Speaking as a former reddit powerjanny, not that insider knowledge is necessary as the admins posted this publicly, the Reddit "Russian bot" story was a total fabrication.
Outside of the post by [see link], none of these accounts or posts received much attention on the platform, and many of the posts were removed either by moderators or as part of normal content manipulation operations. The accounts posted in different regional subreddits, and in several different languages.
Karma distribution:
0 or less: 42
1 - 9: 13
10 or greater: 6
Max Karma: 48
Admins banned 61 accounts. It wasn't unusual for me to ban more spam accounts than that on multiple single days in any given month, and very often those accounts had already accumulated thousands of upvotes.
The American intelligence apparatus had highly politicized reasoning for depicting Russia as an adversary. They're also part of the true power in this country, so personally I just can't find credibility in their words. After all, I saw for myself the proliferation of the bot hoax on Reddit. I can't say with certainty China was or is shilling on the site, but I can say how I was on /pol/ more than anything else just after Wuhan was quarantined, and those coronavirus general threads had videos from China of things that never happened. If Chinese cyberwarfare finds value in sliding and psyopping /pol/ and fielding an army of "wolf warrior" bots on Twitter, it's fair to suspect them of doing the same on Reddit.
I'll also say, having been introduced to just a taste, Chinese meme culture is incredibly complex, brilliant, and funny, all this even passing through translation. Heavy state censorship in the information age is cleverness' perfect crucible and surely some number of those people take their talents to contribute them to the state. If they haven't been doing any of this and it's just all a series of unfortunate coincidences, I don't think it's because they're lacking citizens who know how to talk like Americans, argue like Americans, and truly so importantly, meme like Americans.
jake
2d ago
Fair point about specifically the Family Guy mashups, but I've come across videos of whatever bigbrain podcast audio overlaid on whatever game, and that I'm confident is about attention spans.
jake
2d ago
Congress can't legislate video length and I don't think it's necessarily the format. Shortform itself is not fundamentally bad, comedy is perfect for clips, same for sports and video games. Where these degrade is the race to the bottom in algorithm-pleasing content, and AI customer retention could be legislated against. The scientific data on the destructive nature of social media piles by the day, so there's a compelling health interest, and a law that flatly prohibits AI customer retention wouldn't fall afoul of other constitutional freedoms, it's not what they're randomly pushing, it's that the content is being randomly pushed, and these are multinational corporations engaged in interstate commerce, so even a very scope-limited interpretation of the Commerce Clause would find some degree of congressional authority in regulating such practices.
From there, it's simple. No endless scrolling, the sites can't serve unsolicited content based on, for example, the notion a user might want to watch a video, and especially might thus want to keep watching videos. For YouTube Shorts and others this would mean a user could go to their subscriptions and watch all the new Shorts, but when they watched them all, that's it. For Instagram and others it would mean no generic "explore" pages. It can't show you something because it thinks you might like it. It could possibly serve content analyzed as objectively or justifiably similar. If I enjoyed an hour-long history of whatever, I could ask it for other hour-long histories of whatever, but it wouldn't be analyzing clicks, view-counts or retention in its pushes. It would just be "Here's 25 videos of measurably similar content." Same for searching, no more "related" no more "you might also like" no more "users also searched," literal searched text in the title or the video transcript, limited tagging to prevent abuse in the video descriptions, and nothing from the comments. Ideally it should be suddenly very easy to search YouTube and be so specific or maybe so wrong that it returns no results.
And of course, a categorical prohibition on minors using the internet. This law wouldn't be targeted at the minors exactly, nor their parents. It would be targeted at corporations with astronomic fines for violations. I wouldn't be surprised if Google is already anticipating exactly such a law and has at least the framework for DeepMind-powered age-based captchas, because the only question I have is if their analytics determine with >99.99% accuracy any given user's age, or age bracket.
jake
2d ago
Yes, I didn't articulate the point as well as I could. I think the best I could say is this: every bit of excess data collection by the US government is horrifying, as is all of that with regard to Five Eyes. Nominally about terrorism, maybe they've even stopped a fair bit, but I do often wonder if it's the NSA more and less behind the hacks of conservative websites and if it's also the NSA carrying out doxxes of certain individuals before laundering it through chosen contacts for parallel constructions.
Still, however dark the purposes are of our government as they collect such data, the severity is matched and multiplied when asking: but why does China want it?
It could be reciprocity, if the US government maintains a database of every single Chinese citizen. Do we? I think I would have heard that as a retort, "The US government is doing the same thing with Chinese citizens" is, to me, much stronger than mentioning USFG domestic surveillance. To the point I would consider it entirely exculpating if we did it first.
jake
3d ago
I wish a little that it was about spying on users. I wish more that it was about how TikTok is the worst thing humans have ever created. Hypershortform content is gigafrying the developing brains of young people, and then there are the peculiarities of its content. TikTok text-to-speech, obnoxious subtitles on every video, five hundred thousand shitty clips to the same fucking 20 seconds of a song over and over and over, TikTok dances, splitscreen videos of Family Guy clips and Minecraft because attention spans have apparently become that bad. Adolescents are mainlining psychic polonium just from all of these, and that's before we consider the psychic demon core that is social media.
Spying on users would be a good enough reason. I don't know how people respond with "My government is spying on me." Yeah but it's our government. It's a different and in many ways a far grosser abuse of power but at least you can say there are legitimate reasons for the American government to keep data on American citizens. There is no conceivable above-board justification for the Chinese government creating-via-numerous-cyberattacks a general database of American citizens and its existence alone is grounds to ban them from all American telecommunications.
It was probably expedited to congress because of AIPAC but that was long after Trump tried to ban it and well after the Biden admin had it investigated and banned from government devices. It also must be said that however much congress and their AIPAC handlers get their hackles raised about Israel and JQ shit, the actual power in this country, the unelected bureaucracy, is clearly highly invested in righties wasting all their time posting about jews. Look no further than that preeminent JQ voice of Nick Fuentes being a fed.
Regardless of the actual motive, absolute justification for the ban is and has been the CCP having a tool to introduce political narratives in a social media platform used by a massive number of Americans. It's not Reddit or X where they have to work with shills and botting, it's not /pol/ where they spam slide threads and run psyops like they did at the onset of the coronavirus. It's a platform they control where they can push the figurative button and suddenly millions of people are seeing the exact content the CCP wants them to see. Google does that too, but I know their reasoning, why is 'based China' doing it? It's not because they're ideologically lockstep. It's because for the last decade they've been waging a next-generation war on the American people by destabilizing our politics. I still don't get how this has been missed, after a year of seeing commentators on the right making incredible snipes of nefarious deeds being snuck by the masses, only Sam Hyde has voiced a fraction of the animosity we need to exhibit toward China, which begins with expelling every single Chinese national in this country, and even he softened that with using it to frame a joke about honeydicking.
jake
3d ago
PAFACA does expressly name ByteDance and TikTok but they're given as examples in its purpose, which is banning social media platforms owned by foreign adversaries such as the CCP. The Commerce Clause gives Congress plenary authority to regulate foreign trade and that's original intent, it's also a fundamental power of all sovereigns. Banning any foreign social media is nothing more than an embargo, and embargoes are intrinsically legitimate exercises of constitutional and sovereign authority.
I see you're a sockpuppet. I don't know if you're a venting lefty or a trolling righty or some other kind of bait, but there's something I've never seen talked about, and it's worth talking about. This topic is endless tragedy and comedy, tragic where the real villain of the 20th century, communism, wasn't vanquished, and comic where we explore the history of the word "fascism."
Other commenters here have already observed how "fascism" and "fascist" have become meaningless pejoratives, and that's what's funny: fascism has always been a meaningless pejorative. You can cite dictionaries but if you look at the original critiques by Marxists, be it Clara Zetkin or Trotsky or Georgi Dimitrov, you'd see it was meaningless when they wrote and spoke about it. It meant nothing. Well — almost nothing.
Fascism is a characteristic symptom of decay in this period, an expression of the ongoing dissolution of the capitalist economy and the decomposition of the bourgeois state. Fascism is rooted above all in the impact of the imperialist war and the heightened and accelerated dislocation of the capitalist economy that it caused among broad layers of the small and middle bourgeoisie, the small peasantry, and the “intelligentsia.” This process dashed the hopes of these layers by demolishing their previous conditions of life and the degree of security they had previously enjoyed. Many in these social layers are also disillusioned regarding their vague expectations of a profound improvement in society through reformist socialism.
The reformist parties and trade-union leaders betrayed the revolution, capitulated to capitalism, and formed a coalition with the bourgeoisie in order to restore class rule and class exploitation as of old. All this they did under the banner of “democracy.” As a result, this type of “sympathizer” with the proletariat has been led to doubt socialism itself and its capacity to bring liberation and renew society. The immense majority of the proletariat outside Soviet Russia tolerated this betrayal with a weak-willed fear of struggle and submitted to their own exploitation and enslavement. Among the layers in ferment among the small and middle bourgeoisie and intellectuals, this shattered any belief in the working class as a powerful agent of radical social change. They have been joined by many proletarian forces who seek and demand action and are dissatisfied with the conduct of all the political parties. In addition fascism attracted a social layer, the former officers, who lost their careers when the war ended. Now without income, they were disillusioned, uprooted, and torn from their class roots. This is especially true in the vanquished Central Powers [Germany and Austria-Hungary], in which fascism takes on a strong antirepublican flavor.
The historic function of Fascism is to smash the working class, destroy its organizations, and stifle political liberties when the capitalists find themselves unable to govern and dominate with the help of democratic machinery . . . . Fascism is not merely a system of reprisals, of brutal force, and of police terror. Fascism is a particular governmental system based on the uprooting of all elements of proletarian democracy within bourgeois society. The task of fascism lies not only in destroying the Communist vanguard but in holding the entire class in a state of forced disunity. To this end the physical annihilation of the most revolutionary section of the workers does not suffice. It is also necessary to smash all independent and voluntary organizations, to demolish all the defensive bulwarks of the proletariat, and to uproot whatever has been achieved during three-quarters of a century by the Social Democracy and the trade unions. For, in the last analysis, the Communist Party also bases itself on these achievements
Fascism is not a form of state power “standing above both classes — the proletariat and the bourgeoisie” . . . It is not “the revolt of the petty bourgeoisie which has captured the machinery of the state,”. No, fascism is not a power standing above class, nor government of the petty bourgeoisie or the lumpen-proletariat over finance capital. Fascism is the power of finance capital itself. It is the organization of terrorist vengeance against the working class and the revolutionary section of the peasantry and intelligentsia. In foreign policy, fascism is jingoism in its most brutal form, fomenting bestial hatred of other nations.
I actually laughed the first time I read Trotsky's full critique because it really is just "Fascism is when the fascists get in there and fascist all over the place."
When you pare away the rhetoric you see exactly what they're doing: Our righteous freedom fighters, their fanatical terrorists.
"Nuh-uh, you're the ones exploited by powerful people who hide the truth and want to take away all your rights!"
They hated their opposition because they were a proletarian revolt who wanted to fix the existing system instead of overthrowing it and implementing communism. That's it, that's literally all it has ever been, commies mad that people saw through their horseshit but recognized the power in banding together. What else would communists do but wordswordswords slander them as having dishonest motives? And dishonest motives, oh boy. Look at every communist government in the last 100 years. "Not true communism" yeah maybe, but the purpose of a system is what it does, and every communist party that has ever risen to firmly control a country has behaved in exactly the same way. Tyranny and genocide.
What's happened since Trotsky et al. is not what I would call classic leftist behavior so much as the inclination that begets leftism as a method of obtaining political power: control of language. I do feel this is an important distinction, because where I view leftism poorly is almost entirely on the ones who manipulate language to equivocate and ultimately deceive, not those of their voters who believe they're doing good and want to out of genuine altruistic impulse. Unfortunately the people who reach high power from the left frequently use those techniques. There are minor exceptions in parts of Europe but it's not the case in the major leftist establishments of the US, the UK, France, and Germany, and they influence their comrades elsewhere. They manipulate terms, they equivocate and deceive. Like "fascism." They've had a century to define it around Nazi villainy, and then they adjust and readjust the definition so it can always be used to slander their opposition. The changing definition also probably continuously adds to the social inertia against anyone who might stand up and say "Hey, wait a second, the original definition was what?"
It's taken on socioreligious power, it's analogous to religious conviction. For me to tell someone "That's not fascism" or especially "You don't know what fascism is" is like saying "Good is bad, bad is good." It's a fundamental difference in paradigm, so such a statement has negative weight. It's meaningless.
There are governments who called themselves fascist and that would mean something here if the relationship between communism and fascism were discussed honestly, but it's never been honest. Fascist persists as an insult because communists persist, entrenched in power, and being masters of manipulative language, had means after obvious motive to downplay the horrors of communism and play up the horrors of nazism (both bad, the former orders of magnitude and uniquely worse). And we're humans and we can't help but calling our enemies the worst names we know. From Truman likening Dewey to fascists to generations of kids matriculating under communist professors who see fascism in everything and it repeats and repeats and repeats.
It's about to stop.
If I called one of my irreligious friends a reprobate sinner they'd laugh. They'd think I was joking, the word has no meaning for them. That's happening again. We're in the cultural singularity and culture is progressing very fast indeed. In at most 10 years, fascism and racism and sexism and every other -ism and -ist and -phobe, having finished the sprint from "No we're not/You're the real fascists" to "If it's bad, so be it" to "u forgot the gigachad" will then move into pure mockery, just as I would face if I went to proselytize in ratheism by condemning their lives of sin.
I'd like to believe there's value still in arguing this, and maybe things change just right in the coming years and we can have a real discussion, but that's the best case for this idea, approaching it on its angle and in good faith. I'm not approaching this idea on its angle, but I do mean this in good faith. Every last bit of power is being wrung from those words, its a score of levers about to snap off their fulcrums, and all the people who hold to these need to understand this and be prepared for when those words they use to frame their very sense of politics and the world become meaningless.
jake
17d ago
Apropos Spotlight, I found it decent enough, but when the movie ended I thought "That's it?" It felt like it should have had another hour.
Discussions about Spotlight are invariably about the politics rather than it being a noteworthy entry in cinematic canon, because it's not. The Martian would have been a better-aging winner, and Fury Road was on the slate. The Big Short probably should have won, but one was another chance to dunk on the long groveling church and the other was about bankers. A tidy microcosm of power, that.
jake
19d ago
Let's look at that Pew poll.
Overwhelmingly support deportation, overwhelmingly oppose "maintaining a diverse immigrant population," majority oppose "illegals gaining citizenship by marrying Americans," basically split on refugees, slight support for "filling labor shortages," supporting international students staying, and mostly supporting more "high skilled immigrants."
They support these things in the plain text, though that's not what's meant by the poll-makers. Let's update the poll to address the literacy issue on the topic by asking honest questions.
"Should we let literally anyone into this country who claims to be a refugee?"
I wonder how that one would do, because that's pretty much our current policy for people trying to get into this country except, just an example, white South Africans.
"Should we allow immigrants to fill labor shortages, even where 'labor shortages' include 'Indian hiring managers who will only hire other Indians' and 'employers who don't want to pay American citizens a living wage'?"
Something tells me that won't do so hot.
"Should universities be allowed to admit international students with worse applications than the American citizens whose spots they took? Should those students be allowed to then stay in the country?"
Might be a bit suspect.
"Admitting more high-skilled immigrants, and by 'high-skilled' we mean literally any foreigner with the equivalent of a bachelor's degree."
Probably a "let's not."
You take a poll question as indicative because for whatever reason you want or need it to be, but these are each a pinnacle motte and bailey. What a conservative thinks by "legal immigration" is not in any measure what the left has actually pursued, in America and in Europe. They are open to the idea of an easing of the rigorous legal process that culminates in naturalization because they still have the idealistic and decades-exploited view, but the essence of their opposition that can be seen through their view of mass illegal presence in this country would be applied exactly if informed on what people like the writers of this poll mean when they say "legal immigration." Because what the left means when they say that, after the examples above, includes but is by no means limited to something so bereft of effort as a rubber stamp on 20,000 Haitians dropped in Ohio or a group of young male "refugees" crossing the Mediterranean on an NGO-provided boat. (Both examples of the majority-opposed.)
They're "legal." Uh great, they think, so "legal" doesn't mean anything.
jake
19d ago
There's something not right here, I hear familiar bells of dissonance. I notice I am confused.
Opposition to immigration is the principal impetus for the right. Not just the American right, opposition is the common view among the native peoples of all western nations. The belief of what to do isn't uniform, but "Too many, greatly reduce" is dominant. Musk shows an awareness of this, he's also shown an awareness of the discussions of the deep online right apropos "You have said the actual truth." He should know. Consider also his loudly backing AfD, a party that can be defined by its opposition to immigration.
If Musk believes all humans are fungible economic units, how does he turn right? If his shift as has been supposed by many including myself was about viewing the left as a threat, how does he not view the right as a graver threat for their anti-immigrant sentiment extending to close the tap on his source of engineers? How does he ever buy Twitter? Or, after buying it, carrying out the lifting of bans, diving into the discourse of the right, and seeing there "No we mean literally all of them are going back," realize what he's courted, renege and cut a deal? The media would need maybe two weeks of news cycles and his image would be rehabilitated for the normie masses while in the background he received the necessary assurances of allowing him to continue his corporate administration as he sees fit. But there again, if how he wants to manage his corporations by his ostensibly aggressive prioritization of foreign labor, why does he ever consider the left a bigger problem than the right?
I had more and I cut it down and now I've again written more than I think I need because I'm pretty sure all of you reading this knows all of these points. What I run into is that for the last few years for Musk, though really it seems it's been basically all of his career, people have bet against him, for the absurdity of his ideas, for supposed incompetence, for ignorance, more lately for him being "evil", and they've lost every time. This must be stressed enough, they have lost every single time. Or at least every single time it's mattered. So I look at him and wonder, how does he believe the FEU view? He's not evil, stupid or incompetent. Did he just not know what's actually happening?
People are complex but plenty of times it is the mundane or contradictory explanation rather than the fun/schizo/5D chess theory. I'm probably grasping at nonexistent straws, as I so often do. Sure, he believes in this one area of hyper-pure tabula rasa egalitarianism, despite living a life of evidence against it. Sure, he holds the root ideal that underlies the California approach to homelessness and crime, not to mention trans advocacy, he's just not extrapolated one more step to shake it off.
Still I think a possible explanation for his response is this: he believed talent came from India because he had convincing, not necessarily good and certainly not great, but convincing enough reasons to believe it did. In a very short period of time he has since discovered those hiring for his corporations have prioritized Indians because they are Indians, have praised and promoted along Indians because they are Indians, and may be benefiting in appearances from work done primarily by not Indians, all while repeatedly rejecting superior talent because they are not Indian. And so he has struggled, in recognizing his mistake and perhaps in rationalizing against a roiling blood rage at not simply being taken for a fool, but taken in such a way that it is a direct attack on his life's work of getting off the rock and making humans an interplanetary species.
I don't know. Again I'm grasping at straws in seeking fantastic explanation over the simple and probable one. But, and I'm paraphrasing what Sam Hyde said in his video, if this is a real belief for him, not something from a lack of knowledge and understanding but something he won't get past, he's not the man we all hope he is, and he will lose.
A hypothetical set of "Reasons to live in a country" doesn't necessarily subsume the set of "Reasons to as a tourist visit that country" but it can be assumed there will be significant overlap. The argument here is a person who would go to Thailand to indulge in pedophilia would be unlikely to see a reason to permanently reside there. This doesn't follow, people move countries to facilitate all other kinds of crime. Or maybe you're arguing pedophiles as a group might generally have the resources to take a trip to Thailand but not to successfully immigrate. This is stronger, but still falls, because they're not a uniform mass.
The subgroup of the population with pedophilic tendencies includes bottom-feeders who would be lucky to leave their home town. It also includes the opposite, the highly connected and well-resourced who cover their tracks. There will also be those at neither extreme, who are fastidious enough to prioritize not going to prison over their perversions, who are perverted enough to find appealing the idea of living in a country with lax policing where they may regularly indulge, and who are capable enough to be successful at moving to such a country. In short, there are without question white expatriates permanently residing in Thailand and elsewhere in southeast Asia because of and in pursuit of their pedophilia.
This is circumstantial evidence for Unsworth. Not enough to indict, but more than enough to fairly suspect. Yeah, if he's not that, it sucks, but he can't be shocked because that's what happens when you move from Britain to Pedoville in Pedo Province in the Kingdom of Pedoland. This is the reason Musk called him specifically a pedophile and why he initially doubled down on it before deleting the tweets. It wasn't apropos of nothing, it was from the I guess uncommon understanding of what goes on in Thailand. I say "uncommon," above the SNL skit I linked was from 10 years ago, and that's its joke.
jake
23d ago
Less percentage, though as the article says it's believed a minimum of 40%. Thailand is the sex tourism capital of the world, it's also the child prostitution capital of the world. Legal prostitution where almost half are children, very bad signaling from a white man living there not for obvious foreign professional reasons — such as being: a director or otherwise highly-compensated role in a multinational corporation; an entrepreneur on a temporary visit pursuing a deal; a journalist on assignment; a diplomat or attaché — and making it fair to suspect ill motive. It gets worse, the man, Vernon Unsworth, lives or lived in Chiang Rai, that's a city in Thailand's rural and mountainous north. So it's not just that he moved to the country that's the world capital of child prostitution, he moved to the region in that country where it's most prolific.
I wouldn't accuse him of being a pedophile on this alone but I would tell him honestly, the choices he has made have drastically increased the probability and consequently the reasonability of suspecting him of pedophilia. Enough he has forfeited fair indignation when someone calls him a pedo.
jake
23d ago
"Elite Human Capital" moves like offering a solution to save some trapped kids, then calling someone closer to the situation a pedophile because he disagreed.
What I've always found interesting about the insult is that I thought way more people knew what goes on in Thailand, but then a ton of people were bewildered about Musk "randomly" calling "some guy" a pedophile.
The man in question is a white expat living in Thailand, and white men don't move to Thailand for the diving.
jake
24d ago
If a modern Indian Brunel couldn't make comparably sweeping improvements to India then it would be absolutely true that he should be in the States, and it would also be absolutely true that the total immigration accepted from India would need to be moved even lower from 20,000 to a 5 sigma 400, so 200.
jake
24d ago
The immigrants say that when they leave and don't come back.
There are Mexican immigrants who would be good for Mexico even though they aren't good for the US. The Mexican government has built a dependence on those people leaving. They're dissatisfied and highly motivated compared to their remaining countrymen, they could be rallied by a populist like Bukele as he oversees a new and greater Porfiriato and grinds the cartels into the dirt. Years ago I wouldn't have thought it possible, and Bukele is in a different situation since El Salvador is so small and Mara Salvatrucha members have the most convenient habit of getting MS-13 tattooed on their faces, but a horrifically violent gang just bent over when a figure finally stood tall and said enough. The cartels are also horrifically violent, but as roughly as I know Mexican history, I know they're just the latest examples of Mexico's long history with caudillos, they are tolerated, and this is very important: the cartels exist because the Mexican government allows to exist. Porfirio repeatedly crushed such groups when they failed to acquiesce.
Bukele could be in the States, enjoying life in luxury as a highly successful private citizen. Strict immigration controls wouldn't stop a man like that, he'd find a way through or immigrate to some other highly civilized nation. But El Salvador was the violently shaking pressure cooker, primed for the arrival of Bukele, and Mexico would be that, too, if they didn't have the release valve of all the people who would historically be the greatest agitators for change instead just crossing a border. So that man might be in Mexico, but I think it unfortunately all too likely he's instead in the States, a private citizen doing very well for himself, but who could have been Mexico's Bukele or superior Porfirio.
India, with 1.4 billion people, is a little harder, and I'm not remotely qualified to speculate on what would improve it except that I know it's not 300,000 H-1Bs.
jake
24d ago
I would say, and I did say, it seems reasonable to consider factor h civility of a nation something gestalt. If 150 million Indians truly abhor their living conditions, their h is nevertheless indicted for failing to effect change.
It's charitable anyway to consider it a collective trait of people from India, and that's because with so many ethnic groups of presumably differing h, the alternative is a general ban.
Have you been to Alabama?
Many times. Huntsville Space Center, c'mon.
There are people who you could persuade with this weak anecdote, I'm the wrong guy. One, because you're talking about the general geographic region in which I live, and two, with rare exception those very rural areas still have functional uncorrupt county-level governments, running water, electricity, telecommunications, waste removal services, and facilitating the rest, good roads, because right now there are enough high h people to make up for the low h people. Those places are also orders of magnitude safer for a foreigner to walk through alone, especially a woman. Versus India, where "an amalgamation of the most grotesque personal attributes imaginable" might more Indians than there are people in North America.
But those insults are yours. My attitude on this is we are strengthened by immigration of truly the very best of anyone into this country. The very best. The chief problem of governance is the sociopaths and specifically the long-since suppressed immune response against the cancer that is those sociopaths. With enough time they always get in, and then they weaken and weaken the system, allowing more sociopaths to get in or otherwise game the system. There's well over a billion Indians, so it's just math that genetically-top-percentile-prosocial people from the subcontinent will be a massive raw number. Yet I look at pictures from India and I think, where the fuck are they? You wouldn't know it, and that's because what's also a massive raw number is those of top-percentile deceitfulness and other antisocial behaviors, and they've been allowed to build entire industries in India around their sociopathy, including gaming American immigration.
I like India, I like Indians, or I have a general affinity for them all, I imagine especially when comparing me to those who I share views with on this. With McCarthy's passing, the greatest living author is Salman Rushdie, he's Indian. One of the few actually deserving Booker Prize winners of the last now 20 years is Aravind Adiga, another Indian. Gukesh Dommaraju just became the youngest world chess champion, the second Indian of the last four champions. I've seen pictures, I've seen the beauty, I know there are brilliant people, there's just too goddamn many for the United States to practice anything less than brutal selectiveness about who of them gets to come. Most especially when Indians here show such nepotism in hiring, while pursuing corporate practices and legislative efforts to make it so their own can more easily get into this country.
jake
24d ago
/pol/ had the kill shot years ago. How are they good for us but not their home country?
If we answered that question truthfully we could have a serious discussion about exact numbers to allow, rather than having to "dance" around it with the sledgehammer of the elimination of all H-class Visas. We could say, biologically, there is a maximum and knowable quantity of immigration candidates from any given country with average standards of living below the West.
Then, if we were allowing more than that umber, we would know either our standards were slipping, or they were being gamed.
Europeans and certain other populations exhibit a high average level of civilized behavior, call that inclination h, following from g. Russia is very close to the US, in many ways more civilized, but I would still feel confident saying measured on the whole, Russia is one standard deviation below America in h value. One step of degradation below Russia is not India, so India must be at least two steps below Russia, which means it is no closer than three below the United States. In comparison, Iceland is probably one sigma above, and Japan two.
I think this is imprecise, that there are external factors to an extent, but there are such obvious differences looking from India, to the US, to Japan, that there's something intrinsic and gestalt that speaks broadly to the peoples, and that does feel close enough.
For an Indian immigrant to match, they would need come from a population at least 3 sigmas above India's average h. This rejects almost all Indians, from 1.4 billion to 1.9 million. It's less than that, though, because if you want to improve a country, you can't bring in people who are only average. So the actual line starts at 4 sigmas, and that reduces it to about 45,000.
I have no problem believing there are about 45,000 Indians who would contribute to the strength of America. It's math. Here's the problem, I would assume a minimum of half of those persons intend to live out their days as citizens of India, using their talents in their own country for their own gain. Also consider others in that population will have immigrated elsewhere, such as Europe. This means short of calamitous conditions wherein only America is a viable immigration target, we should have a soft cap of 20,000, to in no circumstances exceed the hard cap of 45,000.
We're well over that. In 2023 (Page 32) there were 279,386 H-1B issuances to Indian nationals. Ignore everything I just wrote, I know that number immediately as gross excess. The US isn't lacking, in anything, to the degree that it requires the importation of nearly 300,000 laborers from a single country. Especially when you remember, that's just the H-1B admissions.
Despite this, it is conceivable the number could exceed 45,000, but only if we instituted extremely strict requirements, ensured those requirements could not be gamed, abolished birthright citizenship including retroactive revocations, etc.
jake
28d ago
I saw the news and read through this list, this table should comprise those inmates who killed multiple people:
| Name | Sentencing Year | Race | Dead (Injured) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Dzhokhar Tsarnaev | 2015 | Caucasian | 6 (281) |
| Robert Bowers | 2023 | White | 11 (6) |
| Kaboni Savage | 2004 | Black | 12 |
| Dylann Roof | 2016 | White | 9 (1) |
| Johnson, Roane & Tipton | 1993 | Black | 7 |
| Kadamovas & Mikhel | 2007 | Baltic, Slav | 5 |
| Sanchez Jr. & Troya | 2008 | Latino | 4 |
| Thomas Sanders | 2014 | White | 2 |
| Julius Robinson | 2008 | Black | 2 |
| Brandon Council | 2019 | Black | 2 |
| Alejandro Umana | 2010 | Latino | 2 |
| Edward Leon Fields | 2019 | White | 2 |
This is insulting. A mass commutation for lesser crimes I would be more understanding of, but for the list of commutations to include Kaboni Savage, a person so befitting his name a court and jury in Philadelphia, who I think it's fair to assume would be highly sympathetic were there something to be sympathetic about, sentenced him to death. The office of President, because Biden didn't choose to do this, could hardly act in a more patronizing manner, and also, with the pardon of Savage, one more plainly ideological. It's pure political dunking, not a stand against the death penalty, else he would have issued one for every inmate. Nor was it a commutation based on actual severity, Savage was certainly more harmful than Bowers, and with the success of his drug dealing he might have negatively impacted more lives than Tsarnaev, who probably only missed a commutation because there would be universal uproar followed shortly by a guard strangling him in his sleep. Roof and Bowers, well, we all know why their sentences weren't commuted.
jake
1mo ago
What's the incident rate of men in these situations killing their wives and their wives' families? A light Wikipedia search and then a couple questions at Grok turned up nothing specific.
And you ask, How magnanimous is Lockheed-Martin? I tell you yea, they profit one cent off the dollar when Hellfire smites an apostate's wedding.
I recognize the necessity of health insurance, I endorse it verbatim as part of the bulwark against single-payer. I understand they have to make hard decisions, because healthcare is triage, and when resource allocation literally is life-and-death, cold calculation is required. This makes it better, it does not make it good. While I'm at it I guess I also should clarify that I see no good in a man being murdered in the street. This may cause deaths downstream, I assume no one's taking that CEO role now without United providing private security, that cost, likely trivial as it is, may be pushed on the consumer, so a rise in rates or claims denied and both lead to reduced life outcomes and death. On the other hand if it causes them to approve claims they otherwise wouldn't, we might see life downstream of this, but I'm not saying let us do evil that good may result. It was murder, and his condemnation will be just. I only plea to history in what constitutes "prosocial" behavior: Thompson was a plebeian who made himself a patrician, and civilization continued all the same through those periods where noblemen who profited from commoners' deaths still feared earthly vengeance.
It doesn't matter if it's 8%, the misdeed is not meted off the margin.
jake
1mo ago
What's prosocial about profiting in death?
Health insurance is a fleeting necessity. It's been useful as structural opposition to American single-payer, but AGI approaches as does the panacea, and the industry will cease to exist by 2100. Healthcare as a whole has to put a price on human life, health insurance does too, it's the cold calculations of what's needed to stay solvent and I would only say remain attractive to investors where this latter is necessary to the former. Not when it's simple profiting, and that's what's happening here, profiting in death.
There is nothing prosocial about that behavior. Civilization does have a long relationship with profiting in death, but the avarice underlying that is iniquity's millstone we trudge ever against. Great men have been driven by their want for something to make the most lasting achievements, but it is grossly reductive to categorize it as greed. If that is a fair term, then it applies truly to precious few men who have ever lived. Better to know those traits are found commonly, and those great men were motivated by something ineffable and gestalt, rather than mundane greed.
So to suggest, in this not being prosocial, that civilization was not raised on the line of people being murdered randomly in the street, is to view it in a hypermodern and wrong lens. Thompson was not a random person, he was a modern nobleman who led an organization that profits in death and reaped finally a historically appropriate reward. That historic archetype did fear murder in the commons, so whoever among them today who do not fear being struck down, or who did not, they are or were living in that hypermodern lens, and that's not civilization, it's castration.
AGI approaches, the panacea approaches. Some here, I hope all, will live to see the extinction of health insurance, but regardless, by the end of the century it will be gone, as will the majority of occupations in healthcare, and civilization won't bat an eye. In 200 years it will be a morbid curiosity of 20th and 21st century life, and probably considered in studies as part of humanity hurdling the real problem of the lost jobs and purpose caused by AGI. But those are the things that matter, not "lost" profit opportunities, and not a nobleman dead in the street.
jake
1mo ago
The only definitive point I see in the video is the visible gas on first discharge. The Station 6 demonstration video shows it releasing gas only when the bolt is cycled, but that video is in daylight and what appears to be warm weather. There is a moment where it's possible he was racking the slide, but there aren't enough pixels to say that definitively, same with when he first fires and it's possible the slide was moving back, or it was just recoil. In the typical circumstance I would trust Ian's assessment, here I don't know what he sees in that blur to call speculation about it being a Welrod-type "conclusively wrong." He just says he watched the surveillance video, and maybe he's seen the actual source video, that would still leave an explanation needed for why the NYPD thinks it's a Station 6.
Police believe the shooter used a B&T Station Six, known in Great Britain as a Welrod pistol, according to police sources. The gun doesn't have a silencer but does have a long barrel that enables the 9 mm to fire a nearly silent shot. The gun requires manually cycling ammunition from the magazine.
Leftist terrorism seems very unlikely. Why an insurance exec and not oil? Why either of those and not a politician? If he had the patience to learn a gun, make a suppressor, go in with a plan, not freak out — why not do all that with a rifle against a comparatively hardened target? Or why not use a bomb like the Red Army Faction and Alfred Herrhausen? There's no objective, no real victory, and that applies to revenge, but the widower motivated by the death of his wife gives us something specific, the leftist looking for someone who "needs killing," why would he ever start with insurance? The target and method say vendetta, not politics.
Looks specifically like a pistol with an integrated suppressor and manual action, in the vein of the B&T Station 6, and 9mm casings were recovered at the scene.
Video demonstration: https://youtube.com/watch?v=n8XHxUlg0F8
The shooter in the video manipulates the back of the barrel (rather than racking a slide) after each shot and makes the same sort of jerking motion required to eject spent cartridges from the Station 6. He also does indeed appear to clear a misfire, but not a serious one as he was able to eject the cartridge and chamber and fire another.
I don't know about a paid hit. When was the last time an American exec was killed like this? I asked Grok for examples from the last 40 years, it pulled only the 2001 murder of Federal Prosecutor Thomas Wales. Other than it being suspected as a paid hit, I don't see these as exactly analogous, and on that note, today, isn't every online-classified-tor-bitcoin-assassin a fed? Who has the means to find a guy like the shooter but lacks the means to, say, cover their wife's cancer treatment? Major league corporate shadowiness also doesn't feel right, again I'd wonder where are the other examples, and I'd think at that level they just have the guy killed on his yacht and that sends whatever message they want.
Revenge seems simplest. Tech, energy, banking, all those could have myriad motives. Health insurance CEO, revenge crushes everything else on probability. So ex-SF guy loses his wife to cancer after she was denied coverage, decides to kill the CEO of their insurance company. As ex-SF he would have the skill, and to have made it through SF selection for whichever branch, he'd have outlier motivation and resolve. Everything necessary to coldly decide to kill another man, and then kill that man in such a manner as we see in the video. And probably get away with it.
I would have supported prosecution for Milley for at a minimum his apparent call to China. I would have also supported a fair investigation without necessarily a trial for Fauci, as I could believe he was the voice for a large or even very large group of people. But for both, I never actually thought they would be prosecuted. Even after everything it's still not quite how we do things in this country, and these men are old and already disgraced, they were before Trump's victory, and now especially, and so it's free, empty and yet still symbolic magnanimity to let them go off into retirement.
A pardon is a brand of shame. Granting implies guilt, accepting confirms guilt. For Milley, it's confirmation of his mutiny and sedition. For Fauci, whatever the specific crime being pardoned, probably gain of function, it will be viewed as a confirmation that everything he did was illegal and thus wrong. The right I see just knew they were criminals, they feel affirmed their beliefs. Some I see on the left are glad because either they fear tyranny and view this as protection or because of open spitefulness, others I see are blackpilling among themselves about the confirmation of guilt, about another new and terrible precedent, and about the general degradation of justice.
I wonder about "arising from or in any manner related to his service" per the actual text of the pardons @Gillitrut links below. I'm not a lawyer, so for all I know this phrasing is known by precedent as synonymous with a blanket pardon, but it reads to me like it's clausal to what they did in the course of their official duties, meaning it's not a blanket pardon. That if Milley killed a prostitute during lockdown the pardon wouldn't apply because it didn't arise from or relate to his official duties and that makes me think, mutiny isn't part of his official duties either.Edit: Glazed right past "Any offenses against the United States"
I thought the odds of their prosecution before this it would be low, I still think it's low, but I think it's higher now than it was before. Whatever happens, for their legacies, they weren't mercifully granted pardons, they were inflicted with them.
More options
Context Copy link