iprayiam3
1d ago
I get that mores change and republicans have abandoned even the pretense of moral majority, but like 17 year old prostitution is not suprisingly scandalous. It’s not some made up woke shit. It’s what the whole Epstein island implication was… yesterday.
If one personally doesn’t find this scandalous, ok. But the performative surprise that others might is disingenuous
iprayiam3
10d ago
Tulsi is not particularly MAGA. Her warm reception is mostly just about owning the libs or more charitably the tendency of conservatives to welcome agreement wherever it’s found. It’s the same way Bill Maher is praised by the right whenever he’s slightly critical of the far left.
Meanwhile Tulsi is not particularly establishment GOP. She’s a non woke democrat.
A tulsi presidential bid from the left would mean the left was moderating on progressivism. From the right it just means the right continues to move left.
iprayiam3
18d ago
Maybe wokism gets worse. It's definately a possibility. But I am not convinced. The woke policies under Biden never really moderated. They just leaned on the messaging less hard. I don't see any reason to believe they wouldn't have ramped right back up once they secured a victory. Just like Biden running on a 'moderate' veneer.
At the end of the day, Kamala was the final boss of woke ideology - an unaccomplished diversity hire who rose to the the highest level possible, unelected, annointed all through intersectionality, surrounded by true believers. Her winning would have been a confirmation of everything woke, not a repudiation.
iprayiam3
19d ago
iprayiam3
19d ago
He has somewhat Trumpish views, especially on vaxines and covid.
Trump is quite pro-vaccine. He still touts Operation Warpspeed.
iprayiam3
19d ago
Absolutely. It’s the safest endorsement ever made. He put absolutely nothing on the line with this one
iprayiam3
27d ago
Is that the real argument, that trump will bring ethnic purges? And is this just extrapolated out of his border views?
iprayiam3
27d ago
Is Trump supposed to be antisemitic? Who's making that claim and based on what?
iprayiam3
27d ago
I don't want to be uncharitable, and I admit I didn't look hard, but superficially, yes that is the only justification for the comparison I saw. It felt very "Hitler also ate toast!" to me.
iprayiam3
27d ago
But as I said in my other comment, I (perhaps wrongly) don't think of Hitler's defining characteristic as having been a fascist dictator, but has having been a fascist dictator who started WWII and the Holocaust. If the Hitler comparison is just a fascist dictator claim with only a ... following it, I think that's disingenuous.
I'm not defending fascism. But if the argument isn't that he'll use fascism to commit specific atrocities comparable to Hitler's, but only that fascism is the atrocious end in itself, the specific Hitler comparison feels weak to me. There have been other fascists and dictators in history too.
iprayiam3
27d ago
OK that's all very fair. I guess what confuses me (or I understand now) is that Hitler accusation mostly just equals fascist accusation?
Like it seems to me, as a historically ignorant normie, that there have been lot's of fascists and dictators in history and active in the world today. When I think Hitler, sure, it's bad that he was a dictator, but his two biggest sins seem to be WWII and the Holocaust. A lot of what's notably bad about him being a fascist dictator vs. one of lot's of dictators in history is his usage of his fascist dictatation to commit those two sins.
So is the implication that Trump is Hitler tied to the idea that he will do things like the Holocaust and WWII, or just object level being a fascist dictator and Hitler was one also. Because I feel like the former is disingenuous.
So much of the rhetoric right now is that Trump's rally in MSG was or was like a Nazi rally. Only looking superficially at social media, I am not seeing a thesis or high level argument except plain assertion and vague comparison that the Nazi's also held rallies. I don't think it's controversial to say that part of the recent messaging is a renewed "Trump is a Nazi" message, partly sparked by a controversal claim that Trump supposedly said he wanted generals like Hitler had or that he admired them or something.
Campaign rhetoric? sure. But clearly some people really believe Trump is a Nazi? Can somebody help me understand the claim? Not necessarily the veracity, but what the substantative argument is. I am not a Trump fan, nor do I buy into the hype around him, so I'm not here to defend him. Neither am I particularly a student of history. My understanding of WWII is general. I am on the fence about voting Trump. Yet, as a non-TDS sufferer, I really do not understand what the Trump is a Nazi claim is trying to convince me of. Can anyone lay out the argument and why Trump is Hitler sufficiently captures a real claim about the dangers of his presidency. (Again not looking for veracity, I'm trying to understand what the claim means.)
I will start by shooting some low hanging fruit of my low-information confusion.
- Trump is clearly not a 'literal' member of the Nazi party.
- It does not seem like Trump wants to invade or conquer European neighbors.
- Trump does not seem to hate Jews.
- If the claim boils down to white supremacy, why is the better comparison not with America's own racist history (in other words, I would grok what a 'Trump is KKK' argument was getting at better here.)
- Was Hitler particularly and uniquely motivated by closing a broken border?
- Is the argument that any mass deportation rounds up to Holocost level evil?
- Am I supposed to understand it as 'Hitler' is just secular for 'the devil' and it simply means 'Trump is Evil' without any more substantative depth intended than if someone called Obama 'the devil'?
iprayiam3
27d ago
As someone who’s not particularly plugged into a tariff perspective either way, I will summarize what I took away from Trumps perspective on Rogan when talking about chips.
There are certain products we want more made of in America like chips and cars. Today we incentivize it with carrots and end up giving ridiculous subsidies to already rich companies, which further ruins organic domestic competition by picking winners and losers upfront. And it ends up not working to boot because it remains cheaper to produce overseas. So the companies do the minimum to get their subsidies or pull out halfway in leading to tremendous gov waste with little gain.
Since we’ve already agreed we want to market distort these products (I.e incentivize domestic production) tariffs apply a stick instead, making it more expensive to produce overseas to begin with. Thus the government doesn’t have to spend money, it in fact makes money during the transition, it doesn’t have to pick winners (all domestic producers can compete fairly), and it’s harder to cheat.
The other thing Trump mentioned was that this play can work because America is in a negotiating place of power, still very rich, but our advantage won’t last forever and a harsh tariff policy isn’t as effective if you can’t negotiate as well.
Without being able to judge the economic principles of all this, it sounds quite sensical to me, and to get a midwit like myself to disagree, I’ll need more from the other side than ‘experts disagree followed by theoretical jargon’.
iprayiam3
28d ago
This is the key thing. There’s no way to reconcile the presentation on here with any mainstream narratives about him unless he’s also the world’s greatest and most restrained actor as well.
Trumps not hitler. Trumps not a wannabe dictator (sorry @Amadan). Trumps not senile. Trumps not a dimwitted lazy slob whose world view comes from watching cable news all day. Trumps not a paper thin egotist who doesn’t really like America or hold policy positions. Trumps not a phony fake executive who can’t actually think business.
But also Trumps not a genius. Trumps not a conservative. Trumps not a particularly visionary thinker or populist leader.
iprayiam3
28d ago
Whether you liked the story or not (I did not). It was the most rambly part of the interview. It was the only part where Joe got impatient. After this the conversation settled down quite a bit
iprayiam3
28d ago
I’m not Trump fan, or a Rogan guy. I thought the first twenty minutes were pretty tedious. But it gets much much better. It is actually quite enjoyable and insightful. I am saying this as a guy who has only ever sat through 1 other full Rogan show and never listened to a trump speech I. Full outside of a debate.
He does very well, his style works well in this format and once you settle into his ideoayncracies he’s still long winded , but it is very clear that he stays on topic in a particular way. He answers a lot of important questions that reveal his way of thinking. And there’s also a lot of fluff.
My favorite part was trump not really being interested in Joes alien obsession.
iprayiam3
29d ago
The thing about the way trump talks is that, in addition to talking about what he wants to, he opens a lot of nested parentheticals within a thought. When he has room in long form like this, he will usually close most of the parentheticals back up to the main point eventually.
I still think this is frustrating and tedious, and his parentheticals are usually just free association, rather than in service to the thesis.
But it’s clearly not word salad or mental incompetence.
It’s very very far from Kamala’s inability to put together a coherent point of view on the spot
iprayiam3
30d ago
Sorry I was unclear. It was an either question between the two, not whether you'd prefer either two to the current slate. But still, you've kind of answered what I was trying to get out. You go through such a long rant about how uniquely bad these two candidates are; but the next two most likely are 'maybe very slightly' better?
iprayiam3
30d ago
Would you have been happier with Desantis against Kalama, or Trump against Newsom?
iprayiam3
1mo ago
The argument that the copyright issue is nonsense is that in almost no other circumstances,
But this is the core of my objection to the objection. LLMs are a novel paradigm and the expectation that previous legal frameworks that were designed for other paradigms should work just as well here without reflection is my objection. It is question begging to answer the question of how copyright out to work around AI to how it worked in non-AI.
That is not to say that it necessary should end up somewhere different. What I am rejecting is the simplistic, predetermined conclusion that it's not different so isn't different. IP protections are not some immutable natural force, and society should have a right to consider refinement in the face of massively disruptive technological innovations. that said...
Realistically nothing can be done anyway. Anything would be impossible to enforce, so I'm not going to lose sleep where you can't do anything anyway.
iprayiam3
1mo ago
Ostensibly, it's about the AI 'stealing' public art to train itself. (I agree with you that this argument is nonsense)
FWIW, I think the argument that this argument is nonsense is nonsense. That's not to say, that I think the argument is necessarily correct, but the immediate dismissal, usually with some analogic assertion is too pat.
AI training is a pretty novel category, and while it's 'like' other things, I disagree that it's enough the same that it can be dismissed as an extension of what's come before.
I think the argument that 'copyright laws and IP and automation somewhat breakdown in new territory and are at least worthy of renewed consideration', is valid and not immediately dismissable as nonsense.
iprayiam3
1mo ago
"This won't actually happen" is a poor argument. If you don't want to be criticize for your proposals, don't make them.
Oh, don't misunderstand. That's not a defense. I'm saying it's probably even more shitty and weasely than just brazen racism.
iprayiam3
1mo ago
Harris-Walz have proposed a 20k forgiveable loan for up to 1 million Black (capital B) entrepreneurs to start a business.
It says 'for Black entrepreneurs and others'. It's not illegal, it's just false advertizing and empty promises. Granted that this even actually happened, this weasel language is certainly there to pretend its something specifically for Blacks, but wouldn't really be.
iprayiam3
1mo ago
-though he maintains that it is others who have changed, not him.
That article is not very beleivable. I am thoroughly reminded of the many many 'hate crime' hoaxes that turn out to be just that. Those anecdotes of continuos in-person racism sound so incredibly made up, and exactly what an echo-chambered yankee would think sounded real about 'southern racists'.
A teacher at the school asked my son if we had purchased his sister for a “loaf of bread.”
I guarantee this never happened.
I notice that the accusastions of racism serve as a convenient reason not to engage with actually well made disagreements with him as a panelest. It reads like he's got a victim complex, and a huge sore spot about not being accepted and praised for his wisdom, and he's using made up or exaggerated stories about racism as a shield for his ego.
No see this is the issue. If conservatives have been ‘pearl clutching’ about sexual morality for this long maybe it’s not performative… and further why are you surprised?
Your entire reaction (if not performative) thus rests on the conclusion that conservatives don’t earnestly find anything wrong with soliciting teenage prostitutes.
If you don’t find anything wrong with it, again- ok. But to assume anyone who does is pearl clutching is an extremely warped worldview
More options
Context Copy link