phosphorus2
No bio...
User ID: 3264
phosphorus2
7hr ago
Democrats adopt progressivism because it is useful to them-- because they have particular common needs the ideology serves. They would still be (mostly) bound together if they found a different way of addressing the same needs. That's why I call democrats the urban party-- because their needs and desires are fundamentally a result of what urbanites need and want.
I don't think this makes any sense but I don't care enough to dispute it.
Uh, the fact that we're already here? Two trump assasins and luigi. Unless the economy skyrockets and things start getting immediately better now we're already going through what later historians will probably call "the american troubles" or something alike.
What evidence do you have that any of those 3 people acted in coordination with anyone else? I have seen none and the official account is that there is none. So in no sense could these 3 instnaces be considered organized political violence, by even the broadest definitions. In the context of this thread, where you are mentioning paramilitary groups, this is not a serious response.
Political violence, sure. But 1) organized 2) political 3) violence, no.
phosphorus2
1d ago
To be clear, which I was not really, this is the context of the original claim I had in mind:
I think a future democratic president could also do a lot to obstruct efforts at combatting anti-rich and anti-old paramilitaries.
Ok yes the LA riots and 2020 would both meet the bar of organized political violence. But I think both of these are much closer to "tacitly approved race riots" than to "paramilitary organizations targeting political and / or ideological opponents". They are not and have not been permanent political fixtures, its something that bubbles over every 30 or so years (1967, 1992, 2025).
Even if I were to concede - and say yes, ok, these are two examples of paramilitary orgs targeting people I don't think it proves OP's point.
A man that owns an acre in the urban core is just as much a property owner as a man who owns 100 acres in Nebraska. Whose land is worth more? Where do the rich reside? In the urban core. Who has greater security needs - the property owner in the urban core, or the property owner in Nebraska?
You're probably thinking in terms of burglars and murder statistics. Start thinking in terms of organized political violence instead.
The 1967, 1992 and 2020 race riots were all urban phenomenon. They were targeted at urban whites, not the old or the rich or suburban / rural. Don't quote me on this but I wouldn't be surprised if the rioters burned down and destroyed more of their own community than those of who they were mad at. Even if I were to concede these count as paramilitary orgs doing paramilitary political violence, which I think is very weak, they have historically been targeting by proximity more so than anything else. They aren't going out the the country to do whatever OP has in mind.
phosphorus2
2d ago
The democrats aren't the "progressive" party. They're the urban party. Progressivism is highly adaptive for urbanites, so urbanites adopt progressivism and demand democratic leaders. It's not the other way around, where progressive leaders convert urbanites.
The democrats are definitely the progressive party. Their policy is progressive. The mechanism they arrive at their progressivism doesn't really concern my argument. But if we agree then I don't care to dispute it.
You're probably thinking in terms of burglars and murder statistics. Start thinking in terms of organized political violence instead.
What evidence is there that indicates that the US is headed towards organized political violence? Why would I think in a frame that doesn't accurately reflect the world? No, I am not going to think in those terms, and I find the idea ridiculous.
phosphorus2
2d ago
Previously, a congressional party with 51% majorities in the senate and house could refuse to confirm presidential appointments, and therefore limit the ability of the president to interfere with independent agencies.
Congress still has the power to refuse confirmation with 51% majorities. They still have that ability, in that specific context you yourself have denoted, to limit the president from interfering with independent agencies.
Previously, a president faced the threat of legal action after their term if they violated the law.
The president still faces the threat of legal action after their term if they violated the law. Quoting Trump v. United States:
Held: Under our constitutional structure of separated powers, the nature of Presidential power entitles a former President to absolute immunity from criminal prosecution for actions within his conclusive and preclusive constitutional authority. And he is entitled to at least presumptive immunity from prosecution for all his official acts. There is no immunity for unofficial acts. Pp. 5–43.
Now, presidents can do what they want w.r.t independent agencies, and to interfere congress needs a 51% majority in the house and a 60% majority in the senate to impeach and remove. Now, presidents have permanent immunity against prosecution.
No, this is not true. Congress still controls the purse. Congress can still interfere by cutting funding to the executive branch, and it only needs 51% in both houses. And per above, congress can still interfere by not approving appointments.
The senate needs 2/3rds to remove, not 60%.
No the president does not have permanent immunity against prosecution, see above.
Conrgess has lost a portion of its power over the president, dramatically and permanently.
I do agree that congress has lost some power. I don't think its as drastic as you think it is. I think they have a good change of clawing a lot of that power back by writing bills better. Right now it seems that all congressional funding is passed in omnibus bills, that are very general. They say things like "USAID is an agency that does X, its under control of the president" and "fund USAID with $X money". They give a lot of leeway. If they write the bills with less leeway, then I think they can claw a lot of that power back. Something more like "fund 100 positions to do XYZ at USAID". But we will see.
phosphorus2
2d ago
Presidents need congress to fund their projects and the courts to prosecute people acting against them.
These are reasons that do not support your position that it is easier to create than to destroy, they support the position that it is easier to destroy than to create.
- Funding projects is creation. If the president needs congress to fund their projects, that is a barrier to creation.
- Unfunding projects is destruction. If the president does not need congress to defund projects, then there is no barrier to destruction.
If the president has a barrier to create, but no barrier to destroy, then that should lead you to believe that it is easier for the president to destroy than it is to create. That is the opposite of your position.
Yes, and that's a structural weakness of the democratic party that can only be solved via completely changing their electoral coalition. The democrats need to abandon some group of people that relies on the government to the republicans, while pulling in an anti-government faction.
Ok if the democrats need to completely change their electoral coalition to solve this, then that seems like a pretty good indication that this change really does not favor the democrats. Helping people with the government is a pretty core belief of progressivism. If the democrats abandon that position, then to what extent are they democrats anymore?
I don't think that structural weakness can actually be solved by the democrats. The democrats are the progressive party, and progressivism is about change. Which happens though reform, or action, or creation. If the president can now unilaterally stop and / or destroy federal programs, then that does not favor reform or action or creation.
Yes there are some conservative oxen that can be gored by a left wing president. But structurally there will always be more progressive oxen, the progressives are the ones interested in change and expansion.
The democrats win the urban core, while the republicans win the rural areas. That is to say: the people who literally own more land go for republicans.
A man that owns an acre in the urban core is just as much a property owner as a man who owns 100 acres in Nebraska. Whose land is worth more? Where do the rich reside? In the urban core. Who has greater security needs - the property owner in the urban core, or the property owner in Nebraska?
phosphorus2
2d ago
No, unfortunately (for me) the create-vs-destroy rule works everywhere. Congress needs consensus between both houses to pass laws, but on the contrary either house can defect from equilibrium to shut down the government. That's a structural advantage for conservatives that can't be legislated or protested away.
Ok, but you haven't actually given a reason why your rule works everywhere, in particular for the president. I do agree the rule holds for congress, but you aren't arguing in OP that "create-vs-destroy rule works everywhere", you are arguing it specifically for the president without any support. Why exactly does it hold for the president? Your justification given for the "create-vs-destroy rule" clearly does not apply to the president - the president is one person. There is no barrier of consensus to for one person.
Then if republicans target democratic priorities (welfare for the poor, cultural projects) they can enforce MAD even with a minority government.
Republicans can target these priorities because, if it holds up in court, a president can now just fire anyone who works at a government agency. That clearly structurally favors those who do not like government agencies, the GOP. The president cannot just create a new government agency, not to the extent he can just destroy one. The president still needs congress for funding of that agency.
Given trump's expansion of power, I think a future democratic president could also do a lot to obstruct efforts at combatting anti-rich and anti-old paramilitaries. Landowners fundamentally have higher security needs, which makes the greatest strength of the republican party also their Achilles heel.
There isn't a meaningful difference in voting patterns for landowners or people with money and people without. Suburban voters were split almost 50:50 between trump and kamala.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/1535295/presidential-election-exit-polls-share-votes-income-us/ https://www.npr.org/2024/11/21/nx-s1-5198616/2024-presidential-election-results-republican-shift
No there are not paramilitary groups in the US posing any threat to landowners, or the rich, or old people.
You are not engaging with reality here, the world you are describing does not exist.
phosphorus2
2d ago
Congress not wanting to use its magical powers does not mean that congress does not have magical powers. It has these magical powers regardless of the political context. At any time it could use these magical powers, for any reason it chooses to.
Do you see any dissonance with your two positions? I do.
It would be reasonable to complain about bureacrats having to much power relative to politicians... except for the fact that the politicians have held all the power the entire time, except distributed in such a way that they refused to use it.
That requires 60% of the senate. In the modern political context that's just not going to happen. That gives a president effectively total latitude for at least 4 years, even if midterms cut down their majority to 41%.
In the first you argue that power distribution is inconsequential to a body actually having that power. In the second you argue that power distribution is consequential, consequential to the point of negation, of a body having power. Which is it?
phosphorus2
2d ago
Given that its easier to create than to destroy,
For the president, it is definitely easier to destroy than it is to create. Especially if the president can fire whoever he wants to fire.
Maybe it is harder for congress to destroy than it is to create, but that is because congress needs a degree of consensus. The president does not.
phosphorus2
2d ago
Congress set up the federal bureacracy with an intended balance of power. This is important because, fundamentally, congress is just 435 dudes. They have no magical power to oppose the president-- only the practical power of what they can threaten him with if he won't comply with their demands.
Congress can say to the president "you are no longer president, we have impeached you". That is not just a threat, that is a very real power. They can also overrule his veto.
What does it mean to have balance of power? The president is supposed to be the boss. Congress is to be the purse. If congress sets up a system such that:
- the president can't fire or discipline his own subordinates
- the president can't direct his own subordinates to do things that he is allowed to do
- the president has to do exactly what congress tells him to do with agencies
that to me seems that congress has a lot of power and the president does not have much power. Which is a balance of power, but not a very balanced balance of power.
phosphorus2
1mo ago
believe that if you remove the causes of their grievances they will no longer be as disposed to violence. If you look back in history, there was a population of Palestinian jews who lived in the area without violence - there's actually direct historical evidence of Jewish and Arabic Palestinians living together in peace.
Well there are a bunch of European Jews there now, they understand they themselves are the grievance you describe. And there are several orders of magnitude more evidence that they all won't get along. So someone has to win, and I prefer it to be the ones who currently have nukes and F-35s. They also seem to be a lot more competent than the Gazans.
disarmed in the same way South Africa's were.
What else happened to South Africa? Something mean and competent is better to me than another shithole.
phosphorus2
1mo ago
How exactly do you know this? Do you have access to some kind of magical or scientific device that lets you understand people so well that you can definitively state how they would act in an alternative reality that's extremely different to our own?
Do you hold yourself to this standard on baseless conjecture? How exactly do you know that the Palestinians will "live in peace" if they are fully integrated with a single state solution? The Gazans, who voted in the Kill all Jews Party, will just get along in Israel if they have representation? The ultraorthodox Jews who have been seizing land in the West Bank will be ok with sharing? What is your magical or scientific device that indicates Gazans will play nice, when have they ever done? What happened in other ME states, like Jordan and Lebanon, that accepted in large numbers Palestinians? What evidence do you have a one state solution would turn out well?
Israel: a nuclear armed state, with 5th generation jet fighters, top tier intelligence agencies. If you are wrong about integrating Palestinians into the Israeli state, and all current and historical evidence points to you being wrong, you will hand all of this over to the people who voted in Hamas.
phosphorus2
1mo ago
Somehow, this avoided triggering a housing crisis.
They build houses in Texas. DFW and Houston are both adding housing at a higher per capita rate than their population growth.
https://www.axios.com/local/houston/2024/03/19/texas-population-increase-htx https://constructioncoverage.com/research/cities-investing-most-in-new-housing
phosphorus2
1mo ago
If any critical mass of people here or in other rationalist spaces actually valued the truth above politeness we would rationally immediately ditch all the speech norms of rationalist spaces and adopt those of 4Chan.
When was the last time you went on 4chan? If you have spent a day on /pol/ you have spent a decade there. Nothing changes. Its boring.
phosphorus2
1mo ago
You are misreading the OP. OP is not claiming that X is percolating ideas of a representative sample of the public into the public consciousness, OP is claiming that X is percolating ideas into the public consciousness, period.
phosphorus2
1mo ago
Age is a factor. But I think it is more the structure of the sites. Reddit and FB are too siloed and too moderated, things can't get enough reach to really take off into the public consciousness.
I know very little of Tik Tok so I can't comment.
phosphorus2
1mo ago
I think it has a pretty huge impact. These are the numbers:
- X / Twitter has 100 million US users. It has about 500 million global users. 40% of them are daily users. So 40 million daily US users, about 1 of every 8 Americans.
- Facebook has 250 million US users. 2/3 of FB users are daily active users. So 170 million daily FB users, about half the US population.
- Fox, by far the most watched US TV network, news gets ~2 million primetime viewers.
1/8 Americans is a lot of Americans. No, not as much as FB, but I do agree with OP in that stuff on X seems to percolate a lot better than on FB / Snapchat / IG etc. I can't think of any one organization or app or newspaper that is (recently, last 10 years) more impactful on US political discourse. Maybe the NYT, but even they only have 11 million subs or 3% of the US population.
phosphorus2
1mo ago
If it that competitiveness is innate, then it is a biological phenomenon and a biological advantage for men. Otherwise it could not be innate. So what you're arguing doesn't point to a biological advantage for women, it says the opposite.
phosphorus2
1mo ago
The ad apps, while simple and presumably beneath an intellect of your caliber, make value for the capital employing them. Yet you do not think that the people who make said apps should be paid based on the value they provide the capital employing them:
The people I'm talking about being overpaid...the ones who don't understand shit about computers but get paid $150k+ to stack frameworks on top of frameworks until hey presto the compiler shits out yet another CRUD/advertising app.
But you, the noble quant, should be judged by that same value. And in fact you are underpaid for your value to the capital employing you:
Quants are underpaid relative to the value we generate for the capital employing us
UK tech developers (amongst which group I count many friends) are artificially prevented from moving to greener pastures, which is exactly what is happening.
Have you considered that maybe its because all your really talented British developer friends aren't actually really talented? Maybe they are actually kind of dumb? Like there is this supposedly really lucrative thing they can do, its so easy they can "shit it out", they don't even need to know how computers work, they have the app store in the UK so they don't even need to be in California, but like... they don't actually do it?
Just because the rest of the developed world shoots itself in the foot with regards to overregulation which leads to US companies winning by default doesn't mean they deserve their excess profits any more than a monopoly that doesn't get challenged deserves its excess profits.
There it is. Its you. Claiming to know who deserves what. That's what it always boils down to.
phosphorus2
2mo ago
What do you mean by "solve" at Deity? what's the trick?
Pick bablyon / korea / poland. The strat is tall + science. Get 3 to 4 cities ASAP. Trade resources to get gold per turn to buy settlers. Get a few workers out, then library in each city. You should have national college in your capital before turn 100. Your early game army should be compound bow. Tech tree wise you are basically just going for the science techs (library, university, public schools), and secondarily growth techs (for more pops and therefore science). You should overtake the AI in tech around the industrial age.
The problem is that this is very boring, there is basically only one way to win. All games on Diety start out the same way, see above. There is no building wonders, no early aggression (unless cheesing), no culture or religion. All game mechanics are ignored except for science maxing. There is an optimal way to play, and its also the only way you can win on Diety. So its boring, there is no player choice, even they tech tree path and order you take is more or less decided before the game starts. Same with army: you will go archer -> compound bow -> xbow -> gatling gun and then bombers. If you don't, you will die. It also relies on the AI being dumb and the player easily cheesing them (trading early res for gold, predictable diplomacy, total inability to fight on water).
Also some starts are mega OP and can decide the game for you - salt + plains is OP, jungle + luxury a restart.
phosphorus2
2mo ago
Taiwan has 2% of China's population and 5% of their GDP. They are not able to defend themselves alone in any protracted conflict, either an invasion or blockade. It is unknown if and to what extent the US will support them, especially with Trump soon to be in office. If the Chinese decide to blockade and bomb Taiwan I don't know if even direct US support could stop them. The US Navy has not been able to stop the Houthis from shutting down Red Sea shipping, and the Houthis do not have 1% of the resources the Chinese have.
The only way I see an independent Taiwan in 2040 is if they develop nuclear weapons and delivery systems. The GDP and manpower gap simply do not matter if Taiwan has them, this is the only way they can defend themselves. Whether or not they have the collective will to do this, I don't know. But its either that or get annexed, so my guess is that they will.
phosphorus2
2mo ago
Look, I think that the larger point everyone is trying to make is that whatever scheduling issues you are running into (24 hour shifts, 80 hours weeks), they will get much better if there are more doctors. There may be some good reasons, such as handoffs during surgery, to avoid a straight up 8 hour clock in / clock out, but that can be worked around. Somewhat trivially: if you are mid surgery and your shift is done then just finish the surgery. Keep doctors on salary, but keep them on 8 hour shifts with the expectation that they are to leave when the patient is stable or a hand off is feasible and negligibly bad.
But 24s are often more popular than the alternative. Often the alternative is something like working 16 hours a day 7 days a week. No or less days off. After a 24 you get home between 6am-12pm and get to sleep until the next day. Or run errands while fucked on sleep deprivation.
The point is that there are not two (insane) options. There is a third option, hire more doctors and spread out the hours. Doctors might make less pay, but now they don't have to work 24 hour shifts. I think almost all doctors would take that trade off, and that seems like a great trade off for the patients as they don't have sleep impaired doctors attending to them.
From the outside - it looks like you are defending this system that you and no one else wants. Why? Why do you want to work 24 hour shifts? Why do you defend this system where you have impaired doctors attending to patients, as if there are no other options? Even without more doctors - why not do whatever the NHS apparently does, which is 13 hour shifts?
phosphorus2
2mo ago
I wouldnt work 24 hour shifts in the first place, and I'd be pissed if I found out that a doctor who was seeing me and potentially making huge decisions or recommendations about my health was 23 hours into a shift.
Anyways, average seems to be somewhere in the 50s of hours per week. Increasing the amount of doctors such that they no longer have to work stupid hours seems like a no brainer, I would easily take a ~30% pay cut to go from 55 hours to 40 and not have 24 hour shifts. No idea why doctors wouldnt either.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/1385440/physicians-work-hours-united-states/
phosphorus2
2mo ago
If you cut doctor salaries in half and double the number of doctors, you have improved physician lifestyle at the expense of compensation but not changed costs at all.
This is only true if you also cut the hours doctors work.
phosphorus2
2mo ago
Its not really "nsfw" vs "trigger warning", its the context in which it is used. I see "nsfw" used almost exclusively in the context of warning what a hyperlink connects to - something porographic, or gore, or something that would literally run into a workplace IT web filter. "Don't click this if you want to avoid getting on a workplace IT naughty list", not "don't read this if you are especially offended by topic X". I can also understand its use in the context of a content warning for children, to not have them exposed to something that parents would not want them to be yet.
While I do think you are in good faith, and you're using "trigger warning" in good faith, I don't think the entire concept of "trigger warning" is in good faith. Those that want such warnings want their issue to be elevated to a special and sacred status. That whatever they are offended and traumatized by deserves a ritual acknowledgment before it can be discussed.
When you adopt this language it is accepting this insane frame: that good faith words can be harmful, and that we ought to change our thoughts and behavior to avoid that harm.
Adding a trigger warning to whatever I want to say is legitimizing their frame and enabling their neuroticism.
This is probably my biggest issue with Scott, he argues very well and logically and convincingly within a frame. But the frame is fundamentally wrong. See his writing on this:
I like trigger warnings. Trigger warnings aren’t censorship; they’re the opposite of censorship. Censorship says “Read what we tell you”. The opposite of censorship is “Read whatever you want”. The philosophy of censorship is “We know what is best for you to read”. The philosophy opposite censorship is “You are an adult and can make your own decisions about what to read”.
Censorship does not just say "Read what we tell you." It also says "Write what we tell you and how we tell you." It says "Think how we tell you." The words can be trauma and violence frame is unworkable, there are a near infinite amount of things to be offended about. Arguments should stand and fall on their own merits, their own internal merits, not those of some moral superstructure.
They say that “Confronting triggers, not avoiding them, is the best way to overcome PTSD”. They point out that “exposure therapy” is the best treatment for trauma survivors, including rape victims. And that this involves reliving the trauma and exposing yourself to traumatic stimuli, exactly what trigger warnings are intended to prevent. All this is true. But I feel like they are missing a very important point.
YOU DO NOT GIVE PSYCHOTHERAPY TO PEOPLE WITHOUT THEIR CONSENT.
Because this is where it leads. Someone claiming that not censoring yourself is somehow psychotherapy. As if we need an MD to adjudicate acceptable arguments. Reject the moral superstructure. Don't let people impose it on you and us by being neurotic.
https://slatestarcodex.com/2014/05/30/the-wonderful-thing-about-triggers/
This is not true, reference the SCOTUS case above.
Also nothing about pardon power has changed from Trump, the president could always pardon people. The only change to pardon was arguably Biden giving blanket pardons for future acts.
More options
Context Copy link