naraburns
nihil supernum
No bio...
User ID: 100
naraburns
nihil supernum
12d ago
The race of the parties is also conspicuously absent from the article. Statistically, Google tells me that they should be mostly white, as Salisbury's student body is approximately 70% white (much whiter than the surrounding community). If the victim was non-white, I assume that would also have been mentioned.
Wake up, babe, new toxoplasma just dropped.
I will never understand the propensity of young people--young men, in particular--for wanton violence. This is some "bum fights" level depravity. The "hate crime" bit I'm not a fan of--whether they did this to target a particular group is not, to my mind, relevant. Which group, you ask? Well, that's an interesting question.
Police say a man was invited “under false pretenses” to an apartment in Salisbury, where a group of men immediately surrounded him upon entry, forced him into a chair in the living room and then proceeded to kick, punch and spit on him while calling him derogatory names, police said.
One of the men met the victim on the LGBTQ dating app Grindr...
So, this is classic "gay bashing," yes?"
...pretended to be 16 years old and set a date to meet up "for the purposes of having sexual intercourse..."
Oh. Well, that's an... interesting... detail. Were they fishing for homosexuals, or fishing for hebophiles? CNN is quick to aver:
The legal age of consent in Maryland is 16 years old.
The statute link provided by CNN in that sentence is broken, at this writing. (EDIT: it appears that Maryland's age of consent is indeed 16, with no limitations, including pornographic material). The article does not mention the victim's age.
I condemn the assault, and the vigilantism/entrapment more generally. But the CNN article is clearly slanted toward turning this into a high-profile "gay bash via Grindr" story while working to elide the "young adults sloppily and mis-informedly imitating Chris Hansen" angle. Is this CNN's opening move in a "relentlessly show how Trump's America is a cesspit of bigotry and violence" campaign? Looking for the next George Floyd seems like the sort of thing that would be near the top of the Cathedral's playbook as it seeks ways to blunt the impact of Trump's apparent mandate.
Didn't quite a few people here lament that the libs had won the US culture war a couple years ago?
And now they've lost it? What happened?
I mean, short version, Trump's a lib--at least by the standards of the US culture war circa 1990. He's "meh" on abortion, broadly pro-marijuana, unfaithful to his wives, venal, vain, irreligious, vulgar... the Republican coalition circa William F. Buckley, Jr. was capitalists, anti-communists, and the religious right. Today it's more like "lib-right" capitalists, anti-Wokists, and the working class. Religious conservatives are a bit like black democrats, now: faithful to the party, but insufficient to deliver victories and so never given more than lip service. (Of course, this has resulted in some "blaxit" political defections, just as religious organizations are importing Wokism.)
Buckley's expressed view was that the role of the conservative was to stand athwart history yelling "stop!" But new people are born. Old ones die. Each new generation must decide for itself what received wisdom it will preserve, and what it will discard. But "decide" may be putting it too strongly; each new generation will preserve some wisdom, and discard other, and often very little effort will be put into consciously deciding which will be which. Memes, like genes, get passed along in a variety of ways, and may persist for a variety of reasons.
The cultural revolution of the 1960s-1970s, itself an outgrowth of the liberal progressivism of the early 20th century, made substantial memetic inroads by casting tradition to the wayside. This has historically been a ruinous approach, but thanks to the march of science and technological advancement, "old lore" is not the asset it has been. George W. Bush was probably Buckley's Last Stand. Obama's defeat of Romney (not incidentally, a religious capitalist whose prophecies Obama mocked in his infamous "the 1980s are now calling" comment) was the end of Buckley Republicanism as a going concern. (The rest of that obviously scripted line accuses Romney of trying to bring back the global policies of the 1980s, the social policies of the 1950s, and the economic policies of the 1920s. And Obama manages to make it sound like a bad idea!)
But memes, like genes, don't simply give up. They respond to selection pressure. Much of Buckley Republicanism was salvageable, particularly those bits well-suited to anti-Wokism (through Wokism's own Communist heritage). But the vulnerabilities--like religious devotion--had to be discarded, or at least relegated to vestigial status. Identity politics dominated the 1990s and 2000s, culminating in Obama's primary defeat of the perpetual political bridesmaid, Hillary Clinton. So Republicans adopted identity politics. The white working class had joined Reagan's Republicans in response to increased competition from racial minorities; Trump turned this into a race-blind "big tent" populism. Straight-laced, uptight, moralizing religious busybodies couldn't really survive the onslaught of Internet irreverence, so they were replaced with earthy, vulgar, but masculine men. And so on and so forth.
Like bacteria swapping DNA, the major American political movements clashed, and each was changed by the other. Much of the "lib" agenda circa 1990 is now just... American culture. But much of the "conservative" agenda circa 1990 is, too! So now there are different humans with different tastes and different political priorities, and the pendulum continues its incessant swing. By the time you get the new coalitions really, truly figured out... it'll be time for you to retire and let someone else try the next one.
naraburns
nihil supernum
14d ago
It seems more likely that he's lying about his Latino friends--whether regarding their status, or perhaps their very existence. My best steelman is that his Latino friends are actually legal and naturalized immigrants, who used to be green card holders. In my own experience, legal immigrants are often quite disdainful of illegals "jumping the line," so that would fit. And it's not an implausible misunderstanding. Alternatively, it's not unheard of for green card holders to accidentally get registered to vote, e.g. automatically as part of being issued a driver's license. Many of them don't even realize the problem; after all, if the lady at the MVD says you can vote, presumably she knows what she's talking about! (Spoiler: the lady at the MVD did not, in fact, know what she was talking about.)
But realistically? He's just lying and isn't smart enough to understand why that's transparent.
naraburns
nihil supernum
14d ago
So Trump has beaten three women so far - Hilary, Kamala, and Ivana.
That's two more women than Kamala Harris' husband Douglas Emhoff has beaten!
(Well, that we know of.)
My bubble is eerily quiet.
I think my favorite zinger so far is, "Florida just counted all of their votes again for fun."
(Relatedly, but with less zing: "Florida counted all its votes in about an hour. Fraud is a choice.")
naraburns
nihil supernum
14d ago
Is Polymarket open to Americans?
No, though if you use a VPN and crypto they can't exactly stop you. This would be a violation of their terms of service and also the law, though the extent to which that violation would be on you versus them is not clear to me.
naraburns
nihil supernum
14d ago
I Am Not Immune to Propaganda
I'm bad with numbers, but it feels pretty likely to me. Is that 70%-80%? I don't think I'd say 90%, the electoral college situation does give me some hesitation. By "inevitable" I mean "I don't see anything short of a black swan event shifting the outcome from where it's currently headed," not "I'm 100% sure of this specific outcome."
I furthermore said:
Insofar as Harris has not (yet?) done anything blatantly unconstitutional, I also think it is a little more likely than not (55%? 60%?) that a true electoral win from Trump could still see his inauguration prevented by his opponents, hook or crook. This could potentially be done by preventing an apparent electoral victory simply by thumbing the scales in a few key states.
I rarely "put a number on it." If I had a head for numbers, I would probably have gone into tech instead of becoming a professional wordcel. I don't know what "80%" feels like, the way so many people seem to. But lately I have been trying to, if not quantify my predictions, at least hold myself more accountable for them. I would like to be better at predicting things, partly because I want to become a bit less risk-averse. That means hedging less, and stating more, and looking back at why I was right or wrong.
There is of course still time for Trump's opponents to prevent his inauguration, or try. The fact that the major news networks refused to certify his clear and overwhelming victory for many hours after it was obvious even to them, definitely made me worry that we were in for a repeat of 2020. Instead, we got a repeat of 2016. We do still have to make it two months without lawfare or rioting hindering the process, but the way things are looking this morning, I'm much less confident about this. (Probably my next substantive question is, "what will Jack Smith try next?")
So, what led me to these errors? I don't know! But I have some working theories.
Pessimism: I did not want Kamala Harris to become the President. Politically, my adult life has been a string of disappointments. So my priors on "the candidate I like least will win the election" are high, even though I know rationally that whether or not I like a candidate has very little to do with their electability. I also know many people who are in the habit of predicting that things will happen and, when pressed, will explain that they want those things to happen.
Insufficient Skepticism: Probably anyone who has spent more than five minutes on the Motte knows that I mistrust corporate news media a lot. I am even aware that polls are politically slanted. And yet, somehow, every time I went looking into the polls behind the media's unapologetic shilling for Harris, I came away thinking, "even if that result is wrong, surely it's not so wrong that Trump could actually pull this off." And maybe this just goes back to my difficulty with numbers. But I am such a skeptical person by nature that it feels too convenient to conclude that, no, I need to be even more skeptical.
Superstition: Early yesterday evening, when it became apparent that the "blue wall" was nowhere to be seen, a family member said to me, "he might actually do this!" And I found myself reluctant to agree because I didn't want to jinx it. This is stupid, and I have a hard time seeing how it could have fed into my actual predictions, but combined with the pessimism (above) I apparently have a reflexive resistance to agreeing that something could actually come out the way I want it to.
But maybe you have some different theories? I'm open to suggestions!
Now--all of that said, I do have to congratulate myself on one (possibly ego-protective) thing:
I never did put any money on Harris.
Part of my process this time was telling myself: "you know she's going to win, so you can make some money on it. Plus, if she loses, you'll be happy, so you won't mind the pecuniary loss. Now is the perfect time to finally get into those prediction markets Scott Alexander is always talking about!"
But I couldn't do it. I had initially thought to make myself a killing by betting $10,000, but I found myself feeling too risk-averse. What about $1,000? Or $100? Every time I opened up the necessary apps to start the process, I talked myself out of it.
So did I really think Kamala was going to win? If I wasn't willing to put any skin in the game, did I really believe what I said I believed? I think I did! It feels like I did. But I can't dismiss the possibility that my instincts are better at math than my conscious thoughts. I saved myself thousands of dollars by being pessimistic, skeptical, maybe even a little superstitious. And I'm not entirely sure what to make of that.
naraburns
nihil supernum
15d ago
I don't think Biden will resign for something so symbolic. But he is old and senile, it's not impossible that she still gets a shot at wrecking Trump's "47" merchandise.
I was wrong, badly, and I'll spend the next week saying that repeatedly, I expect. I should know better than to underestimate Musk.
But that doesn't mean the Democrats have given up. The electoral vote probably won't be close enough to make faithless electors a worthwhile scheme, but it will at least be seriously discussed. I expect the weapon of choice here will be lawfare: Trump isn't president yet, so New York could still try to put him in jail, at least for a while.
I did say many times that I'm not a numbers person. But there's still surely a 5% or 10% chance that someone other than Trump gets sworn in next, I would think. My priors on such a thing are low (it would literally be unprecedented) but we live in interesting times.
naraburns
nihil supernum
15d ago
The absolute refusal of the progressive press to call Alaska is mind boggling. CNN, AP, NBC, like... they are acting like someone promised them a fourth quarter miracle play if only they can hold the doors open long enough. They're even talking about Trump's next term like it's a sure thing, but they refuse to call the race. WTF?
naraburns
nihil supernum
15d ago
Already drafting those in my head.
Though a lot can still happen between tonight and January.
naraburns
nihil supernum
15d ago
Comment downthread suggesting that Trump moving from "don't mail in your ballots" to "vote in whatever way you can" could possibly explain the entire phenomenon.
But CNN is full of cope. Fifteen minutes ago they posted "Outstanding Georgia votes include in-person from metro Atlanta and absentee from Savannah area." They did finally call North Carolina, but Decision Desk is eating everyone's lunch.
This is an angry special interest group casting protest votes in a safe state. The message is that Democrats are eventually going to have to choose between appeasing Jews, and appeasing Muslims--and for the forseeable future, a lot more Muslims will be born into or emigrating to the U.S., than Jews.
But this potentially feeds into the larger possibility of Trump winning the popular vote, which would be quite something to see.
naraburns
nihil supernum
15d ago
All I'm hearing in my head is 2020's talking heads lectures on the "red mirage." If it's not that, then it's just... 2016 all over again.
naraburns
nihil supernum
15d ago
What am I missing?
Whatever you're missing, I'm missing it, too.
But if Kamala's team also missed it...
naraburns
nihil supernum
15d ago
Surely they just haven't yet baked California sufficiently into the pie... surely?
naraburns
nihil supernum
15d ago
I wish I had NYT needle values over time for 2016 and 2020.
I still remember watching the sudden and extreme flip in the NYT needle graph in 2016. It was really something to witness that happening live. The public meltdowns were nothing short of epic.
naraburns
nihil supernum
15d ago
It ain't over 'til its over, and I still pretty much expect to wake up tomorrow to Pennsylvania or Georgia explaining how they found half a million Harris votes in a mailbox somewhere and how that's totally normal.
But just this moment I'm getting some real Hillary vibes out of this one. Remember when people were arguing that she was going to flip Utah blue? I've grown pretty accustomed to news coverage about Kamala winning, say, North Carolina--or all seven swing states. But as of right now, dreams of a mandate were clearly just that; if any of Pennsylvania, Michigan, or Wisconsin do turn red, she's done.
If it does become clear that she's lost, will Harris concede? Or will she recycle Hillary's advice to Biden and instead set lawfare into motion? Would Democrats try to steal the election again, like they did in 2016, with faithless elector schemes or attempts to prevent the certification of the vote? Would the up the ante?
I am still skeptical that we'll get a chance to find out, but people have been speculating about Trump and Republican "sore loser" scenarios for months. What does a Harris loss look like?
naraburns
nihil supernum
15d ago
Trump music videos are an underappreciated art form, I think.
naraburns
nihil supernum
15d ago
Sure, those are all very pragmatic reasons to do undemocratic things.
That's just my point, though. There are a great many reasons to not fret if the democratic process of referendum elections gets disrupted.
naraburns
nihil supernum
15d ago
the Utah Legislature tried one of the most blatant and anti-democratic power grabs in memory
...more anti-democratic and blatant than anointing Kamala the Democratic nominee without a primary process?
trying to give themselves power to effectively ignore or rewrite ballot measures even after they pass
Do they have any choice, really? Referendum voting is terrible, and often saddles legislatures with impossible choices. People are in general pretty happy to increase spending and cut taxes forever, and the process is inevitably infected by special interest groups looking for ways to manipulate a gullible electorate into false consensus building.
Admittedly, I have a much bigger problem with "power grabs" than with "anti-democratic." As someone once apocryphally said--the best argument against democracy is a five minute conversation with the average voter.
naraburns
nihil supernum
15d ago
I suspect there will be some "fiery but mostly peaceful protests" regardless of the outcome. I do not expect them to be any more serious than usual, though conditional on a Trump victory (which I doubt will be allowed to happen) I would avoid planning any DC trips for January.
naraburns
nihil supernum
16d ago
Well,
Moderation is adaptive and qualitative.
Rules-lawyering and grudge-litigating are rarely beneficial to anyone on any side of the issue. I notice, however, that you have posted multiple AAQCs, and received no warnings at all, over the past nine months. I would like to say this with all sincerity--not as a taunt, or an inducement for you to now behave as a frustrator--but that's exactly the outcome we wanted to see. You're still here, you're not perma-banned, you make quality posts. Thank you.
Either way, being this explicit about protecting a user from criticism on the basis of a long record of AAQCs is a new extreme for this system
I feel like you are confusing several separate issues. Nothing I've done in this thread is aimed at "protecting a user from criticism." Coffee_enjoyer was breaking the rules and obnoxiously axe-grinding. His interpretation of Dean's post was bad on a rule-breaking level, and additionally I was annoyed that he had brought that obnoxiousness to the AAQC thread, specifically. If anything, it is coffee_enjoyer whose AAQCs were operating to protect him, here.
Separately, everything I said about Dean being a good poster was in direct response to coffee-enjoyer's obnoxious, overwrought, and rhetorical "is this the kind of posting you want!?" The answer was "yes, that's the point of the AAQCs, these are the kinds of posts we want." I was trying to find a way to help coffee_enjoyer understand why he was being moderated. Ultimately, I seem to have failed to find such a way; coffee_enjoyer seems to me far more interested in being angry about the disagreement between him and Dean (and, by extension, my moderating him over his approach), than in understanding that the problem is not the substance, but in the uncharitable and antagonistic nature of his engagement.
Your complaints are not at that level, but your candor over your distaste for Dean suggests to me that you are making a similar mistake: allowing animus toward a user to blind you to the fact that this is not ultimately about the user, but about the rules. In your little chart:
n% of the community like this user -> user gets upvotes and AAQCs -> user gets away with more extreme posts -> some people who dislike this leave -> m% (m>n) of the community like this user
You've left out my quite explicit point that AAQCs are not a bar to banning. Users cannot get away with "more extreme posts" indefinitely. Some of our best users, along with our worst, have, eventually, eaten bans--always, after deciding that they no longer wished to follow the rules, even perfunctorily. That's genuinely a problem for us! It's something the mod team talks about with alarming regularity. It's really, really frustrating to take someone with years of quality contributions, including former community moderators, and hand them a 366 or a perma or whatever. We don't want to do that! If this was about picking favorites or even picking preferred positions, Hlynka wouldn't be banned. Certain alts still kicking around here probably would be banned. But ultimately, no matter what percentage of the community is on "your side," if you're not going to follow the rules, you're going to get banned.
If you were serious about wanting a space in which people with different politics talk to each other, you should if anything have done the opposite, and treated any tendency in "community sentiment" as indicative of a growth that needs to be pruned.
I can see why you might think that; it's not entirely wrong. But we do engage in a fair bit of "affirmative action." We cut people some slack when they get dogpiled and lash out. We try to give sufficient breathing room to heterodox views. Moderation is adaptive and qualitative. But like AAQCs, just having a minority view is not a perfect shield. The rules will still apply, if less quickly or harshly.
In the end, we can't maintain this space at all if we worry too much about what might or might not "drive users away." One person's final straw is someone else's welcoming hearth. I've been moderating the Motte for more than five years, and I honestly never believed it would last as long as it already has. So I'm afraid I find myself entirely unmoved by your concerns. My goal is not to build this space into anything in particular. I have no KPIs. I just serve the foundation to the best of my ability, until the time comes when that's no longer needed, or wanted, or necessary.
Sort of? I'm trying to anticipate their strategy for undermining Trump, on the assumption that they will indeed have (at least!) one.
Specifically, I'm wondering about a possible echo of something like this. Only instead of (or perhaps in addition to) race, a relentless stream of dubious abortion tragedies and sex and sexuality discussions. Many commentators here and elsewhere have observed a recent "cooling" of Wokeness in public discourse; was that just a rush to centrism in an effort to get Kamala elected? Does Trump's victory raise the culture war temperature?
The local site with the similar spin is not surprising; the spin is largely self-executing in this case. The decision to elevate any particular assault to national news, however, requires some conscious decision-making.
More options
Context Copy link