FCfromSSC
Nuclear levels of sour
No bio...
User ID: 675
FCfromSSC
Nuclear levels of sour
4d ago
People say stuff like this every election. They still have the support of half the country and all the institutions. I'm pretty sure the institutions will have to go before the party does.
FCfromSSC
Nuclear levels of sour
4d ago
have you re-evaluated Elon, given these developments? Still confident he's a grifter?
FCfromSSC
Nuclear levels of sour
4d ago
That just causes the leftist to stop listening to me.
Maybe you should try cutting a deal with the Right instead?
Progressivism lost its mind in 2014, and their excesses have done significant damage to our nation and its institutions. Maybe it's time to cut the crazier fringes loose, rather than bankrolling them at every turn. And if you can't do that, why should we on the Right consider you distinct from them?
FCfromSSC
Nuclear levels of sour
4d ago
Maybe pick a woman worth running? Hillary was famously loathed by a large percentage of the country. Harris... an empty suit would have been an improvement.
FCfromSSC
Nuclear levels of sour
4d ago
Hell, how much of this was made possible by Elon buying Twitter?
In my view, that's the big one. Without that, I'm pretty sure Trump doesn't win.
FCfromSSC
Nuclear levels of sour
4d ago
"sure, sure, but if you use the middle letter of this book with this complex and arbitrary system of numerology, bam, you crack the whole thing wide open!"
FCfromSSC
Nuclear levels of sour
4d ago
Show me a time when she's dug in, bared her teeth, and defied the odds to fight for something, even once, anywhere. It's possible she has and I'm simply unaware, but from what I've seen of her, I rather doubt it.
FCfromSSC
Nuclear levels of sour
4d ago
What does a Harris loss look like?
She doesn't have the constitution, the character, or (going by reports) the personal charisma necessary to sustain a defiant stand. Blues do not have enough gas left in the tank to sustain a pivot to election denial at this late date. If Trump takes this, I think the reckoning might arrive in Blue-Land.
FCfromSSC
Nuclear levels of sour
4d ago
Oh, certainly. Her poll was obviously motivated.
The obviousness escaped several posters here.
FCfromSSC
Nuclear levels of sour
5d ago
Blacks declining to vote for Democrats in their usual percentages. An adaptation from "Brexit".
FCfromSSC
Nuclear levels of sour
5d ago
I don't think anyone claims that 'men can be women' per se.
If I find examples of people who do appear to be claiming that men can be women per se, would you change your mind? For example, people who insist that someone who was universally regarded as a man ten years ago is in the present a woman, without qualifiers?
More generally, intellectual embroidery is, I think, how the transition from "kooky" to "consensus" is achieved. Reality contains infinite, fractal complexity; we emphasize or elide that infinite complexity as needed to conform what we see to what we think.
FCfromSSC
Nuclear levels of sour
6d ago
Again, do you laugh at Simulation Theory? It used to be a reasonably high-status talking point in the rationalist community.
FCfromSSC
Nuclear levels of sour
6d ago
Why are apparently cooky beliefs entertained by top influencers on the right?
Left-wing kooky beliefs aren't apparent, because it's the consensus narrative that supplies the "kooky" label, and they still maintain a nearly arbitrary degree of control over what the "consensus" is. "Men can be women" was an astonishingly kooky belief five minutes before you could get fired for disagreeing with it.
"Why is this thing I've been told I must laugh at so incredibly laughable?" Do you laugh at Simulation theory too?
FCfromSSC
Nuclear levels of sour
6d ago
Militias? Sure, that’d count. Those are awfully few and far between.
If we define "militia" as "organized to the point that the people committing the violence have defined, articulatable responsibilities in managing how the violence is implemented", that doesn't seem rare to me over the last decade. "you three hit people, these two "intervene" once you've gotten a few licks in, these two are on medic duty, you guys run interference with anyone trying to record the action..." I've been observing something like that pattern since 2015/2016 at the latest.
FCfromSSC
Nuclear levels of sour
6d ago
I think Trump will win. Weak confidence.
If Harris wins, I think we'll see a serious attempt at immigration amnesty within her first term. Moderate confidence.
If Harris wins, I think Trump will probably receive a prison sentence. Moderate confidence.
If Harris wins, I think Trump will make some attempt to challenge the legitimacy of the election. Moderate confidence.
Over the next year, polling will measure significant decreases in trust in the Federal government, the media, and Elite institutions generally. Extremely high confidence.
Posts I didn't get to prior to the election, in no particular order:
-
Retrospective on whether Hunter Biden was selling access to Joe, and on whether Joe Biden was cooperating with the sale, how this was investigated by the authorities and the press, and how we talked about it here over time.
-
Retrospective on Jan 6th, comparing the arguments we had on the day to the information that's come out since.
-
Path-Dependence as an expression of institutional decay: Public Trust in elections and institutions, Democratic Party presidential candidate selection, hopefully other examples.
Alright, let's back up a step.
Fix what?
There's a problem where our current system of elites take a thing, fuck it up beyond all belief, and suffer zero consequences. I've mentioned the Boeing space program as an example, but we could use education or the economy or the criminal justice system or the twenty-year occupation of Afghanistan. This problem has gotten pretty bad, to the point that it is at least arguably jeopardizing the stability of our nation. That's the fix I and I think other people here are claiming is needed.
Sure, we need elites. There's always going to be a need for talented leadership. But I think there's a pretty strong argument that our current leadership is not in fact talented. And it seems to me that the problem isn't just that they're "hit or miss". The problem is that they've demonstrated that they can consistently miss for multiple decades running with zero consequences for them and disastrous consequences for us.
FCfromSSC
Nuclear levels of sour
8d ago
One of the things that alienates educated Westerners from Trump is the way that he talks. He hardly ever talks in abstract terms. He doesn't qualify or hedge; everything is direct and concrete. [...] He can't just say that people like Liz Cheney send people into warzones but will never face any real danger themselves, but rather he makes that idea concrete by describing [EDITED] her being pushed onto the frontlines to face death against an overwhelming force.
seems like you're reading this as about what he said, not as an example of how he talks. it's the later, so the correction on what he said doesn't change the point.
FCfromSSC
Nuclear levels of sour
9d ago
The information environment is fraught, and time and effort are not unlimited. It doesn't seem all that different from using wikipedia to me; you're trading hallucination risk for deliberate deceit risk. It's a way of getting a provisional "normie" answer from which to proceed. It looks to me like the information was reasonably accurate, and if it isn't, we can generally rely on Cunningham's Law to secure a correction.
FCfromSSC
Nuclear levels of sour
9d ago
Elon Musk is technically is an elite and has contributed greatly to society.
Which is the more central example of our Elites as a class: Musk, or the management of Boeing? Would you say that Boeing has demonstrated a solid track record of solving difficult problems?
Anyone tried cloning Margaret Thatcher yet?
Vance is looking real, real good to me right now.
...But those aside, Harris was, legitimately, an absolutely terrible choice, and I am pretty sure she was chosen because the better candidates, male and female, saw the writing on the wall and didn't want to tank their future prospects trying to salvage an election that Joe Biden's dementia had already pretty clearly lost.
The legacy media gave her every possible advantage they could, at considerable cost to their own dwindling credibility. She couldn't do interviews. She couldn't field basic questions on policy or on her record. So they let her hide in a closet and spun their guts out trying to astroturf contentless, mean-girls-style social consensus ex nihlio, while claiming all possible policy positions to the point of obvious self-contradiction. She claimed she'd protect the Second Amendment from Trump, man.
In her prime, I can't imagine Nancy Pelosi would have been this bad. Clinton wasn't anywhere near this bad. I'm pretty sure AOC wouldn't be this bad. I can't imagine Oprah or Michelle Obama being this bad if they threw their hats in. I would strongly oppose all of those women if they ran because I disagree with their values and their preferred policies. But Kamala is all that and a bag of rancid chips. Oprah is a billionaire businesswoman, an expert on public relations and communication. She boot-strapped herself into a commanding position as one of the richest and most influential women in America. Kamala sleazed her way into a position under one of the most corrupt politicians of the modern era, made a career for herself personifying the worst stereotypes of a "tough on crime" caricature, was massively unpopular as a presidential candidate, was tapped for VP explicitly on the basis of identity-politics checkboxes, and has now lost an election to Donald Trump. She outperformed Joe Biden in
zero counties in the entire nation.[EDIT] - This is false; I missed the clarification on CNN last night. Apparently she outperformed Biden in by at least 3% in 58 of 3144 counties, and presumably by less than 3% in more.Blues need to take the L and ask themselves some serious questions about the long sequence of bad decisions that brought them to this moment.
More options
Context Copy link