FCfromSSC
Nuclear levels of sour
No bio...
User ID: 675
FCfromSSC
Nuclear levels of sour
1d ago
The people this label is routinely applied to pretty clearly aren't white supremacists, or often even white, and certainly aren't murderous.
"People who disagree with trans ideology are a dangerous threat to trans people" appears to be a mainstream, possibly a supermajority-support Blue Tribe position. Trans themselves appear to be overwhelmingly Blue Tribe/leftist, like 99%+, and I've seen no indication in Ziz's writings that they were an exception in any way; their moral model seemed to be founded on Blue Tribe Progressive morals, only diverging where it came to how and when to take action, where they were a more extreme variant of Rationalist ideas. Who the Zizians consider to be threatening to them pretty clearly followed a leftist model.
More generally, what makes Dylan Roof or Tarrant or Breivek not "weirder than right wing"? Red Tribe actually went to quite considerable lengths to purge racism and even the resemblance of racism; to the extent that it is more of an issue than it used to be, it's coming from internet culture, which was a Blue Tribe phenomenon, and from aggressive redefinition of racism to cover the purged behavior set.
...It seems to me that the above is a non-trivial problem. I don't have a solution for it, and I don't expect you to have a solution for it, but I'm certainly not going to pretend that there's some system in place to handle this. Roof and Tarrant and Breivek were absolutely treated as Red problems, and still are. This latest shooter used an app Blues wrote explicitly to make finding and tracking federal agents easier, and left a note that "Hopefully this will give ICE agents real terror," while the left is still playing "what even is leftism" games. The John Brown Gun Club, a group that I myself have argued in favor of in the past, is posting up flyers explicitly celebrating Kirk's murder on the campus of Georgetown university. Antifa has been beating Reds for showing their faces in public in Blue strongholds for a decade, and the police let them do it, and they are still doing it to this day.
We had a full decade of Blue Tribe crusading against "right wing" radicalization with everything from ceaseless propaganda to explicit government censorship to organized lawless violence. Jordan Peterson was treated as a dangerous radical*. We have examples beyond counting of what it looks like when Blue Tribe takes a problem seriously. They evidently and undeniably do not consider murder committed by their partisans to be a problem worth taking seriously. Maybe you think that's a reasonable response, given the givens. I do not think it is going to work out well for Blue Tribe generally.
FCfromSSC
Nuclear levels of sour
2d ago
No, see, this week the doxing is just crazy right-wing paranoia. Democrats would never endanger law enforcement personnel for partisan advantage, or in this case revenge. The violence is really rare and just fringe wackos after all. C'mon now.
Ok but from sources I believe the right vs left political violence tally is like 50/50 after you take out the obvious nonsense picks.
Could you post these sources? That is not my assessment, and it seems like the sort of thing we ought to be able to debate.
Plenty of lefty terror groups that disappeared and went inactive over the years too.
Speaking historically, they received financial, legal and moral support from the broader left, and many of them were given comfortable sinecures in high-status institutions. That history does not seem very de-escalatory to me.
FCfromSSC
Nuclear levels of sour
2d ago
It seems to me that what you would call a "serious political violence problem" is what I would call "the Right starts playing the game for real, the loop closes, and violence increases exponentially without hope of control". The rhetoric you're seeing now from the left is what it looks like when right-wing violence is extremely limited and almost entirely channeled through black-letter law, while leftist violence is frequent enough that I'm citing multiple incidents in a two-week window. When that shifts to actual lethal terrorism against blue targets, the left is not going to step back and admit they have a problem; they will double-down, and any hope of bringing this problem under control will be foreclosed.
A gunman has opened fire on an unmarked government vehicle carrying detainees to an ICE facility in Dallas, Texas. Initial reports are two detainees killed, one injured, no casualties among the officers. The gunman committed suicide, but left behind bullets with the phrase "ANTI ICE" written on them.
The online left has been openly calling for and encouraging violence against ICE agents for some time now, as well as attempting to facilitate that violence through doxing of agents and their families. These efforts have lead to a massive increase on assaults on ICE agents and threats to their families. Democratic leadership has refused to address these calls for and encouragement to violence from their base, and instead has joined in with calls for all agents to be unmasked and identified, as well as efforts to compel such identification through law.
This pattern of the blue grassroots engaging in lawless violence while the leadership offers encouragements of varying levels of plausible deniability, has been the norm for some time now. When the Blue Tribe grassroots engaged in a sustained vandalism and arson campaign against Tesla owners and dealers, recent Democratic vice-presidential candidate Tim Walz mocked the company's declining stock price and reassured Tesla owners that "we're not blaming you, you can take dental floss and pull the Tesla thing off". His subsequent non-apology is likewise a notable example of the form. Nor did it start there; as Blues unanimously maintain, Antifa is just an idea, not anything resembling an organization.
In any case, the ICE shooting in Dallas follows Sinclair Broadcasting abruptly reversing their plans to air Charlie Kirk's memorial service, after their local affiliates received numerous violent threats, and a teacher's union lawyer actually shot up the lobby of his local channel's offices.
Jimmy Kimmel is now back on the air, having been briefly suspended for blamed the murder of one of the most prominent right-wing activists in the nation on the right, an accusation repeated enthusiastically by numerous Blue Tribe influencers, activists and leaders. Polling shows that only 10% of Democrats believe Kirk's killer was left-wing. A third of Democrats believing that the man who wrote "catch this, fascist" on his bullets was right-wing, and a further 57% believe the motive for the shooting was either unknowable or apolitical.
Investigators are still looking into motive for what is being reported as a targeted killing at a country club in New Hampshire, where a gunman shouting "Free Palestine" and "The children are safe" killed one man and wounded two others. Likewise for the attempted bombing of a FOX news affiliate's van on the 14th.
We've had a fair amount of discussion over the last week about whether the left has a violence problem. It seems to me that not only does the left have a very serious violence problem, but that there is no one on the left capable of engaging with that problem in anything approaching a constructive way. Simply put, the American left has invested too much and too broadly into creating this problem to ever seriously attempt to resolve it. There is no way for them to disengage from the one-two punch of "The right are all Nazis/Nazis should be gotten rid of by any means necessary"; too much of what they have built over the last decade is predicated on this syllogism for their movement to survive even attempting to walk it back. The vast majority on the left cannot even bring themselves to admit the nature of the problem. But at the same time, at least some of them do seem to recognize that this is getting out of hand in a way that may not be survivable. Destiny's recent comments seem indicative of the mentality at play:
"If you wanted Charlie Kirk to be alive, Donald Trump shouldn't have been President for the second term."
He appeared to elaborate on this train of thought in a recent stream:
“You need conservatives to be afraid of getting killed when they go to events so that they look to their leadership to turn down the temperature. Right now, they don't feel like there's any fear!"
...and the core point behind his somewhat incoherent further elaboration seems to be that the left must lean on the right to "lower the temperature", because otherwise the left itself will be forced to accept considerable losses.
The problem, of course, is that he is fundamentally correct. The Right is not particularly scared at the moment. We have had a long time to acclimate to the idea of leftist violence targeting us, and wile we are very angry about our political champions being murdered by leftist scum, with their actions cheered on by the grassroots left as a whole, many of us have long accepted the idea that this was going to come down to an actual fight in the end. We do not believe we created this situation; certainly, we did not bend the entire journalism, academia, and entertainment classes to normalizing the idea that our political opponents were isomorphic to subhuman monsters sneakily concealing themselves among the general population, whose violent deaths should always be enthusiastically celebrated. I've contemplated a post on simply cataloguing the number of TV shows and movies dedicated to one or both of the "The right are all Nazis/Nazis should be gotten rid of by any means necessary" paired statements. Suffice to say, we are quite aware that most of the left holds us in absolute contempt, and a large plurality wishes for our violent death. We are aware that any pushback on these sentiments will be framed as an offensive act on our part. We told the left this was a bad idea. We told them why it was a bad idea. They did it anyway. And now: consequences.
In parting, I've written and then deleted several posts about "conversations we can have in advance." This is, yet again, a conversation we can have in advance. At some point, someone on the left is going to get shot by someone on the right, and not in a legally justifiable way but as an actual ideological murder. And when that happens, all the people mocking the idea of online violent radicalization, after screaming about the dangers of online violent radicalization for the last decade, are going to flop back to being performatively worried about online violent radicalization. When this happens, they will be met with stone-faced negation from Red Tribe, and will then weep and moan about how the extremists of the right just refuse to engage with this obvious problem. This will not deliver the results they hope for, but they'll do it anyway, and we'll move another step closer to chaos.
He can get away with this because on a simple factual level, Trump doesn't care if his policies work. He only cares if he can take credit for them working, or portray them as working. If they actually do work? Neat. Someone is happy. And often his minions are at least mildly competent, which can get results. But they don't need to work. This is not the case for most leaders, but Trump is not most presidents.
This is a remarkable statement, that invites a multiplicity of possible responses. ...The short, and most charitable version, is that you should take this exact frame, freeze it with crystalline perfection in every detail, and then begin swapping other politicians for trump.
- Does anyone in the educational system care if their system actually educates the students they are paid tax money to teach?
- Did anyone care whether the various mid-east occupations were "working"? Did anyone have a working definition of working for these engagements?
- Does any city or state official actually care about the crime rate in major cities? Do Federal politicians care about the national crime rate?
- Do politicians actually care about the health of the American economy, as opposed to wanting to be perceived as presiding over a strong economy?
...and so on, and on, and on.
...It's not even that I disagree with your description of Trump. What blows my mind is that you think that this attitude is in some way unusual, as opposed to it being totally normal but there's a massive knowledge-production class dumping kilo-man-years daily into presenting the feculent output as solid gold. I submit that the absence of this national-scale turd-polisher is the best improvement we've had in governance in my lifetime.
FCfromSSC
Nuclear levels of sour
3d ago
I would be very skeptical that you are more debauched than I was. Even when I decided I didn't want to live that way any more, I still was quite determined not to marry and had no interest in children. By the time I started coming around to the idea, I thought I was too old.
I'm married with kids now, and much, much happier. It is almost certainly not too late for you.
FCfromSSC
Nuclear levels of sour
3d ago
republicans won't address because it admits gun violence is a problem.
The federal agencies in question refuse to prosecute. How would you suggest Republicans force them to start prosecuting? Should we make it double illegal, so that they can decline to prosecute two federal felonies rather than one?
Pointing out the ways in which the Federal Bureaucracy make a complete hash out of rule of law is something we've been fighting aggressively to get into the overton window for some time now. "Stop trying to pass new gun regulations and simply enforce the ones we already have" has been a foundational part of Republican argumentation on the gun issue for the last thirty years at least.
FCfromSSC
Nuclear levels of sour
4d ago
I do not think this is a valid interpretation of the text. How do you interpret "Love your enemies" or "pray for those who persecute you"? Where do you see your interpretation being modelled by Jesus or his disciples in the rest of the text? Where do they force their opponents to break the law? Peter cuts an ear off one of the men arresting Jesus; Jesus heals the man on the spot. How does that mesh?
FCfromSSC
Nuclear levels of sour
5d ago
Do note that as Ben Shapiro found out, that large number of working class right wingers are also pretty much on board with Luigi.
Solid evidence and a strong counter-argument. Also, even more depressing than previously-depressed man thought possible.
I never watched the King Kong remake in theaters, but I caught some of it at some point at a friend's house. Specifically, the dark crevasse with the giant insects.
Years later, there was a copy handy, and I thought, "It couldn't really have been that bad, could it? It's a film, you're a man, it's just an experience like any other... let's give it another try." So I gave it another try.
Nope.
The stylistic token that first registered you as a specific person to me was your descriptions of perceived female beauty in mundane situations. I've always thought it was quite pleasant; you have the soul of a poet.
FCfromSSC
Nuclear levels of sour
5d ago
Are you beetlejuice? Or do you, gattsuru and germ have some kind of discord group? I don't see how else you could find a 6 day old comment in a two week old thread, short of trolling my comment history or someone else doing so and reporting everything I write.
I read 99.5% of the comments that get posted to the motte using the firehose view, and especially make an effort to read anything you post, because I consider you "the iron that sharpens". This one I wanted to reply to, but between crunch at work and kids didn't get around to it till this weekend. Plus, the last couple times you name-dropped me, I didn't get around to a direct response; I get the feeling you enjoy our exchanges less than I do, so I've generally tried to give a bit more space lately. Anyhow, when I finally had time I just searched your name in the bar and scrolled down a bit to find "that CPAR post I missed earlier".
It's foolish to ignore the actual issue being discussed and chalk it all up to what you view as a propaganda apparatus, both because you're ignoring a half dozen other issues (gun control? trans people? climate change? Taxation and social welfare?) that failed to achieve anywhere near the same level of unity and because you're going to fail when you try to spin up your own propaganda apparatus.
I disagree that it's foolish; I think Blue Tribe's dominance was largely built on propaganda, and I think the decay of the propaganda apparatus is why Blue Tribe dominance is now collapsing. This has been my thesis for near-on to a decade now. I think my side will win because, to put it as succinctly as possible, we are sufficiently closer to base reality that we need propaganda a lot less, and our lack of the Progress narrative means we have less need to rule people and can ask less from those we do need to rule.
I think the propaganda worked better for LGBT for the same reason it worked so well for Feminism and for the thrust that ended up as BLM; all three are core social justice narratives that lend themselves very directly to a model of bad people oppressing good people, and where a large majority of the action happens in peoples' thoughts, which conveniently for the narrative can't be read, and where even the parts happening in the real world depend heavily on the unknowable intent of those involved. Guns, taxes and global weather patterns don't hinge on peoples' mentality, and so are less amenable to the core Social Justice strategies. Even trans impinges far more on the physical world, and it is these impingements that have resulted in resistance and, seemingly, downfall.
...political hardball? Winning the hearts and minds of a significant majority of the population is not political hardball.
I question whether you won hearts and minds, or generated a preference cascade through a massive social pressure campaign backed by threat of legal force. And sure, most people "believed it", in that when they were polled they truthfully told the pollster that they "supported LGBT". That's a thing that can be done by lying to cover all the negative aspects of one side and all the positive aspects of the other, in an environment where one enjoys total control of the knowledge-generation apparatus.
But the people who such a campaign can't flip don't cease to exist, and their arguments were never defeated, only suppressed. Lincoln had it that you destroy your enemy when you make him into your friend, and that's not a victory the LGBT movement ever achieved. And then it went too far with Trans, and the grip began to slacken, and the old opposition comes popping back up like dandelions as things begin to slide the other way. Not that I particularly expect Gay Marriage to be banned again, given how debauched the institution of marriage is anyway... but I genuinely think we've seen the high-water-mark of LGBT, and even if the downslope is gentle, it's still down from here. Certainly no one is ever going to buy that it's about what what adults do in the privacy of their own bedrooms any more. I grew up hearing about how the lethality of the AIDS pandemic was greatly exacerbated by society's intolerance and bigotry, which showed how necessary Gay Rights were to protect the marginalized. My kids are going to get a few samples of the narrative I got, and then learn the actual history, with a compare/contrast to the handling of the COVID pandemic, because that will provide them a straightforwardly better picture of the realities of the world they actually live in.
You can't even reflect on whether the change was a net benefit to the country, you're just bitter that 'your side lost.'
I reflect on that plenty. I think shoving Christianity into the closet was bad for society in strictly material terms, because it unleashed much harm that Christianity might have helped to mitigate or restrain. I note that many people on all sides express considerable nostalgia for the 90s, and even the 2000s; the point where we lost and were cast out is also pretty close to the point where things started taking a very serious turn for the bad, and not by my assessment alone.
On the other hand, "Cultural Christianity" is trash, and it's arguably better for Christianity itself to have good contrast between the moral order of the Almighty and the chaos of the world. I'm aware of and even sympathetic to the arguments of the Christians who wanted to impose that moral order through law, but Christianity is, at its core, voluntary. You cannot mandate love, nor loving obedience. No Christian end I can see is secured by imposing such things on the unwilling through the power of the state.
You're so blinded by your obsession with realpolitik, so deeply steeped in the culture war and obsessed with small-minded zero sum games that you can't see anything beyond conflict and winning or losing.
Maybe.
You've called me out twice in recent months, asking where all the worsening violence I was predicting is; and to be clear, I don't mind the call-outs one bit, and consider them entirely fair. The first time, before I could get a reply constructed, Luigi shot the healthcare CEO and the whole internet lit up with enthusiastic grassroots support for ideological murder. The second time, again before I could get around to a reply, Kirk was shot and the internet lit up again, and in much more of a concentrated and clearly tribal way. The first time, I thought it would be more charitable to just let it lie. This time, I'll ask: do you genuinely think my prediction was wrong, and that we are in fact moving away from large-scale violence? Do you genuinely believe the Culture War is winding down? And since no FCfromSSC post would be complete without a link to some other excessively-long comment, nor with a listing of recent violence datapoints, here's both in one from last week.
I do not think I am obsessed with small-minded, zero sum games. I am interested in what is going to happen next, and what is happening next is, it seems to me, largely determined by such games. Most people are obsessed with winning and losing, and because their values are now mutually-incoherent, cooperative victory is no longer a viable option. I think that internalizing this insight gives me a clearer picture of where we are heading, which is of course the main question we've debated for some years now.
As for myself, I am already saved. I think my side will win, but whether it does or not does not is a matter of no true consequence; nothing that truly matters to me is protected by victory or lost by defeat. I do not believe in progress, moral or otherwise. There is nothing new under the sun, all things are wearisome more than one can say. This is the bedrock truth as I understand it, and while I freely admit that it does not come naturally to me, I try to maintain a clear sight of it, even at some personal cost, even here.
Is a more perfect union simply one where your side wins, and blue tribe is eradicated?
No.
Kirk's murder pretty much ran over the story about the Ukrainian lady that got stabbed. I have an effort-post on that in the works, but the short version is, the local officials pretty clearly did their best to bury the story, delaying its viral breakout by two weeks, and then a lot of Blues got very visibly upset when people started talking about it. The local official's statement at the time of the murder was something like "we can't incarcerate our way out of this problem." The murderer had been convicted and released 14 times previously, with a long history of violent crime and clear signs of serious mental illness.
What I see there, briefly, is a situation where Blues are using a dominant political and social position to prevent a serious problem from being solved, while offloading all consequences generated by that problem to their outgroup. A more perfect union, to me, is one where they don't get to do that any more.
And what comes after that? You'd just fracture into normiecons and groypers, neolibs and church fundamentalists and repeat the cycle. Your path is just one of endless conflict.
If we can restore something like accountability to power, and if we can generate common knowledge of where we are and how we got here, it seems to me that many of our problems are solvable. One of our original conversations was about how education sucks for black kids, and how this doesn't seem likely to change. Well, since then, we've had the "Mississippi Miracle". One of the places where education sucked the hardest for black kids changed to being a place where it sucks a lot less than it used to. That's good! That's a win! ...And my understanding of how it happened, possibly flawed or excessively simplistic, is that entrenched Blue control got broken, and actual reforms happened. I want more of that, but it isn't going to happen so long as entrenched (and pretty clearly Blue, from my perspective) structures maintain a dominance that insulates them from all accountability.
Tell me, then, your model of ethically influencing the electorate without playing 'political hardball.' Or are you so far gone as to think it's impossible?
By no means.
Christianity is regaining a great deal of the cultural respect it lost over the last generation. It's regaining this respect not by playing "political hardball", but by having its predictions validated by subsequent events, and by maintaining its principles in contrast to the example of its opposition. Sexual continence and self-control were a hard sell in the 90s; now we have OnlyFans and online dating and a generation of intense porn consumption and cratering relationship rates to do the argumentative heavy-lifting for us, to give an example on one of the relevant axes. We believe we genuinely have a better way of living, and it requires only our willful action and communal cooperation, not federal law or corporate funding. The further the cultural consensus moved away from us, the more obvious and undeniable the benefits our faith offers become, even by the materialist metrics of the World. We have stable marriages, children, even, amusingly enough, higher sexual satisfaction. We can forgive and turn the other cheek; we can offer a hand up to a defeated foe, we can restrain ourselves in the heat of the moment. We have a basis for charity, in all senses of the word, to the point that the pagan Right routinely mocks us for our pacifism, for doing nothing, for being cucked. And yet, we can also fight fiercely, when that seems necessary and prudent.
Or take the example of Red states versus Blue states. It's been noted for some time that people are leaving Blue states and moving to Red ones; this is not a consequence of Red states somehow coercing or bribing these people to do so, but seems to simply be a result of differences in governance and the living conditions that governance produces.
When truth is truly on your side, no political hardball is necessary, only contrasting outcomes and the ability for people to choose freely.
FCfromSSC
Nuclear levels of sour
5d ago
Yet! Growth mindset!
Last night, I listened to Carl Benjamin and Sam Hyde(!) independently wax poetic about the importance of Christianity and urge their listeners to go to church. Benjamin was explicit that he doesn't believe in God or Jesus at all, but considers Christianity culturally necessary. I have no idea what's going on with Hyde; I don't really follow him on the regular, but was really, really not expecting twenty minutes of commentary about God and his Church from my gold-standard sample of post-ironic schizo internet brainrot victim.
I've suspected for some time that Christianity would be making a resurgence; being a serious Christian it's sort of a required bet, but also it's seemed to me that the cultural wind has been in our favor more or less since the Woke offensive in 2014; Woke took over the way it did because the comfortable, decadent agnostic soft-nihilism that had pushed us out had pretty clearly transitioned into the "finding out" phase. Still, from my perspective, right-wing "Christianity And..." is no better than the left-wing variant.
How firm a foundation, ye saints of the Lord
is laid for your faith in his excellent word
what more can he say than to you he hath said
you whom unto Jesus for refuge have fled?
Fear not, I am with thee, O be not dismayed
I, I am thy God and will still give thee aid
I'll strengthen thee, help thee and cause thee to stand
All sheltered by mine own omnipotent hand.
It seems to me that we have a conflict between companies who want to import foreigners who work for cheap and lack many legally-mandated employee protections they would be compelled to respect for native employees, and a faction now with control of the federal government who want them to pay native workers standard market wages with full protections instead. Certainly there seem to be a number of other commenters here framing it this way, including several claiming that the H1B visa system was "abused". I use quotes there, because it's pretty clear to me that in situations like this one, we say things like "this system was abused" when what we want to say, but cannot, is "they clearly broke the law". I'm pretty sure if we prosecuted these companies for violating immigration law, their legal defenses would succeed. I'm also pretty sure that a lot of people don't want them to do what they're doing, and are willing to coordinate efforts to make them stop doing it. That's the conflict, and in that conflict, as with FFL licensing under the previous administration, giving those regulated a clear, consistent, stable set of rules to work under is not a good way to achieve the regulator's objectives.
Having predictable laws that allow people to plan for the future requires law-making/law-compliance to be a cooperative rather than competitive game, where at least roughly-similar goals are held by both the rule-makers and the rule-followers. If you are in a war, preventing the enemy from planning for the future is an obviously good thing.
It seems to me that there's a pretty good parallel here to the dynamics we see in gun regulation, where regulatory agencies are fundamentally hostile to the businesses and individuals attempting to operate under their regulation, and use regulatory ambiguity and mercurial rules-redefinition as basic tools of control against people who actively don't want to be controlled. There, when getting the counterparties to comply with one's intention grows prohibitive, we see government action retreat from even-handed, routine enforcement of clear rules, instead centering on "making examples" of people more-or-less at random and with little regard to whether they crossed the line or not. When people aren't sure where the law actually is or how bad the downside for crossing it might be, they get a lot more cautious about living on the borders of the law.
Legible rules can never constrain human will. People who do not share sufficient values cannot coordinate together, and this sort of pseudo-legal warfare is one example of how that plays out, it seems to me. Look on the bright side, probably no one gets shot in the head by federal agents in a nautical-twilight raid over this one.
FCfromSSC
Nuclear levels of sour
6d ago
What do you expect to happen over the next few years? Make concrete predictions, and note what evidence could falsify your beliefs. Then watch what happens. There's no other way to solve the epistemic problem available.
Undoubtedly FC could give you a detailed list of anti-segregationist terrorists who went on to have illustrious careers at Harvard.
Communist Terrorists, actually.
But it was largely a campaign won by sympathetic figures you knew in your community, not shitposting on twitter about the hordes of illegal immigrants coming to take your jobs and rape your families. It wasn't won by darkly hinting about how many guns you have, or congressional shenanigans or gerrymandering.
Consider the term "homophobe", intentionally chosen to frame opposition to LGBT as mental illness. Consider the sheer amount of propaganda in media and film, where anyone opposed was a violent, low-class, slovenly bigot, probably a criminal, or perhaps at best an ignorant, withered old church lady. This went on for more than a decade, and grew so hackneyed that it spawned a second-order meme of "not that there's anything wrong with that", to encapsulate the pervasive moral obligation that permeated culture. The Westborough Baptist Church was framed as the modal opponent of Gay Rights in the culture. A murder over drug money was framed as a hate-killing and blown up into national news, followed by new federal laws to combat the danger of hate crimes against homosexuals.
And as @gattsuru often notes, it worked. You won. Those you did not persuade, you shamed and abused and harassed into silence. "Protected Class" law formalized this for employment, the media and the Academy handled it everywhere else. As several Blue Commenters have straightforwardly stated it over the years, we lost, so it's our turn in the closet for a couple decades.
How fortunate that this sort of political hardball had zero negative consequences of any kind.
FCfromSSC
Nuclear levels of sour
7d ago
Shockingly enough, even the most powerful man in the world is not as powerful as numerous very powerful men and women working together to achieve their ends. But as noted elsewhere, this is not a problem we have to puzzle out from first principles; we can simply look at actual examples. Tell me, which of Trump's lies has been as damaging as Bush lying America into Iraq?
I think a literal palletload of MREs dropped out of a C130 has a pretty high chance of being an accidental kinetic weapon. Probably possible to do a bit better though.
I was thinking more hot-glue two packs to a stick and see if you can get them to airfoil like a maple-seed, or even just dump the packs out loose from, say, 200 feet up. I've never seen one of these packs, I'm going off handling MRE packs before, which were relatively light and packaged in very tough plastic.
My assumption is that Israel is absolutely trying to put food pressure on Gaza; I think there was a link in the international thread that 10% of the gazan population is now dead, and I would expect that number to increase significantly before this is over.
FCfromSSC
Nuclear levels of sour
7d ago
yeah, I see the skepticism over cost as a challenge. 4.70 per ratpack x 2 ratpacks x 2,050,000 inhabitants = $18.8 million, so obviously the large majority of the cost estimate here is delivery. I'm pretty sure cargo planes have <10x the capacity of a helicopter with significantly lower costs per flight hour.
FCfromSSC
Nuclear levels of sour
7d ago
You might be able to cut those costs by 3x in a reasonable way, I'm doubtful that you could drop them by 10x.
What's your estimate on flight costs for helicopter versus C-130? Because I bet you could figure out a way to drop those things out the back of a cargo aircraft by the palletload and have 90%+ reach the ground intact; from eating MREs a few times, I don't remember them being very heavy for their volume, and the packaging is durable...
Maybe ditch the Humanitarian rations and just start dropping sacks of dry beans and rice with cut-rate parachutes? Like, really optimize for usable calories on the ground for the cheapest price possible, where harm to the payload is a minimal concern.
my understanding:
Planners < FOxGLASS < Humans-In-The-Loop < Deputy Director Lady < US Government.
Some combination of the Planners and FOxGLASS have figured out that there's a layer of control above them, and are actively working to engage with that layer. The Planner squabble is not, in fact the AIs glitching out, it is the AIs intentionally generating a scenario where human manual override will be triggered, at least potentially as part of a strategy to control the controllers. The sister part generates additional stress on one of the humans-in-the-loop, making it easier to trigger the lockout.
More options
Context Copy link