faceh
24d ago
We love our floating signifiers, don't we folks?
The inherent issue is that pretty much all national-level politics resembles Fascism at most levels these days.
The larger the Federal Government grows the more influence it has on every aspect of life. The tighter it gets tied in with large private corporations and favors their interests (this is the closer definition of Fascism, if you ask me). The more it does favors for those it prefers and makes life difficult for those that oppose it. And the government is constantly attempting to expand and solidify its own power. So fascism looks a lot like what any 'normal' government does as it expands its own scope of authority.
I think the factors that would make a given party the most "Nazi-like" would be:
- Emphasis of the superiority of some identifiable subgroup of the human population and based on said superiority, insist that said group has an inherent right to rule. This needn't even be race-based, but its easy to default to that.
- The intentional oppression, especially the internment or imprisonment, of dissenting groups solely on the basis of their dissent.
- Extreme Nationalism to the point of paranoia that any adjacent nations are looking to attack them and thus justification of pre-emptive invasion or similar actions. I directly differentiate this from extreme isolationism where they will vigorously defend their borders against incursion, but I admit these lines get fuzzy.
Safe to say there are no real identifiable Nazi-like parties with national sway in the U.S., to me.
faceh
24d ago
Vance in theory has both though I feel like he's speedrun poverty and tech too quickly to be adequately honed by either.
I, too, am curious about Vance. It is possible 4 years in the White House will sharpen him even further.
I personally expect something new and 'interesting' to pop out of the Democratic party, eventually, their best hope is someone that can keep the social justice wing satisfied while also restoring populist appeal, I think, and that's going to take a unique set of traits, similar but not identical to what Obama brought to the table.
They won't be a 'standard' politician and will have a unique background, though, I can predict that.
This jives with my more general model of him:
He's basically a creature acting on instincts evolved over decades in one of the most competitive and cut-throat environments on the planet: New York Real Estate Development.
His long term survival in such an environment is proof positive that he is good at 'what he does.'
This is a refutation of the "4-D Chessmaster" model that nonetheless respects the fact that Trump is like a shark. Senses honed for finding blood in the water, efficiently targeting weakened prey, and killing and consuming them quickly. Every move is simply based on the innate drive for survival. No strategic thinking necessary. Also like a shark, he doesn't tend to maintain alliances very long, he goes off on his own inevitably.
Thus, even if Trump isn't a 'brilliant tactician' he can still perform well enough against a fractured, weakened, and incredulous enemy that tries to model him as a more standard threat.
It worked so well for him for so many years, it did not take much adaptation to bring it into the political arena, and it turns out that politicians themselves were ripe prey, and they simply haven't adapted to this new type of predator.
Eventually something will come along that is either purpose built to beat a Trumpian candidate, or that has honed insticts that effectively counter him, and THAT will be the new apex predator.
FWIW I watched that recent Vince McMahon documentary and I got the exact same sense from him. I also get this sense from Elon Musk, but with a bit more strategic thinking afoot there.
Creatures that have almost no real 'existence' beyond their drive to compete and win at whatever game they've chosen. Their entire persona is in service of that goal at all times. Trying to understand who they 'really' are misses the point.
I've felt this way since 2012, at least. But that's more a reflection of my age than anything.
I am also now convinced that the 1 year+ campaigning season is mostly unneeded, to boot.
Sure looks like we could do things on a truncated timeline.. Start 'election season' in June of the election year. All candidates have about a month to campaign as hard as they can, hold a couple debates in there. Put ALL primaries on the same day in July. Winning candidate has a few weeks to pick a VP. Then, starting August, the winning candidates can make their case for election in earnest for 3 months, which is ample time to get to know them.
So much more efficient, and in the modern era of information technology, I don't think we're losing any value to the average voter.
faceh
27d ago
Yes, the "we're trained experts thing" seems to be the main thrust. Nevermind the abysmal results we can see.
But I don't think they can ever override the fact that a parent is biologically inclined to want the best for their kid. No way to explain why the teachers are somehow willing to advocate nearly as strongly for the interests of a child that isn't theirs than the ones who birthed the child and will spend immense amount of resources raising it.
OBVIOUSLY this doesn't mean parents 'always know best.' I'm just saying that's a presumption that is difficult to rebut without specifically examining their behavior. The odds of the teachers, in aggregate, feeling as strong a loyalty to the kid as the parents do is very low.
faceh
28d ago
Vague theory, this is what they see as the best way to motivate their own people to vote.
The most fear-inducing message they can muster, timed to help maximize turnout.
Not an attack on Trump, a rallying cry for their voters.
faceh
28d ago
I think your model is on point, I'm mostly just considering the point and seeing what seems like a solid 'rebuttal.'
My main point is that progressives are consistently convinced they're in the right at all times, and dismiss any arguments that might disprove that belief. So even after they've been 'proven' wrong, they don't have to admit it. So yeah "we aren't like those old progressives, we're smarter and we won't make the same mistakes" is an argument I can believe they'd make.
Do modern Christians admit the end of witch trials as a defeat?
I think that its clearly taught that way across society? Like, the general consensus is that it was at best a case of social hysteria and at worst a church-sanctioned terror campaign. There are a some well-known novels and plays on this topic.
Indeed, using a clear example of where Progressives 'won' and Conservatives lost, desegregation of schools is a topic I think almost all conservatives will 'accept' defeat on and aren't trying to bring back at any level.
Like, my point is that Progressives 'win' mainly because they do have narrative control, and that narrative control allows them to actually write the widely believed account of history. So when they claim they're on 'the right side of history' or they argue that the conservatives are just trying to stop inevitable progress, what they're really basing that on is "we'll either turn out to be right and will write the story of our victory, or if we're wrong we write it off so you won't get credit for stopping us."
I'd like them to temper their ambition with the knowledge that maybe they could possibly be WRONG about something and every time they 'win' it isn't necessarily going to make things better.
First of all, you have the schools not only promoting, but enabling the trans kids. A kid who goes to a public school will be told that trans people are special, be told to celebrate them, etc. any kid who decides they might be trans will be given access to trans clothing, be allowed to change their name and pronouns, be allowed in cross gender spaces and sports teams, etc. the kids around them will be told how awesome they are, and be forced to acknowledge the new them. Parents are told none of this.
That last bit is what really got me to break my cautious neutrality on this issue. It is absolutely bad enough what Public schools do to kids normally but if they are allowed to press political ideals into their brains and work to influence their actual psychological development without parents involved, it looks extremely dystopic. "The state will shepherd your kid through the psychological turmoil of puberty without your involvement" is a bone-chilling statement.
If I were a parent (I am not) I would insist that it is NONNEGOTIABLE that I be informed of any medical or psychological issues my child exhibits. I would flip tables if the teachers were allowed to actively engage with my kids regarding their sexuality without me being in the loop, full stop.
The argument against 'parental notice' as the standard is simply too weak. "What if the child is hiding their identity because of abuse/risk of abuse at home?" Then figure that out and call fucking Child Protective Services. I am going with the assumption that the parent is inherently more invested in the child's wellbeing than a teacher. Many teachers don't even have kids of their own, why in the hell would they be expected to want and know exactly what is best for others' children?
And as we've seen, the inevitable ratchet on this process is that it will eventually gets defined as child abuse to deny a child's gender identity. In that scenario we now have a situation where a teacher can 'induce' the very condition that can then be used to take the child from their parents. The teacher convinces the child to express a trans identity, and if the parent finds out and is skeptical, teacher gets to report the abuse too.
Sorry, bridge too far for me, I don't care what other justifications you can contrive for it, even if you argue that its such a rare situation I shouldn't worry, the consequences are far too grave for me to ignore.
Now, I live in Florida, and since Desantis took some pre-emptive steps to prevent these sorts of outcomes, I'm not too worried about it happening to me. But yeah, the GOP managed a propaganda coup by centering this issue and more or less forcing the Progressives to defend it and, as it seems, retreat from it a bit.
Wouldn't the obvious stance be "we aren't the progressives of the past?"
My rejoinder would be "you are making the same mistakes they did."
One problem is that when Progressives win they write the history to make it seem that the victory was inevitable. When they lose it just gets quietly ignored, and conservatives likewise get no credit for holding the line against them for the greater good.
Has anyone else noticed a clear "vibe shift" on trans issues recently?
I think Trans issues have been the 'high water mark' for Social Justice, and the tide may not be receding but people are not going to let this particular dam actually break. It feels like we're in a 'bargaining' stage where we are trying figure out how to slot Trans people into society in a way that doesn't reject their existence but also doesn't sacrifice, e.g. women's sports, childrens' puberty, and Religious freedom in the process.
JK Rowling probably deserves some sort of credit for giving otherwise progressive women a rallying point on this matter that doesn't require directly cooperating with the right.
Is it going to go all the way? Will trans issues be seen as the weird 2010s, early 2020s political project that had ardent supporters, but eventually withered away and died like the desegregation bussing movement?
I've made this point before. There was a time when State-Enforced eugenics was a progressive policy goal. (that thread was on the same topic as this one, funny enough)
THAT got completely abandoned. Alcohol Prohibition was also a progressive goal too (crossover with evangelicals, though). I bet the 'healthy at any size' movement goes the same way now that Ozempic is making it much easier to not be obese.
When progressives fail in their goals, they don't admit defeat. They write it off, avoid mentioning it again and may even pretend it was never their idea... unless they hold onto it and try to bring it up again later on. When they win, they just write the history to make it seem inevitable.
So to me, the question becomes, if they 'lose' now, will they try again in 10 years? Or is this project be utterly abandoned.
faceh
29d ago
Was going to say, if you start specializing your kids in something that early you better hope that something does not become obsolete or is economically unrewarding when it comes time to cash in on that skill 15-20 years later.
Seems like you could instead teach a range of possible complementary skills and teach them to find their own particular niche based on these skills and their interests and preferences.
faceh
1mo ago
Meanwhile, McDonald's corporate HQ sent what I think is a very good memo to franchisees explaining the value of their goal of political inclusivity and how that manifests as allowing visits from anyone who asks and being proud of being important to American culture.
This was actually my biggest takeaway.
I had thought that the art of using Corpo-speak to avoid political landmines without being tone-deaf was lost. But somebody managed to produce a memo that carries the subtle implication "We just make food and people give us money for it, don't read anything more into it that that" without taking a side or being dismissive.
I want more of that. Just do what your company is good at. Make money, don't throw jabs along ideological lines or invite political/culture wars in.
As for the stunt itself. The reason Trump 'gets away' with this stuff is he is just that guy. I think with most politicians, we're all aware that they have a mask that they put on to perform when campaigning. That mask drops in private, and they can be nasty people with few redeeming qualities.
Trump doesn't have that Kayfabe. He is himself. If anything, he's just more Trumpy in private (or so leaked audio suggests). So there's a level of earnestness that makes this appearance less of a clearly artificial performance, although it undoubtedly is artificial. Dude actually seems pleased to be out slinging fries, rather than just getting it over with to pull a few extra votes.
For a standard politician to achieve sincerity doing this, they'd have to drop the mask. Which might be a really bad move. Trump just doesn't have a mask.
...
I actually cannot. Most of the functions it could serve are best handled at the state level anyway.
The university 'systems' were functioning well for decades before DoE was even created.
There don't seem to be any collective action problems or market failures that it exists to solve.
Maybe it could be the department in charge of gathering and publishing various metrics on a national level, but that could be spun off to some other agency. Likewise I'd say it could be in charge of testing student aptitude, but the SAT existed for 50 years before DoE was created.
I'm at a loss. I despise agencies like the ATF and the FDA more than the DoE, but I can manage to justify the existence of those on some tangible grounds.
faceh
1mo ago
Here's a genuine thought I had about a tactic that is probably illegal but might not have been tried yet:
What is somebody 'gifted' $100 worth of Trump "yes" shares to friends and family who might be on the fence (and residing in swing states), with absolutely ZERO strings attached... but the shares do not vest/aren't directly accessible until after the election (so they can't just sell them and turn right around and buy Harris). You give them no instructions, make no requests, and in fact refuse to state who you support/are voting for if pressed. So while the implication of what you're doing is clear, and they can probably figure out the incentives, you have made no statements which would implicate intentions to buy votes to bring about a particular political outcome.
The chances of getting arrested for trying this must be near 100%. And the strat is easily countered if some other party distributes an equivalent value of Harris shares. But I am genuinely curious if there is some way to structure things to make it financially profitable for an otherwise 'undecided' swing state voter to acquire shares for each candidate and trade them using solely the knowledge that their own vote will have some real chance of impacting the outcome.
Also:
Is it theoretically possible for a prediction market to generate a real life preference cascade in favor of a given candidate? It seems like it could happen as people realize the money is beginning to heavily favor one over the other, and they, too, can turn a profit if they buy in and vote for the apparently-dominant candidate.
If anyone's trying market manipulation, that would be a possible goal... but I don't think prediction markets are relevant enough to have that kind of impact... yet.
Can't wait until the 2026 elections when candidates will have financial analysts on staff to interpret market swings and respond instantly to shifts in their own chances of victory. Pleasing the market will suddenly become more important that merely polling well.
Also can't wait until the first time a candidate gets assassinated solely because someone has a HUGE bet riding on them losing an election.
I will say that a Trump win sitting at 60-66% chances FEELS right to me.
I keep saying that Kamala can't maintain popularity without the media pulling all the weight for her. She is, personally, very unimpressive and can come across as straight up insincere at best, and utterly out of her depth at worst. Bad product, good marketing. But the marketing is starting to crack, indeed some journos seem to be breaking ranks a bit (not in the tank for Trump, mind). The more she does off-script appearances the worse impression she gives off.
I genuinely think she might have had a better chance doing Biden's 2020 strat of hiding in basement most of the time.
So in short, she's got the die-hard Dem base + the anti-Trump brigade on lock, but I think she utterly lacks cross-demographic appeal AND has been boxed in by the dueling demands of demographics they DO have support from, such that any attempts to outreach sincerely to outgroups will be interpreted as defection.
I also expect the markets to narrow in a bit as we come closer to the election and people decide to close out their positions at a marginal profit rather than actually take the dice roll. If somebody bought a bunch of Trump shares at ~45-50% and can sell them for 55-60% that's a decent profit for a short period trade.
If anybody rolls into election night holding substantial Trump Win shares they bought back in late July or even August, I will commend them for having tremendous balls and/or diamond hands.
faceh
1mo ago
Silver is tentatively on my very short "Good Pundits" list in that he seems to honestly eschew bias in his prognostications and is completely willing to tell his own side when they are being utterly stupid.
His willingness to throw down bets on his own arguments is also promising.
faceh
1mo ago
Kalshi currently has 'legal' Election markets available to only U.S. citizens.
Scare quotes are because the case itself is still pending but the courts aren't preventing them from running the markets in the meantime.
If you want to participate in Polymarket specifically, that's just a matter of understanding a few of the technicalities of Crypto.
faceh
1mo ago
I mean, what makes me say I'm introverted is my strong, strong preference to just hang out with people I know. It took me a lot of work to get to the point where I could just go out and socialize with people I don't have a pre-existing connection with. There's no level on which it comes 'natural' to me and thus it feels very effortful. In the past this might have been attributable to social anxiety but nowadays even in social settings where I feel comfortable I don't feel much urge to engage with strangers much.
Indeed, it often feels like I have to just view it all as a 'networking opportunity' where I might offchance meet somebody who has a useful skill or career who I can loop in with some other person I happen to know in hopes of leading to some mutual gain or maybe some business being returned down the road.
In short, I know that being TOO introverted is an impediment to one's career advancement and social standing, so I can force myself to do it, but I do not enjoy it for its own sake.
faceh
1mo ago
Maybe, but have you ever met any actual people who would meet those definitions?
I mean, me, I'm an introvert. I have like a dozen or so 'close' friends that I keep in consistent contact with. I can expend extra effort to connect with new people but rarely see the need.
Meanwhile, I know some people who can enter any social situation and instantly ingratiate themselves to most other guests, even if they've never met. But they only ever spend like one hour at a given party because they've got other obligations, other people to meet, dontcha know.
So you rarely ever 'get to know' those sorts because they're only there as long as they're there, they don't put much effort into followup.
I think of intelligence like I think of processing power in a computer. Now below a certain level, if you don’t have enough, it’s going to be nearly impossible to do anything useful.
The reason I can't quite use this analogy is that even if you have a slow computer, as long as it is Turing-Complete, it CAN complete any given task you put before it, even if it takes literal centuries.
So being faster or slower to complete tasks is not quite the same as being able to handle more complex tasks. I sincerely believe there are problems that 150+ IQs can handle that are utterly beyond a 100 IQer, even if you gave the 100 specific, detailed instructions on how to complete it and gave them years to work on it without interference. MAYBE if you stuck a team of cooperative 100s who are at least capable of delegating tasks and getting along.
So there's other bottlenecks. "Working Memory" is probably the big one. I think extremely high IQ people are also defined by being able to fit a LOT more information in their working memory and thus can can bring all those mental resources to bear at once, rather than having to painstakingly write everything out and do each individual mental calculation one at a time.
So perhaps add in RAM to the equation. If you can't fit the majority of the problem in your head, at least big enough chunks of it to make progress, then you'll find yourself unable to ever solve it.
Side note, this is often how I feel most constrained when faced with complex problems. I can't actually 'visualize' the problem in my head because trying to load all the details in ends up pushing some parts out, and I can compensate by writing out bits of info, but this always slows me down substantially.
faceh
1mo ago
I'll add the caveat that the selection of serial killers who have been caught might not reflect the entire population of serial killers. The smarter ones might have avoided detection entirely.
But I picked Dahmer because his whole thing was he was particularly intelligent and completely sociopathic and depraved... so we do NOT want more of them running around if we start selecting for more intelligence.
This topic is cursed, so I'll keep my thoughts brief.
From an evolutionary biology standpoint:
Some meaningful percentage of humans in the early history of the species were the product of coerced sex.
Males being naturally stronger than females is the reason it would normally be males doing the coercing.
Females who aggressively fought back against coerced sex were more likely to be injured or die by said males.
Thus, females who fought back would not be passing genes on to the next generation quite as often.
Likewise, females who 'accepted' coerced sex and adapted to bear and raise any resulting child were more likely to pass on their genes.
After 1000 generations, the genes of women who accepted it would be more prevalent than those who resisted.
The inverse is probably true for males. Weaker males who didn't/couldn't coerce sex probably lost out overall.
So we would expect there to be some innate tendency for some women to find coerced sex 'appealing'. Call it a survival mechanism if you want. Being forced into an act but at least being able to 'enjoy' it means you don't get killed in the process.
Then tie that into the need to filter partners for 'Fitness' (as defined by prehistorical norms), and a male being strong enough to overpower and take a woman without her cooperation is an imperfect but not entirely incorrect proxy for a male who can produce and protect strong offspring.
So a complex set of factors and the way intersexual dynamics work would make it not too surprising that women and men would have some kind of urge to engage in 'coerced' sex acts because that's a way to signal one's fitness as a mate on a very primal level. How strongly one experiences this urge, especially compared to other competing urges probably varies a lot. So even if I believe the urge/desire is common, it doesn't mean everyone actually experiences it as an overpowering desire.
More options
Context Copy link