greyenlightenment
investments: META/FBL, TSLA, TQQQ, TECL, MSFT ...
User ID: 68

Why are these people paid so much for such mediocre jokes and commentary. Random people on twitter have better insights for free. Yeah, I get the economic argument (people tune in to see him deliver the jokes, not a random person), but the occupation of 'late night TV host' has long outlived its usefulness .CBS balking at paying $40 million a year for Colbert is an indication of this.
If such a big figure can fall, who will be next?
These people are surprisingly expendable. Many celebs were axed during Trump's first term. We're not talking Steve Jobs, Elon Musk, or Sam Altman here , where a trillion dollar company hinges on the directive of a single person. Right wing cancel culture, like the doge cuts, is much more methodical , thorough and organized than haphazard like how the left does it . They , the left, forgot the mass cancellations during the 2001-2006 about Iraq, 9/11 and so on, like Bill Maher's 9/11 comment that led to his cancellation. They got too cocky. It's like, "we're cancelling everyone to make up for the past 10 years"
A lot of people cheered on his death or supported the killer, but the tradeoff of LWOP or death penalty to exact political revenge, is a poor one. Hence why the incidence of these situations is very low, and most people do not have a agency to pull it off even if they wanted to.
So let's say .03% willing to take extreme lengths in support of political violence, .3% immediately visibly excited by political violence. As a percentage that's low. It's a really, low, comforting percentage. Except when you see it happen in real life. Then it's not so comforting.
That is why statistics is useful. otherwise there is no way to quantify the risk. Seeing someone win the lottery does not make it more likely you will win. Even if there is a correlation between killings instead of being purely statistically independent events, the odds are still tiny.
but the majority don't stay that way as adults though; they go on to have careers and join the fold of liberal democracy
These two ideologies, western liberal democracy, which the conservatives are still, maybe stupidly, trying to work inside of, and some bastard form of revolutionary marxism, are not two sides fighting over territory. There's no compromise where we meet in the middle. It's winner take all - either we remain a western liberal democracy, or we don't.
Marxism had already infused itself into the Western world by the early 20th century. Anarchism dates even further back. America has long had strains of socialism, communism, anarchim, Marxism in certain respects of academia and labor unions, yet this hasn't stopped 'free market capitalism' and 'liberal democracy' from thriving. The compromise is the far-left remains marginalized despite having some popularity online and campus, as it has been the past 60-100+ years in the US.
A similar pattern is seen around the world. Every country which has elections will have at least one fringe socialist or Marxist party, which never secures many votes or seats but exists nevertheless.
and also wildly gruesome.
This is the key factor. Had he died in a car accident ,it would obviously be different. But OTOH, dancing on the graves is something of an American tradition and maybe even intrinsic to humanity, probably going back to the Revolutionary War. Or when Lincoln was shot, many confederates had the same feeling. https://www.vox.com/2015/4/15/8414239/abraham-lincoln-death
Confederate lawyer Rodney Dorman called the killer “a great public benefactor” and felt relieved at Lincoln’s assassination. (In his diary, he spelled Lincoln’s name “Lincon” to emphasize the “con” he felt Lincoln was.)
In the days following Charlie Kirk's murder, has seen a wave of employers being contacted regarding off-color remarks made by employees on social media about his passing. The debate is, does this constitute cancel culture, but by the right instead of the typical left? Some have argued that it is not the same thing, due to the disparaging comments being immediate, vs old comments dredged up in an attempt to cancel someone. There is a big difference between someone desecrating Charlie Kirk in an overt manner right after his passing, compared to a social media post made 10+ years ago against living targets that could be deemed as racist only under the most uncharitable light.
My take is, contacting an employer with the intent of getting someone fired for something not work-related or fired in the public interest as a 'concerned citizen', by definition, is cancel culture. Sure, one can argue that this is a different degree of cancelation, but it's the same principle. Someone posting a vile comment on his social media celebrating someone's death doesn’t necessarily affect his ability to do his job, like making sandwiches or whatever. Sure, if said individual confessed on social media to spitting in customers' sandwiches or making disparaging remarks about customers, go ahead and get his ass fired to protect the customers if no one else. But this is not like that. Consumers and other employees are not negatively affected by an employee holding a grudge against a dead podcaster.
To turn the tables, imagine if George Soros died and many of those same people wrote "good riddance" on their social media accounts, should this be grounds for cancelation? By the above logic, yes if you want to be morally consistent.
relevant tweet https://x.com/politicalmath/status/1967066826590028174
Economically and in other aspects, there is a lot going well the the US, but I think we will start seeing more assassination attempts. These are different from typical riots or school shootings. Even though the Trump shooter failed, society was still disrupted. Assignations exploit a weak point in society and carry symbolic value with efficacy that other forms of political unrest cannot match.
most conservatives that ostensibly want to tear down the liberal establishment, actually don't want to give up their liberal freedom and personal autonomy.
How far back turning the dial of time does returning to tradition mean? It's like a tradeoff between higher relative status for White males and lower standards of living, vs less status and the fruits of modernity. I think for the former category, there was more freedom compared to today. But also, I think people have a conception or idealization of a past that didn't really exist, when in reality things were pretty disorderly back then. If you read the biographies of artists and writers who grew up in the mid to early 20th century, when America was assumed to be more conservative and religious, a theme is how they were constantly breaking the law and given second chances. it's like these ppl were in and out of detention and skipping school and smoking and drinking in their early teens, and no one cared that much. Nowadays, things are much more strict.
he's like a less intelligent and more liberal and sanitized version of Matt Ygalsias
The problem with crypto is you run into the same problem of having to explain the source of the funds during the fiat conversion process. It adds additional complexity without much benefit, for example, if someone uses stolen crypto to pay for a service.
It always annoys me was 'esteemed' physicists venture into woo. That is a sign they ran out of ideas or are unserious about research and should retire to let the next generation of competent researchers in. This guy way overrated relative to his contributions.
I remember in 2019 when Google/Youtube used similar pretext for demonization, blaming advertisers who didn't wish to be associated with violent or hateful content . At the time it was a big deal , as many channels depended on ad Google ad revenue. That problem suddenly went away, and now I see Google youtube ads on some of the most heinous videos imaginable (execution videos, or a 9/11 jumper landing on a light pole .it didn't end well for him or the pole). The advertisers didn't give a shit and still don't care if their ads are placed next to violent content. Gore aficionados buy stuff, too. Google invented some lame excuse or pretext to demonetize.
that actually makes perfect sense as a deterrent
This is why I withheld judgement and just waited for more info to be released. It's too easy to be swayed by out of context videos and narratives.
Scotland has its own problems, but racialized sexual predation is not at the top of the list.
The thing about this type problem is you don't need many incidents for it be a major problem.
way too soon to know
I think he meant not that he runs for office but that he forces Trump to change his mind as to who to endorse
People keep making the mistake that the "real world" is more important than a small fringe of online crazies, and they keep getting proven wrong over and over and over (e.g. with woke, the alt right, gender identity on Tumblr). The arc of MAGA is long, but it bends towards Based.
It's not though. The online-right has been calling for transparency on Epstein even if it hurts Trump, and opposed the airstrikes on Iran. The offline/mainstream-right do not care much as much about either or supported the strikes. After Trump attacked Iran, his approval rating did not fall.
but Ghibli is a dead giveaway . The concern over fakes is that they are subtly indistinguishable from a real-life event or the original image (e.g. slightly slurring someone's speech to convey inebriation) . Those examples you give are obvious fakes. Those fakes go viral for the novelty factor, not because people are confused or are mislead. Also, those are based off of photos, so there is no artist.
yes it has that shitty Ghibbi style or whatever it is called with the obvious sepia background. it's not even good animation
The video is real , but what was the sequence of events that led to her brandishing those weapons .It's not like people carry axes when they go walking. were they just on the ground lying there or something.
The obvious explanation is that the videos are being heavily promoted. But I don't know if this is the case. It's my understanding that YouTubers generally don't pay for promotions,
I saw it said "promoted" under the sidebar, indicating he's paying for views. The low comment to view ratio is what you would expect for a paid video. . Videos with highly engaged fans will have really high ratios.
I don’t think tariffs are a central Vance belief at all. If you oppose them it would be easier to lobby him personally in 2028 as presumptive Republican nominee than to convince people to oppose any Republican candidate on that basis.
It's possible he personally thinks they are a bad idea, but he has to signal protectionism,, as that is what is popular with voters and necessary to win the primaries. Trump has shown the winning playbook and I cannot see his successor deviating much from it, at least not during the campaign.
Trump frequently changes his mind though. We saw this with tariffs.
A person like Scott Lincicome of CATO truly believes that government taking equity of private enterprise is bad policy, and thus it's easy for him to critique it.
And you see with libertarian Republicans like Ron Paul, Justin Amash and Thomas Massie criticizing the Intel buy
The rise of Trump, who copied the same protectionism of Biden, on top of Obama, has basically revealed the libertarian-adjacent wing of the GOP to be ineffectual. These people forever have been on the losing side, save for Ross Ulbricht pardon. Their publications and think tanks are utterly ignored by anyone of importance. They are screaming into the wind. It has always been that way, but it's like what a waste of money promoting all those libertarian causes. I think this shows that some flexibility is good, and Trump's successes is illustrative of this. Otherwise you just become obsolete and end up wasting money and time.
Competent teachers and coaches through talent and experience are able to identify these levels in their clients/students and will adjust advice accordingly
yeah there is a "you get what you pay for" rule in regard to advice quality
- Prev
- Next
"life without parole" (LWOP)
More options
Context Copy link