SwordOfOccam
No bio...
User ID: 2777
SwordOfOccam
7mo ago
So you’re saying Silver, who thinks the MAGA GOP is even more insane, is purposely giving bad advice so that Dems in fact lose even more seats on the court?
SwordOfOccam
7mo ago
buy you a few extra years of a nominal democrat on the court
Ok I’m going to stop reading right here.
We’re not talking a “few years.” We’re talking potential decades if the replacement is 40-50 years old.
Sotomayor, or basically anyone, does not have value above replacement relative to that risk, when losing a seat means a consistent structural imbalance against your side.
You’re the one being short-sighted here with a fairly wrong take on the “great justice theory of legal history.”
I only skimmed the rest.
Did you not mention RBG even once?
SwordOfOccam
7mo ago
I guess I’m confused why you think rule utilitarianism is uniquely required or faulty for the situation you describe.
What moral system would demand the $10k payment? Some might encourage it, sure. Christianity in particular seems to encourage this kind of thing.
Even if I like my neighbor, why am I the only option for $10k? As a one shot with no alternative, I might just feel compelled to do it. Problem is, life is so often not full of contrived one shots, and so I don’t think I would have to “value my neighbor’s life at less than $10k” or $1. As a rule, expecting neighbors to bail you out is not a very good system. Go get a loan or a gofundme.
SwordOfOccam
7mo ago
Imagine holding two thoughts in your head at the same time:
-
I do not value everyone equally for both reasons of emotion and practicality.
-
Logically, other people have every right to feel the same way I do. Perhaps there’s a compromise in here if we distinguish between the personal and higher levels of moral policy. We do not live in an ideal world, but perhaps we can move towards “better.”
SwordOfOccam
7mo ago
I don’t know that you’re espousing rule utilitarianism properly, but I don’t think you’re straw manning it. Like, I agree with your three points, but that’s not what makes rule utilitarianism rule.
You clearly don’t like universalism, which is implied in utilitarianism as a general rule, but not unique to it. You seem to really focus on that. I don’t understand what you consider “standard” utilitarianism to be in comparison.
If you ask me how many billion people I would rather die than my cat, my emotional response is I’m okay losing the three billion+ people in Africa and China and India and such. I don’t know those people. My cat loves me.
Logically though, there’s gotta be a better way to strike a balance between partiality and self-interest, alongside recognizing it’s pretty hard to justify a moral system that values my cat so much. If you recognize that other moral agents exist and that you should seek fair compromises as much as possible, then that seems better than any alternative I’m aware of.
Which is to say, one can distinguish between personal and systematic moral decision levels. Rule utilitarianism sets rules that protect individual liberty as a bulwark against oppression and as a safety valve. Obviously, opinions differ on the fine points.
Rule utilitarianism also recognizes that certain aspects of virtue and deontological ethics have immense practicality. You should not steal because stealing is bad, because it’s not prosocial and attacks property rights.
I too value my identity groups over others. I was willing to formally kill people to protect the interests of my preferred groups. Still am informally.
In my mind, the US constitution is a good representation of rule utilitarianism. I don’t think it’s correct to blame the ills you do on rule utilitarianism specifically. Theoretically, other forms of government could still be in line with rule utilitarianism, say a sufficiently benevolent philosopher king. Or what communists think communism should be if only we could become New Men or whatever. Sky’s the limit if we give up concerns of “how would this go in real life.”
So I’m going with “not even wrong” because you come out swinging, but I think you might be beating up the wrong guy.
SwordOfOccam
7mo ago
I used to read The Atlantic fairly regularly, but that was a while back and so I don’t know how they are in recent years. I know they have some quite left and still some not-so-left writers.
I’m quite surprised you list The Economist here, since they are typically considered fairly neoliberal in their stances, and so not leftist friendly. The fairly recent not-pro-trans article they had rocked the world of a lot of /r/neoliberal.
Like I agree that a lot of NPR analysis is pretty shallow, even if you stripped out any overt political valence, but I guess I don’t quite understand your complaint and/or your particular progressive stances on any given issue.
(For context, I used to be an Obama-loving left neoliberal and now I’m a ~Romney-loving right neoliberal, but I’ve always been annoyed with progressives.)
SwordOfOccam
7mo ago
DEI identity slop is now considered left wing
When wasn’t it?
It’s fine if you want to distinguish between the parts of the culture war that do and don’t directly relate to material issues, like overthrowing the capitalistic system we’ve all come to know and love, but don’t pretend there isn’t a correlation there that’s been left-coded for decades, and that NPR has moved down that path significantly in the last decade.
SwordOfOccam
7mo ago
I appreciate you for being here.
I think your take on this is remarkable in 2024, long after “nice polite Republicans” was what NPR could be accused of.
It’s interesting to consider what NPR would have to do such that you would not accuse them of being centrist as opposed to actually progressive.
Is there a relatively prominent media source they could model themselves on?
SwordOfOccam
7mo ago
You’re delusional if you think “eyesore for many Iranians” is the belief of the Iranian elites currently in control of the Iranian government. It’s not about what the average Iranian thinks (and for Arabs, the man on the street is way more against Israel than the governments typically are).
It’s not that we disagree, it’s that you’re simply unwilling to acknowledge a huge body of generally uncontested evidence regarding the Iranian regime’s stance towards Israel.
You think the “regional hegemony” bit supersedes the “Iran is controlled by an aggressive ideology that opposes Sunnis and Israel” without being able to acknowledge that this results from the present Iranian regime making particular choices, because the situation was quite different in 1978 under a different leader with very different beliefs guiding his choices.
This has been an interesting experience in presenting clear facts I’ve never had anyone else contest before and witnessing a clear refusal to acknowledge reality as it is.
I have no idea what evidence I could present, even in theory, to change your mind.
I guess it’s probably related to the flaw, typically seen on the left, of “religious people don’t really believe their ideology such that it is the driving force behind their actions.” Some kind of typical mind fallacy.
SwordOfOccam
7mo ago
Your inability to comprehend the Iranian government’s underlying motivation and the causal chain that brought us to the present situation is remarkable.
They’re not secretive about it. I’m making no claim about their ideology that you can’t hear from their own mouths. Do you think they support Hamas and Hezbollah just for fun?
If I’m understanding you, you somehow think that the Israelis could simply choose to be friends with Iran by deciding to stop being friends with the Saudis and/or the US. Just a simple switching of teams. Iran and Israel’s enmity is because Israel has chosen to side with the Arabs and the US against Iran. The Saudis and the Iranians are rivals primarily over oil and longstanding ethnic rivalries. Iran and the US are at odds primarily because we support the Saudis and interfere with Iran’s ambitions. The Iranian regime’s particular brand of Islam is not the most significant driving force behind their ambitions in the region. The Iranian regime is just a standard mostly rational actor jockeying for power in its region, where nearly everyone has united against them. Iran would welcome Jewish allies against the Arabs if they would offer.
That’s my honest attempt to characterize what you’ve written.
Did you come up with these views on your own, or is there somewhere this is a common view?
SwordOfOccam
7mo ago
You’re doing this thing where you’re talking about “Muslims” in general, and not the particular Muslims running the Iranian government.
If the Jews wanted to join team Tehran and had useful things to offer team Tehran then team Tehran would not refuse them.
What do you suggest? Ceding all territorial rights to the Holy Land?
You seem to have brainworm that cannot fathom that Iran’s enmity towards Israel is ideological and not related to the fact Israel has close relations with the US (and you have causality backwards there too).
Read this and become enlightened:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran%E2%80%93Israel_relations
Under Khomeini (1979–1989) Following the Iranian Revolution and the fall of the Pahlavi dynasty in 1979, Iran adopted a sharp anti-Israel stance. Iran cut off all official relations with Israel;[29] official statements, state institutes, and events. Iran ceased to accept Israeli passports, and the holders of Iranian passports were banned from travelling to "the occupied Palestine".[30] The Israeli Embassy in Tehran was closed and handed over to the PLO.[31] Ayatollah Khomeini declared Israel an "enemy of Islam" and the "Little Satan".[32] The United States was called the "Great Satan" while the Soviet Union was called the "Lesser Satan".
SwordOfOccam
7mo ago
“My best friend is Iranian”
Ok buddy. You take one Iranian’s view on Jews over the explicit statements and policies of the Iranian government since 1979 with respect to the Zionist regime.
“If you think back historically”
My brother in history, go read about the history of the Iranian Islamic Revolution and Iran’s stance towards Israel and Jews since that time.
SwordOfOccam
7mo ago
Why did US relations with Iran change in 1979?
The Shah was ambitious. He wanted oil money. He didn’t want to be second fiddle to the Saudis.
Also it’s funny you’re going on about Iran’s historical hegemon status as if the Arabs and the Turks don’t have the same damn history (and both bested the Persians after the rise of Islam).
You’re so monomaniacally over focused on oil with apparently zero actual regional awareness to realize that Iran borders two significant powers—Turkey and Pakistan—that do not owe their status to oil wealth. Iran is a large country that ought to have a diversified economy.
If Iran had a competent government and stopped being a pariah state then in would massively outclass Saudi economically and militarily due to a larger population and a better history of education and industry.
SwordOfOccam
7mo ago
I’m sorry are you just unaware of Iran’s view of the “Zionist regime” here?
“Whose Iran?”
Khomeini’s. Khamenei’s. The IRGC’s. The MOIS’s.
The Iranians hold it against the US that we support the Zionists—I think it’s their single biggest issue. Their aggression toward the Zionists is pure.
Iran does not recognize Israel as a state. What fantasy land are you operating in where Israel helping Iran dominate the Arabs is within the realm of possibility?
“This is really just oil politics.”
No, no it very much isn’t. That’s certainly a relevant factor, but Iran would make a lot more oil money if it stopped wanting to wipe Israel off the map.
If you believe Persians think Arabs are sand negros, what in the fuck do you think they consider Jews to be? Spoiler: it’s worse.
“Oil explains the dividing lines in this region of the world a lot more than Muslims don’t like Jews.”
You are simply ignorant of reality here, in particular the nature of the Iranian regime. You can go read the Supreme Leader’s X feed for a bit and you might learn a lot.
Your own view betrays this actually. Why do you think Israel partners with the Arabs, particularly considering it was these countries it has to fight to come and stay in existence for the first 30 years?
In 1979 did Israelis wake up and go “well fuck Iran, let’s partner with the Arabs because of oil politics”?
No.
What changed between 1948 and 1979+ is that Israel was able to normalize relations with its Arab foes (even if the man on the street really hates Israel) and Iran transformed from a basically secular, West-aligned monarchy into a theocracy where the government opposes the existence of Israel as a matter of faith and policy.
The US would fucking love it if Iran woke up tomorrow and became like say Pakistan: kind of a dumpster fire but not a direct threat to an entire region where a significant portion of the world’s energy supply resides. Israel would love for Iran to stop working towards its destruction.
Iran could choose peace. Israel et al can’t choose to ignore that Iran does not want peace.
SwordOfOccam
7mo ago
Can you show evidence that the US IC warned of a Russian invasion where nothing happened?
Sometimes, warnings being deemed legit depends on the threat actor actually following through. Putin could have backed off at the last moment. People like you would then call the warnings fake news, but the intent and preparation and potential was there.
In fact, that was the goal of the US: share enough (unprecedented) intel that Putin would decide to change his mind. If US foreign policy had been more successful, you would call that an intel failure, when actually it would be about the most successful intelligence can be.
SwordOfOccam
7mo ago
I have a hard time with assigning the label “loser” to someone who has achieved Aaronson’s level of success in life, both professional and personal.
Sure, I can deadlift a lot more than he can, but I’m not a world-class expert on any significant field of research.
There are several strategies men can pursue to achieve status and/or success with women, and “uber successful nerd” can work. Not everyone needs to be well-rounded or “classically masculine” to succeed.
SwordOfOccam
7mo ago
To be blunt, I think you’re demonstrating you have no idea what you’re talking about here.
Vietnam is a medium power next to an ambitious major power they fought a war with not that long ago. They have mellowed on their ideology and so relations with the US, a former foe, help them economically and geopolitically to counter China.
Iran is also a medium power, though they do not have a border with a major threat/rival since 2003. Unlike Vietnam, they do have strong ideological foundations that drive their foreign policy to be ant-Israel and anti-US and anti-Sunni, much to the detriment of their economy. If Iran were 50% saner, they would be much more powerful.
North Korea is another example. They have a border with a major protector. They have some strange ideology that boils down to wanting all of Korea, which the US stands in the way of. North Korea could decide to calm down on its territorial ambitions and then the US would have no reason to strongly oppose them.
Vietnam and South Korea seek relations with the US to achieve their goals to counter the threats they face. As does Israel and a host of other countries.
Vietnam and the US let bygones be bygones within living memory of a war that was horrendous in particular for the people of Vietnam.
Iran and North Korea have goals that the US stands in the way of, and so bygones cannot be bygones until their goals change, or those of the US do.
SwordOfOccam
7mo ago
Iran hates Israel completely independent of their “US proxy” status.
If tomorrow all US aid/support to Israel ended then that would slightly decrease Iran’s hate for the Great Satan.
But the Little Satan is hated because Iran does not recognize the state of Israel and desires Jewish control of the Holy Land to end, based on religious ideology.
So you almost have things completely backwards.
We tend not to cry so much as punch Iran in the face when they “fight back.”
If they stopped being aggressive against us and our allies, America would love to have Iran turn into say another Saudi Arabia or Turkey or Jordan or (even) Pakistan. But the mullahs are religious lunatics and that underlies their foreign policy against their Arab/Sunni neighbors, Israel, and the US.
SwordOfOccam
7mo ago
I promise you that Iranian foreign policy against Israel in particular and the West in general is not directly based upon what happened in 1941 during WWII and under Reza Shah.
In 1979 a completely new regime took over. One that was anti-West instead of pro-West as the Shah had been. Any legitimate grievances Iran has against the West are massively overshadowed by the ideology of the mullahs, particularly their anti-Israel stance. Iran had every reason to be pissed about the support for Saddam (though the US ended up supporting both sides, famously), but overall they have explicitly chosen to be the antagonist.
SwordOfOccam
7mo ago
As a counter example, look at Vietnam.
The US/West did way, way worse things to Vietnam than we ever did to Iran, and vice versa. But now we are on pretty friendly terms.
If Vietnam acted like Iran or North Korea by being a perpetual threat to the US and its allies then it would still be considered an enemy.
SwordOfOccam
7mo ago
So even if I grant you the most justifiable account of the 1979 revolution, you gotta keep some things in mind.
Even if the Shah was bad and the West was at fault, the theocrats took over the whole movement and cast out their allies.
Israel had, to my knowledge, nothing to do with whatever crimes the West committed.
With respect to Israel and its Arab neighbors (minus Saddam’s Iraq), Iran is obviously the aggressor. This is not controversial and results from Iran’s particular ideology. Even if I grant Iran had reason to hit back against those that supported Saddam, that was a long time ago at this point.
So in 1979 and thereafter Iran consciously chose to make Israel a major enemy, even though Israel had never done anything malicious to Iran. That was ideology driving Iran’s foreign policy, not some justified or necessary response in normal geopolitical terms. Iran is not Arab. It’s nowhere near Jerusalem. But the theocrats feel compelled to violently oppose the existence of Israel.
Also, the US taking out Saddam, Iran’s largest immediate threat, was a massive favor for Iran and it’s hilarious you’re trying to frame it otherwise.
With respect to the US, Iran was also the aggressor because in the opening round they seized our embassy and held hostages. Even if you totally grant they had reason to hate US/British foreign policy for taking advantage of Iran, they could have simply peaceably evicted the US as they overthrew the Shah.
Iran consciously chose the path it has gone down. If Iran stopped trying to attack/dominate its neighbors and others, then Israel and the US would not treat it as the threat it is.
SwordOfOccam
7mo ago
In general I agree with you.
However, if Iran launched its full capabilities in conjunction with Hezbollah that would be a mess.
Not in the sense that Iran could meaningfully degrade Israel’s military capacities, but in the sense of wanton destruction and death. Presumably, Israel would respond with an invasion of Lebanon and major retaliatory strikes on Iran.
So Iran still has that option and I don’t think this operation changes the perception of that risk from Israel.
SwordOfOccam
7mo ago
The Soleimani response was not symbolic.
US forces got out of the way because they had detailed intelligence.
Iran wanted actual revenge and in fact believes the US lied about the lack of deaths from the missiles.
Additionally, Iran will continuously try to kill those officials it deems responsible via assassination attempts.
Don’t confuse intent and capability and success.
SwordOfOccam
7mo ago
You have things remarkably backwards.
The US and Israel only attack Iran because since 1979 Iran has been controlled by a theocracy that considers the US and Israel to be, unironically, “Big and Little Satan.”
Iran having nukes would be massively destabilizing to the region even if you take Israel out of the equation. Iranian ideology isn’t kind to basically any of its neighbors.
I have no idea what your preferred worldview is beyond disliking the US and Israel, but don’t pretend Iran is some poor oppressed country that needs to defend itself when it is the aggressor.
Iran did not give its biggest enemy detailed intelligence on its attack on its other biggest enemy, so as to eliminate the effectiveness of its attack, which was in response to having one of its top generals obliterated in what was legally a diplomatic safe zone.
Y’all motherfuckers are delusional if you think Iran is LARPing the desire to harm Israel.
It’s also hilarious when intelligence successes lead to conspiracy theories that the Iranians just told the US in advance exactly what they were doing.
The Iranians are not insane warmongers. They are at least semi-rational actors interested in achieving their aims, alongside self-preservation.
But, they really do want to get rid of the state of Israel. They have spent a lot of blood and treasure over decades towards that goal. It’s not an act.
More options
Context Copy link