Skibboleth
It's never 4D Chess
No bio...
User ID: 1226
Skibboleth
It's never 4D Chess
17hr ago
A major element of Orban's perceived badness was his alignment with Russia. He has more recently attracted attention in the US because a number of conservatives put forward Orbanism as a template for Republican governance.
Hungary is basically playing the same role for postliberalism as Venezuela for socialism: the country is going to shit, opponents like to point that out, and proponents feel compelled to defend it and pretend everything is peachy because otherwise they'd have to admit that every single attempt to make postliberalism the governing ideology ended detrimentally.
A trait that Chavista Venezuela (pre-Maduro, who turned into an old-fashioned dictator) and Orbanist Hungary share is being illiberal democracies, a perennial favorite of people trying to challenge liberal globalism. You end up defending these illiberal governments because the alternative is to admit that your ideology is not fit for purpose (or you go mask-off authoritarian, but that's pretty unusual in developed countries).
Skibboleth
It's never 4D Chess
1d ago
I think this is an interesting view into the CEO of one of the most important companies. My impression of the man has decreased, and increasing my concern for the kind of leaders and elites that is brewing up within American society.
I have become increasingly unimpressed by business elites in general. It's pretty safe to say that they are not stupid, but they don't seem to be inclined towards the qualities we would desire in political leadership. They are not brave or principled or wise; in practice they are primarily selected for ambition and acquisitiveness and their ability to please investors (which in turn tends to mean a kind of bloodless and unscrupulous administrative competence). However, their financial success endows them not only with the arrogance to believe their domain expertise generalizes (a common failing of the successful in any intellectual field) but the resources to bend reality to their preferences.
I don't know, maybe those landed gentry complaining about the venal upstart merchants were on to something (they weren't). Karp's attitude seems predicated on the assumption that tech elites have a special claim to being smarter/more capable, but it's not really in evidence (DOGE being a mere embarrassment is the kindest thing you can say about it). As I said, I do not think that they are stupid, but I do think they are fundamentally gamblers who have confused the combination of survivorship bias and mere competence for brilliance.
Skibboleth
It's never 4D Chess
1d ago
The point is that "might makes right" apparently is defacto governing principle
I mean, it's not. There is a facile, trivial sense in which "might makes right" is true. If you can force people to do what you want then you can force people to do what you want. But in a far more important sense, it isn't true. No one rules alone, and the exercise of power requires both will and legitimacy. History has shown again and again that the weak can prevail against the strong by being willing to endure greater costs despite facial material inferiority, and that apparent strength can mask a lack of internal willpower.
A major failing of the midwit thugs that run the Trump administration is that they confuse power with entitlement. We see again and again from Trump himself as well as senior figures like Miller and Hegseth a belief that American power entitles them to do what they want - that others should give way to power because it is powerful. This is not the strong doing what they will, it is a moral appeal. It is not a conventional moral appeal, but it is a moral appeal nonetheless. The trouble for the Trump administration is that it is not a very compelling one. Mere force as a basis for legitimacy is not of interest to our longstanding allies (especially when that sentiment is turned on them, or when they are treated as vassals rather than allies). Hell, it is not of particular interest within the United States.
They compound this deficiency by trying to have it both ways. They sneer at international law and play the transactional bully when it serves them but also want to appeal to the institutions and allies they reject when it suits them. In fairness to the Trump administration, there's always been more than a whiff of "rules aren't for the people who make them" about the American-led order, but Trump et al don't even pay lip service to shared principles (and have been stunningly inept at diplomacy to boot). They cannot appeal to higher principles or laws because they themselves have rejected them.
Skibboleth
It's never 4D Chess
3d ago
It is not surprising that Republican voters voted for the Republican candidate. My point there is that the subset of non-Republican Trump supporters is relatively small. The subset of unenthusiastic non-Republican Trump supporters is necessarily even smaller. Combine this with the fact that Trump's approval amongst Republicans remains stratospheric and we can safely discard the idea that Trump's supporters generally saw themselves as holding their nose to pick the least bad option.
(FWIW, despite motioning towards it earlier I think the idea that voters are mostly picking from among perceived least bad options isn't really true; the people talking like this are a loud minority of cynics trying to rationalize their decision making)
It looks to me like Trump's approval among Republicans was mostly in the 80s while in office, dipped significantly while he was out of office, and is dipping again due to Iran.
That poll is from the beginning of March. As far as I can tell it has mostly bounced back amongst Republicans while falling elsewhere.
If you declare 'might makes right' to be your governing principle, it becomes much harder to appeal to other principles (like international law).
Isn't this combining two groups?
Not really. There are some marginal voters who voted for Trump but don't like him, but the vast bulk of Trump's ~~77.5m votes in 2024 came from Republicans. Amongst Republicans he is still incredibly popular, both in terms of raw approval and in terms of the fervency with which he is supported. The MAGA base has essentially devoured the rest of the Republican Party.
Skibboleth
It's never 4D Chess
7d ago
That would explain grudging support, whereas Trump's supporters are anything but grudging despite his negative VORP on substantive issues.
Skibboleth
It's never 4D Chess
7d ago
Presidential candidates being thoroughly mediocre is pretty normal. There just aren't that many brilliant leaders out there, and in the US presidential system you're praying for the trifecta of: able to win a partisan primary, able to win a nationwide general election, and actually a competent executive. There is some overlap between the first two with respect to charisma, but they're mostly three distinct skill/capability sets.
However, it must be noted that 2024 didn't fit the pattern of people grudgingly voting for their party's nominee. Trump voters did not regard him as the best option amongst a subpar selection. They were (and for the most part still are) rapturously enthusiastic about him.
Skibboleth
It's never 4D Chess
7d ago
Trump is a narcissist with a god complex.
This is undeniable. He's been slapping his name and face on any national icon he can and is presently in the process of trying to make the nation's 250th anniversary a massive ego trip.
A better question is what is it about Trump that makes so many of his supporters abandon their supposed values (Christian morality, patriotism, etc...) to not only excuse but effusively support him in a way that utterly surpasses normal partisan affiliation.
Skibboleth
It's never 4D Chess
8d ago
I've never had a foreign agent try to seduce me, so I can't speak directly to what inducements they might offer, but I imagine even quite successful men are not so inundated with sexual attention from women that they would pass on a moderately attractive woman who actively wants to sleep with them, especially if they're not especially faithful or scrupulous (as appears to be the case with Swalwell).
I would also hazard a guess that genuinely gorgeous women who are willing to trade on their appearance have better career prospects than espionage honeypot.
Skibboleth
It's never 4D Chess
8d ago
If this were anyone other than Trump, no one would be talking about it.
If Trump weren't president of the United States no one would be talking about it.
It is certainly no patch on on dijonghazi or tan suitgate, but you expect a certain amount of decorum from your senior leaders that you don't demand from other people. Especially when it comes to mocking your own supporters by substituting yourself for Jesus.
Skibboleth
It's never 4D Chess
13d ago
Skibboleth
It's never 4D Chess
14d ago
Which of these called a crusade against the Khwarazmian Empire?
Skibboleth
It's never 4D Chess
14d ago
At least based on OP's article, this seems less like Israeli/Jewish manipulation and more like a straightforward pitch from Netanyahu that Trump bit on despite warnings from most of his foreign policy advisors. It might be another matter if pro-Israeli people in USG were whispering in his ear that this was a great idea, but the Secretary of State, CIA director, and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs all told him the Israelis were full of shit.
I have a hard time believing that the USG will actually accept any of the stated points. Every one but the first seems like a non-starter, and taken together seems beyond disastrous for US interests (as well as unbelievably humiliating).
Leaving aside regional interests in the Gulf, conceding the traditional US position on freedom of navigation would be a huge deal. Trump is probably too stupid/parochial to grasp that, though, so I doubt it will move him.
Skibboleth
It's never 4D Chess
15d ago
Fair. I'd forgotten about that.
Skibboleth
It's never 4D Chess
15d ago
I make no commendation of it, but it is very common to find paradigms of masculinity which hold that a man must be tough and serious at all times. Dealing with children is for women.
Skibboleth
It's never 4D Chess
15d ago
I note that at least going back to the Bush administration (and probably back into the mists of time, but I haven't checked) that there is a significant subset of people who simultaneously want to claim moral superiority and seethe at being held to any kind of standard.
Skibboleth
It's never 4D Chess
15d ago
The intermittancy of certain kinds of green energy isn't quite a fake problem, but it is close. Solar especially has consistently made fools of skeptics, and the technical obstacles that were supposed to render it impractical have proven extremely surmountable.
And on the other side of things, Nuclear has a whole raft of its own problems. It is theoretically a "proven" technology, but it is extremely expensive and slow to deploy, with a break-even time measured in decades. The waste problem, while not technically difficult, is politically radioactive (hah) and imposes security problems that Solar and Wind do not have. It is not a coincidence the genuinely successful nuclear-dominated power systems that we (e.g. France, Eastern Bloc) see came from top-down political systems that had the power to tell objectors to suck it and which were only marginally sensitive to economic concerns. There is also the stated preferences vs outcomes issue I alluded to in my first post - Nuclear is deployed more as a rhetorical deflection from other green energy sources than as a serious alternative, and given conservatives' affinity for the fossil fuel industry I think it is very likely that if decarbonization advocates were pushing Nuclear they'd be against it.
I'm really not sure what you're going for here bro.
I could ask the same question. I am attempting to make myself understood. My position - that threats of genocide are more concerning you have the ability to carry them out - is not complicated or ambiguous, so what is the point of asking "So is it ok to threaten genocidal destruction so long as you don't have the capacity to actually carry it out?" Do you actually think I believe that? I suspect not.
I have some uncharitable speculation, but it would be merely speculative.
Skibboleth
It's never 4D Chess
15d ago
I'm just replying to the argument you made.
No, you're not.
- BigObjectPermanceShill raised objections to genocidal threats from Trump.
- Jiro responded with whataboutism about Iranian rhetoric.
- I respond to Jiro saying that the comparison is off based because the circumstances are radically different.
- You imply that I think threatening genocide is okay as long as you can't do it.
The problem is that nowhere in my post do I say or even imply that Iran's rhetoric is acceptable.
Skibboleth
It's never 4D Chess
15d ago
I don't know how you inferred that from what I wrote, but I want to raise two points.
Firstly, and this is unbelievably important: evil behavior from others does not excuse your own evil behavior. There's a kind of self-conscious human orc who feels the need to justify their own brutal impulses by pointing to the depravity of others, but they don't actually seek to resolve anything.
Secondly, power implies responsibility. The fact that one party can act on their threat and the other cannot is absolutely a reason to care more about the one than the other. You should not be threatening genocide, period, but you definitely shouldn't be doing it when you are currently in the process bombing the shit out of the people you're threatening to exterminate.
Skibboleth
It's never 4D Chess
15d ago
A major difference is that right now the US bombing Iranian cities and has the capacity to inflict catastrophic damage on civilian infrastructure while Iran is not bombing American cities and on their best day could inflict minor damage.
Skibboleth
It's never 4D Chess
15d ago
I kind of have the sense that Trump is actually going insane, or at least his emotional control over himself is slipping.
When I read comments like this, I feel like I'm going insane. Trump has been openly bonkers for at least ten years, and the real TDS has always been people insisting that he's not. He has always been emotionally incontinent and narcissistic. He's always been a blustering bully with cruel instincts. He re-entered the political arena as the champion of the most laughable conspiracy theory in history. Hell, 75% of his appeal is that he's an uninhibited, incurious asshole. "He says it like it is" which is, as always, code for "repeats my bigotries aloud." (It's certainly not a statement on his commitment to epistemic courage).
Insofar as there has been downward spiral from his first administration, it is down to his advisors going from relatively normal Republicans who sought to moderate his impulses to weird, evil sycophants who seek to amplify and exploit them. Compare Hegseth to Mattis or even Esper. Esper wasn't much of anything, but he at least wasn't a gleeful psychopath like Hegseth.
Because the superficial resemblance amuses me.
The gentry's critique of the commercial class rests on the proposition that they were more virtuous as leaders (and as people), but I don't think that is in evidence. There's significant overlap of vices (likely just a broad pathology of moneyed elites), and they, of course, have their own sets of problems. I also think
a) some of their criticisms didn't land even at the time and are clearly just kicking down at a rising rival power center
b) modern business elites are qualitatively different from their pre-20th century counterparts (I don't mean that in a better or worse sense, just that you are talking about different kinds of people)
In general, conscious efforts to cultivate virtuous and effective elites seems very hit or miss, and is more often claimed than realized. Landed gentry, e.g. weren't really trained to be leaders. They were a mostly-hereditary leisure class that also leveraged their economic and legal power into political and military influence.
More options
Context Copy link