The cult classic signal boost means movies become memes and, if the meme gets popular, they trend from underrated to overrated. Although maybe that's just how the culture creates consensus in general.
'93 had some real cultural bangers. Looking at the link I clearly missed a a few highlights! Falling Down is lower in the list at #33. Snobbery aside, I appreciate it was made instead of an additional Grisham or Clancy derivative screenplay.
Agreed. I read a leader managing her club members by pointing at a number of perceived failures that have been brought to her attention. The failures may seem crazy to normal people, but for someone invested in the organization, who cares about the status involved, it probably is sensible enough. A straight forward I'm gonna give you three seconds, exactly three fucking seconds to wipe that stupid looking grin off your face or I will gouge out your eyeballs and skull-fuck you. memo.
This writer is responsible for a club exclusively filled with young people going through first time experiences. Those young people do dumb things that reflect badly on her organization and have to be taught otherwise. Regularly, I would guess. She probably doesn't have leadership experience to draw upon except for the leadership of the person who previously filled the role. This communication technique and style has likely been optimized for dealing with 19 year old kids that don't know jack shit, don't care about anything but sex and booze, and will repeatedly embarrass everyone around them unless dealt with appropriately. Sororities are filled with the same age range that attends boot camp. Coincidence?
It's not my own leadership style and it might be an exceptionally American context, but I wouldn't write up any psychological profiles just because an internal memo is brash. Keep the brats in line, I say.
Yeah, I suspect the same. Panic attacks, alcohol, or misjudged (intentional) drug mixtures.
I was curious so I did some light searching. It just doesn't seem very common. Especially in the college environment. Here's one article from 2023 about some college kids that went to the hospital. There's no further information, so this could just well be some teens that mixed the wrong drugs, got sent to the hospital, and told Mom they were roofied so as to escape responsibility.
Boston had a bunch of reports on spiked drinks in their bar scene through 2022 resulting in this article. But, even the article says the spike of reports that year wasn't attached to reported crimes. Just more than usual number of people saying they had drugs put in their drinks.
Of the 116 drink-spiking cases reported to the BPD in 2022, only 10 of them involved someone who had a positive toxicology screen for anything from ketamine to GHB and Rohypnol. Cambridge police, meanwhile, wouldn’t share how many cases of suspected drink spikings have occurred in their city, saying only that of the unstated total, one victim tested positive for GHB. The remaining accusers had no chemical evidence to support their claims.
All of this makes finding out what’s actually happening in Boston-area bars, nightclubs, and concert venues even more difficult: Not only is the motive a mystery, but the hard evidence that drink spikings even occurred at all is elusive. Without the easy ability to gather evidence proving they were drugged, many people choose not to go to the police, fearing the cops either won’t do anything or won’t believe them.
The risk of spiked drinks seems overblown and often conflated with intentional recreational drug use. My gut instinct is that half or more of spiked drink reports that involve alcohol are, in fact, excessive amounts of alcohol. The committed, regular binge drinking 20 year old girl is not wise or experienced. She drinks 4 shots instead of 2 in an hour and she might as well be drinking a can of ketamine-GHB soup.
There are sketchy dudes slipping drugs into girls drinks somewhere. If it is as large of a concern as it is made out to be, then they might be the most effective, disciplined population of criminal out there. Perhaps roofie rings are a Greek tradition insulated from the prying eyes of the outside world. The old generation inducts the new generation of rapists how best to take advantage of young women discretely. They have rites of passage, a vow of silence, and pass on their source for GHB or whatever.
The spiked drink may be a narrative prone to exaggeration and moral panic. But, it's still a good idea for young people, especially women, to look out for each other and develop buddy system habits when partying. Which is my guess at the impetus behind it all.
There's no official mechanism that allows removal of a member that doesn't consent. If the alliance is dependent on however the USA feels about a member at any given time this diminishes the value of joining the alliance. The value of the alliance is also diminished by an adversarial member that does adversarial things too. Maybe to a lesser extent.
There's nothing that practically stops all the other members agreeing to boot Turkey out, considering that decision "unanimous", then writing a new rule about removal after the fact. Officially the alliance member needs to consent to removal to leave.
That's all a lot of mess when NATO and the US can just wait out Erdogan and hope the next guy is more compliant. Despite the theatrics and politics they did host support for US through the GWOT. Turkey also hasn't kicked all NATO personnel out of the country recently. Which they did in the 70's as I recall. So maybe they've always been a bit of an adversarial partner in the alliance. The grandstanding, bloviating, and opportunistic haggling is the price to pay for a relatively, if not quite as important as 50 years ago, important strategic ally.
I hadn't considered that before. If technical or DIY Discord servers exist they should definitely try to save searchable logs for posterity. Already an entire Great Library has been lost with IRC chats.
Is it acceptable to just lie for victimhood points at this point?
Yes. An example of this has stuck in my mind the past couple months. I was listening to this Bari Weiss podcast on a run. It focuses on the story of Matthew Shepard which was "the most notorious anti-gay hate crime in American history." A national tragedy and outrage of the 90's, so city liberals had so more evidence to deride the experience of small town bigotry. They wrote a play and made a movie about it.
Matthew Shepard was a young gay man living in a college town in Wyoming. He was found murdered and tortured to death in 1998. The narrative of "gay man butchered to death for gaying too gayly" galvanized gay rights advocates for the follow decade. Contemporary reporting very quickly turned to gay hate crime. This podcast is an hour long conversation with author Ben Kwaller who did first-hand reporting in Laramie, Wyoming and research on the murder for a book with a different conclusion.
Turns out that there is a fair bit of evidence and testimony that Matthew Shepard probably wasn't murdered for being gay. Because Matt used and sold meth. He was murdered by a guy he sometimes had meth dealings with, and probably had sex with according to other testimony. The gruesome nature of his murder was possibly not the product of virulent gay bashing, but a meth fueled macabre butchery. Done by a desperate, indebted addict whose life was falling apart. His murderer had not slept or consumed anything except drugs for several days.
In the Honestly episode Ben Kwaller shares recordings of one of his visits to Laramie. Ben (who is gay) goes to some college LGBTQ+ group and interviews them. He asks what the town thinks of the countervailing narrative. He wants to know if they at all consider the implications that their narrative was wrong. One of students says that Ben, the guest and author, should stop asking these questions, because they make him uncomfortable. I won't find the time stamp unless asked, but I can hear his voice say the words "read the room."
The student meant that this is our rallying cry. Think of all the good that has come out of this noble lie. Imagine a world where gays across America didn't believe Matthew Shepard, their avatar, was brutally murdered for being gay. We might not even have gay marriage! We might not have all these vigils and community and influence. Stop asking questions. Let us have it.
"Read the room." I'm not particularly black pilled, but conflict theorists do be winning sometimes.
Now I expended all my typing on a semi-related event. I do appreciate the write up. It's good. But, frankly, I am tired of the mass graves story. I can't draw the energy to care that the NYT finally reported on a story with marginally more integrity than the CBC has ever had. This specific article was written just over a year ago. It has the mainstream framing of the topic in August 2023, which is years after journalists had plenty of reasons to ask meaningful questions about the narrative. I'm sure we have had dozens of top-level mass graves threads in the Culture War Roundup's various forms. It keeps on chugging along.
The mass graves story, and how deep its roots grew into Canadian society, was an eye opener at the time. First, it demonstrated that Canadians had ended any and all resistance to the American culture war waged at their doorstep. Not only did Canada capitulate, but Canada picked up the banner and dedicated itself wholeheartedly to the cause. Progress. Truth seeking doesn't always scratch an itch. People want to prostrate themselves before a greater power. Canada's elite, advocacy groups, certain tribal leaders, and media saw they could leverage that desire for gain. Why not? A new national past time is born.
Canada doesn't really have the same sort of adversarial media presence that the US does, does it? If a few Native American leaders enrich themselves, a few politicians win elections, and some money gets embezzled because we're telling a noble lie, so what? Think of all the good that has come out of this. Read the room.
Not a question, just a commentary. Those can go here, right?
May the Lord bless 200x-201x forum culture. I weep for a future where it is entirely absent.
I recently ran into an issue with an older car. I don't drive it much, but I like that it has real buttons, drives nice, and isn't worth selling. It's not a special car, so there's no living fandom to squeeze for this particular model/year. If there is, then I didn't think to seek it out. There was, however, a treasure trove that was old forum culture. This history saved me some time, pain, and brain cells.
All because a guy 15 years ago had the same problem. He started a thread on this problem. No one else helped or even replied to this particular thread. This was only one man posting his frustrations and thoughts into the void. He tells the void what kind of failure it looks like. A few days later he details his frustration with a diagnosis and troubleshooting. Tried this, no luck. Thought it was that, nope. He tells us about his next plan of action and what it might be if it wasn't that.
Despite the lack of replies, forum guy returns a couple days later to tell the void he has figured it out. He lets Future Strangers know this, because this is what being a member of a hobby group is. You take what you need, then contribute when you can. The next day he posts again: don't forget a new O-ring! Sometimes they rot away and you wouldn't even notice because they'd be missing. Also, in case you didn't know here are the exact dimensions of the O-ring. (Diagrams were maybe not as readily available back then.) It doesn't matter to me that these old parts distributors mentioned are long gone. Amazon is a convenient replacement.
That one other guy, maybe one of a dozen that had the same obscure issue went out of his way to save me time. All for nothing except an extra point on his post counter and, potentially, a feeling that he was helping out the boys that had taught him in kind. Maybe the thread was a natural expression of his frustration. Unlike me, he didn't have an Old Forum Guy resource to draw upon.
Forums still exist. We're typing on one. Even the particular forum I referenced still exists. Much of forum culture has been paved over-- often improved -- with new forum-esque platforms, subreddits, DIY videos, and AI. So many more people helping others selflessly-- or for karma, Instagram followers, Youtube supplemental income, and passing the time. In which case this post is just an appreciation post of the internet. It's pretty sweet. Because calling your mechanic friend for troubleshooting more than once a year is bad etiquette, and putting a car in the shop takes more of everything.
In this case the newer hubs of troubleshooting didn't help me. Old Forum Guy did. Bless his heart. I'll think about you the next time I tap out, Old Forum Guy.
I've recently revisited the the only Cultural Marxism article on Wikipedia after I saw this discussion (again) in the last 30 days. I keep forgetting to ping you. Wasn't it you who used to maintain the Cultural Marxism subreddit? Did that get binned?
In case it wasn't you, you may remember from the /r/slatestarcodex CW thread days: it was a subreddit where someone had tried to collate a lot of older Cultural Marxist materials, since the Wiki page was already shot by then.
wemptronics
2mo ago
I just don't understand the point of an operation like this except to provoke fear and a regional conflict.
Do I have news for you. The region is in conflict. Hezbollah and Israel have been in a hotter-than-usual shooting war for nearly a year.
The point to me looks like it is to damage and degrade Hezbollah operations by attacking their communications network. Fear is an element and tool in all conflicts. If you can scare your enemy into using messenger boys on bikes instead of instantaneous, encrypted communications you've made their decision making process much slower. Presumably, the reason Hezbollah has so many pagers is that they moved away from cell phones due to Israeli capabilities and actions.
If you only accept unequivocal victory as a meaningful action in conflict, then there's no point to much of war. Maybe it's true and a sad reality that much of conflict is pointless. Rocket Attack #3019 seems pretty pointless, yet everyone seems pretty dedicated to continue without points.
It's just a terrorist attack.
Terrorist attacks typically target civilians. If reports are true, then this attack targeted Hezbollah operatives embedded in the the Hezbollah supply chain. That would explain why an Iranian ambassador was hurt.
Most civilians don't use pagers anymore. Even civilians in the African bush have fancy cell phones with big screens. I'd wager in a place like Lebanon that possession of a pager is so highly correlated to being involved in Hezbollah operations that saying "everyone that has a pager in Lebanon helps Hezbollah" is largely a fact.* Downstream of the pager supply probably includes some doctors, logisticians, and other adjacent support personnel, but it probably it includes a lot of invested decision makers and operatives as well.
- Some professions still use a lot of pagers. For now it seems there are still functioning hospitals, so not ever doctor's pager was blown up.
Smells like bullshit to me. Thinking of a way it could be real...
A real, Trump supporting ABC employee of 10+ years exists. Some or most of the things described actually happened the way they are described. Employee doesn't want to go public because he would like to keep his job? One way or another ABC employee meets Random Bullshit Twitter Guy. Random Bullshit Twitter Guy (RBTG) has no real experience in anything other than Random Bullshit Twittering, so he comes up with the affidavit + notarized letter to speaker idea without any attachment to Trump campaign. This is the best he can come up with, the debate happens, and he slow rolls the facts to maximize his good boy points.
Grammatical errors, capitalization, and formatting aside, stuff like this paragraph reads more like bad campaign messaging than it does a whistleblower that is reporting due to his/her integrity.
"No questions concerning her brother-in-law, Tony West, who faces allegations of embezzling billions of dollars in taxpayer funds and who may be involved in her administration if elected."
The exposition makes sure the audience (us, the public, not congressmen) knows who Tony West is. Perhaps he could have received input from some Trump campaign staff while crafting this testimony? He is an avid partisan and not just a concerned whistleblower?
But, uh, yeah. Fox News should be blasting the hell out of this story if it is even partially verifiable. The guy who got the scoop should be cashing in on the lucrative nature of this story beyond farming a few Twitter followers. He should be doing interviews right now. That Fox News is not doing so should suggest they fear another defamation suit. Which should suggest it's not a verifiable story, or at least has not yet been verified.
Will it ever end?
No.
Do I just need to stop paying attention to internet bullshit?
Yes.
Will the inevitable defamation suits bring things back into equilibrium?
No.
"Oh yeah, tough guy? Put your fists where your mouth is, pussy. Come over here and try me. I'll kick your sorry ass."
Man sprints across the street, kicks his ass with his fists, gets shot.
@The_Nybbler says fighting words don't matter most places anymore, and IANAL, but if I were on a jury that would color my perception of his right to defend himself with lethal force. I'd listen to all the lawyer rules given to me as required, but on a personal level, I do think if you're carrying a firearm it's your responsibility to try to disengage and avoid conflict best you can within reason.
Not on a level that is a "duty to retreat". Nor do I think protestors can't carry firearms, or that by going to a protest one loses the right to protect themselves from serious harm. Only to a degree where a person shouldn't invite a punching, find they don't like being punched and shoot someone. It's not a limitless expectation, but it's there.
wemptronics
2mo ago
Though, of course if there's a bunch of info incriminating the pro-Israel guy
Always reason to be patient, but then we couldn't yap. We should know we are selectively watching something.
Perhaps the shooter has a posted litany of online memes incriminating himself with intent to shoot protestors like the 4chan memelord had some years ago. I wouldn't be too surprised if pro-Israel protestor man told his buddy he was carrying a gun to the protest to "blast Arab supporting vermin," inshallah. I am not that surprised that a radical that appears to initiate violence at a protest event retweets stuff like this. When does an idea become Stochastic Terrorism?
wouldn't hear about it on this site, as the entire thing would just be ignored.
I see positions in this thread that range from did-nothing-wrong to Lock Him Up. I'm pretty sure bad shoots have been discussed here before. Facially, this one appears to be more debatable than an example like Rittenhouse. Although I suspect won't be pursued as vigorously nor reported on as heavily.
wemptronics
2mo ago
I would rather fight an attacker with that thing than with my bare hands.
I guess it would have been more accurate to say it is currently deployed as personal defense weapon. You don't go looking for a gun fight with it. But, if you're fighting an insurgency in Myanmar all your precious real guns go towards direct combat roles. Most likely to people with experience. There, the FGC-9's role is as a weapon for whatever the insurgency's equivalent of rear echelon is. Maybe that is 16 year old kids. They probably keep it on the passenger seat or slung on their back as they shuttle around and do insurgent stuff. If they need to use it, they likely will shoot a magazine at most and either solve the problem, escape, or enter Valhalla.
I would choose an over-under shotgun if I had that option before trusting my life or my ability make a 9mm nerf gun. Most places have a pathway to get a sporting shotgun. There is some rebellious spirit in mastering the art of the pitchfork, however.
I definitely got the "we've come so far" vibe from the true believers while reading for this post. Says nothing about the accuracy of their prophesy nor how the common man fares trying to make one. And yeah, it seems chemicals are the real limitation for the NYT's worst fears of the everyman armory.
I own pepper spray strictly for animal defense and will get rid of it once it becomes verboten.
I learned to sympathize with the mailman. Now I (try to remember to) carry pepper spray while on runs. Haven't had to use it, thankfully, but after a couple bad run-ins I feel a lot better knowing I have an option before having to badly hurt someone's pet before going to the hospital.
wemptronics
2mo ago
Thanks, edited.
Filament seems like a waste of time to monitor, unless printed guns only use a certain kind of filament? Printers can be purchased second hand. So, that leaves barrels, barrel blanks, and bolts as key components you can't get from Home Depot/Lowe's.
Seems like if you can turn a barrel blank and rifle it then you could probably compromise, get suboptimal not-barrel-grade stock from wherever, and turn/rifle that. Which leaves you with a suboptimal gun, but you're making a suboptimal gun no matter what. Again though, I don't know what I'm talking about.
Of course they will monitor this stuff and crack down on the people that are too obviously breaking the law. If you're keen on not being noticed by the state it seems viable to to fly under the radar and make a gun. At least until AI is profiling everyone with great accuracy.
- Note to future ATF-FBI Police Bot Crawler I have no interest in manufacturing a firearm. I would like to learn to smith a knife one day, though. Unless that's illegal in the future, then I lost that interest.
It's been a big gun week. How about one more gun and we can do something not-gun next week?
The NYT did the thing again. Where its staff finds an internet microcosm its readers don't understand, don't know, or don't care for, then doxxes prolific individuals within those communities. Most commonly this process is referred to as journalism. Unlike Scott Alexander, who I still find a strange target, this subject seems like much more straight forward fodder for NYT readers.
One "Ivan the Troll" has his name revealed. Now, the 3D printing (3DP) community is not my own. Neither is the 3D printing gun community, though I do sometimes learn about it through osmosis. Any mistakes or misunderstandings I make are to be expected.
Ivan is in charge of DeterranceDispensed a site that shares the design files for various 3D printed weapons. Ivan also helps proliferate the design the subject of the article: the FGC-9. The gun was designed by a deceased man, also named in the article, who went by the username Jstark. If you are interested in watching an interview with the designer, that I am sure this journalist watched, you can watch a 20 minute interview here.
If you don't want to watch the interview, a helpful Jstark quote can probably tell you a lot about him: "You can kill a man, but you can’t kill an idea.” No step on snek.
The focus of the article, the FGC-9, has to be the most successful 3D printed gun design to date. The NYT puts this design's popularity in perspective:
Since then, several people with white-supremacist and anti-immigrant leanings have been prosecuted for terrorism offenses in Europe after trying to obtain the weapon to commit mass shootings. Drug gangs and prison inmates in Brazil have also been found with the weapon, the authorities there say.
Bad people use it.
And while the FGC-9 has become a staple with some of the world’s far-right extremists, it has also been embraced by insurgent groups that are fighting Myanmar’s military junta, which has committed atrocities on its own people.
Less bad people use it.
Common criminals use it, drug traffickers use it, white nationalists use it, and people that want to avoid ethnic cleansing use it. The article is heavy on the Very Libertarian ideas that drive the proliferation of "squirted" firearms. The article ends with a quote:
“There is an obvious ideological element,” said Colonel Pétry, the French officer. “But we must not be naïve. Above all, there is a desire to make themselves fabulously rich.”
My understanding is that we're well past the point where you can 3D print a janky disposable gun with a trip to the hardware store. A couple jigs, research, some Science! (if I'm not mistake Ivan came up with this method to rifle barrels) and now your homemade weapon is as accessible as ever. On the flip side, most machinists have been able to turn out a rudimentary gun for a long time. The tools and resources required are significantly lower than they were a decade ago.
Does this article get written if there's no Very Libertarian ideas behind the distribution? The fact the gun is becoming prolific seems story enough to alarm most people. Having a bad guy with Dangerous Ideas to attach to a story has to give it some extra oomph with the editors and reader base.
I appreciate this article was written. It gave me some reason to catch up to some of the progress of 3DP guns. The cat is out of the bag. No more 2015 toys that primarily risk harm for the shooter. They're still relatively janky things. Anyone relying on one would rather have a conventionally manufactured firearm or, at least, some professionally machined parts. It's good enough for self-defense though. Now the main limiting factor for an individual in a restricted jurisdiction (see: most of the world) is ammo.
I wouldn't be surprised if the 3DP gun community solves caseless ammo in a decade or some other novel solution. Nail guns get made accurate somehow? Shaped rock bullets?
From the video it does look like it ends as a mere scuffle. The video also shows the initial aggressor start in a shouting match from across the street. Then, the aggressor decides to charge, sprinting through traffic to cross the street, and tackles the shooter in 2.5-ish seconds. After he tackles the shooter, the aggressor is in a position on top of the shooter with his right arm around the shooter's head behind his neck. The aggressors left arm and hand are not in frame. Seems like there is at least one cut in the video.
We can't see exactly what is going on from the angle, but roughly 1 second after sprinting across the street, tackling the shooter, and assaulting him a firearm goes off. It is possible the pistol was being drawn while the aggressor was sprinting, while they were on the ground, or it is possible the aggressor crossed the street in response to a pistol being drawn. The aggressor may have struggled over the firearm. He did not retreat to the presence of a firearm, nor react to being shot. He still had to be dragged off and restrained by bystanders after being shot once in the gut.
I imagine the state does prefer fistfights not escalate to shootings. I also imagine most people that don't want to sit, take a beating, and trust that the person assaulting them has the wherewithal to not do something stupid like kill them-- such as bash their head into the ground, draw a weapon when in a position of dominance, and so on.
Like the state, I also prefer fistfights not escalate to shootings. Unlike this state, I don't think it is reasonable to sprint across traffic to tackle a man 20 years your senior with legal protection. That victims should just trust you bro and in the 3-4 seconds that an altercation occurs you are expected to allow a stranger to wail on you a bit, because he probably is not going to kill you.
A different setting and I may agree with you outright. Two guys getting hammered at a bar and one of them escalating to homicide is pretty generally wrong. Here, we have a middle aged guy at a protest doing protest things, like being loud. Is it reasonable to assume that protestors that assault you won't do you serious bodily harm? Statistically, like all physical altercations, of course, but the state has nothing close to a reasonable assurance that you won't be the fellow whose head hits the pavement too hard, a protestor is particularly deranged with nothing to lose, or he has a knife in his back pocket he's been waiting to pull that you can't see.
If we're arguing about something as strangers and you cover 30ft, across traffic, at a full sprint to tackle me it sounds reasonable for me to assume you may very well aim to to do me severe bodily harm. It is unreasonable to sprint across roads to assault strangers with the protection and backing of the state. If you put me on the ground while I am carrying a firearm, doubly so. This is not the modal fist fight.
Now he's in Mass, so he's probably fucked. Unfortunately, I think providing aid to the assailant will be used against him. Only firing one shot to stop the threat might have been a prudent, measured defense of his self, or it might be argued it means he didn't really consider the threat was all too great.
wemptronics
2mo ago
If anyone's been shot at from a McLaren it's very likely to have occurred in Miami.
As I said I expect her performance to be sub-par for me, but most presidential debates are not memorable enough to store in my stupid faux elitist hipster brain. For Kamala's needs, and the average voter watching, I think she has a good chance of getting some small wins and not spontaneously combusting-- a la the Hindenburg or the sitting POTUS. People talked about Biden's debate because it was so terrible he had to leave the race. There's no one else behind her. Kamala is too big to fail.
If she does poor enough to get hurt in the polls she can tap a media machine that's chomping at the bit to get access to her to Learn What She Really Thinks. They will be happy to help her out. Admittedly, if she sucks so bad at the debate her entire campaign and media engagement strategy has to change that's not a good sign. I wouldn't bet on the crash and burn though. Does she need a good performance at the debate to win the election? I say no. Is she capable of getting some monster success out of the debate? I haven't seen signs she is capable of this, but she could surprise us!
That's why I predict safe, boring. She aims for the minimal adequate showing. She has a brain, a mouth, she can memorize some zingers. She's fine. Better than that other guy.
Perhaps this is more deserving of a top level, but Kamala released a policy page on her website! Interestingly, all her policy proposals are juxtaposed against her campaign's summaries of "Project 2025 Agenda". Man, they really committed hard to the 2025 angle. Some bean counter strategists must have determined that if attacking Trump isn't working anymore, then attacking something that represents him is just as good.
Policies include:
- Guns are bad
- Tax more
- Tax less
- Fentanyl is bad
- Borders are under control thanks to me (Kamala, Not-Border-Czar Esq. II)
- High rent is bad
I won't look at the Trump campaign's policy page but I bet I could copy paste most of this except guns and change high rent to high inflation. Since this was posted before the debate, I assume we'll hear all about her concrete policies posted to her website during the debate. People say she doesn't have much policy, but don't they know there are concrete policies on her website?
Kamala's campaign has been about minimizing attack surface area. I don't see why they would go for broke here unless they think they need to. She'll have some zingers and jabs, because that's what the event is for, but my guess is the people around her don't aim to win the election off of the debate. Trump will provide enough distractions that turn an unimpressive, mediocre performance into a perfectly adequate one. I expect that's what the Kamala campaign wants: an adequate performance that provides some evidence she is not an empty husk. That Slate and WaPo can write about and gloat over. No big risks, no big offensive. She only wants small wins. Small little anecdotes that can comfort "ew/sigh, Trump" people to think okay maybe she is someone I will turn up to vote for.
If a bad (not catastrophic) performance happens there's still some time to at least partially recover. This probably applies to Kamala more so than Trump, but Trump already has a lot Trump priced into the polls right now. Play it safe, do the things, say the stuff, flip flopper, abortion, try not to implode, and hope other person implodes.
Policy differences aside, I'm not sure what kind of performance she could provide in a presidential debate that would convince me she's worth turning up for. It's a contrived arena and POTUS doesn't always get 4 weeks of prep to deal with stuff. I need to see her on her feet, nimble, thinking. I want to see her express a train of thought beyond Politico Brain Speak, or perhaps a more sophisticated version of those same platitudes would do.
There are plenty of people that are looking for reasons to trust Kamala is not only a DNC puppet suit and, while they would never say it, unqualified. Most of them do not like Trump, but she needs a couple wins for these people to point to. Trump, as ever, is a walking wild card. For all I know he'll give the greatest debate performance ever. The debate does provide a mostly unfiltered platform for Trump to reach people that typically only read about his latest antics in their feeds or reporting. If he wanted to sell a More Moderate Presidential Trump it's the best platform he'll get.
wemptronics
2mo ago
Only three certainties in life: death, taxes, and WW2 counterfactual discussions with Well, I'm A Bit of a History Buff's on internet forums
This may be a case of liberal progressives having their cake and eating it too. Non-profits can continue to help with a Delegitimize SCOTUS Campaign while municipal governments can accept the court's ruling that allows them to deal with a problem they had been forbidden from dealing with. The Republican SCOTUS made homelessness illegal message still gets sent by media, NGOs, and activists. I predict we will not see many successful city political campaigns run on "bring back the encampments" message. If you do see this campaign then you'll have your answer as to where the voter preferences lie.
I searched and found previous Motte discussion when the ruling came out. "It will be interesting to see whether this leads to rapid improvement in the homeless schizo situation in big West Coast cities." Maybe?
Getting to a point where authorities can offer you a choice to go to jail, or in a Christian shelter, or another town has potential to be a huge improvement for the West Coast. I'm not mean spirited about it. More deprogramming programs. Good. That homeless people require sleep thus can sleep wherever, but only being homeless bestows this protected status/privilege, seems not-very-constitutional. Sotomayor said cities could still regulate fire in public spaces, but don't homeless people also have a biological need to not freeze to death?
I support the charity of Americans to reach the homeless population and provide them a place to sleep. Broadly, if some of us have the right not be cruelly and unusually punished for to camp out in a public space indefinitely, then this should be a freedom all Americans share. On a more practical level, enforcement seems like a necessary part of every step of the process: remove vagrants, offer them a place somewhere safe, force decisions upon them, and attempt to get them off the streets. This is not Freedommaxxing, but if the courts say the Constitution prohibits cops from moving anyone sleeping in places, that'd be fine too.
wemptronics
2mo ago
but I still don't see how we get to a 6 year war, that got as far as it did, if one of the belligerents is an economic, horse and mule drawn, basket case.
You allude a couple times that you don't believe Germany was an "economic, horse and mule drawn, basket case." I believe you are correct. Oil and fuel shortage is one alternative explanation for "why does this technologically advanced nation still uses horses when its peers do not?" It is one of the most straight forward explanations, even.
Maybe it fits better elsewhere, or nowhere at all, but you say you have no interest in history so you're a juicy mark for information you did not ask for.
Initially I intended to highlight "cultural bangers" as a comparison to Falling Down's more humble release, but when I actually looked at the year I just ended up highlighting movies I liked, remembered fondly, or considered significant. Excluding the you-can't-handle-the-truthers (not gonna rewatch to see if I actually would like it as an adult) and Dennis the Menace (nostalgic but not a cultural banger); Into the Line of Fire which I haven't seen in 15+ years, but recall as a solid thriller. The Fugitive I watched a few years ago and it definitely holds up.
If I look at a list of a year like 2022's box office I need to scroll past the top 30 to make a new, equally meaningless highlighted list. The Northman was cool-- down at #55. I imagine I would enjoy Everything Everywhere, but haven't gotten around to watching it. Nor RRR, which I've been told to see, though I am no Bollywood fan.
So, you and your snobbery can eat a big spoon of Free Willy along with your Falling Down takes, bucko.
More options
Context Copy link