Felagund
2mo ago
I get that the libertarian candidate often has the best policies, but do you not care at all about your vote mattering? I suppose some of this depends on whether you're in a place where there are competitive elections.
Felagund
2mo ago
I know New York has a lot of Jews. Do you expect 10/7 to result in some more elections going red?
Felagund
2mo ago
Over the offseason, they took the bold step of replacing the frustration of a mediocre quarterback with the frustration of two mediocre quarterbacks.
Replacing three mediocre quarterbacks.
Felagund
2mo ago
Bullets 1 and 2 don't apply, since the implicit comparison is to marrying her without the unusual features stipulated.
I didn't think of 3 or 4. So only 5 seems to be of much weight.
Felagund
2mo ago
I think the population of women who don’t want to have kids isn’t really all that big.
It's certainly risen in the past few years, ideologically.
Felagund
2mo ago
I think I saw somewhere that, in Europe, more Catholic countries have lower birthrates than more Protestant countries. Of course, they're all fairly godless now.
Felagund
2mo ago
Yes, it's now the second highest (Trace's Gerard piece beat it out). On asshole filters.
You can see all the comments, and sort as you please, at themotte.org/comments.
Felagund
2mo ago
Do the current norms work better for women than the previous ones? (I'd be quite interested if there's any way to measure, but I doubt it.)
Anyway, Unsong and The Present Crisis are both fantastic.
Felagund
2mo ago
I think there are some people who come off well, but there are a lot who don't.
Felagund
2mo ago
When, if ever, is it appropriate to provide an apologetic defense of Nazi Germany?
Maybe not right before an election, when your preferred VP candidate publicly follows you.
Felagund
2mo ago
On my laptop, Vivaldi, because I have too many tabs. Duckduckgo for the default search engine.
Felagund
2mo ago
Here you go:
Felagund
2mo ago
It's the generic (and often unconscious) response to people being uncivilized on the left:
-
We ought to empathize with them, and take seriously whatever motivated them to such actions.
-
We can't put expect anything of them, because they're uncivilized.
-
We can't expect to influence them, because they're uncivilized. (And is it even right to try to sway them from it, given the justifications that they have for it?)
-
Instead, responsibility should be loaded upon those who react too harshly, because they should have known better. And we should feel bad for the victims of the response.
This is precisely the same path that leads people to adopt soft-on-crime prosecutors, and generally punish those who retaliate against the lawless. It happens often when it's easier or involves less unpleasantness for the state to punish those who are otherwise productive, than those who are wild.
This is the default thought pattern that happens when sympathy and responsibility get loaded onto different parties in some conflict. It clearly correlates with seeing things as oppressor (responsible) and oppressed (sympathetic), which is tied to why it's more common on the left, I think.
See Daniel Penny, see the UK riots (and speech arrests), see opinions on cops (when unjustified), etc.
I imagine things will get a lot better for you, if the 2024 election goes to Trump, and worse if it goes to Harris.
Felagund
2mo ago
I'm probably not especially likely to do so in the future—this occasion was more to satisfy a point of curiosity (how do AAQCs and popular posts compare) than to provide a service, and the insights are now sufficiently gleaned. But if you want to check yourself, you can just go to comments and sort by top for the last month.
Felagund
2mo ago
There's certainly plenty of overlap, and you could imagine some of the posts that were not selected being so. That said, the posts that are selected feel noticeably more AAQC-y to me than do just the most upvoted ones, which seems to me to indicate that those categories do not overlap perfectly—it is not just a crapshoot, even if there's a component of randomness.
I did not mean to imply that the people mentioned here don't get AAQCs. I know that's false, some of them did this month. I just wanted to note that the ratio between posts that are well-liked and those that are of the sort that earn AAQCs seems like it might vary by user to some extent.
Felagund
2mo ago
I was curious to see what were the top comments from the last month that didn't make it here, so we have:
@Walterodim, on the "factchecking" of Trump
@functor, on the downfall of the UK
A throwaway, on ideological pressure on doctors
@DTulpa, complaining about the media response to Harris
@raakaa, on the double standard of people being against cancelling Home Depot workers, but putting up with cancelled Olympians
@ABigGuy4U, on biased fact-checkers
@DTulpa, expressing discontent with the disorderly homeless
@functor, on the problems in the UK
@Walterodim, characterizing Tim Walz
@Walterodim, on election integrity concerns with a leftist tinge
@urquan, on women, and the words of the delphic oracle
@gattsuru, on European censorship
@SteveKirk, on Musk and corporate (in)competency
@naraburns, on pro-knifing counterprotests
@Walterodim, putting media activity in the active voice
@self_made_human, on immigration accelarationism
@IGI-111, on the political effectiveness of economic idiocy
And that's the first page, down to a net upvotes of 47. (All but two had at most 4 downvotes.)
The Quality Contribution system posts seem to be considerably more effortpostish, and the ones passed over are more likely to be applause-lights. So it seems like good selection. It's interesting that the slate of posters for each kind of post is not the same—some of us (e.g. @Walterodim) seem to be pretty good at making a not overly long reply that's popular, while not making AAQC-style comments. Others of us effortpost more. Both can be good.
Anyway, thanks to @naraburns for the work in collecting these, and to @ZorbaTHut, that we have this place.
Felagund
2mo ago
The way the systems are designed really affects how they are counted. I know Arizona allows for day-of dropping off of mail ballots and requires signature verification, which slows things down, and so it can take a few days to be entirely finished. But Florida's way faster.
For the US senate, you should vote Moreno. Here's why: if the Republicans win the Presidential election, they're basically guaranteed to have the Senate, as the vice president keeps tiebreaks, and so if they win tiebreaks, to lose the Senate, they'd have to lose in all of: (fairly likely) Pennsylvania, Maryland, Nevada, Wisconsin, Michigan, Arizona, (even) Ohio, (30% chance) Montana, and (fairly unlikely) one of Florida or Texas. So whether or not Moreno is elected shouldn't lead to a Republican trifecta, at least, in the next two years.
But if the Democrats win the election, then they win tiebreaks, and so don't need to win Florida or Texas. This makes Sherrod Brown likely to be the critical vote for whatever problematic things they try to pass. So if there are things you don't want them passing (e.g. the supreme court "reforms", bad economic policies, whatever else), it makes sense to vote Moreno.
That is, Ohio's Senate seat disproportionately matters if the Democrats win. Accordingly, if you dislike both agendas, it makes more sense to pick the candidate that will prevent party-line votes should the Democrats win the presidency.
More options
Context Copy link