groups. If I am making a valid point, it would be nice to see someone aknowledge it for a change, and if they disagree on the substance, I would like to see where it is the error in the logic. But it is easier to just condemn as a way to support your extremist faction.
Do you have a valid reason to disagree, or is it just due to partisan bias in favor of progressive movements, no matter how extreme? There is a great continuity in rhetoric. MLK's own rhetoric and of his movement was about giving blacks special treatment in their favor. He was for reparations.
His quote:
A society that has done something special against the Negro for hundreds of years must now do something special for the Negro,” King wrote in “Where Do We Go from Here: Chaos or Community
What I said about his personal conduct is backed up and you can find the evidence of his democratic socialist biographer in the link I posted.
Quoting from that:
https://chroniclesmagazine.org/web/the-sordid-legacy-of-dr-king/
Hitherto unseen FBI surveillance records reviewed by King biographer David J. Garrow in 2019 surfaced shocking allegations about King’s personal life that are in stark contrast to his reputation as an icon of social justice and Christian morality. Apart from more graphic details about numerous extramarital affairs, these documents allege King participated in the rape and sexual abuse of a female parishioner by a fellow minister. “King looked on, laughed and offered advice,” during the rape, according to the files.
You can also find in addition to that link even leftists arguing how MLK supported reparations, which he did. https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1996-10-27-mn-58503-story.html
We know that the civil rights act did not satisfy MLK who kept pushing for reparations and the mantra of USA as a racist country that must pay back, and also he kept seeking more representation for blacks, even where they were not discirminated for their race. Then he died, and the rest of this movement, including key players brought things in the direction things has been brought towards so the movement remained and can be judged.
https://www.inquirer.com/news/martin-luther-king-jr-reparations-ados-i-have-a-dream-20200118.html https://www.christiantoday.com/article/martin.luther.king.jr.and.the.question.of.reparations/137794.htm https://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2016/02/would-mlk-support-reparations-today/625124/
If you look at feminism, you will find the extremism in the radicals of decades before too. And so on, and so forth.
Can you clarify what your thesis is exactly? That those progressive movements have been antiracist? That is falsified by what they have been agitating towards and what they have done. We live in a world of double standards and one sided hatred in the pro progressive direction and without even allowing representation for the identity interests of the target groups. Where people are blamed for oppressing those who they don't oppress, while the systemic injustice is the other way around.
And of course the marxist movement that there was also a lot of crossover with the other progressive movements itself has had a horrible track record in showing restraint and attaining actual justice.
It wasn't what I implied, so you shouldn't claim that it was. MLK was an antiwhite racist. If he opposed any antiblack racism that existed then too, doesn't change the fact that he was an antiwhite racist.
Also, MLK assumed all disparities were due to discrimination. There is also MLK's immoral personal conduct. https://chroniclesmagazine.org/web/the-sordid-legacy-of-dr-king/
The mid century US wasn't the same as it had been 100 years earlier, but it was pretty damn racist, particularly where I am from, the deep south.
Well, establishing how much racist against blacks that society really was and how far "seperate but equal" worked in practice would be an interesting question. My view is that it was anti-black and the so called civil right movement opposed that but they exaggerated how much the problem was pervasive with their assumptions of all disparities due to racism and their goal and what they tried to do and did succeed was to change the system into pro black and anti-white. The aspects of the woke agenda was there with them all along. One must also not forget all the riots and violence too.
Fundamentally all progressive "civil rights" movements have been a scam precisely due to this fact of not seeking an honorable end. The general scam about them being about opposing racism and sexism (or misogyny). The same applies with feminism and the other isms, too.
Does this imply that such movements can never have any legitimate grievances? No.They can have them at the start, but as they win, that doesn't apply. And even from the start there is a distortion of history and seeking extreme ends.
If these movements don't succeed in behaving in a sufficiently restrained manner, they should be condemned for that. It has been long overdue, and if it was more pervasive we wouldn't have the excesses in the directions that the so called civil rights movement wanted.
I would argue, of a considerably different social climate than today
The leftist activist climate has a lot of continuity. Things aren't as different as it might seem.
This is half true/false.
Trump basically didn't give them all of what they want and panders to everyone. This is unacceptable to them and frame it as extreme.
If Trump was not elected, a Clinton administration would be more neocon.
In foreign policy, Trump's behavior was definetly not as beligerent as the neocons would have liked both in the middle east and also on Russia. He also opposed the Iraq war. He still was extremely pro Israel though.
On the culture war sphere, he pushed for muslim ban, tried to get his wall and cut off immigration, had some edgy quotes. it is also what he didn't do. But also pushed the decriminalization bill, tried to pander to Hispanics, etc.
Trump derangement syndrome is not about Trump being uniquely bad or far right but about him being moderate and our elites radicalizing in a purity spiral direction. Part of this is also a tendency to be too judgemental about singular quotes and towards the right and to avoid making comparisons.
Part of being a moderate of course includes edgy far right type quotes about migrants like Trump did. A moderate should be expected to sometimes be edgy in a right wing direction too, and sometimes in a left wing as Trump did with the decriminalization bill towards blacks. Maybe he is too far to the left though in general.
It is a comparative issue. So Trump a) had executive orders against people promoting diversity ideology in the goverment, opposed removal of confederate monuments and claimed that it would be after the founding fathers next. Compare him to someone like Joe Biden, who has been aggressively anti-white and woke and authoritarian to a great degree, and Trump comes as the more inclusive president ironically. Someone who unlike Biden, and the neocons does try to pander to everyone, perhaps less to white voters directly.
We saw that in various countries without Trump like figures, the right implemented it self the cultural far left agenda.
So, Trump isn't the great based figure, but he is a lesser evil and the more moderate option who tries to push back against some of the radicalizing excesses and tries to some extend to satisfy some of the demands of his base too. I guess he might fall more in line with some of the rhetoric of some of the claims of neocons in the 90s but they have proven themselves to be more disingenuous and much more radical.
Clearly for Trump to make an actual lasting change he will have to act more aggressively if he is elected the second time, fire a lot of people and put actual right wingers in charge of the bureaucracy. But there are also limitations of how much one guy can change things, but he can do more. Focusing too much on Trump as a problem misunderstands things. People like the ex republican speaker of the house claim that the republicans should be like the Democrats and reflect American demographics. We saw how similar claims by Cameron ended up in British politics.
The real story is the radicalization of the liberals and people who erroneously affter accepting too much far left ideology claim to still be centrists. And of the people who present themselves as center right. Part of this had to do with normies being influenced by propaganda by more extremist types who promoted one sided distorted picture of the world after we had left wing and neocon march through the institutions. Is someone who started more moderate still such, if they are successfully manipulated in this manner? A world without Trump is a world where either other type of populist leaders oppose them or these kind of people try to remove all opposition and in an authoritarian manner impose a hardcore racist cultural far leftist woke agenda.
In foreign policy there is a similar problem with the influence of the MIC and certain lobbies that are pro war against Russia, China, or say Iran. There is also an issue of corruption and revolving doors with politics, think tanks, and weapon manufacturers. And also the influence of collection of donors and their lobbies. Nikki Haley exemplifies that corruption in a way that Trump doesn't, while it would be a mistake to pretend that Trump is independent of it. In general, in most ways Trump is bad he is similarly bad to most other politicians and not as bad.
So he seems as neither the problem and unlikely to be the solution, even if people put hopes on him due to sucking less than most.
More options
Context Copy link