@netstack's banner p

netstack

Texas is freedom land

9 followers   follows 3 users  
joined 2022 September 05 17:27:40 UTC

				

User ID: 647

netstack

Texas is freedom land

9 followers   follows 3 users   joined 2022 September 05 17:27:40 UTC

					

No bio...


					

User ID: 647

Alright, alright.

If you think raising the kids is chilling, you’re going to consistently undervalue potential partners and mock their contributions, so you might be single for a long time.

Well, I feel confident they weren’t assigned e at birth.

Please don’t put words in other people’s mouths.

((us))

Care to clarify that?

If you think raising the kids is chilling, you might be single for a long time…

I think your analysis is roughly correct, but the framing is bizarre.

Is my job proxy war? Im pretty sure my employer doesn’t believe I “deserve” wages for nothing.

I will resist the urge to meet sarcasm with sarcasm and point out that this isn’t reassuring to someone struggling with the number of contradictions.

it seems more straightforward just to accept that Christ is speaking non-literally

I hope you can see why drawing a box around all the confusing, falsifiable bits and saying “yup those are the metaphors” might be unsatisfying.

Sure, a random Reddit comment might as well have negative value. Even though it’s citing a respectable commentary, it could be confused or lying, and I can’t exactly check at the moment. Can you offer anything to better represent “modern scholarship?”

It is pretty silly, given what GPT stands for, but @quiet_NaN is almost right. Critics have already been drawing a distinction between AI trained to hold conversations and AI trained to produce media. Something like Midjourney is a visible threat to artist commissions in a way that Eliza or Tay or early GPT was not.

As the big AI players expand their capabilities, this probably becomes moot. For now, though, authors and artists are definitely making the distinction. “I’m not a Luddite! Some of my best friends are computers! Just not the ones that take my job!”

Not to beat a dead horse, but that is a less than convincing defense.

This essay is bad and I should feel bad.

I should feel bad because I made exactly the mistake I am trying to warn everyone else about, and it wasn’t until I was almost done that I noticed.

How virtuous, how noble I must be! Never stooping to engage in petty tribal conflict like that silly Red Tribe, but always nobly criticizing my own tribe and striving to make it better.

Yeah. Once I’ve written a ten thousand word essay savagely attacking the Blue Tribe, either I’m a very special person or they’re my outgroup. And I’m not that special.
Just as you can pull a fast one and look humbly self-critical if you make your audience assume there’s just one American culture, so maybe you can trick people by assuming there’s only one Blue Tribe.

Gotta love vintage Scott.

so what?

Accusations of LARPing are accusations of insincerity. It depends on what you think the LARPer is really after.

In the original usage, the professed belief is "I can throw lightning bolts." There's no secret genuine belief that can make it look good.

In the Wager example, the professed belief is "I believe in God," but the genuine belief is "I should believe in God." These are pretty compatible, so calling it a LARP loses its sting. Your defense has worked.

Let's say I'm professing "I believe in God," except I'm running a con and my true belief is "You should give me your tithe money." If I'm called out, I can't exactly use "fake it 'til you make it!" as a defense. The fact that my project is LARP-y is very relevant.

Just because something is wrong (or unproven, or partisan…) doesn’t mean it’s not Quality™.

I say this despite thinking “we can’t solve problem X until we’ve solved (harder) problem Y” converges on one of the most infamous pastimes of policy debate. Those college students probably wouldn’t win any points if their problem Y was right-coded, but there is a structure against which they may be graded.

Cuts aren't just the absence of a hike. They can be painted as hypocritical, irresponsible, buying votes. I think Democrats saw the cuts as a possible wedge between Trump and the deficit hawks.

I also suspect that the benefits of the original cuts were, in fact, concentrated in the wealthy. See table 3 here. It also definitely benefited corporations. This wasn't contested by Republicans, who preferred to justify it as stimulating investment.

Hey, I guess Trump actually closed a tax loophole!

Actually, I’d say there’s a better case for itemizing tariffs than sales tax, since the latter doesn’t actually give you any choice. The state of Texas is going to get its cut no matter which goods Amazon sells to Texans.

This does make me wonder if tobacco companies are prohibited, in some way, from itemizing vice taxes. I’d have thought they would be eager to remind customers why they’re paying more.

For that matter, where do all these people who think taxes being paid is a bad thing go

They don’t think that. They think having to pay a tax is a bad thing. What happens after that is handwaved.

Nor do they really go anywhere. If a traditional tax hike was on the table, they’d flip out about it, too. But Trump is a populist, and has demonstrated less than zero interest in the normal legislative process, so that’s a non-starter.

The good news is that people who double down on that line tend to run headfirst into three or four other rules already.

Eh, we did end up developing the Special Relationship. There’s no country on earth with a better track record of influencing American opinion.

My mid-1800s history is a bit rustier, but I understand slave economics were rather entangled with the British market, since textile industrialization was in full swing. The Confederates were certainly hoping for more direct support from their trade partners.

You’re right. I’m used to seeing “security dilemma” deployed in reference to existential threats, since that’s usually when people are most motivated to find an excuse. It seems clear that the academic definition includes any sort of military advantage.

Would you agree that Ukraine reaching out to NATO was driven by a security dilemma? Or that Western support for Ukraine was likewise justified by the tangible security benefits of thousands of dead Russians?

There’s also the Taiwan situation. Increased Chinese influence in the Pacific is, of course, a threat to American hegemony. Does that make a preemptive deployment to Taiwan rational?

First, my whole point was that a "security dilemma" refers to last-resort measures and tangible existential threats, which are the exact situations where nuclear weapons change the calculus.

Second, I want to argue with you, not your pet robot.

I'm confused about how Canadian regions are divided. Which ridings are you counting? Central Newfoundland, Terra Nova, Avalon, Long Range, Labrador...what am I missing?

More effort than this, please.

It’s been less than two weeks and less than five comments since your last ban. I suppose this marks an improvement. Three day ban, this time, to see if we can extrapolate.

  1. You can embed links by enclosing the link text in brackets: “[[1]](https://www.umass.edu/political-science/about/reports/2025-8)” becomes “[1]”.
  2. A summary of links is not, on its own, enough substance for a top-level comment. Please try to add some of your own commentary, theorizing, etc.

Don’t worry, just comment as a reply to the main post. It’s the first text box that has a “Comment” button.

I don’t think you’re using “security dilemma” correctly.

The traditional dilemma is a race to the bottom. Either you gobble up your neighbor or you’re the next meal for someone who consumed theirs. In this model, Russia would invade Ukraine because it needs it to have a chance against NATO. But this is obviously false when Russia has a much, much stronger deterrent already.

(I have seen the argument that NATO missiles launched from Ukraine would somehow invalidate that deterrent, but I don’t find it very convincing.)

More importantly, it should be symmetric, right? Doesn’t NATO have an incentive to keep Russian missiles off its borders? Why aren’t the Baltics clamoring for NATO to invade?

The post-Cold-War international order avoided the security dilemma because it wasn’t a peer competition. America won, we set up the rules which benefited us, and we got what we wanted without having to invade Russia. We don’t have to invade neighbors to feel secure. Maybe that's become less true in the last decade or two. It’s still a hole in the pro-Russian apologetics.