MadMonzer
Temporarily embarassed liberal elite
No bio...
User ID: 896
Despite California’s wealth it seems like it’s much more third worldification than elsewhere in America.
Prop 13 deserves most, though not all, of the blame for California's high taxes on everything else, as well as contributing to municipal dysfunction by breaking the link between local tax bases and local government funding, was done by white conservatives. CEQA is ground zero of California NIMBYism and was bipartisan (signed by Governor Reagan), and predated the browning of the state. Local NIMBYism seems to be a bipartisan old white people thing much more than a third world immigrant thing.
So it looks like California was wrecked by Boomerism, not Third Worldification. The Asian-American vote is a powerful pro-sanity force in California politics, though mostly an isolated one.
All of which is perfectly within the bounds of the far-left.
Horseshoe theory, a banger meme with the added advantage of being true!
Red China is not on the western left-right axis - particularly in the current year where the western left-right axis is defined by somewhat parochial culture-war concerns and everyone from Bernie to Vance supports some form of state capitalism. In so far as it matters, China is neutral on white vs black skin, in favour of legal abortion, and mildly against public displays of sexual deviance.
True, but gays who are not bog-standard mainstream progressives are relatively more likely to be anti-Muslim-immigration right-populists than they are to be other varieties of right-winger.
We used to insist on assimilation.
Rep Peter King (IRA-NY) was fundraising, based on Old World ethnic grudges, for a private war against a US treaty ally on the streets of New York, and nobody in state or local politics had a problem with this until 9-11 - even after the Irish ambassador boycotted the St Patrick's Day parade over the issue.
What they got was a lot of Spanish and Italian immigrants with the Italians being mostly northern Italian
Also Welsh. It doesn't change the fact that the northern Italians were the highest quality European stock heading out there on a permanent basis. (A few Englishmen and Scots went out temporarily to make money, and left both football codes behind to our long-term inconvenience).
Argentina isn't literally the poorest white-majority country (Belarus recently overtook them in GDP per capita, but Albania and Moldova are still well below them) but it is close, and they are poorer than countries like Greece with fewer natural resources and worse human capital. It really does come down to policy choices.
The fact that American has now done this demonstrates that they could have done it all along, so the pre-war status quo was precisely that the Americans could destroy most targets in Iran at any time. They were just mostly choosing not to do so because it wasn't going to achieve their political goals. The Americans have now destroyed a lot of targets, and the Iranians have also destroyed some targets (but a lot less), and it looks like neither side is going to achieve any political goals.
That America can destroy targets from the air with terrifying effectiveness was established at Hiroshima and has been barely challenged since then. Destroying targets from the air is a really rather ineffective way of achieving most political goals.
largely impotent
If the missiles and drones were impotent, I assume the 5th Fleet base in Bahrain was destroyed by Iran's trained attack geese.
Unfortunately for your sort (which includes my wife and eldest son - I know how much it sucks), it looks like music, dancing and intoxicants as social lubricants are pretty lindy.
If the doctrine of Calvary chapel is basically "We can't be sure on the basis of Scripture when the rapture will happen, but the elders of Calvary chapel have thought about this question a lot over the last hundred years and our collective best guess is that it will be pre-trib for the following reasons" then you can teach that without having to misrepresent your own views. This is how good academics teach the views that are mainstream in their disciplines but which they are not convinced by. (I studied physics, so the only course I saw this being done in was quantum information).
Unfortunately outgroup homogeneity bias means I have no idea if those kids actually look like half-siblings, or if they just look Chinese.
pre-trib rapture, or more generally dispensationalism
Is there a logical connection between these things, or do they just travel together because of Darby? The link between dispensationalism and a literal 1000-calendar-year Christ-rules-on-this-earth Millennium (I think the technical term is pre-millenialism) makes sense, but I don't see why the timing of the rapture affects the dispensational structure at all.
As orchestral music, Il canto degli Italiani
As poetry, La Marseillaise turns the bloodthirstiness up so far that it goes through the "sick and violent"/"actually no, this has to be ironic" barrier multiple times, and I can't help but appreciate this.
My sources pre-election were saying that this would come down to whether or not the Liberals (right-liberal in theory and practice) crossed the 4% threshold to get seats. So an outcome where L comfortably exceeded the threshold, but the right-wing coalition still fell short is surprising.
My perspective on this election is that it is a (rare) case of a coalition between the establishment right and right populists that didn't blow up harming both sides. (See for example my post about last year's Dutch elections). Instead the right-populists lost votes to the centre-right - even the Liberals will gain seats, despite tanking in the polls and a noisy minority of L supporters saying that forming a government relying on SD support was a betrayal of liberal principles. Although the narrative may well end up being "the voters punished the coalition" because they went from having just enough seats to govern to falling just short.
What happened? As a liberal elite, even a temporarily embarassed one, I obviously want this to be a case where the government was simply more competent than other right-populist coalitions because SD did not take cabinet seats. As far as I can see, this is roughly correct. You can make a lot of progress on crime and immigration by (a) wanting to and (b) being quietly competent without doing any of the flashy stuff that right-populist voters want to see, and the Swedish coalition did. This doesn't get you actual right-populist votes, but if you are able to take the credit it gets you the votes of people who were previously holding their nose and voting right-populist because the alternatives were so awful. (Even left-wing parties can do this, as we have seen in Denmark, and even in the UK although neither the right nor the left wants this widely known).
Final thought - this is probably going to come down to <0.25% of the vote between the left and right blocs. Nobody thinks that Sweden can't count an election to that level of accuracy, and an attempt by the losing side to attack the integrity of the election is not going to succeed.
standard remigration targetting
The original question that drove this thread is "are AfD far-right?"
You can argue whether "remove citizenship from natural-born citizens and deport them on the basis of ethnicity" is a good idea or not, but I think it is clearly a far-right policy.
There are no high quality black majority countries.
As a quibble, Bermuda is 52% black per the local census (and about 60% black if you follow the American rule and count black-other mixes as black). It's definitely high quality, although you can argue about whether it should count as a country - it's a British colony where the elected local government has de facto full control of everything except foreign and defence policy.
How about Liechtenstein? It’s a strong enough monarchy to override the elected government. Wealthy, developed, not gratuitously oppressive.
It's a client state of Switzerland (to the point where the Swiss army asks for forgiveness and not permission when it conducts live fire exercises in Lichtenstinian territory), which is also a pretty good place to live for the same reasons and is an unusually direct democracy.
Eliezer never said he thought alignment was a solvable problem - he said that if we built AGI without solving it, we would die. He has always be clear that the possibilities include "this is not a solvable problem and we should ban high-end GPUs to buy ourselves a few more years before we get paperclipped"
To someone who just specifically listed "get rid of sixty percent of the text" as something that would improve most web fiction?
A lot less than 60% of Project Lawful needs to be cut. My guess is 40% of Eliezer's text and 10% of lintamande's. The graphic BDSM scenes are identified as skippable and worksafe summaries are provided. The existence of the BDSM scenes is genuinely justified by character development - they are not gratuitous. (Lintamande is a technically better writer than Eliezer, and the driving force of the second half of the saga is the contrast between the two authors' views of what rationalists winning actually means.)
If you interpret it as mildly misogynistic mockery of bad fiction by women (which it mostly is, because the vast majority of wannabe novelists are women and most of the errors it calls out are either directly female-coded or characteristic of female-coded genres) it is a lot more sufferable.
Criticism, review and parody are fair use, so a version of How Not to Write a Novel which used real excerpts would almost certainly be legal even if the books being panned aren't public domain. But that "almost" is probably enough to make it unpublishable.
Also anything where the badness stems from the author being immersed in therapy culture and/or lefty politics without realising that the rest of the world isn't. Which is about a third of the book.
The three bound volumes that make up the "trilogy" (Foundation, Foundation & Empire, and Second Foundation) are a collection of novellas that were first published in magazines (plus an original short story about the trial of Hari Seldon on Trantor). The driving tension of the first novella is that the Foundation (at that point still an Imperial project that is supposed to be writing an encyclopedia) finds itself in hostile territory after the surrounding sectors successfully declare independence from the Empire.
I will avoid more detailed spoilers beyond the one implicit in the title Foundation and Empire, but two of the other novellas centre around (direct or proxy) conflicts between the rising Foundation and the dying Empire.
All three of the major crises in this book are overcome through non-violent and rather clever means, which reeks a little bit of a revenge of the nerds fantasy, although it still makes a certain amount of sense.
This isn't something Asimov is committed to - by the time the Foundation meets the Mule in Foundation and Empire it is a major military power and the implication is that aggressive war is one of the ways its territory expands over time. The Foundation relies on soft power in Foundation because (from a Watsonian perspective) it is militarily weak at the start of its life, being nominally an academic world writing an encyclopedia or (from a Doylist perspective) because Asimov didn't want to write military SF.
The problem with that argument is that human relationships are not zero-sum. The fact that our coal miner could probably spend half of his payday check in the pub, then go home, beat up and rape his wife without anyone in his society having a problem with that gains him a lot less than it costs his spouse.
This was never socially acceptable in cisHajnal Europe (with the possible exception of the marital rape), and the man who did it was subject to the disgust and loathing of his community, and if his brothers-in-law were to beat him up then it is very unlikely that any of the people who watched and applauded would remember who did it when the cops showed up.

"Domestic migration is net-negative in places where foreign migration is net-positive" is an inevitable result of the pigeonhole principle in a world where everywhere is at least somewhat NIMBY. It doesn't imply preferences for anything other than not being homeless.
More options
Context Copy link