non_radical_centrist
No bio...
User ID: 1327
non_radical_centrist
2d ago
transparent pro-Israel astroturfing
Do you really think any sort of organized group is interested in astroturfing themotte? No organization is paying people to type up comments to be read by ~200 people max.
I would think 'terrorism' a discredited label, counterproductive in most cases, especially in the context of distant desert squabbles.
It's not. Terrorism is pretty consistently using violence targetted specifically at civilians in order to enact political change. Hamas sometimes acts like a legitimate military force, but they also do things like cafe bombings and parading kidnapped naked women through the streets. And notably the leadership doesn't disavow those actions and put any fighters who commit acts like that on trial.
non_radical_centrist
2d ago
I believe something like a green cloth armband fits the standard, for pseudo-militaries that can't do better
non_radical_centrist
9d ago
How many supporters would Trump really lose from a gaffe? Doesn't Trump do pretty much nothing but gaffes and his supporters love him for it?
non_radical_centrist
10d ago
I think it was just really funny of him. It wasn't some brilliant move, it wasn't a mistake, it was just a small +EV event that's really entertaining to the internet
non_radical_centrist
11d ago
surely learning an extremely valuable skill must take a lot more time and effort – otherwise everyone would do it, right?)
Absolutely not. People procrastine and are lazy as hell. There are many skills that are relatively easy to learn but the learning is unpleasant enough most people just don't do it
non_radical_centrist
12d ago
Nancy Pelosi's stock market gains are not anything crazy. She just gambled on the tech market going up, and it did. The average congressperson's portfolio doesn't particularly outperform the market.
non_radical_centrist
18d ago
I think a large amount of the viewership will be women, a lot will be solid liberals or leftists, and a lot of the viewership will never have actually heard Trump speak for more than five minutes, and I'll talk with that in mind. I think a large amount of Trump's supporters are very die hard too and he doesn't have to worry about people abandoning him because he says different stuff on the podcast than during rallies.
I think I'd take it as an opportunity to make it clear that a lot of things liberals attack me over are just false. Say you support abortion rights and make it clear you didn't implement any new abortion restrictions, you just gave the choice back to the states, and that states are free to be like New York and implement limits far looser than what European countries have if that's what they want. Double down on European countries having stricter abortion limits than a lot of US states, and that that could be what the whole US ended up with if congress ever overruled the Supreme Court about abortion instead of each state being left to its own devices.
I wouldn't dodge questions about tariffs and illegal immigrants, but I'd try to dwell on them minimally, and only bring up the strongest points about them. Talk about illegal immigrants committing rape or something.
Talk about pacifism and keeping America out of foreign conflicts, and not wasting American tax dollars.
Really play up my humour and make lots of jokes and small talk. Ideally most of the podcast would be talking about non-political stuff, like asking Alex questions and joking with her instead of her asking me questions. Trump's a very funny guy.
Personally I think there would be a lot of flaws in Trump's arguments, I'm more liberal/libertarian myself and think there are solid counter-arguments that a knowledgeable hostile interviewer could point out, but that Alex Cooper (I assume, I don't actually know her) won't be particularly knowledgeable about the details of the issues.
non_radical_centrist
21d ago
I don't know any country I'd point to as an examplar to follow for defense procurement. I still think there are some very obvious improvements we can take as a country.
non_radical_centrist
22d ago
Yeah, that scenario or any other sort of black swan scenario we can't place numbers on like societal collapse post-super volcano or the invention of like a Chinese super weapon that leads to a WW3 would also benefit from a better military
non_radical_centrist
22d ago
Canada was in the Afghanistan war, we had soldiers peacekeeping during the breakup of Yugoslavia. We've had soldiers die because their equipment was inadequate. It's entirely plausible one day there'll be another 9/11-esque attack, but on Canadian soil, and we'll need to carry our fair share of the response. We need a navy that can patrol the arctic to assert our sovereignty on it over Russia.
Yes, Canada doesn't need to be as militarized as say Israel or South Korea. But at the very least I think it's totally reasonable for Canada to try to avoid some needless waste due to stuff like politicians pandering or avoiding responsibility.
non_radical_centrist
22d ago
I've been reading a couple books about the sad state of Canadian military procurement. I think procurement for the sort of country Canada is is a legitimately difficult problem, but one that's eminently solvable with better informed voters and if party leadership had some more integrity.
There are three or four principle problems with Canadian defense procurement, that date back to debacles like the Ross rifle which constantly jammed in WW1 and the Avro Arrow which was an overengineered interceptor, and are still issues with more modern boondoggles like the F-35 and the Seahawk replacement acquisitions.
The first is just that Canada is an expensive country to properly defend. We've got an enormous, sparsely populated country, so ships and planes need to be able to travel far distances and need to be able to do it with infrequent refueling. Plus they need to be able to withstand the extreme cold and the ice in the arctic. This is part of what killed the Avro Arrow; no other country wanted to buy it and help Canada recoup the costs because no other country needed the (expensive) capabilities it offered. This is just something Canada needs to accept, that sometimes it will have to pay more to get the job done in Canadian conditions.
The second is a desire to build in Canada, to provide jobs to Canadians and build up a Canadian defense manufacturing industry. I'm sympathetic to this idea- it seems like a great deal to pay just a bit more and keep all the jobs and capital within your own country right? But in practice it's not just a bit more, it's multiple times more. There was an Iltis Jeep procurement order that, if bought from Volkswagen, would've cost $26 000 per jeep. Because the government wanted it to be built in Canada, it cost $84 000 per jeep. At that point you're paying more to build in Canada than you are paying for the actual thing you want. It'd make sense if the alternative was buying military equipment from China or even a neutral country like South Africa, but not from a NATO ally. And if Canada does want to build up its industry, I'm of the opinion it should be done in the style of South Korea- only subsidize Canadian manufacturers if they can actually export internationally and produce stuff other countries want. That's the only test that can't be faked to confirm Canadian manufacturers are really producing good stuff worthy of subsidy. In general I think among allies, there should be more cooperation and specialization for military production. Let the USA build the planes, South Korea and Netherlands build the ships, Germany build the jeeps, and so on. Not to assign official responsibilities to countries, but to let them compete in a freer market, so whoever's actually best at making the goods can get the contracts. And if your country isn't actually competent enough to build anything anyone wants, you should just suck it up instead of spending tons of taxpayer money propping up an incompetent industry.
The third problem is that procurements become very political. In the Avro Arrow case, the liberal government stalled cancelling it even after they knew it was doomed to avoid the bad press for it; then the conservatives taking over after the next election also stalled cancelling it to avoid the bad press. Then with the Seahawks replacement, Chretien attacked the conservative government over the EH101 replacement for being too expensive. Then when he took over as Prime Minister, he wasted 500 million and years of delays trying to find a different replacement after realizing the EH101 was just the right choice for a replacement by any fair measure. Then Justin Trudeau did basically the exact same thing when he called the F-35s too expensive only to realize they were the only plane that offered what Canada needed, but only after he delayed their procurement for years and wasted tons of money in the process.
The fourth problem I honestly think is basically unavoidable, and that's that procurement has to go through a ton of bureaucracy. The Canadian Armed Forces, the Department of Defense, the ministry of industry, and Public Service and Procurement Canada are all involved in any big ticket procurement order. And if you try to bypass one, once it finds out it'll stall things up for a couple years insisting on doing its own analysis. One of the books I read recommended making a dedicated new ministry just for military procurement, like what the UK and Australia apparently have, to streamline things. Personally I doubt that'd make things significantly better. It sounds like the Yes, Minister sketch that goes "We've completed the study of which bureaucrats we can cut." "What'd you find?" "That we're short of 8000 bureaucrats". I think large bureaucracy in modern governments is basically inevitable, and trying to cut it down or reform it is basically a waste of energy until you've first fixed some larger scale problems like public sector unions.
non_radical_centrist
22d ago
A lot of corruption is by dumb people too. If you're smart, usually just being honest produces better outcomes than trying to game the system.
non_radical_centrist
25d ago
Yes, I don't think any of that is that difficult.
non_radical_centrist
28d ago
It's voluntary, but when it comes to the Delta Gamma of this email (assuming that the email is real),
The fact that that's newsworthy at all, and is from ten years ago, suggests to me that that sort of extreme pressure is an exception not the rule
non_radical_centrist
28d ago
For scene girls (what does Gen Z call them?)
Alt girls is the term for goth-lite girls these days, scene is basically never used by gen-z
Why isn't there one for girl nerds? For scene girls (what does Gen Z call them?)? For purple-hairs? For radfems? For Blacks? For academically obsessed Asians?
I think part of the reason why those fail is that the cool kids are cool for a reason. Many of the people in all of those sub-cultures really would have more fun being in a traditional sorority with all the really charismatic and hot people than being around their own kind.
non_radical_centrist
28d ago
I think it just comes down to reading a lot of stuff from different points of view. If you read two books that advocate for opposite beliefs, you can't come out too badly.
non_radical_centrist
28d ago
They want to ban immigration like how the union wants to ban automation. To reduce competition for jobs, at the expense of everyone else who could be benefiting from greater productivity.
non_radical_centrist
29d ago
I'd have a lot more sympathy for unions if they just demanded higher wages/safer working conditions, even extreme increases, instead of fighting against automation and other measures that increase productivity.
non_radical_centrist
29d ago
At times it seemed to be building toward something like "people are too complicated to perfectly understand, so don't get overconfident". But it always seemed to revert back to "this situation seems complicated, but let me explain everyone's exact thoughts and motivations". Similarly, lots of "here's the popular idea about this, but isn't it a little too neat and tidy? Let's look deeper", but then its own narratives end up exactly as reductive/simplistic/superficial.
That's Malcolm Gladwell's standard Modus Operandi. I've read/listend to a lot of his stuff, and he's extremely hit or miss with his research. He's pretty entertaining at least, even though he sometimes lands way off base with his conclusions.
I'm passingly curious whether you ended up making the post on policing.
No, I never did.
non_radical_centrist
1mo ago
It's really seen more of a failure of her ethics than his, although discrediting one of the few journalists who liked him probably counts for something. Really the far bigger issue with him is that he cheated on his wife with dozens of women at all
non_radical_centrist
1mo ago
Personally I think a lot of "wisdom" is over rated. My recommendation is to look for stuff backed by math, like game theory. This lecture series by Yale is great: https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PL6EF60E1027E1A10B
I also recommend the book "Algorithms to Live By".
non_radical_centrist
1mo ago
A journalist wrote some pro-RFK articles, then was revealed to have had a sexual relationship with him. It's particularly scandalous because she's thirty and he's seventy. I think they were just sexting not fucking.
non_radical_centrist
1mo ago
It's created by the Heritage Foundation and is generally in line with the Republican party agena of the past few decades. Heavier on social conservatism than libertarianism, as Heritage is a social conservative think tank.
non_radical_centrist
1mo ago
Many types of mental retardation also come with physical defects that make the person ugly. When that's not true, I don't think it's an instinctive "ick" so much as their condition makes them not very good conversationalists. So you talk to them for fifteen minutes and decide you don't really want to talk to them any longer.
Israel does not kill civilians for the sake of killing civilians. They take out military targets that unfortunately have civilians nearby, because civilians are nearby everything in Gaza.
There's a debate to be had about how many civilians it's justifiable to kill when taking out an enemy leader or military installation. What Hamas does is different, they kill civilians that are nowhere near any military personnel or installations.
https://zoa.org/2023/10/10448582-sickening-video-shows-disgusting-hamas-terrorists-parading-naked-battered-woman-through-streets/
That's a disgusting video. Even more disgusting is that that sort of thing isn't clearly and unconditionally condemned by Palestinian leadership. All people have some members who are disgusting. But good groups will have their leaders disavow disgusting members.
More options
Context Copy link