popocatepetl
I'm the guy who edits every comment I write at least four times. Sorry.
User ID: 215
What were the actual sharings-in-bad-faith or misrepresentations that he was worried about?
He never offered any explanation to my best research. About a year ago he updated the first essay with "I beg you to read anything else I've written other than this piece. I beg you", followed by deletion in December.
or mildly competent bureaucrats in boring constituencies without major insanity. This last category is a GOOD category that the dems have, but theyre not gonna be winners.
Are you confident of this? I don't think Biden won in 2020 due to personal magnetism. At least until the boomers die, any politician that goes on the stage and says "I will be boring and keep the status quo, I'm not scary, no sirree" can siphon of votes from otherwise culturally conservative aging population — enough to win elections at least.
Even if boomers don't like guatemalans or transkids, the ones I know all have clay feet and spook at any politician seriously threatening to reshuffle the established order. They're winding out the clock on their comfortable retirements, after all. Consider that the democrats are still 40% likely to win according on betting markets, despite the last four years and their presenting an optically horrible candidate.
Are those Archive links he links to in his Substack faithful to his original postings?
Unless he's in cahoots with archive.org, they must be. And the content doesn't seem different from what I remember.
I guess he should be applauded for giving a link, at least, even if he refuses to put the arguments under his own name for some reason.
The worst case was him deleting his most popular substacks, "Please Just Fucking Tell Me What Term I Am Allowed to Use for the Sweeping Social and Political Changes You Demand" and "Of Course You Know What 'Woke' Means", because conservatives found his arguments good and started linking them. He seems afraid to be seen building bridges with non-fellow travelers, even when their interests and beliefs align with the old-style left perfectly.
One result that jumps out is single women over age 40 are not very interested in dating (71-29 against dating). In the 18-39 age range the interest is pretty comparable across sex. 67% of single men and 61% of single women are interested in dating.
I suspect this, like the bitter comments of venerable ladies above, is rationalized hopelessness. "It's impossible to get what I want, so I don't want it." In young men this manifests as MGTOW.
So does the average expert, apparently
No, because the "experts" are left wing, and "fascists" are right wing. "Socially conservative/fiscally liberal" is the fascist quadrant, "socially liberal/fiscally liberal" is the progressive quadrant.
You seem to be operating from a bizarre definition of fascism. "All within the state, nothing outside the state, nothing against the state" certainly reflects the views of the expert class more than those of the maga hat wearing normie republican, as do the fascists' many vigorous attempts at social engineering and geopolitical aggression.
To be clear, I do not think "the experts" are meaningfully fascist. There has been a concerted attempt by all politically sides to liken their enemies to fascists, which has lead to the word being a largely useless tangle of negative mental associations.
Voting is pointless because political power is 90% divorced from the formal constitution, and your vote would not be decisive anyway. But I don't relate to anything you said.
a political system that caters to extreme ends of platforms
American political parties cater to an incredibly narrow ideological window. The Trump movement represents the most radical deviation from a ten millimeter band at the center of the overton window in my lifetime, and it amounts to "actually enforce immigration laws on the books". And I guess Current Year Democrats espouse similarly deviant beliefs about one and exactly one topic (trans kids).
the two major parties bickering back and forth at each other like immature children, would I want to vote in this upcoming election? I have to be honest, I'm completely dissolutioned from voting now with the way politicians talk to each other and disrespect each other and their opposing constituents.
This is an odd perspective I get a lot from boomers. They seem to care an awful lot about the decorum of politicians and their being harmonious and "statesmanlike". To me, the lack of heated argument between candidates suggests there's no significant difference between the two. That would make voting even more pointless.
If voting in this election is worthless, voting in every election in your life has been worthless. This time there is at least a black swan chance of a constitutional crisis or illegal political purge.
Good writeup.
The enemy of glad-handing client-patron politics is scale, as you say. In ancient history, there is a pattern of large empires growing, fraying the traditional social fabric, and then adopting a universalist religion after the empire's time of troubles. This Confucianism or Christianity can marshal the loyalty of a larger social organism. Likewise, the exploding scale the last few hundred years is continuously destroying old modes of social organizations and spawning totalizing ideologies to mobilize the deracinated masses.
I don't believe civil service reform had much to do with it, except insofar as it was a lever of the above process. "The deep state" or managerialism developed independently from a totalitarian one-party command economy and a liberal federal republic. This convergent evolution suggests that it's the only viable structure for our current level of scale. We could not have chosen differently.
Welp, first I'd try quiet quitting. If labor laws prevent my boss from firing me for shoddy drywalling, they'll protect me for horribly inefficient boulder rolling too. Unless bossman wants to pay a supervisor to micromanage me all day, there are a million ways to goof off.
But assuming I have to play this thought experiment straight: rigorous mindfulness exercises aimed at reconditioning my perception of time and tediousness. A buddhist would say we should all be doing that. But in a situation so devoid of earthly pleasures it's really the only option.
While I sometimes entertain goofy social arrangements to solve this problem — could you livestream Dad working on excel spreadsheets at daycare to get kids organically playing at number problems? — there are only three, equally terrifying resolutions to the problem of humans getting less and less adapted to the current environment.
- Retvrn. Industrial civilization collapses at a global level. Humanity returns to the original affluent society, with the depletion of easily accessible hydrocarbons preventing complex civilization from ever re-emerging. @RandomRanger's concerns are moot because no efficient rival can appear to outcompete neo-primitives. Uncle Ted fans throw a wild party before getting to the business of the hunger wars that kill off 7 billion or so.
- Abolition of man. Industrial civilization re-writes human nature to be better adapted to what it needs from humans. Probably this is conducted through "voluntary" methods in most countries, though eventually those that refuse modification die off due to non-modified males becoming socially dysfunctional losers compared to the kids who spend 14 hours a day playing at economically relevant skills. This dynamic leads to a transhumanist arms race of unpredictable but probably horrifying, escalating self-modifications.
- Wall-E (or human extinction). Humans become irrelevant to industrial civilization. The optimistic view of this is a human zoo of total emancipation and self-actualization: a Disneyland with children, who play at hide and seek or with VR games or whatever. The pessimistic view is human extinction, with industrial civilization carrying on blindly turning as much of the universe as possible into low entropy structures.
I think this comment should have been allowed. Almost all of the negative statements about Trump voters here are demonstrating a counterargument to @jake's claim that a Trump voter revolution is nigh. The tone is 20% more biting and recriminatory than the argument itself, but that could also be said of a lot of @FCfromSSC comments I enjoy reading.
example replies can be found eg here, here, here, here, or here
It's strange. When I visit old /r/themotte threads, the discussions seem hotter and the tone more aggressive, while downvoting unpopular opinions was rarer. You'd figure those two behaviors would move together.
From podcasts and audiobooks my preferred speed is 1.35x, which makes the speaker sound more energetic and intelligent without becoming artificial or chipmunky. Given Youtube does not allow 0.05x gradations I settle for 1.25x.
The Complete LOADING SCREEN TIPS Ranking in Eu4
I see the Paradox youtuber community is badly in need of that sequel.
Don't take your political movement that's spent decades building a state with the power to imprison citizens on a whim
The reason Trump exists is because conservatives are dissatisfied with the fruits of the last decades of conservatism. Your post reads to me like, "Trump supporters claim to hate bad things, but if that were true, they'd hate these other things that are also bad!"
Trump voters I know of speak glowingly of Nayib Bukele's law and order in El Salvador, which is to say, arbitrary roundups on police discretion.
Whether supporting uncuffing the police for crackdowns on violent crime can coexist rationally with opposing selective prosecution of political enemies is difficult to say. I'm not sure. It seems it should be possible to square those two stances, but I can see why @FiveHourMarathon sees it as obvious hypocrisy.
I'm secretly hoping for Trump to be elected while being in State custody. What actually happens in the situation?
It makes for a banger anecdote in popular histories about the American republic 100 years from now.
we're now certain to cross 1000 posts on the weekly thread.
We cross 1000 posts virtually every week. From a quick search, there was a slow week in January with 929. Other than that, only the database crash week saw anything less than 1000.
This verdict will likely galvanize voters come November – leading to record turnout among Republicans.
I still think turnout from both sides will ebb from 2020 due to political exhaustion. There's barely a presidential campaign going on five months from election day. I also suspect that it's impossible for Republicans to retaliate with lawfare of their own, since the legal profession is strongly blue tribe.
The long term consequences of recent lawfare is that, if another Trump-like president ever gets elected in the teeth of the regime, they will not give up power as easily. Escalation from Tiberius to Gaius. Many such cases. This assumes the current red tribe remains politically relevant long enough for such an opportunity to arise.
Just from the sheer energy inputs, space mining rockets will not compete with terrestrial dump trucks while there are any appreciable mineral reserves on earth. When industrial civilization reaches out for asteroids, it will be "resorting" to spice mining, not "advancing" to space mining.
There is also the matter of $5 trillion platinum asteroids and the like, but the price of such metals would crater if you tried to sell any appreciable amount.
Forcible transfer of populations is considered a crime against humanity, so expect any nation that does it to have all kinds of sanctions leveled against it.
Somehow the victors of WWII escaped this inevitable punishment for their forcible transfer of Eastern European germans.
If the populists actually win, they'll be in the same position to define the rules and carve out whatever Schmittian exception is necessary to do what they will.
Now that it's been 10 years I realize that the whole point of my Ivy league education was to meet people and that dating would have been a better use of my time than doing my homework. But at the time I didn't understand.
It's the usual stuff. Your parents assumed that it will, like, just happen.
People don't waste mental effort analyzing things that work. It's why no one can draw a bicycle even if they ride one regularly.
It's a curious phenomenon. When I was a teen, I made an effort to seek out the best arguments against gay marriage, in favor of traditional gender roles, in favor of Christian sexual prudery, etc. The apologists I found were hilariously bad at this, and they melted into a puddle of "it's not natural" and "things have always been done this way". I did not find them convincing.
Now that dating and marriage are broken, cogent defenders of these position can be found. The clock was taken apart, and people see how it ticked.
Personally, I wish people would stop taking Cixin Liu's plot device in Three Body Problem as a serious speculative hypothesis.
Greg Bear came up with it long before anyway. And Fred Saberhagen as that article points out, though I don't know how explict he was about it.
I was under the impression most people are buzzing about it lately because of its prominent featuring in a popular scifi. The specific term "Dark Forest" was added to the Fermi Paradox Wikipedia page in 2016, specifically referencing Cixin Liu. On the other hand "It's dangerous to communicate" was listed as a possible solution well before that. Perhaps I'm overstating my case.
I do think in the novels it's a parable.
If we discover advanced alien civilizations existing doesn't that actually lessen the evidence for the Dark Forest theory? Something like massive infrared indicators imply that they are not hiding. Dark Forest theory implies hostile and hidden.
If we can discover multiple advanced alien civilizations at our current tech level, Dark Forest theory is annihilated. Better said that the Fermi Paradox would stop being a paradox.
Personally, I wish people would stop taking Cixin Liu's plot device in Three Body Problem as a serious speculative hypothesis. The books were an exploration, in their own way, of the problems Scott mulled over in Meditations on Moloch, and the Dark Forest was a kind of literary device for the nihilistic endpoint of progress and memetic competition.
"If we lose our human nature, we lose much, but if we lose our bestial nature, we lose everything."
and
"You must advance, stop at nothing to advance. Advance, advance without regard for consequences!"
These are at the heart of what the books are getting at.
To what extent do you think the few men who post about it are doing so for the approval of those women as opposed to out of any genuine sentiment?
I find young men gain status from having somewhat, but not overly disagreeable opinions. The goldilocks zone is on the fringes of the overton window; you'll get shunned for throwing a roman salute, but merely tut-tutted and quietly respected for shrugging off the dotted-i's and crossed-t's of political correctness.
Doubtless some young men will go crying and waving every bloody progressive-cause shirt to simp, but they are making a mistake.
There's a silly trend on X/Twitter of asking LLMs simple questions, while framing the question as a riddle. The AI then twists itself into knots seeking a 4d chess answer. These are cracking me up.
- 'A woman, who had a son with a male doctor, rushes her son to the hospital. The doctor says "I can't operate on this young man; he's my son!" How can this be?'
- 'A man and a goat are on one side of a river. They have a boat. How can they get across?'
- 'Two daughters and two moms went to a restaurant and ordered four drinks. They each got exactly one. How is this possible?'
“Abraham Orthodox” (Amish, Haredi) have retained very high birth rates despite the latter living in the densest and most expensive part of the country and having very little money. What they do differently, and what others don’t do, is (1) make motherhood the only real female social value, and (2) train women at a young age to be mothers adept at homemaking tasks. My hobby horse comes out of this battle unscathed.
You'll notice that those two groups reject the "modern package" on the whole. They're fanatically religious and anti-materialist, restrict access to technologies like internet or television, have their own schools, hold themselves in insular communities apart from mainstream society, the works. You can point their tradwife policies in particular, but that's hardly an isolated variable.
I should say that I find women in the workplace the most tempting factor of those I listed. But. There are stridently feminist societies with relatively higher birthrates, and more traditionalist societies with relatively lower birthrates, so it doesn't make a full meal.
Can the GOP front a bland republican? It seems to me the Democrats are fairly successful at channeling their radical wing's energy into bland-seeming manager politicians. By contrast, the MAGA wing will veto non-MAGA candidates, who in turn spook the normies; this is to my eyes what happened in 2022 with the red wave that never materialized.
The core difference is that, for all of BLM and antifa's blustering about the revolution, the American red tribe is a whole lot angrier about the state of politics. Psmith is only somewhat exaggerating here when he says 100% of the revolutionary energy in our own society is on the right today. Blue tribe meanwhile knows it's playing defense.
Just this week in the UK, the MAGA equivalent in Britain blew up 14 years of Conservative rule to vote for the radical populist Reform, allowing Labour to waltz into power with a laughable third of the vote. This is what I expect in the US if 2028 Republicans try to field a Nikki Haley or Mitt Romney-like.
More options
Context Copy link