drmanhattan16
No bio...
User ID: 640
drmanhattan16
9mo ago
Perhaps this is the Leviathan-shaped hole in the discourse rearing it's ugly head again, but "negotiations over policy" (or rather who gets to set that policy) is exactly what an election is, is it not?
No, my point is that you and anyone else who takes this viewpoint is essentially claiming that you don't care about proof over whether the election was stolen in the first place. You just want a guarantee that your policies are enacted.
Suppose the Democrats were to offer a guarantee that they'd quash any attempt at enacting laws which would shift the government's stance to be more socially progressive in exchange for Republicans (including the MAGA ones) never bringing up the 2020 election again, and that this would hold for the next 10 years. God himself comes down and says they're not lying about what they'll do. In this scenario, I would expect people complaining about the election losers to largely come down against this deal on principle. Instead, I suspect the losers would actually, seriously debate if they should accept.
drmanhattan16
9mo ago
I agree. But if you want to go down the route of saying the losers are refusing to be rational because that would cost them energy and momentum vs. the winners who don't, then just say that.
drmanhattan16
9mo ago
How far back does this trend of "marriage -> more right-wing" go for women? A century? Two centuries?
drmanhattan16
9mo ago
That means you don't really even want elections, right? You just want negotiations over policy. Because if the losers, as I suspect, are a bit more motivated by losing than they claim to be, then no amount of proof would work because they don't care about proof in the first place.
drmanhattan16
9mo ago
If the claim in court, where you do need to be very specific, was that people weren't allowed in, but they were and just kept far away, then the claim should reflect that, right?
drmanhattan16
9mo ago
If you want a peaceful transition of power, you need to be able to convince the losers that they lost fairly and that they have more to gain by continuing to work within the system than they have to lose by checking out of it or blowing it up.
Is there a responsibility, in your view, for the losers to examine if their real objection might not be principled, but literally over just losing?
drmanhattan16
9mo ago
A lot has been written on how marriage and long term relationships, at least in the Anglo-saxon contest, move women right from the left.
I must have missed these discussions, because I've never seen this as far as I recall. How does this argument work?
If this happen, the consequence is that people following the rightists moral framework will never find refuge in mainstream family-making society
No, that's not necessarily the case. More left-wing women getting married and having children doesn't have an obvious bearing on whether right-wing women are doing the same.
Also, while I am familiar with the argument that gay marriage harmed the institution of marriage, I have never heard anyone argue that this marriage institution ever required holding right-wing social views on things unrelated to it. What prevents a right-wing woman from thinking Palestinians don't deserve what Israel does to them?
drmanhattan16
9mo ago
From your report's summary:
There was no evidence of widespread voter fraud. In all likelihood, more eligible voters cast ballots for Joe Biden than Donald Trump. We found little direct evidence of fraud, and for the most part, an analysis of the results and voting patterns does not give rise to an inference of fraud.
Seems like this is the key takeaway for anyone.
Is your ultimate point that elections have security issues, or that the 2020 election was actually stolen from Trump? People who want to argue the first are free to do so, I'm open to the idea that we can tighten election security, especially for state and local elections (where more serious claims appear to be made).
drmanhattan16
9mo ago
Wait, who is the secondary? My understanding is that the polycule was a thing of the past.
drmanhattan16
9mo ago
It is also the case that Scott is a rich man with a literal harem.
How does he have a literal harem? As far as I recall, he was in a polycule with Ozy and one other person. Is there some more information about his relationships I'm not aware of?
drmanhattan16
9mo ago
But doing the opposite of a bad thing, doesn't make that a good thing. The liberals say you must interact and be friends with these people, but the conservatives/nationalists say you must not interact or be with these people. I chafe at both rules, or the single rule of "I get to decide your friends". Since we cannot have unlimited friendships, and we don't have unlimited options, the rules are two sides of the same coin.
I don't think that's the liberal position. Arguing that one ought to be friends with people of a different race/sex/gender/etc. is the progressive position.
drmanhattan16
9mo ago
Obviously morally unacceptable. There are arguments for doing it, but they are dwarfed by the power of the arguments against bombing population centers without some kind of impending mass disaster. As far as I know, there was never a time where the danger posed by more selective bombing (or just not bombing) was so immediate and high that it could justify destroying entire cities.
drmanhattan16
9mo ago
I am fine with the idea that Christianity doesn't require its adherents to be pacifist. Nor do I oppose the idea of collateral damage, though there are substantial requirements, in my view, on who is allowed to claim the victims of their attacks qualify.
Tangentially, I also do not agree that the examples you gave constitute something morally acceptable.
drmanhattan16
9mo ago
Just so I can understand, if Christians were burn down a city, you'd say they had a moral requirement to do so from a place of sorrow and concern, not hatred?
drmanhattan16
9mo ago
it's in the air, thanks to a decades long process of conservative retreat from the institutions making room for the Left.
Is this what you meant by "Long March through the Institutions?" I have never heard that phrase be used to describe conservative retreat over leftist entryism.
drmanhattan16
9mo ago
Huh, why? I mean, I think a case can be made that a lot of these progressive ideas are Marx-derived, but I don't see why the idea of the long march through institutions requires that the effort be explicitly Marxist.
The original phrase was coined by a socialist and is often used by people who do think the Marchers are all Marxists. We have neutral words, like entryism, and it's possible that the OP meant something neutral, but I'm on a platform where I don't think people are so obviously using it as a perfect substitute for entryism.
I'd similarly like to see proof of it being organic. I see no reason to grant it null hypothesis status.
I'm totally fine shrugging my shoulders and saying I don't have proof of that, because I'm not going to do a deep dive into the NFL and its politics. But then we're left with the position of simply not knowing one way or the other.
By 2021 the March was over and done with.
I was indicating what incidents I could find that matched the description. I don't know what the OP was necessarily referring to sought to indicate what seemed likely. But even granting your point about Atheism+ and all that, why should I assume the NFL was subject to the same thing? Atheism+ was about the split between people who would go on to be SJWs and the Skeptics/Anti-SJWs.
If the NFL made helmets saying "all lives matter" do you think blue tribe would just shrug, because they don't support grooming? There's an infinite number of messages you could be putting out that "should" get positive attention without alienating anyone, but only blue-coded ones ever get put out.
Whether the blue tribe would shrug isn't the point. We're asking about the intention behind the slogans and rhetoric being deployed, not whether one tribe would or wouldn't react.
Moreover, one issue with this line of analysis is the asymmetry in what ideas are part of the status quo or not. The idea of non-whites facing systemic discrimination isn't in the water, it is the water. Why this matters is that people who don't have an axe to grind against the status quo on this point don't, in my view, engage with politics the same way as those who do. Put simply, as long as blue-coded messages are the water and red-coded ones aren't, you cannot point to the disparity in promotion and claim a conspiracy because people don't need a conspiracy to "support" the water.
drmanhattan16
9mo ago
But it’s also the fruit of the Long March Through the Institutions.
I know nothing about the NFL and its cultural context. That said, this phrase is typically meant to imply that there was some kind of anti-democratic, inorganic effort by leftists (meaning Marxist, not just progressive or necessarily radical) to take over the NFL. I would like to see some proof of this sort of thing. A cursory search of the issue with the helmets and endzones saying "stop racism" or other anti-racist slogans suggests this happened in 2021. You don't need much "Long Marching" to make an institution think that it might get them some positive attention if they were to do this while not alienating enough people who would disagree.
drmanhattan16
9mo ago
I don't think I ever said it was a review of the book. I summarized and paraphrased from it to focus on the big picture while retaining the elements which would be understandable and of interest to any casual readers. I greatly encourage anyone to read the book if they have time, there's more in-depth coverage regarding the doomed efforts to save Kido Butai and technical details of Japanese planes as well.
Secondly, while I agree that basing so much off of only one source is suspect, I don't think that suspicion is validated when it comes to Shattered Sword. The authors worked with other historians recognized for writing excellent books on related topics, such as Mark Peattie and John Lundstrom. They also spoke with Japanese counterparts to get their side of the history. Not to mention that the citation list is available for anyone to pick apart if they wish, but even looking at that would reveal that they're relying on works which are considered accurate and worth reading even today.
drmanhattan16
9mo ago
I also personally think that men are more loyal, generous and less cruel then women in certain circumstances, but it is extremely hard to find any papers that would paint men in better light then women.
What convinced you that the issue was the papers were being suppressed instead of a lack of evidence for your belief?
drmanhattan16
9mo ago
I want to eventually get some grasp on feminism as a whole. While I can find pro-feminist writings and arguments easily, I find myself unable to find anti-feminist arguments of a suitable quality.
Therefore, I'm asking for recommendations on anti-feminist arguments, books, etc. Ideally, these should be as evidenced, charitable, nuanced, etc. as one would expect from the older SlateStarCodex posts. They don't have to be perfect, but I'm going to be less engaged with someone trying to tell me the feminists are all stupid or evil or some combination of the two.
drmanhattan16
9mo ago
Is there something wrong with this? I mean I doubt the person who said it is some kind of doctrinaire Marxist criticizing profit(or at least, I doubt that they're criticizing Home Depot for profit), so they're criticizing construction as something inherently bad.
I think the argument the argument very much is about the profit part. Fleshed out, the argument is that profiting from an action incentivizes you to convince others to want that action. For example, for-profit prison systems would advocate for sending more prisoners their way.
drmanhattan16
10mo ago
Whenever the mainstream US news covers the humanitarian disaster in Gaza (and the suffering is absolutely horrendous), the underlying subtext I get is "Israel should stop assaulting Gaza". But there's another path that would also end the humanitarian disaster, and that's the unconditional surrender of Hamas.
They probably would argue that Israel has obligations to support humanitarian aid into the area, both legally (international law) and morally, as the formal state with a much stronger military and large amounts of US backing. It's worth noting that this was exactly what deBoer's position was (is?), and he's hardly as bad-faith as some actors.
drmanhattan16
11mo ago
Would you prefer to be dominated by Russia or DC?
drmanhattan16
11mo ago
What does Russia have to offer in return? Dominance by Moscow?
Say what you will about globohomo, you're probably gonna have a fatter wallet by joining it over not.
Why would it be better? It's a flat-out rejection of the idea that the truth should inform action. I have no problem with litigation over the facts of the 2020 election, but the frustrating part is that the election truthers don't ever give me confidence that they care about the truth for its own sake, but more because they think it's impossible Trump could have lost in the first place.
More options
Context Copy link