Well my personal take is that "MAGA" as such dies with Trump. Doesn't mean he takes the entire right-wing edifice with him.
I'm far more interested in what comes after Trump, given how disruptive he was to prior alliances.
I suspect JD Vance is a hint of what we'll be seeing later on.
if the Democrats hadn't chosen an invalid and then an incompetent to be their standard bearers.
Realize how much of that was almost inevitable given the ideological demands the Dem base now makes. Think about why Kamala didn't pick Shapiro despite desperately NEEDING to win PA. Think about why the Dems can't do effective outreach to male voters or even acknowledge that male voters have their own independent set of concerns.
Can the Dems even run a standard, electable candidate without ticking off a large part of that base and triggering infighting anymore? Do they have candidates that can clear the primaries (a significant portion of the Dem electorate backed Bernie Sanders twice) and then be dominant in the general these days?
If it 'died' it is in large part because it wasn't fit for the new environment and DEFINITELY wasn't fit to battle its major competitor.
I'd view this as more of an adaptation than anything else.
faceh
24d ago
Right, it would make more sense for rationalists to offer advice on how to pick a good school board candidate or a good city councilman or a good dog-catcher, for races where the reader has a tangible impact on the outcome.
Literally, offering any endorsement at all on a presidential race seems reads like you believe you're influential enough to make a difference, which could be just a tad... delusional? Narcissistic? I get why Newspaper editorial boards would do it, but not every single personality need voice their opinion on this.
Will you have more impact on the vote than Taylor Swift? If not, then why exactly are you spending this effort?
faceh
24d ago
I would occasionally remind people that Nancy Pelosi was actively encouraging people to go out in public in large groups in those very early stages.
It might be arguable that the Pandemic wouldn't have gotten so aggressively politicized (that was the biggest disappointment, to me) sans Trump but I don't think there's much argument over who was doing the politicizing.
faceh
24d ago
On the other hand,being a non-voter should also provide strong evidence about the behavior of you and those like you in ways that influence those in power to adjust behavior.
If, say, only 10% of the eligible population voted in a major election, sure the voters 'decided' the actual outcome, but you think that those in power might take note of the fact that a lot of people purposefully abstained? That might be the strongest message of all!
In the absence of a 'none of the above' option... it could be the case that by deciding NOT to vote, you resolve reality in a way that aligns with your incentives.
Man, I'm going to be a good rationalist and "notice I am confused" about rationalists who choose to actively endorse voting at all as a means of affecting positive changes, given the candidates we have on offer.
I do not get how somebody could watch the events that unfolded from early 2020 to now and ultimately decide that picking the status quo candidate is a 'rational' path forward, without it being a purely ideological choice of which 'team' you think you're a member of.
I can see how risk aversion would drive one away from Trump, as he presents many unknowns, mostly in terms of who he'd bring into positions of power. Yet, during his term we DIDN'T have tensions with other countries escalating into armed conflict. We DIDN'T have mass persecution of minorities or prosecution of political opponents. We had riots over racial issues, that much MUST be admitted... but they were centered almost entirely in Democrat-controlled cities and Democrat-run states! The Dem's VP Candidate was governor of the state where that all kicked off, the literal epicenter! What are they signalling with that choice??
I won't belabor the point around pandemic response, but there is simply no reason to believe that the Dems would have done categorically better than Trump, and some reason to believe they'd be worse.
And with the 'status quo' candidates, we've had blowups all over the place, and it sure feels like they're not interested in putting a lid on it, and it also looks like we're less able to for like 100 reasons. And it sure DOES feel like they're trying to put a lid on U.S. technological progress, instead.
I'm not trying to even be convincing with the above, just explaining why my 'rational' analysis is that Trump is simply not 'the problem' with the system. He's probably not 'the solution' either. The case that he is worse than the status quo simply falls flat to me, anything horrible you might expect him to do he either didn't do during his first term, or the current admin is already doing said horrible thing. We are tangibly closer to something resembling 'World War III" now than at any point back when some kept expecting Trump to cause it.
And perhaps worst, if you actively endorse Kamala, you're signalling loud and clear that its completely fine for the powers that be to lie about the mental state of a sitting president or other candidate, to abruptly pull him out of the race and swap him for a different, unpopular candidate without any input from the voters, and prop them up against any objections as to their fitness. Oligarchy just picking who they want to lead, and if they win, it was rewarded.
So guess what, you can fully expect them to do it again. How in the hell do you justify that as an outcome?
And it Trump is really, truly so horrible as you keep insisting, that he is so beyond the pale that rational folks must oppose him, and he wins again, consider why the status quo is so horribly unpopular and Trump's arguments are sufficiently convincing that he can beat them in an election despite them holding virtually all the cards and bringing every single underhanded tool and pulling out every single stop to try and suppress his popularity.
It'd be an indictment of the status quo all by itself. A ruling party not competent enough to beat Donald Trump (while staying mostly within the rules and norms of the game, assassination should be off the table!) is probably not one we should be endorsing to continue leading us. REMEMBER, the status quo we had before Trump is what led to Trump getting elected in the fucking first place!
Yep. Still confused.
faceh
27d ago
I mean, if a woman is strong enough to fight back and escape a man, that's either an abnormally strong woman or an abnormally weak man.
So I should perhaps phrased it as those who effectively fought back versus merely offered impotent token resistance.
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.
faceh
27d 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
27d 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
30d 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
30d 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
1mo 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
1mo 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.
Eh. Find a website that matches me with someone in my state who is voting the exact opposite slate that I am so we can both stay home rather than wasting time on a vote that would just cancel each other out.
More options
Context Copy link